Operation Spotlight 07

CJA

NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCY NEW YORK CITY CRIMINAL USTICE AGENCY

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

OPERATION SPOTLIGHT: YEAR FOUR PROGRAM REPORT

Project Director Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow

FINAL REPORT November 2007

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007 © 2007 NYC Criminal Justice Agency

(646) 213-2500

OPERATION SPOTLIGHT: YEAR FOUR PROGRAM REPORT

Project Director Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow

Project Staff: Geraldine Staehs-Goirn Information Systems’ Department Programmer/Analyst Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist Annie Su Administrative Associate

TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE

PART ONE OVERVIEW: ARRESTS AND CASES IN EACH PROGRAM YEAR ...........................1 NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS AND FREQUENCY OF SPOTLIGHT ARRESTS .........3 CHARACTERISTICS OF SPOTLIGHT ARREST AND ARRESTEES .........................5 PROSECUTED CASE CHARACTERISTICS AND CRIMINAL COURT DECISION MAKING........................................................................................................................9 A Citywide Perspective on Spotlight Cases, Years One Through Four .............9 Year Four Spotlight Case Characteristics and Criminal Court Decision Making in the Boroughs ....................................................................................................14 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................19

PART TWO YEAR FOUR CHRACTERISTICS BY ARREST GROUPS ........................................22 NUMBER OF YEAR FOUR SPOTLIGHT ARRESTS AND DEFENDANTS BY GROUP .......................................................................................................................23 YEAR FOUR CITYWIDE ARRESTS AND ARRESTEE CHARACTERISTICS BY GROUP .......................................................................................................................27 CRIMINAL COURT DECISION MAKING BY ARREST GROUP ...............................32 Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group, Citywide ............................................34 Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group, Brooklyn ...........................................38 Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group, Manhattan .........................................42 Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group, Queens..............................................46 Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group, Bronx ................................................50 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................54 APPENDIX TABLES A1, A2 and A3: YEAR ONE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH APPENDIX TABLES B1, B2 AND B3: YEAR TWO CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH APPENDIX TABLES C1, C2 and C3: YEAR THREE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH

PREFACE In June 2002, New York City announced a new initiative called Operation Spotlight designed to target active persistent misdemeanants prior to their arraignment in the criminal courts. To receive this designation a defendant arrested in New York City for a misdemeanor crime must have an adult criminal record with two or more prosecuted arrests within twelve months of a targeted arrest, at least one of which must have had a top arrest charge of misdemeanor severity. In addition, the defendant must previously have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes at least twice, and at least one of these convictions must have been within twelve months of the current arrest. In addition, once identified as a Spotlight offender, the defendant retains the designation for any new misdemeanor arrest unless or until a full year (plus post-conviction jail time) has passed without a new qualifying arrest.

Through the cooperation of the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), defendants who meet these criteria are identified by computer programming that reviews the official adult criminal record that matches the fingerprint identification (NYSID number) assigned to defendants arrested in New York State.1 When a defendant arrested in New York City for a printable non-felony offense, the overwhelming majority of which are crimes of misdemeanor severity, meets these criteria the criminal record report (i.e., “rap sheet”) carries a banner with a text message box that reads, “ALERT: PERSISTENT MISDEMEANANT.” The alert on a rap sheet is intended to result in the marking of the cover page of court papers with an “Operation Spotlight” stamp. This permits all court participants— prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges—to be aware of the defendant’s criminalrecord status by the time the defendant appears for arraignment in the Criminal Court.

The program became fully operational in all five of New York City’s county-based criminal courts on October 1, 2002.

1

Article 160, section 10, of the New York State Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) defines printable offenses for which the arrest may become part of a person’s official New York State criminal record. Later sections of CPL 160 describe the circumstances and procedures for removing the fingerprint record of an arrest, for example when a case is disposed in favor of the defendant or for a charge less severe than a misdemeanor.

From the planning of this initiative forward the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) has provided data and research-related reports to the Coordinator’s Office. CJA is a not-for-profit organization providing pretrial, information and research services under a contract with the City of New York. In the furtherance of these activities CJA maintains a computerized database containing information about arrests, defendants, court processing, and case outcomes in both the Criminal and Supreme Courts.2 This report originally was prepared for the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator and could not have been completed without its assistance. In addition, the identification of Spotlight program arrests was provided to CJA by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services. However, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency alone is responsible for the contents of this report.

2

CJA’s computerized information system is not an official source of information about New York City arrests, or court processing and case outcomes. Because of the timing and sources of information, CJA’s database always will have some variation with those maintained by official criminal justice agencies such as the New York City Police Department, or the New York State Office of Court Administration.

OPERATION SPOTLIGHT: YEAR FOUR ANNUAL REPORT This report provides a summary of Operation Spotlight in its fourth year of citywide implementation. In the first part of this year four review citywide aspects of the program are described, with comparisons to the three previous program years. This is followed with a more detailed examination of the program’s operation among the boroughs during the fourth program year. The second part of this report re-examines the fourth year’s program characteristics by grouping arrests by the number of years defendants have had Spotlight-targeted arrests.

PART ONE OVERVIEW: ARRESTS AND CASES IN EACH PROGRAM YEAR In the program’s fourth full year, October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2006, there were a total of 21,542 Spotlight-targeted arrests, of which 20,149 had been docketed as of November 15, 2006. This is the date on which court data were extracted from the CJA database for reporting on all fourth year Spotlight program cases.

Year four Spotlight volume, of both arrests and docketed cases, is greater than in previous program years. In program year three there were a total of 19,006 arrests of which 17,653 had been docketed as of November 15, 2005, the cut-of date for reporting on the third program year; in year two there were a total of 17,458 arrests, of which 16,346 had been docketed in the Criminal Court as of October 22, 2004, the cut-off date for court data used for the second year’s program report; and in the first year the volume was 17,040 arrests, of which 16,087 had been docketed cases as of October 19, 2003, the cut-off date for reporting on first-year program activity.

TABLE 1 on the next page shows how the volume and percentages of arrests, and of docketed cases, are apportioned among the boroughs in each of the program years.

(The numbers of docketed cases shown are as reported at the end of each program year.) This table shows that there have been only very small variations among the boroughs in the relative percentages of arrests, or of docketed cases, contributed to the citywide totals across the program years.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-2-

TABLE 1 ARRESTS AND DOCKETED CASES BY BOROUGH AND CITYWIDE IN EACH OF THE THREE SPOTLIGHT PROGRAM YEARS NEW STATEN YEAR KINGS QUEENS BRONX CITYWIDE YORK ISLAND FOUR Number of 5,107 7,847 1,680 539 6,369 21,542 Arrests % of Citywide 23.7 36.4 7.8 2.5 29.6 100.0 Arrests Number of docketed 4,856 7,707 1,638 493 5,455 20,149 cases % of Citywide 24.1 38.3 8.1 2.4 27.1 100.0 Docketed Cases NEW STATEN YEAR KINGS QUEENS BRONX CITYWIDE YORK ISLAND THREE Number of 4,105 7,089 1,599 306 5,907 19,006 Arrests % of Citywide 21.6 37.3 8.4 1.6 31.1 100.0 Arrests Number of docketed 3,852 6,977 1,558 286 4,980 17,653 cases % of Citywide 21.8 39.5 8.8 1.6 28.3 100.0 Docketed Cases YEAR TWO Number of Arrests % of Citywide Arrests Number of docketed cases % of Citywide Docketed Cases

KINGS

NEW YORK

QUEENS

STATEN ISLAND

BRONX

CITYWIDE

3,835

6,809

1,430

227

5,157

17,458

22.0

39.0

8.2

1.2

29.6

100.0

3,556

6,714

1,403

214

4,459

16,346

21.7

41.1

8.6

1.3

27.3

100.0

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

YEAR ONE Number of Arrests % of Citywide Arrests Number of docketed cases % of Citywide Docketed Cases

-3-

KINGS

NEW YORK

QUEENS

STATEN ISLAND

BRONX

CITYWIDE

3,702

6,525

1,458

265

5,090

17,040

21.7

38.3

8.5

1.6

29.9

100.0

3,443

6,415

1,424

254

4,551

16,087

21.4

39.9

8.8

1.6

28.3

100.0

Although the volume has varied by program year, there has been only a small difference in the very high citywide percentages of annual Spotlight arrests docketed in each program year: 93.5 percent in year four; 92.9 percent in year three; 93.6 percent in year two; and 94.4 percent in the first full program year. (Computations not shown on table.) However, there is a difference in the distribution of prosecuted cases by borough, in comparison to the percentage distribution of arrests, because of a disproportionately higher percentage of not docketed arrests in the Bronx.

NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS AND FREQUENCY OF SPOTLIGHT ARRESTS In the fourth program year there were 10,105 defendant NYSID numbers identified in the DCJS-provided arrest reports. Of these somewhat less than half, 47.8 percent, (4,834 defendants) were associated with a single Spotlight program arrest, and less than another quarter, 23.8 percent, (2,406) with two program arrests in the fourth year.

The remaining 2,865 defendant NYSID numbers had multiple arrests ranging between three and sixteen arrests each.

TABLE 2 shows the frequency of Spotlight-targeted arrests for the defendant NYSID numbers associated with arrests in each program year. For this display the NYSID numbers are counted within each discrete program year’s file. The actual total number of defendants across all four program years is less than the sum across the years in the table that follows because some of the same NYSID numbers appear in more than one program year.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-4-

The patterns in each of the program years are very similar. Approximately half (or slightly less) of all defendants in each program year have only one Spotlight arrest, around a quarter two arrests, and over ninety percent of defendants in each of the program years have four or fewer Spotlight-targeted arrests.

TABLE 2 NUMBER OF ARRESTS PER DEFENDANTS IN EACH SPOTLIGHT PROGRAM YEAR Number of Arrests 1

Year One N of % Defendants 4,072 48.8

Year Two N of % Defendants 4,360 50.6

Year Three N of % Defendants 4,516 49.5

Year Four N of % Defendants 4,834 47.8

2

2,093

25.1

2,039

23.7

2,149

23.6

2,406

23.8

3

1,110

13.3

1,067

12.4

1,157

12.7

1,344

13.3

4

522

6.3

571

6.6

595

6.5

705

7.0

5

260

3.1

284

3.3

307

3.4

383

3.8

6

134

1.6

135

1.6

198

2.2

184

1.8

7

88

1.1

70

0.8

92

1.0

116

1.2

8

35

0.4

46

0.5

47

0.5

62

0.6

9

16

0.2

17

0.2

28

0.3

32

0.3

10

13

0.2

15

0.2

17

0.2

20

0.2

11

4

0.0

7

0.1

3

0.0

9

0.1

12

3

0.0

2

0.0

4

0.0

4

0.0

13

0

0.0

1

0.0

3

0.0

4

0.0

14

1

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0

1

0.0

15

0

0.0

2

0.0

0

0.0

-

-

16

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

19*

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

-

-

23*

-

-

-

-

1

0.0

-

-

8,351

100.0

8,616

100.0

9,119

100.0

10,105

99.9

Total Defendants

*Non-sequential numbers for year three outliers.

Totals may not equal 100.0 percent due to rounding.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-5-

CHARACTERISTICS OF SPOTLIGHT ARREST AND ARRESTEES TABLE 3A shows the citywide characteristics of arrests and arrestees in each of the four program years. The only exception is that for comparative purposes the CJA recommendation category is shown only for the second, third and fourth program years.

CJA introduced a new recommendation system on June 30, 2003, so that there is no annual basis for comparison with interviewed arrests in the first program year for this item.

Percentages for each item shown on this table are calculated based on the year’s annual arrest volume including cases where information is not available. Differences among the years in the percentage of cases without information can affect percentage distributions in the other categorical values for each item. In addition, the characteristics shown are for arrests in a program year. The same defendant may appear in more than one arrest in the same program year, or in arrests in more than one program year, although the characteristics need not be the same across all arrests.

Overall, the characteristics of defendants in each year’s arrests are very similar.

Over eighty percent of the arrests in each year have male defendants.

Over half of the arrests have Black defendants and in at least another quarter of each year’s arrests defendants identify themselves as Hispanic.

In each year’s arrests the 35-39 and 40-44 age-group categories have the largest percentage of cases, and approximately forty percent of defendants in each year’s arrests fall into these two age-group categories combined.

Over half of each year’s arrests have defendants with both prior misdemeanor and felony convictions at the time of a Spotlight-targeted arrest, with a slight increase in the percentage of cases in this criminal history category in each successive year.

In years two through four only very small percentages of defendants have been recommended for recognizance release under the new CJA recommendation system.

This system is based on an assessment of the risk of failure to appear (FTA), barring exclusionary factors, with past FTA given the most weight in the new point scale. In years two through four, over sixty percent of the cases have had defendants rated as not recommended due to high risk of FTA.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-6-

TABLE 3A DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS IN PROGRAM YEARS ONE THROUGH FOUR Year One (N=17,040)

Year Two (N=17,458)

Year Three (N=19,006)

Year Four (N=21,542)

SEX Male Female Not Available

13673 3363 4

80.2% 19.7% 0.0%

14226 3232 0

81.5% 18.5% 0.0%

15520 3486 0

81.7% 18.3% 0.0%

17953 3589 0

83.3% 16.7% 0.0%

9577 1650 4762 253 798

56.2% 9.7% 27.9% 1.5% 4.7%

9093 1228 4473 249 2415

52.1% 7.0% 25.6% 1.4% 13.8%

10644 1451 4971 234 1706

56.0% 7.6% 26.2% 1.2% 9.0%

12459 1503 5409 192 1979

57.8% 7.0% 25.1% 0.9% 9.2%

530 2048 1744 2447 3436 3266 1825 1173 571

3.1% 12.0% 10.2% 14.4% 20.2% 19.2% 10.7% 6.9% 3.4%

457 2007 1836 2362 3559 3699 2146 1392 0

2.6% 11.5% 10.5% 13.5% 20.4% 21.2% 12.3% 8.0% 0.0%

467 1970 1904 2217 3771 4196 2732 1749 0

2.5% 10.4% 10.0% 11.7% 19.8% 22.1% 14.4% 9.2% 0.0%

455 2147 2274 2244 3944 4870 3232 2376 0

2.1% 10.0% 10.6% 10.4% 18.3% 22.6% 15.0% 11.0% 0.0%

0 6558 0 9086 1396

0.0% 38.5% 0.0% 53.3% 8.2%

0 6181 0 9561 1716

0.0% 35.4% 0.0% 54.8% 9.8%

0 6467 0 10993 1546

0.0% 34.0% 0.0% 57.8% 8.1%

0 6870 0 12718 1954

0.0% 31.9% 0.0% 59.0% 9.1%

N/A N/A

474 798

2.7% 4.6%

392 713

2.1% 3.8%

411 567

1.9% 2.6%

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

11084 1601 108 1691 1702

63.5% 9.2% 0.6% 9.7% 9.7%

12357 2043 124 1878 1499

65.0% 10.7% 0.7% 9.9% 7.9%

14107 2688 263 1586 1920

65.5% 12.5% 1.2% 7.4% 8.9%

0 14293 3040 11 114

0.0% 81.9% 17.4% 0.1% 0.7%

0 15558 3417 13 18

0.0% 81.9% 18.0% 0.1% 0.1%

0 17986 3514 33 9

0.0% 83.5% 16.3% 0.2% 0.0%

ETHNICITY Black White Hispanic Other Not Available AGE GROUP 16-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ Not Available CRIMINAL CONVICTION HISTORY No Prior Convictions Prior Misdemeanor Only Prior Felony Only Both Misd. and Felony Not Available CJA "STAMP"1 Recommended Low Risk Moderate Risk Not Recommended High Risk Bench Warrant Other Not Recommended No Recommendation* Not Available TOP ARREST CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other 1

6 13436 3542 13 43

0.0% 78.8% 20.8% 0.1% 0.3%

The categories are based on the new recommendation system implemented June 30, 2003.

Data are not shown for year one cases, most of which fell under the previous recommendation system with different categories.

* Cases of interviewed defendants in which no recommendation is made because of policy exclusions such as no NYSID number or an incomplete interview.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-7-

CJA’s previous recommendation system, in operation during the first nine months of the first program year, was based exclusively on a community ties’ standard. In the nine-months covered by the old recommendation system approximately half of Spotlight arrests fell into the insufficient ties-no recommendation category. (Data not shown)

Although the recommendation categories are not directly comparable, they do suggest that large percentages of Spotlight arrests to date have involved defendants determined by CJA to not be good candidates for recognizance release, whether due to past FTA in combination with other factors in the new risk-assessment scale, or lack of ties to the NYC area community under the old system.

In each of the Spotlight program years roughly eighty percent of Spotlight arrests have had a top arrest charge of A-misdemeanor severity, and almost all of the remaining arrests have had top arrest charges of B-misdemeanor severity. The percentage of arrests with A-misdemeanor severity top arrest charges was lowest in the first program year (78.8%) and highest in year four (83.5%).

TABLE 3B displays year four program arrest and arrestee characteristics by borough. For this table each item’s percentages are based only on known characteristics, with the number of cases without information shown separately below the total computed cases. The percentage of arrests without information for items shown varies by borough.

In each borough at least three-fourths of Spotlight arrests involve male defendants, with Staten Island and Brooklyn having the largest percentages of arrests of female defendants, (24.1% and 21.5% respectively), and Manhattan the smallest percentage of arrests (12.7%) with female defendants.

The ethnic composition of defendants in Spotlight arrests vary across boroughs.

Among arrests for which ethnicity is known, Black defendants make up at least over half of the defendant population in each borough, except for Staten Island.

Brooklyn has the largest percentage of arrests with Black defendants (72.7%).

The Bronx has by far the largest percentage (42.8%) of arrests with defendants identifying themselves as being Hispanic.

In all boroughs’ arrests the largest percentages of defendants fall into the 35-39 and 40-44 age groups. Arrests in Queens have the largest percentages of younger defendants, with a combined 20.5 percent being between 16 and 24 years of age.

In all boroughs more than half of all arrests have defendants with both prior misdemeanor and felony convictions. Bronx arrests have the largest percentage (67.5%) of defendants falling into this criminal history category.

Comparing CJA release recommendation across boroughs is problematic because of the variability in cases that fall into the no recommendation category due to incomplete interviews, most notably in Staten Island and Manhattan. However, among cases with completed interviews it is clear that majorities of arrests have been

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-8-

TABLE 3B DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS IN YEAR FOUR SPOTLIGHTS ARRESTS BY BOROUGH Brooklyn

Manhattan

Queens

Staten Island

Bronx

SEX Male Female TOTAL

4010 1097 5107

78.5% 21.5% 100.0%

6853 994 7847

87.3% 12.7% 100.0%

1376 304 1680

81.9% 18.1% 100.0%

409 130 539

75.9% 24.1% 100.0%

5305 1064 6369

83.3% 16.7% 100.0%

Black White Hispanic Other TOTAL

3518 394 906 18 4836

72.7% 8.1% 18.7% 0.4% 100.0%

4634 537 1694 108 6973

66.5% 7.7% 24.3% 1.5% 100.0%

1053 195 309 32 1589

66.3% 12.3% 19.4% 2.0% 100.0%

217 194 70 4 485

44.7% 40.0% 14.4% 0.8% 100.0%

3037 183 2430 30 5680

53.5% 3.2% 42.8% 0.5% 100.0%

Not Available

271

ETHNICITY

874

91

54

689

AGE GROUP 16-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ TOTAL

78 389 517 537 999 1208 837 542 5107

1.5% 7.6% 10.1% 10.5% 19.6% 23.7% 16.4% 10.6% 100.0%

137 712 772 795 1370 1795 1269 997 7847

1.7% 9.1% 9.8% 10.1% 17.5% 22.9% 16.2% 12.7% 100.0%

64 281 177 152 282 371 205 148 1680

3.8% 16.7% 10.5% 9.0% 16.8% 22.1% 12.2% 8.8% 100.0%

14 55 81 66 117 93 70 43 539

2.6% 10.2% 15.0% 12.2% 21.7% 17.3% 13.0% 8.0% 100.0%

162 710 727 694 1176 1403 851 646 6369

2.5% 11.1% 11.4% 10.9% 18.5% 22.0% 13.4% 10.1% 100.0%

Prior Misdemeanor Only Both Misd. and Felony TOTAL

1820 3070 4890

37.2% 62.8% 100.0%

2414 4552 6966

34.7% 65.3% 100.0%

590 998 1588

37.2% 62.8% 100.0%

200 256 456

43.9% 56.1% 100.0%

1846 3842 5688

32.5% 67.5% 100.0%

Not Available

217

CRIMINAL CONVICTION HISTORY

881

92

83

681

CJA "STAMP" Recommended Low Risk Moderate Risk Not Recommended High Risk Bench Warrant Other Not Recommended No Recommendation* TOTAL

84 137

1.7% 2.8%

90 179

1.3% 2.6%

85 99

5.3% 6.2%

6 10

1.2% 2.0%

146 142

2.6% 2.5%

3199 1004 75 389 4888

65.4% 20.5% 1.5% 8.0% 100.0%

5172 735 73 719 6968

74.2% 10.5% 1.0% 10.3% 100.0%

1200 170 17 18 1589

75.5% 10.7% 1.1% 1.1% 100.0%

282 29 6 158 491

57.4% 5.9% 1.2% 32.2% 100.0%

4254 750 92 302 5686

74.8% 13.2% 1.6% 5.3% 100.0%

Not Available

219

879

91

48

683

TOP ARREST CHARGE SEVERITY A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other TOTAL

4275 827 5 0 5107

83.7% 16.2% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%

6841 995 7 4 7847

87.2% 12.7% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0%

1345 325 8 2 1680

80.1% 19.3% 0.5% 0.1% 100.0%

476 58 5 0 539

88.3% 10.8% 0.9% 0.0% 100.0%

5049 1309 8 3 6369

79.3% 20.6% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%

*Cases of interviewed defendants in which no recommendation is made because of policy exclusions such as no NYSID number or an incomplete interview.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

-9-

of defendants deemed at high risk for FTA if released on recognizance, and only small percentages meet CJA’s criteria for being recommended for recognizance release.

The percentage of arrests in which defendants are not recommended for ROR release because of outstanding bench warrants varies among the boroughs. Brooklyn has the highest rate of arrests in this category (20.5%), followed by the Bronx (13.2%), with Staten Island having the lowest percentage of arrests in this category (5.9%)

In all boroughs the overwhelming majorities of arrests have an A-misdemeanor top arrest charge severity, with Manhattan having the highest (87.2%) and Bronx the lowest (79.3%) percent of top arrest charges in this severity category. The largest percentages of top arrest charges of B-misdemeanor severity are found in the Bronx (20.6%) and Queens (19.3%) PROSECUTED CASE CHARACTERISTICS AND CRIMINAL COURT DECISION MAKING A Citywide Perspective on Spotlight Cases, Years One Through Four There are only small differences across the four program years in the characteristics of prosecuted cases and in court decision making. TABLES 4 A, B and C compare these items citywide in each program year.

As shown on TABLE 4A:

The year four percent of arraignment convictions (54.9%) is lower than in previous program years. This ends a pattern of slight increases in the percentages of convictions at arraignment, from 57 percent of Criminal Court arraignment outcomes in program year one, to 58.9 percent in program year two, and 59.5 percent for year three cases.

In year four the percentage of continued cases with defendants held on bail leaving the arraignment appearance was slightly lower than in the three previous program years. This is the first program year in which the percentage of cases in the bail set-not made category fell below 75 percent (to 73.3%).

In each successive program year there has been an increase in the percentages of cases with A-misdemeanor severity arraignment charges, and a decrease in cases with B-misdemeanor arraignment charges. In year four the percentage of cases arraigned on an A-misdemeanor charge was 84.0 percent and only 12.8 percent had an arraignment charge of B-misdemeanor severity. In comparison, in the first program year 76.6 percent of prosecuted cases were arraigned on a charge of Amisdemeanor severity and 20.5 percent on B-misdemeanor severity charges.

Almost all prosecuted Spotlight arrests end with a conviction outcome, and very similar percentages have a final disposition of a conviction as of the date court data were compiled for each program year’s annual summary.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 10 -

TABLE 4A CITYWIDE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY, FIRST THROUGH FOURTH YEARS Year One* N

%

Year Two ** N %

Year Three *** N %

Year Four **** N %

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes TOTAL Non-Docketed Arrests

9,162 34 52 6,764 66 9 16,087 957

57.0% 0.2% 0.3% 42.0% 0.4% 0.1% 100.0%

9,621 39 45 6,544 94 3 16,346 1,022

58.9% 0.2% 0.3% 40.0% 0.6% 0.0% 100.0%

10,506 70 61 6,842 118 56 17,653 1,353

59.5% 0.4% 0.3% 38.8% 0.7% 0.3% 100.0%

11,059 98 70 8,635 226 61 20,149 1,393

54.9% 0.5% 0.3% 42.9% 1.1% 0.3% 100.0%

1,341 165 4,843 62 6,411

20.9% 2.6% 75.5% 1.0% 100.0%

1,190 166 4,819 62 6,237

19.1% 2.7% 77.3% 1.0% 100.0%

1,310 168 4,976 41 6,495

20.2% 2.6% 76.6% 0.6% 100.0%

2,013 159 6,105 54 8,331

24.2% 1.9% 73.3% 0.6% 100.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Subtotal Release Status Unknown Total Continued

353 6,764

307 6,544

347 6,842

304

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other TOTAL

145 12,329 3,304 27 282 16,087

0.9% 76.6% 20.5% 0.2% 1.8% 100.0%

130 12,943 2,709 21 543 16,346

0.8% 79.2% 16.6% 0.1% 3.3% 100.0%

168 14,205 2,688 35 557 17,653

1.0% 80.5% 15.2% 0.2% 3.2% 100.0%

217 16,934 2,582 43 373 20,149

1.1% 84.0% 12.8% 0.2% 1.9% 100.0%

14,252 72 602 772 320 69 16,087

88.6% 0.4% 3.7% 4.8% 2.0% 0.4% 100.0%

14,603 87 623 570 308 155 16,346

89.3% 0.5% 3.8% 3.5% 1.9% 0.9% 100.0%

15,764 140 763 562 295 129 17,653

89.3% 0.8% 4.3% 3.2% 1.7% 0.7% 100.0%

17,662 152 892 832 414 197 20,149

87.7% 0.8% 4.4% 4.1% 2.1% 1.0% 100.0%

FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes TOTAL

* The Year One column contains court activity as of October 19, 2003. ** The Year Two column contains court activity as of October 22, 2004. *** The Year Three column contains court activity as of November 15, 2005. **** The Year Four column contains court activity as of November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 11 -

TABLE 4B CITYWIDE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY, FIRST THROUGH FOURTH YEARS (continued)

Year One N

Year Two %

N

%

Year Three N %

Year Four N %

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

4,454 389 1,094 47 5,984

27.7% 2.4% 6.8% 0.3% 37.2%

5,004 357 937 38 6,336

30.6% 2.2% 5.7% 0.2% 38.8%

5,151 356 1,016 46 6,569

29.2% 2.0% 5.8% 0.3% 37.2%

6,198 376 1,213 52 7,839

30.8% 1.9% 6.0% 0.3% 38.9%

2,450 615 3,065

15.2% 3.8% 19.1%

2,502 537 3,039

15.3% 3.3% 18.6%

3,212 607 3,819

18.2% 3.4% 21.6%

3,584 679 4,263

17.8% 3.4% 21.2%

1,577 131 1,708

9.8% 0.8% 10.6%

1,853 118 1,971

11.3% 0.7% 12.1%

1,546 147 1,693

8.8% 0.8% 9.6%

1,647 163 1,810

8.2% 0.8% 9.0%

1,356

8.4%

1,159

7.1%

1,656

9.4%

2,352

11.7%

1,135 305 2,796

7.1% 1.9% 17.4%

815 298 2,272

5.0% 1.8% 13.9%

703 334 2,693

4.0% 1.9% 15.3%

622 379 3,353

3.1% 1.9% 16.6%

627

3.9%

541

3.3%

424

2.4%

312

1.5%

562 57 1,246

3.5% 0.4% 7.7%

518 54 1,113

3.2% 0.3% 6.8%

570 76 1,070

3.2% 0.4% 6.1%

390 84 786

1.9% 0.4% 3.9%

531 39 570

3.3% 0.2% 3.5%

602 42 644

3.7% 0.3% 3.9%

693 41 734

3.9% 0.2% 4.2%

777 44 821

3.9% 0.2% 4.1%

718

4.5%

971

5.9%

1,075

6.1%

1,277

6.3%

16,087

100.0%

16,346

100.0%

17,653

100.0%

20,149

100.0%

Property Petty Larceny (PL 155.25) Other charges Subtotal Property

Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud

Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct

Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes

Harm to Persons Assault (All PL 120 charges combined) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons

Other Cases Subtotal TOTAL

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 12 -

TABLE 4C CITYWIDE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY, FIRST THROUGH FOURTH YEARS (continued) Year One N

Year Two %

N

%

Year Three N %

Year Four N %

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

10,788 64 121 1,263 1,699 38 3 13,976

77.2% 0.5% 0.9% 9.0% 12.2% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

11,389 64 110 1,138 1,574 50 4 14,329

79.5% 0.4% 0.8% 7.9% 11.0% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

12,220 67 152 1,510 1,481 53 3 15,486

78.9% 0.4% 1.0% 9.8% 9.6% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

14,043 81 183 1,373 1,419 36 191 17,326

81.1% 0.5% 1.1% 7.9% 8.2% 0.2% 1.1% 100.0%

9,266 1,522 10,788

85.9% 14.1% 100.0%

9,660 1,729 11,389

84.8% 15.2% 100.0%

9,938 2,282 12,220

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

11,146 2,897 14,043

79.4% 20.6% 100.0%

1-15

4,142

44.7%

4,276

44.3%

4,684

47.1%

4,969

44.6%

16-30

1,966

21.2%

2,357

24.4%

2,336

23.5%

2,773

24.9%

31-45

746

8.1%

697

7.2%

776

7.8%

838

7.5%

46-60

753

8.1%

769

8.0%

672

6.8%

816

7.3%

61-75

60

0.6%

50

0.5%

54

0.5%

72

0.6%

76-90

703

7.6%

716

7.4%

656

6.6%

770

6.9%

91-120

320

3.5%

292

3.0%

302

3.0%

333

3.0%

121-180

370

4.0%

329

3.4%

342

3.4%

401

3.6%

181-240

85

0.9%

69

0.7%

41

0.4%

70

0.6%

241-270

48

0.5%

39

0.4%

33

0.3%

43

0.4%

271-365

73

0.8%

66

0.7%

42

0.4%

61

0.5%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

9,266

100.0%

9,660

100.0%

9,938

100.0%

11,146

100.0%

1,206

79.2%

1,393

80.6%

1,707

74.8%

2,022

69.8%

316 1,522

20.8% 100.0%

336 1,729

19.4% 100.0%

575 2,282

25.2% 100.0%

875 2,897

30.2% 100.0%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days

Not Available TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

* Only community service imposed in conjunction with a conditional-discharge sentence is reported separately. This category underreports community service sanctions because OCA does not have a uniform system for marking community service conditions of sentences, and because it occasionally is a condition of other types of sentences. .

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 13 -

There are a few differences across the four program years in the types of prosecuted crimes in Spotlight cases citywide, as shown on TABLE 4B.

The drug category has the largest percentage of cases in all program years, with very similar percentages for this crime category as a whole and for cases with Amisdemeanor drug possession charges.

In all program years the second largest percentage of cases is been found in the property crime category, most of which involve the petit larceny charge.

The percentage of cases in the fraud category, mostly theft-of-services fare-beat charges, is lower in this fourth program year than in the previous program years.

The percentage of cases in the misconduct category was highest in year one.

However, within this crime category the percentage of cases with A-misdemeanor criminal trespass charges is higher, and the percentage of cases with B-misdemeanor criminal trespass charges is lower, in year four than in previous program years.

The percentage of cases in the sex crimes category has been progressively decreasing, reaching a new low of 3.9 percent in year four.

Jail continues to be the most severe type of sentence imposed in the overwhelming majority of convicted Spotlight cases, and the year four percentage of cases with imprisonment (81.1%) is the highest yet. Almost all remaining sentences have some type of a conditional discharge as the most severe type of sentence, divided between those that do and do not include a community service component, a sentence category shown separately on TABLE 4C. However, because of changes in OCA reporting of the community service component of conditional discharge sentences one needs to use caution in assessing the importance of the differences in the proportions of community service versus other conditional discharge sentences in this display.

There are some small changes in the type and amount of jail time imposed at sentencing in Spotlight cases across the four program years. Because these are the sentence lengths imposed, without accounting for pre-sentence detention time and good-time credit, the amount of jail time defendants will serve post-conviction for a nontime-served sentence will be less than reported.

The percentage of time-served sentences has been progressively increasing, from a low of 14.1 percent in year one to a high of 20.6 in year four. However, a far larger percentage of these sentences (30.2%) were imposed at a post arraignment court appearance in year four than in previous program years.

In all program years the sentence length category of 1-15 days has the largest percentage of non-time-served jail time, with sentences in the 16-30 day category the

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 14 -

second largest. However, after a small increase in cases in the 1-15 day category in year three (to 47.1%), year four’s percentage in the 1-15 day category (44.6%) more closely resembles those in the first two program years, 44.7 and 44.3 percent, respectively.

Fairly similar percentages of non-time-served sentences have jail times greater than thirty days, with all categories of 31-365 days combined: 30.5 percent in program year four, and 29.4, 31.3 and 34.1 percent in years three, two and one respectively.

Year Four Spotlight Case Characteristics and Criminal Court Decision Making in the Boroughs TABLES 5 A, B and C, compare case characteristics and Criminal Court decision making among the boroughs in year four Spotlight cases. These tables show differences among the boroughs in the composition and treatment of Spotlight cases.

To a large extent these differences reflect the distinctive nature of the case loads and characteristics of court processing of cases within each borough.

As can be seen in TABLE 5A:

In all boroughs over 80 percent of all adjudicated Spotlight cases end with a conviction.

Manhattan, with the largest volume of Spotlight cases, is far more likely than the other boroughs’ Criminal Courts to dispose of cases at the arraignment appearance.

Over two-thirds of Manhattan Spotlight cases have a conviction disposition at arraignment, in comparison to just over half in Bronx cases and less than half in the other boroughs’ cases.

In all boroughs an overwhelming majority of defendants in cases continued at arraignment are held on bail, with the largest percentage of bail cases appearing in Queens (87.6%) and the smallest in the Bronx (62.2%). In the Bronx over a third of the defendants in year four cases continued at arraignment were ROR’d, a rate that is by far the highest among the boroughs.

The overwhelming majority of year four Spotlight cases are prosecuted for Amisdemeanor severity crimes, although there are differences among the boroughs in the percentage of cases prosecuted with this crime-charge severity. Manhattan has the highest percentage of Spotlight cases arraigned on an A-misdemeanor severity charge (87.7%), with Queens (75.7%) having the smaller percentages in this severity category.

TABLE 5B shows that there also are some differences in the composition of arraignment charges by crime type among the boroughs.

In all boroughs the drug category has the largest percentage of cases. However, the percentages of drug category cases vary from a high of over half (53.4%) of Brooklyn’s year four Spotlight cases, to only about 30 percent of Manhattan’s cases.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 15 -

TABLE 5A YEAR FOUR CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH* October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006

Brooklyn (N=4,856)

Manhattan (N=7,707)

Queens (N=1,638)

Staten Island (N=493)

Bronx (N=5,455)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

2,155 52 29 2,610 7 3

44.4% 1.1% 0.6% 53.7% 0.1% 0.1%

5,181 16 13 2,481 14 2

67.2% 0.2% 0.2% 32.2% 0.2% 0.0%

725 20 8 875 9 1

44.3% 1.2% 0.5% 53.4% 0.5% 0.1%

177 0 4 311 1 0

35.9% 0.0% 0.8% 63.1% 0.2% 0.0%

2,821 10 16 2,358 195 55

51.7% 0.2% 0.3% 43.2% 3.6% 1.0%

598 43 1,903 12 2,556

23.4% 1.7% 74.5% 0.5% 100.0%

445 33 1,762 24 2,264

19.7% 1.5% 77.8% 1.1% 100.0%

75 28 765 5 873

8.6% 3.2% 87.6% 0.6% 100.0%

68 12 227 4 311

21.9% 3.9% 73.0% 1.3% 100.0%

827 43 1,448 9 2,327

35.5% 1.8% 62.2% 0.4% 100.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Subtotal Release Status Unknown Total Continued

54 2,610

217 2,481

2 875

0 311

31 2,358

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other

39 4,000 741 8 68

0.8% 82.4% 15.3% 0.2% 1.4%

80 6,757 743 10 117

1.0% 87.7% 9.6% 0.1% 1.5%

23 1,240 298 9 68

1.4% 75.7% 18.2% 0.5% 4.2%

9 399 76 3 6

1.8% 80.9% 15.4% 0.6% 1.2%

66 4,538 724 13 114

1.2% 83.2% 13.3% 0.2% 2.1%

4,059 79 262 271 151 34

83.6% 1.6% 5.4% 5.6% 3.1% 0.7%

6,910 23 362 247 99 66

89.7% 0.3% 4.7% 3.2% 1.3% 0.9%

1,401 30 65 105 22 15

85.5% 1.8% 4.0% 6.4% 1.3% 0.9%

410 3 43 27 5 5

83.2% 0.6% 8.7% 5.5% 1.0% 1.0%

4,882 17 160 182 137 77

89.5% 0.3% 2.9% 3.3% 2.5% 1.4%

FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for Criminal Court appearances through November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 16 -

TABLE 5B YEAR FOUR CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006 Brooklyn (N=4,856)

Manhattan (N=7,707)

Staten Island (N=493)

Queens (N=1,638)

Bronx (N=5,455)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

2,246 45 295 5 2,591

46.3% 0.9% 6.1% 0.1% 53.4%

1,770 165 332 14 2,281

23.0% 2.1% 4.3% 0.2% 29.6%

419 23 129 3 574

25.6% 1.4% 7.9% 0.2% 35.0%

182 7 23 9 221

36.9% 1.4% 4.7% 1.8% 44.8%

1,581 136 434 21 2,172

29.0% 2.5% 8.0% 0.4% 39.8%

746 155 901

15.4% 3.2% 18.6%

1,896 297 2,193

24.6% 3.9% 28.5%

335 70 405

20.5% 4.3% 24.7%

83 12 95

16.8% 2.4% 19.3%

524 145 669

9.6% 2.7% 12.3%

257 19 276

5.3% 0.4% 5.7%

867 78 945

11.2% 1.0% 12.3%

71 11 82

4.3% 0.7% 5.0%

0 2 2

0.0% 0.4% 0.4%

452 53 505

8.3% 1.0% 9.3%

167

3.4%

1,032

13.4%

96

5.9%

9

1.8%

1,048

19.2%

255 54 476

5.3% 1.1% 9.8%

142 185 1,359

1.8% 2.4% 17.6%

94 39 229

5.7% 2.4% 14.0%

29 8 46

5.9% 1.6% 9.3%

102 93 1,243

1.9% 1.7% 22.8%

39

0.8%

109

1.4%

55

3.4%

25

5.1%

84

1.5%

132 15 186

2.7% 0.3% 3.8%

80 49 238

1.0% 0.6% 3.1%

31 3 89

1.9% 0.2% 5.4%

1 2 28

0.2% 0.4% 5.7%

146 15 245

2.7% 0.3% 4.5%

218 14 232

4.5% 0.3% 4.8%

247 15 262

3.2% 0.2% 3.4%

106 6 112

6.5% 0.4% 6.8%

40 0 40

8.1% 0.0% 8.1%

166 9 175

3.0% 0.2% 3.2%

194

4.0%

429

5.6%

147

9.0%

61

12.4%

446

8.2%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other charges Subtotal Property

Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud

Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct

Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes

Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons

Other Cases Subtotal

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 17 -

TABLE 5C YEAR FOUR CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY (Continued) October 1, 2005 - September 30, 2006

Brooklyn (N=4,856)

Manhattan (N=7,707)

Queens (N=1,638)

Staten Island (N=493)

Bronx (N=5,455)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

3,365 15 17 227

86.0% 0.4% 0.4% 5.8%

5,781 1 36 690

84.0% 0.0% 0.5% 10.0%

1,179 16 26 43

87.5% 1.2% 1.9% 3.2%

326 6 4 12

84.0% 1.5% 1.0% 3.1%

3,392 43 100 401

70.7% 0.9% 2.1% 8.4%

279 7 1 3,911

7.1% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%

174 8 189 6,879

2.5% 0.1% 2.7% 100.0%

75 9 0 1,348

5.6% 0.7% 0.0% 100.0%

35 4 1 388

9.0% 1.0% 0.3% 100.0%

856 8 0 4,800

17.8% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%

2,775 590 3,365

82.5% 17.5% 100.0%

4,465 1,316 5,781

77.2% 22.8% 100.0%

1,007 172 1,179

85.4% 14.6% 100.0%

241 85 326

73.9% 26.1% 100.0%

2,658 734 3,392

78.4% 21.6% 100.0%

1-15

673

24.3%

2,494

55.9%

270

26.8%

100

41.5%

1,432

53.9%

16-30

808

29.1%

1,012

22.7%

229

22.7%

44

18.3%

680

25.6%

31-45

292

10.5%

296

6.6%

82

8.1%

15

6.2%

153

5.8%

46-60

296

10.7%

244

5.5%

104

10.3%

33

13.7%

139

5.2%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days

61-75

25

0.9%

25

0.6%

6

0.6%

1

0.4%

15

0.6%

76-90

324

11.7%

171

3.8%

121

12.0%

29

12.0%

125

4.7%

91-120

147

5.3%

84

1.9%

64

6.4%

3

1.2%

35

1.3%

121-180

158

5.7%

101

2.3%

85

8.4%

6

2.5%

51

1.9%

181-240

30

1.1%

9

0.2%

28

2.8%

0

0.0%

3

0.1% 0.4%

241-270

7

0.3%

12

0.3%

8

0.8%

6

2.5%

10

271-365

15

0.5%

17

0.4%

10

1.0%

4

1.7%

15

0.6%

2,775

100.0%

4,465

100.0%

1,007

100.0%

241

100.0%

2,658

100.0%

395

66.9%

1,123

85.3%

125

72.7%

41

48.2%

338

46.0%

195 590

33.1% 100.0%

193 1,316

14.7% 100.0%

47 172

27.3% 100.0%

44 85

51.8% 100.0%

396 734

54.0% 100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

* Only community service imposed in conjunction with a conditional-discharge sentence is reported separately. This category underreports community service sanctions because OCA does not have a uniform system for marking community service conditions of sentences, and because it occasionally is a condition of other types of sentences.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 18 -

The property crime category has the second largest percentage of cases in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, but has only the third largest percentage of Bronx year four Spotlight cases. Manhattan has the highest percentage of cases (28.5%) in this crime category.

There is wide variation among the boroughs in the percentages of cases that fall into the misconduct category, and in the relative distributions of cases between the Aand B-misdemeanor criminal trespass charges within this crime category.

The second largest percentage of all Bronx cases fall into the misconduct crime category (22.8%), and Bronx criminal trespass cases are far more likely to have the A-, as opposed to the B-misdemeanor criminal trespass charge.

Manhattan also has a comparatively large percentage of cases in the misconduct category (17.6%) and, as in the Bronx, Manhattan cases in this category are more likely to be prosecuted for the A-, in comparison to the B-misdemeanor, criminal trespass charge. The percentages of Queens’ cases in the misconduct category are about equally divided between the two severities of the criminal trespass charge, whereas in Brooklyn, criminal trespass charges when they occur are more likely to be prosecuted under the B-misdemeanor charge.

The percentage of cases in the fraud category, mostly made up of the theft-ofservices (fare-beat) charge, is another illustration of how case composition varies among the boroughs. The percentage of fraud category cases is highest in Manhattan (12.3%), with only two (0.4%) Staten Island docketed cases in this category.

As can be seen in TABLE 5C, imprisonment is the most severe sentence imposed for conviction in a great majority of Spotlight cases, and the overwhelming majorities of jail sentences in each borough stipulate sentences greater than time served. However, cases with very short jail sentences may not require additional jail time after factoring in credit for time served during the pre-sentence stages of case processing. There also are some variations among the boroughs in the percentages of jail sentenced cases, and length of jail time imposed.

Among the boroughs, Queens has the largest percentage of jail sentences for Spotlight cases (87.5%), followed by Brooklyn (86.0%), and Manhattan and Staten Island (84.0%). Bronx has the smallest percentage (70.7%) of jail sentences imposed in convicted cases. In addition, Queens has the largest percentage of non-timeserved jail sentences (85.4%).

The percentage of cases with time-served sentences varies somewhat among the boroughs, from a low of 14.6% in Queens to a high of 26.1% in Staten Island jailsentenced cases. However, Bronx cases are far more likely to have this sentence imposed post arraignment (54.0%).

For non-time-served jail sentence lengths, Bronx and Manhattan cases have the largest percentages of cases in the 1-15 days category, 55.9 and 53.9 percent

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 19 -

respectively, with smaller percentages in this sentence-length category in the other boroughs.

Queens and Brooklyn cases have the largest percentages of cases with jail sentences imposed that are greater than 30 days. Combining all jail-time categories between 31 and 365 days, the percentages of cases with sentences greater than 30 days are 50.4 and 46.7 percent respectively in Queens and Brooklyn.

A most severe sentence of some form of a conditional discharge (CD)—with or without a community service (CS) sanction—accounts for the sentence in most nonjail cases. However, conditional discharge sentences (with and without a community service indicator combined) are far more frequent in the Bronx (26.2%) than in the other boroughs which range from less than nine percent of Queens’ sentences to about 13 percent of Brooklyn sentences.

Because of borough variations in how comprehensively OCA reports the community service component, the difference in percentages between CDs with and without community service across boroughs, shown separately on TABLE 5C, needs to be interpreted with caution. What is clear is that the Bronx makes a proportionately far greater use of conditional discharge as an alternative sentence to imprisonment for Spotlight cases than occurs in the other boroughs.

SUMMARY Spotlight volume in the twelve-month period of the fourth program year, October 1, 2005-September 30, 2006, is larger than in previous program years. In other respects there are only small citywide changes in arrests and arrestees targeted by the program, and in the characteristics and court decision making among prosecuted cases.

Across the program years Spotlight arrests have mostly male defendants, and over half of the arrests have Black defendants. In all program years approximately twofifths of arrests have defendants falling into 35-39 and 40-44 age-group categories combined. Over half of all Spotlight arrests have defendants with both prior misdemeanor and felony convictions, with increasing percentages across the three program years. Only small percentages of defendants in Spotlight cases meet CJA’s criteria for being recommended for recognizance release.

At least three-fourths of Spotlight cases in each program year are arraigned on Amisdemeanor charges, with a slight increase in the percentages in this severity category

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 20 -

over the three program years. Almost all of the remainder are cases prosecuted with a charge of B-misdemeanor severity.

Convictions dominate outcomes in Spotlight cases in all program years. However, the percentage of year four convictions at arraignment (54.9%) is slightly lower than in previous years. In addition the percentage of continued cases continued with an incustody release status at arraignment also is slightly lower (73.3%) in year four than in previous years where at least three-fourths of defendants in continued cases have an in-custody release status. There are some fluctuations in the percentage distributions of top arraignment crime types among the years. However, in all program years the drug crime category has the largest percentage of cases and the property crime category (mostly petit larceny charges) the second largest percentage of cases citywide. The percentage of arrests in the sex-crimes category (almost all prostitution related) has been decreasing over the program years and is lowest (3.9%) in year four.

Imprisonment is overwhelmingly the most severe sentence imposed in Spotlight cases, with almost all other cases receiving some form of conditional discharge as the most severe sentence. Over two-fifths of all non-time-served sentences are in the 1-15 jail-days’ category. The percentages of jail sentences greater than thirty days has changed slightly across the program years, 34.1 percent in year one, 31.3 percent in year two, 29.4 percent in year three, and 30.5 percent in year four. In addition, the year four percentage of time-served sentences is greater in year four (20.6%), but a larger percentage are imposed at a post-arraignment appearance (30.2%) than in previous years.

Patterns in court decision making in year four are similar across boroughs, although with some variations and percentage differences. For example, almost all Spotlight cases have conviction outcomes, but a far greater percentage of convictions occur at arraignment in Manhattan than in the other boroughs. The Bronx continues to have the second largest percentage of arraignment convictions (51.7%) but this is lower than in previous years. Majorities of Spotlight cases not disposed at arraignment have defendants held on bail, with Queens’ cases having the largest percentage (87.6%) and Bronx the smallest percentage (62.2%) with this release status.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 21 -

There are noticeable variations across the boroughs in the distribution of cases among arraignment charge crime categories. For example, 53.4 percent of Brooklyn’s cases have a top arraignment charge in the drug crime category, in comparison to 29.6 percent of top arraignment charges in Manhattan cases falling into this crime category.

In addition, there are a greater percentage of Bronx cases with arraignment charges in the misconduct crime category (mostly criminal trespass) and they are more likely to be of A-misdemeanor severity in comparison with the other boroughs.

Imprisonment is the most severe type of sentence in all boroughs’ year four Spotlight cases, ranging from 87.5 percent for Queens’ cases to 70.7 percent of Bronx cases. Non-time-served sentences are imposed in the overwhelming (but different) percentages of cases in all boroughs. The length of jail sentences vary among the boroughs, with over half of all Bronx and Manhattan cases falling into the 1-15 days category. In comparison, about two-fifths of Staten Island jail sentences, a little over a quarter of Queens’ and less than a quarter of Brooklyn sentences are in this sentence length category. Almost all non-jail sentenced cases have some form of a conditional discharge as the most severe sentence, with the largest percentage of such cases found in the Bronx.

For comparative purposes, the court activity tables by borough for programs years one, two and three can be found as Appendix Tables A1, 2 and 3, Appendix Tables B1, 2 and 3, and Appendix Tables C1, 2 and 3 respectively. These tables show Criminal Court decision making as reported at the end of each program year.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 22 -

PART TWO YEAR FOUR CHARACTERISTICS BY ARREST GROUPS In this section of the report the program’s year four arrest and arrestee characteristics, and court decision making, are examined by the arrest patterns of defendants across the four Spotlight program years. At the outset we examine how many fourth-year Spotlight-targeted arrests belong to defendants whose NYSID numbers first appear in the current (fourth) program year, and then how many year four arrests belong to defendant NYSID numbers that also had Spotlight-targeted arrests in prior program years.

There are a number of possible permutations for year four defendants with arrests in earlier program years. There are year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared in only one of the previous program years: in years four and three but not earlier years; or year four arrests of defendants with NYSID numbers in a non-sequential prior year—either year two or year one. There are year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared in two other program years: sequentially in years two through four; in years four, three and year one; and in year four plus years one and two. Lastly there are year four Spotlight-targeted arrests in which defendant NYSID numbers appeared in all four program years. For analytic purposes some of these combinations are combined.

For this section of the report year four arrests and defendants have been divided into the six groups described below.

Group 1 contains the year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year three, but not in either of the first two program years.

Group 3 contains the year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year two or year one.

Group 4 contains the year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the two previous sequential years (years three and two).

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 23 -

Group 5 contains the year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in two other program years, either years three and one, or years two and one.

Group 6 contains the year four Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

These groups are based exclusively on Spotlight-targeted arrests. They do not include non-targeted arrests prior to defendants meeting the requisite number and charge-severity of arrests, convictions for misdemeanor crimes, and the timing of prior arrests and misdemeanor convictions. Also not factored into group assignments are non-qualifying arrests after program targeting which include arrests with a top charge severity of either a felony or a non-criminal charge.

NUMBER OF YEAR FOUR SPOTLIGHT ARRESTS AND DEFENDANTS BY GROUP As shown on TABLE 6A, Group 1 contains the largest number of all year four Spotlight-targeted arrests citywide. Group 1 also contains the largest number of all year four defendants. The average number of arrests per defendant, shown on the last row on this table, is computed by dividing the number of arrests by the number of defendants. Because the percentage of defendants in Group 1 (50.1%) is larger than the percent of arrests (41.1%), the average number of arrests per defendants (1.75) is less than two.

Group 2, year four arrests of defendants first Spotlight-targeted in the previous program year, has the second largest number of year four Spotlight-targeted arrests.

Over a fifth a year four’s arrests, and a fifth of year four’s defendants, are found in this group, with an average of 2.4 arrests per defendant.

The third largest number of year four arrests is found in Group 6, arrests of defendants with NYSID numbers that have appeared with Spotlight-targeted arrests in all four program years. Only slightly smaller are the number of arrests and defendants in Group 4, year four arrests of defendants who have had Spotlight-targeted arrests beginning with the second program year forward.

Similar in volume and in numbers of defendants are Groups 3 and 5, the groups containing year four arrests in which defendants had Spotlight targeted arrests in some but not all of the previous program years, and once targeted they did not appear

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 24 -

continuously. So, for example, Group 3 defendant NYSID numbers previously appeared with Spotlight-targeted arrests in either program years one or two, but none had Spotlight-targeted arrests in program year three.

TABLE 6A DISTRIBUTION OF YEAR FOUR ARRESTS AND DEFENDANTS BY GROUP Group 1

Group 2

Group 3*

Group 4

Group 5**

Group 6

Citywide Total

Number of Year 4 8850 4846 1111 2625 1244 2866 21542 Spotlight Arrests Percent of Year 4 41.1 22.5 5.1 12.2 5.8 13.3 100.0 Arrests Number of 5063 2018 571 952 523 978 10105 Year 4 Defendants Percent of Year 4 50.1 20.0 5.6 9.4 5.2 9.7 100.0 Defendants Average Number of 1.75 2.40 1.95 2.76 2.38 2.93 2.13 Program Arrests Per Defendant *Group 3 contains 534 year four arrests of 267 defendants whose NYSIDs previously appeared in the year two Spotlight program file, and 577 year four arrests of 304 defendants who previously had Spotlight-targeted arrests only in year one. **Group 5 contains 696 year four arrests of 261 defendants whose NYSIDs previously appeared in Spotlight arrests in years three and one, and 548 year four arrests of 262 defendants with NYSIDs that previously appeared in program years two and one.

The difference between the distribution of arrests versus defendants is driven by differences in the frequency of Spotlight arrests by defendants in each group, as can be seen in TABLE 6B. Group 1 defendants are far more likely to have had only a single program arrest in comparison to defendants in the other groups. However, while some defendants in Group 1 will have met the requisite number, type and timing of prior cases at the time of their first misdemeanor arrest on or after October 1, 2005, the start date of program year four, others will still be acquiring the prerequisite cases during the program year prior to the first (or only) Spotlight arrest. As a result, the average number

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 25 -

of Spotlight arrests in the program year underestimates the frequency of misdemeanor arrests for many defendants in this group.

TABLE 6B NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS IN YEAR FOUR SPOTLIGHT ARRESTS

BY FREQUENCY OF YEAR FOUR PROGRAM ARRESTS Frequency of Year 4 Arrests 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Total Group Defendants Percent of Year 4 Arrest Frequency 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Group Total

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

2991 1139 530 212 100 91

783 544 288 178 99 126

292 134 77 40 18 10

288 211 207 111 57 78

200 143 76 50 26 28

280 235 166 114 83 100

5063

2018

571

952

523

978

59.1 22.5 10.4 4.2 2.0 1.8

38.8 27.0 14.3 8.8 4.9 6.2

51.1 23.5 13.5 7.0 3.1 1.8

30.3 22.2 21.7 11.6 6.0 8.2

38.2 27.3 14.5 9.6 5.0 5.4

28.6 24.0 17.0 11.7 8.5 10.2

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Defendants in Group 6, those with Spotlight-targeted arrests in all program years, have the highest frequency of year four arrests, as well as the largest average number of arrests per defendant (2.93) as was seen in TABLE 6A. Defendants in Group 4, who have appeared in the annual Spotlight files continuously from year two forward, have the second largest average number of year four arrests (2.76) and the second smallest percentage of defendants with only a single year four arrests. Because all defendants in Groups 2, 4 and 6 are carryovers from the previous year, the average number of program arrests in these groups is probably close to the actual rates of all misdemeanor arrests during the fourth program year. Similarly, because over half of Group 5’s defendants also had Spotlight targeted arrests in year three, the frequency of Spotlight arrests for this group likely reflects actual rates of all misdemeanor arrests. It is more

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 26 -

difficult to predict how many of the 571 defendants in Group 3 may have had nontargeted misdemeanor arrests within year four prior to the being re-targeted by the Spotlight program, because at least some would have no longer qualified for Spotlight targeting at the time of their first misdemeanor arrest in program year four.

Further investigation into all arrests would be needed to more precisely determine the extent of differences in overall average number of arrests, or at least of misdemeanor arrests, during the fourth program year’s twelve-month period for defendants in the Spotlight arrest groups.

Group 1 also is likely to contain arrests from a more diverse mix of defendants in regard to future arrest patterns than is found in the other groups, especially in comparison to Groups 2, 4 and 6. This is because a majority of defendants with their first Spotlight-targeted arrest in a program year do not continue to have program arrests in the subsequent year. Further, there also is attrition over program years as illustrated in TABLE 7. This is something to keep in mind in thinking about differences in arrest and arrestee characteristics, and court decision making, among the groups’ Spotlight cases in the sections that follow.

TABLE 7 shows how many defendants with Spotlight-targeted arrests in the previous three program years had Spotlight-targeted arrests in program year four, and how they are distributed among the year four arrest groups. The total number of defendants in each previous program year appears in parenthesis. The bottom of each year’s column shows the total number and percentage of that year’s defendants that also are found among year four’s arrests. For example, of the 9,119 defendants with Spotlight-targeted arrests in year three, 4,209 (46.2%) also have Spotlight-targeted arrests in year four. Of these 2,018 are defendants first targeted in program year three (Group 2); 952 have continuously been targeted since first appearing in year two (Group 3); 261 are those from Group 5 originally targeted in the first program year but skipped year two; and 978 are defendants who have appeared with Spotlight-targeted arrests across all four program years to date.

Each column needs to be treated as a discrete exhibit because defendants with arrests in more than one year are part of each year’s defendant count. For example,

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 27 -

the same 978 defendants in Group 6 appear in each previous program year and are part of each year’s total defendant count.

TABLE 7 DEFENDANT NYSID NUMBERS FROM PREVIOUS SPOTLIGHT PROGRAM YEARS WITH ARRESTS IN PROGRAM YEAR FOUR BY Year 4 Group YEAR 3 (N=9,119)

YEAR 2 (N=8,616)

YEAR 1 (N=8,351)

Group 1

0

0

0

Group 2

2018

0

0

Group 3

0

267

304

Group 4

952

952

0

Group 5

261

262

261

Group 6

978

978

978

Total Defendants

4,209

2,459

1,543

% Also in Year 4

46.2

28.5

18.5

YEAR 4 GROUP

Over the course of the first three program years there had been a total of 18,143 defendant NYSID numbers found with Spotlight-targeted arrests of which a total of 5,042 or 27.8 percent appear among the year four Spotlight arrest population, 978 (5.4%) continuously since the first program year and 4,064 (22.4%) in some but not all previous years. (Data not shown) YEAR FOUR CITYWIDE ARRESTS AND ARRESTEE CHARACTERISTICS

BY GROUP TABLES 8A, B and C contain a series of items about how the composition of year four arrest and arrestee characteristics are divided among the groups. TABLE 8A shows the demographic and criminal history characteristics of defendants in each arrest group. Because each arrest is a separate event for reporting purposes, the characteristics are included at the time of each arrest for defendants with more than one Spotlight arrest in the fourth program year.

An overwhelming majority of arrests in each group have male defendants.

Group 1 has the smallest percentage, and Group 6 the largest percentage of arrests of female defendants, 15.7 and 18.7 percent respectively.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 28 -

TABLE 8A YEAR FOUR DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS BY ARREST GROUP ARREST GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Group 1 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year 3, but not in either of the first 2 program years.

Group 3 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year 2 or year 1.

Group 4 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the 2 previous sequential years (years 3 and 2).

Group 5 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in 2 other program years, either years 3 and 1, or years 2 and 1.

Group 6 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

SEX Male Female TOTAL

7,458 1,392 8,850

84.3% 15.7% 100.0%

4,044 802 4,846

83.5% 16.5% 100.0%

920 191 1,111

82.8% 17.2% 100.0%

2,188 437 2,625

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

1,014 230 1,244

81.5% 18.5% 100.0%

2,329 537 2,866

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

4,936 644 2,369 77 8,026

61.5% 8.0% 29.5% 1.0% 100.0%

2,801 336 1,238 49 4,424

63.3% 7.6% 28.0% 1.1% 100.0%

658 77 258 5 998

65.9% 7.7% 25.9% 0.5% 100.0%

1,593 166 593 30 2,382

66.9% 7.0% 24.9% 1.3% 100.0%

737 89 291 11 1,128

65.3% 7.9% 25.8% 1.0% 100.0%

1,734 191 660 20 2,605

66.6% 7.3% 25.3% 0.8% 100.0%

ETHNICITY Black White Hispanic Other TOTAL Not Available

824

422

113

243

116

261

AGE GROUP 16-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50+ TOTAL

337 1,106 1,016 909 1,533 1,906 1,119 924 8,850

3.8% 12.5% 11.5% 10.3% 17.3% 21.5% 12.6% 10.4% 100.0%

62 479 550 504 839 1,075 828 509 4,846

1.3% 9.9% 11.3% 10.4% 17.3% 22.2% 17.1% 10.5% 100.0%

10 94 107 136 186 265 202 111 1,111

0.9% 8.5% 9.6% 12.2% 16.7% 23.9% 18.2% 10.0% 100.0%

22 250 262 233 564 634 361 299 2,625

0.8% 9.5% 10.0% 8.9% 21.5% 24.2% 13.8% 11.4% 100.0%

3 72 107 142 273 285 204 158 1,244

0.2% 5.8% 8.6% 11.4% 21.9% 22.9% 16.4% 12.7% 100.0%

21 146 232 320 549 705 518 375 2,866

0.7% 5.1% 8.1% 11.2% 19.2% 24.6% 18.1% 13.1% 100.0%

3,140 4,887 8,027

39.1% 60.9% 100.0%

1,477 2,949 4,426

33.4% 66.6% 100.0%

300 699 999

30.0% 70.0% 100.0%

785 1,599 2,384

32.9% 67.1% 100.0%

331 807 1,138

29.1% 70.9% 100.0%

837 1,777 2,614

32.0% 68.0% 100.0%

CRIMINAL CONVICTION HISTORY Prior Misdemeanor Only Both Misd. and Felony TOTAL Not Available

823

420

112

241

106

252

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 29 -

TABLE 8B YEAR FOUR DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS BY ARREST GROUP (continued) Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

CJA "STAMP" Recommended Low Risk Moderate Risk Not Recommended High Risk Bench Warrant Other Not Recommended No Recommendation* TOTAL Not Available BOROUGH OF ARREST Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Bronx TOTAL

287 357

3.6% 4.4%

66 83

1.5% 1.9%

14 27

1.4% 2.7%

24 41

1.0% 1.7%

12 18

1.1% 1.6%

8 41

0.3% 1.6%

5,655 1,110 115 516 8,040

70.3% 13.8% 1.4% 6.4% 100.0%

3,234 605 72 374 4,434

72.9% 13.6% 1.6% 8.4% 100.0%

728 149 16 67 1,001

72.7% 14.9% 1.6% 6.7% 100.0%

1,779 291 31 223 2,389

74.5% 12.2% 1.3% 9.3% 100.0%

810 185 11 102 1,138

71.2% 16.3% 1.0% 9.0% 100.0%

1,901 348 18 304 2,620

72.6% 13.3% 0.7% 11.6% 100.0%

810

412

110

236

106

246

2,141 2,944 814 296 2,655 8,850

24.2% 33.3% 9.2% 3.3% 30.0% 100.0%

1,004 1,825 385 114 1,518 4,846

20.7% 37.7% 7.9% 2.4% 31.3% 100.0%

301 348 78 27 357 1,111

27.1% 31.3% 7.0% 2.4% 32.1% 100.0%

655 1,068 140 34 728 2,625

25.0% 40.7% 5.3% 1.3% 27.7% 100.0%

341 494 81 17 311 1,244

27.4% 39.7% 6.5% 1.4% 25.0% 100.0%

665 1,168 182 51 800 2,866

23.2% 40.8% 6.4% 1.8% 27.9% 100.0%

7,274 1,547 27 2 8,850

82.2% 17.5% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

4,076 764 4 2 4,846

84.1% 15.8% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%

927 184 0 0 1,111

83.4% 16.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

2,225 396 1 3 2,625

84.8% 15.1% 0.0% 0.1% 100.0%

1,074 168 1 1 1,244

86.3% 13.5% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0%

2,410 455 0 1 2,866

84.1% 15.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

TOP ARREST CHARGE SEVERITY A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other TOTAL

*Cases of interviewed defendants in which no recommendation is made because of policy exclusions such as no NYSID number or an incomplete interview.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 30 -

TABLE 8C YEAR FOUR DEFENDANT CHARACTERISTICS BY ARREST GROUP (continued) Group 1

Group 2

Group 3

Group 4

Group 5

Group 6

TOP ARREST CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

2,720 242 716 112 3,790

30.7% 2.7% 8.1% 1.3% 42.8%

1,630 81 259 59 2,029

33.6% 1.7% 5.3% 1.2% 41.9%

385 21 72 14 492

34.7% 1.9% 6.5% 1.3% 44.3%

827 41 109 22 999

31.5% 1.6% 4.2% 0.8% 38.1%

423 14 33 14 484

34.0% 1.1% 2.7% 1.1% 38.9%

987 34 104 34 1,159

34.4% 1.2% 3.6% 1.2% 40.4%

1,320 335 1,655

14.9% 3.8% 18.7%

883 178 1,061

18.2% 3.7% 21.9%

183 50 233

16.5% 4.5% 21.0%

541 117 658

20.6% 4.5% 25.1%

279 56 335

22.4% 4.5% 26.9%

613 139 752

21.4% 4.8% 26.2%

701 90 791

7.9% 1.0% 8.9%

375 50 425

7.7% 1.0% 8.8%

72 7 79

6.5% 0.6% 7.1%

218 11 229

8.3% 0.4% 8.7%

106 16 122

8.5% 1.3% 9.8%

219 17 236

7.6% 0.6% 8.2%

596

6.7%

373

7.7%

79

7.1%

211

8.0%

69

5.5%

181

6.3%

380 208 1,184

4.3% 2.4% 13.4%

199 109 681

4.1% 2.2% 14.1%

50 27 156

4.5% 2.4% 14.0%

114 51 376

4.3% 1.9% 14.3%

52 22 143

4.2% 1.8% 11.5%

143 64 388

5.0% 2.2% 13.5%

109

1.2%

71

1.5%

15

1.4%

57

2.2%

20

1.6%

63

2.2%

124 32 265

1.4% 0.4% 3.0%

90 23 184

1.9% 0.5% 3.8%

22 6 43

2.0% 0.5% 3.9%

52 15 124

2.0% 0.6% 4.7%

35 3 58

2.8% 0.2% 4.7%

74 10 147

2.6% 0.3% 5.1%

455 43 498

5.1% 0.5% 5.6%

177 14 191

3.7% 0.3% 3.9%

41 6 47

3.7% 0.5% 4.2%

74 7 81

2.8% 0.3% 3.1%

49 3 52

3.9% 0.2% 4.2%

90 4 94

3.1% 0.1% 3.3%

667

7.5%

275

5.7%

61

5.5%

158

6.0%

50

4.0%

90

3.1%

8,850

100.0%

4,846

100.0%

1,111

100.0%

2,625

100.0%

1,244

100.0%

2,866

100.0%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other charges Subtotal Property Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons Other Cases Subtotal TOTAL

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 31 -

In every group the largest percentage of cases are found in the 40-44 year age group, with over 20 percent of the cases. Group 6 has the largest percentage and Group 1 the smallest percentages of arrests of defendants in the age-group categories of 40 or above combined, 55.8 versus 44.5 percent respectively.

Group 1 has the largest percentages of arrests of defendants in the age-group categories younger than thirty years of age, and Group 6 has the smallest percentages of cases of defendants in these younger age-group categories.

Over 60 percent of defendants in each group’s arrests have prior convictions for both misdemeanor and felony crimes, among arrests for which prior criminal conviction record of defendants were known. Arrests in Group 1 have a somewhat lower percentage of defendants in this prior conviction category in comparison with the other groups.

As was discussed in the first part of this report dealing with year four arrests as a whole, the distribution among CJA’s stamp categories are affected by the percentages of cases in the No Recommendation category—arrests for which there is incomplete interview information. This also applies to the distribution of percentages in TABLE 8B.

In all groups the overwhelming majority of arrests have defendants rated as being of high risk of failure to appear (FTA).

Defendants in Group 1 arrests are the most likely to have been rated as being of low or moderate risk of FTA, but overall only small percentages of defendants in arrests in any group are qualified to be considered good (i.e., low or moderate) risks for recognizance release.

There are only very small differences in the borough distribution of arrests among the groups as shown on TABLE 8B.

Manhattan has somewhat larger percentages of arrests in Groups 4, 5 and 6, the groups with the defendants having Spotlight arrests in either three or all four program years.

Queens has a comparatively larger percentage of Group 1 arrests, arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appear in the fourth program year, in comparison to the percentage of Queens’ arrests in the other groups.

The bottom of TABLE 8B, and TABLE 8C, show that there appear to be some small differences in the proportional distribution of each group’s arrests among top arrest charge severities and crime types.

Over four-fifths of each group’s arrests have A-misdemeanor severity top arrest charges, although the percentage is slightly lower for Group 1 arrests. Group 1 has a slightly higher percentage of B-misdemeanor severity top arrest charges (17.5%) than any other group.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 32 -

Drugs make up the largest and similar percentage of the top arrest charge for each group. However marijuana charges are a greater percentage of Group 1’s arrests than is found in among arrests in any other group.

The property crime category, especially the petit larceny charge, is a smaller percentage of Group 1’s arrests in comparison to the percentage of arrests in this crime and charge category for the other arrest groups.

The percentage of arrests in the sex-crime category is largest in Group 6 (5.1%), and the percentage of assault cases is greatest in Group 1 (5.6%).

Some of the small differences found in the arrestee characteristics may be related to differences in severity and type of top arrest charge. For example, the greater presence of women defendants in Group 6’s arrests is likely to be related to the larger percentage of sex-crime category (prostitution-related) arrests in this group’s Spotlight cases. The greater percentages of arrests of younger defendants, and of Queens’ arrests, in Group 1 are likely to be at least partially related to a larger percentage of “other marijuana” arrests in this group. This type of low-level (B-misdemeanor severity) drug arrest is more likely to involve younger defendants with fewer repeated Spotlight arrests. Assault cases, a greater percentage of Group 1 than other group’s arrests, is another type of crime for which the frequency of Spotlight arrests (and offending patterns more broadly) may well be lower than for other types of crimes. Absent organizing the data into a form amenable to statistical analyses, these are just inferences based on experience, not empirical findings.

CRIMINAL COURT DECISION MAKING BY ARREST GROUP The analysis of Criminal Court activity for prosecuted cases retains the group assignment based on arrest classifications. That is, for this section cases of defendants in year four Spotlight prosecuted cases are not reclassified based on the years in which defendants had only docketed (prosecuted) arrests. As shown on TABLE 9, and for the purposes of illustration only, the proportionate distributions change very little if the year four classification groups are based on NYSID numbers of defendants with only prosecuted cases across the years, in comparison to the same distributions shown previously by arrests on TABLE 6A.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 33 -

TABLE 9 NUMBER OF PROSECUTED CASES AND DEFENDANTS BY GROUP AND CITYWIDE, Reclassified Using Only Prosecuted Cases in Each Program Year Group 1

Group 2

Group 3*

Group 4

Group 5**

Group 6

Citywide Total

Total Year 4 Docketed 8397 4485 1041 2415 1147 2664 20149 Spotlight Cases % of Docketed 41.7 22.3 5.1 12.0 5.7 13.2 100.0 Cases Number of 4899 1935 555 904 500 937 9730 Year 4 Defendants % of Year 4 50.4 19.9 5.7 9.3 5.1 9.6 100.0 Defendants Average Number of Year 4 1.71 2.32 1.87 2.67 2.29 2.84 2.07 Docketed Cases Per Defendant *Group 3 contains 486 docketed year four cases for 256 defendants who also had docketed cases in year two, and 555 docketed cases for 299 defendants who also had docketed cases in year one. **Group 5 contains 634 docketed year four cases for 249 defendants who also had docketed cases in program years three and one, and 513 docketed cases for 251 defendants who also had docketed cases in program years three and two.

All of the court activity items used in the regular program reports and in part one of this summary report are shown across groups citywide in TABLES 10 A, B and C. The first series of items, the “A” table, show arraignment and final Criminal Court outcomes as of November 15, 2006, the date the court data were extracted from the CJA database, the arraignment release status of defendants in the cases continued at arraignment, and the severity of the top arraignment charge. The “B” table shows crime and charge categories, and the “C” table presents sentencing information, by group.

The same court activity information also is examined separately for the groups in each borough, except for Staten Island which often has too few cases in categories for meaningful comparisons. TABLES 11 A, B and C, present these data for Brooklyn;

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 34 -

TABLES 12 A, B and C for Manhattan; TABLES 13 A, B and C, for Queens; and TABLES 14 A, B, and C, for the Bronx.

Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group, Citywide As shown on TABLE 10A:

Citywide arraignment outcomes differ little among the groups, with over half of each group’s cases having a conviction at arraignment.

Although in each group’s cases continued at Criminal Court arraignment at least two-thirds of defendants are held in custody, the percentages differ among the groups. Groups 1 and 3 have the smallest percentages of cases in the bail-set notmade category, (66.4% and 66.5%) and Group 6 the largest percentage (79.1%) in this category.

Conversely, over a quarter of Group 1 and 3’s cases continued at arraignment have defendants ROR’d, in comparison to less than 15 percent of the defendants in continued cases in Group 6.

Over 80 percent of each group’s cases are prosecuted for a crime of Amisdemeanor severity, with Group 1’s cases having the largest percentage (14.3%) of arraignment charges of B-misdemeanor severity.

Almost all Spotlight cases with an adjudicated outcome end with a conviction, with the highest conviction rates found in Groups 6 and 4, (92.1 and 91.8% respectively).

Overall, Group 1’s cases have a slightly higher percentage of dismissal (5.0%) or still pending outcomes (5.9%) in comparison to the disposition at the final (last) reported Criminal Court appearance for cases in the other groups.

In comparison to the group distribution of top arrest charges among crime categories (previously shown on TABLE 8C), there are some very slight shifts in percentage distributions across the groups in regard to the top arraignment crime types, but the general patterns are unchanged. As can be seen on TABLE 10B:

Drug cases have the largest percentage of arraignment charges for each group’s cases, with the percentage of marijuana charges within this crime category being largest for Group 1’s cases.

Property crime, especially petit larceny, is a larger percentage of the cases for the groups of defendants with Spotlight arrests in three or all four years—Groups 4, 5 and 6. Roughly a quarter of each of these groups’ cases fall into the property crime category. These groups also have a larger percentage of cases in the sex-crime category, roughly five percent, than is found in Groups 1 through 3.

Assault cases in the ‘harm-to-persons’ category make up a larger percentage of Group 1’s cases (4.7%) in comparison with the other groups.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 35 -

TABLE 10A CITYWIDE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP* ARREST GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Group 1 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year 3, but not in either of the first 2 program years.

Group 3 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year 2 or year 1.

Group 4 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the 2 previous sequential years (years 3 and 2).

Group 5 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in 2 other program years, either years 3 and 1, or years 2 and 1.

Group 6 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

GROUP 1 (N=8,227)

GROUP 2 (N=4,532)

GROUP 3 (N=1,042)

GROUP 4 (N=2,460)

GROUP 5 (N=1,162)

GROUP 6 (N=2,726)

4403 57 24 3610 98 35

53.5% 0.7% 0.3% 43.9% 1.2% 0.4%

2531 20 17 1900 54 10

55.8% 0.4% 0.4% 41.9% 1.2% 0.2%

531 6 4 490 10 1

51.0% 0.6% 0.4% 47.0% 1.0% 0.1%

1373 10 10 1043 20 4

55.8% 0.4% 0.4% 42.4% 0.8% 0.2%

656 3 5 481 11 6

56.5% 0.3% 0.4% 41.4% 0.9% 0.5%

1565 2 10 1111 33 5

57.4% 0.1% 0.4% 40.8% 1.2% 0.2%

994 97 2398 24 97 3610

27.5% 2.7% 66.4% 0.7% 2.7% 100.0%

438 25 1354 8 75 1900

23.1% 1.3% 71.3% 0.4% 3.9% 100.0%

131 6 326 6 21 490

26.7% 1.2% 66.5% 1.2% 4.3% 100.0%

195 12 791 8 37 1043

18.7% 1.2% 75.8% 0.8% 3.5% 100.0%

93 4 357 2 25 481

19.3% 0.8% 74.2% 0.4% 5.2% 100.0%

162 15 879 6 49 1111

14.6% 1.4% 79.1% 0.5% 4.4% 100.0%

118 6722 1180 27 180

1.4% 81.7% 14.3% 0.3% 2.2%

48 3849 543 11 81

1.1% 84.9% 12.0% 0.2% 1.8%

4 890 125 0 23

0.4% 85.4% 12.0% 0.0% 2.2%

17 2105 299 5 34

0.7% 85.6% 12.2% 0.2% 1.4%

14 1012 120 0 16

1.2% 87.1% 10.3% 0.0% 1.4%

17 2355 315 0 39

0.6% 86.4% 11.6% 0.0% 1.4%

6932 86 412 488 213 96

84.3% 1.0% 5.0% 5.9% 2.6% 1.2%

4022 29 206 137 94 44

88.7% 0.6% 4.5% 3.0% 2.1% 1.0%

907 10 45 46 28 6

87.0% 1.0% 4.3% 4.4% 2.7% 0.6%

2258 15 88 56 26 17

91.8% 0.6% 3.6% 2.3% 1.1% 0.7%

1033 6 43 41 25 14

88.9% 0.5% 3.7% 3.5% 2.2% 1.2%

2510 6 98 64 28 20

92.1% 0.2% 3.6% 2.3% 1.0% 0.7%

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Unknown TOTAL CONTINUED ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for court appearances through November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 36 -

TABLE 10B (continued) CITYWIDE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 3 (N=1,042)

GROUP 4 (N=2,460)

GROUP 6 (N=2,726)

GROUP 1 (N=8,227)

GROUP 2 (N=4,532)

GROUP 5 (N=1,162)

2392 188 694 30 3304

29.1% 2.3% 8.4% 0.4% 40.2%

1411 85 240 12 1748

31.1% 1.9% 5.3% 0.3% 38.6%

354 20 61 0 435

34.0% 1.9% 5.9% 0.0% 41.7%

742 41 94 3 880

30.2% 1.7% 3.8% 0.1% 35.8%

392 13 29 5 439

33.7% 1.1% 2.5% 0.4% 37.8%

907 29 95 2 1033

33.3% 1.1% 3.5% 0.1% 37.9%

1247 271 1518

15.2% 3.3% 18.5%

790 153 943

17.4% 3.4% 20.8%

168 35 203

16.1% 3.4% 19.5%

525 87 612

21.3% 3.5% 24.9%

265 34 299

22.8% 2.9% 25.7%

590 98 688

21.6% 3.6% 25.2%

678 77 755

8.2% 0.9% 9.2%

369 46 415

8.1% 1.0% 9.2%

74 5 79

7.1% 0.5% 7.6%

215 11 226

8.7% 0.4% 9.2%

101 12 113

8.7% 1.0% 9.7%

210 12 222

7.7% 0.4% 8.1%

914

11.1%

593

13.1%

120

11.5%

296

12.0%

102

8.8%

327

12.0%

249 170 1333

3.0% 2.1% 16.2%

136 81 810

3.0% 1.8% 17.9%

29 34 183

2.8% 3.3% 17.6%

89 34 419

3.6% 1.4% 17.0%

35 13 150

3.0% 1.1% 12.9%

84 47 458

3.1% 1.7% 16.8%

94

1.1%

71

1.6%

15

1.4%

53

2.2%

22

1.9%

57

2.1%

122 31 247

1.5% 0.4% 3.0%

85 22 178

1.9% 0.5% 3.9%

20 6 41

1.9% 0.6% 3.9%

55 13 121

2.2% 0.5% 4.9%

33 2 57

2.8% 0.2% 4.9%

75 10 142

2.8% 0.4% 5.2%

390 24 414

4.7% 0.3% 5.0%

160 8 168

3.5% 0.2% 3.7%

34 3 37

3.3% 0.3% 3.6%

74 5 79

3.0% 0.2% 3.2%

44 1 45

3.8% 0.1% 3.9%

75 3 78

2.8% 0.1% 2.9%

656

8.0%

270

6.0%

64

6.1%

123

5.0%

59

5.1%

105

3.9%

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other Charges Subtotal Property Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons Other Cases Subtotal

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 37 -

TABLE 10C CITYWIDE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=8,227)

GROUP 2 (N=4,532)

GROUP 3 (N=1,042)

GROUP 4 (N=2,460)

GROUP 5 (N=1,162)

5246 51 110 621

77.3% 0.8% 1.6% 9.2%

3211 11 42 327

81.2% 0.3% 1.1% 8.3%

730 5 5 58

83.1% 0.6% 0.6% 6.6%

1856 4 15 155

83.5% 0.2% 0.7% 7.0%

844 4 3 75

83.9% 0.4% 0.3% 7.5%

2156 6 8 137

86.8% 0.2% 0.3% 5.5%

671 15 69 6783

9.9% 0.2% 1.0% 100.0%

308 13 41 3953

7.8% 0.3% 1.0% 100.0%

69 0 11 878

7.9% 0.0% 1.3% 100.0%

156 6 30 2222

7.0% 0.3% 1.4% 100.0%

67 1 12 1006

6.7% 0.1% 1.2% 100.0%

148 1 28 2484

6.0% 0.0% 1.1% 100.0%

4000 1246 5246

76.2% 23.8% 100.0%

2524 687 3211

78.6% 21.4% 100.0%

600 130 730

82.2% 17.8% 100.0%

1509 347 1856

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

707 137 844

83.8% 16.2% 100.0%

1806 350 2156

83.8% 16.2% 100.0%

GROUP 6 (N=2,726)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days 1-15

2043

51.1%

1157

45.8%

249

41.5%

591

39.2%

264

37.3%

665

36.8%

16-30

973

24.3%

622

24.6%

168

28.0%

389

25.8%

180

25.5%

441

24.4%

31-45

251

6.3%

194

7.7%

39

6.5%

128

8.5%

64

9.1%

162

9.0%

46-60

235

5.9%

159

6.3%

52

8.7%

148

9.8%

72

10.2%

150

8.3%

61-75

19

0.5%

15

0.6%

3

0.5%

6

0.4%

8

1.1%

21

1.2%

76-90

228

5.7%

162

6.4%

34

5.7%

113

7.5%

59

8.3%

174

9.6%

91-120

107

2.7%

59

2.3%

20

3.3%

51

3.4%

23

3.3%

73

4.0%

121-180

97

2.4%

111

4.4%

29

4.8%

62

4.1%

17

2.4%

85

4.7%

181-240

17

0.4%

15

0.6%

1

0.2%

9

0.6%

8

1.1%

20

1.1%

241-270

6

0.2%

11

0.4%

3

0.5%

5

0.3%

8

1.1%

10

0.6%

271-365

24

0.6%

19

0.8%

2

0.3%

7

0.5%

4

0.6%

5

0.3%

4000

100.0%

2524

100.0%

600

100.0%

1509

100.0%

707

100.0%

1806

100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

866

69.5%

493

71.8%

85

65.4%

223

64.3%

99

72.3%

256

73.1%

380 1246

30.5% 100.0%

194 687

28.2% 100.0%

45 130

34.6% 100.0%

124 347

35.7% 100.0%

38 137

27.7% 100.0%

94 350

26.9% 100.0%

* Most severe sentences of a conditional discharge with a community service component are shown separately from other conditional discharge sentences.

This category may underreport community service sanctions because OCA does not always indicate the community service part of the conditional discharge sentence, and because it occasionally is part of other more severe types of sentences.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 38 -

As shown on TABLE 10C, imprisonment as the most severe sentence type dominates the sentencing patterns for convicted and sentenced Spotlight cases in all groups. However, the use and length of jail sentences are progressively more frequent and longer as one moves from Group 1 through to Group 6’s cases. As a point of contrast between Groups 1 and 6:

Among sentenced cases in Group 1, 77.3 percent have a jail sentence in comparison to 86.8 percent of Group 6 sentences.

Over a fifth of Group 1’s jail sentences are for time served in comparison to sixteen percent of jail sentences in Group 6 cases.

For non-time-served sentences, over half of the Group 1 cases have sentences in the 1-15 day range, in comparison to less than two-fifths in this range for Group 6 jail-sentenced cases.

Combined, less than a quarter of Group 1’s non-time served jail sentences are greater than thirty days. In comparison, almost two-fifths of the non-time served sentences imposed in Group 6 cases are for jail time greater than thirty days.

As also shown on TABLE 10C, almost all non-jail sentences have a conditional discharge as the most severe sentence type, either with or without a community service component.

The percentage of community service and other conditional discharge sentences (viewed separately or combined) as the most severe type of sentence is largest for Group 1’s cases, and smallest for Group 6’s cases.

Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group: Brooklyn As shown on TABLE 11A:

The percentages of Brooklyn cases continued at arraignment are higher for each group than is found in citywide rates.

Following the citywide pattern, the majority of Brooklyn defendants in cases continued at arraignment are held on bail in all groups’ cases, with the smallest percentages in Groups 1 and 3, (69.4% and 71.3% respectively).

Convictions dominate final Criminal Court outcomes, ranging from 79.3 percent of Group 1’s cases to 90.0 percent for Group 6’s cases.

As shown on TABLE 11B:

A distinguishing characteristic of Brooklyn’s Spotlight cases is the extent to which they involve drug charges. At more than half of each group’s cases, the Brooklyn percentages are far larger than the percentages found among the groups citywide or in any other borough.

As is found citywide, property crime has the second largest percentage of cases in each group.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 39 -

TABLE 11A BROOKLYN CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP* ARREST GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Group 1 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year 3, but not in either of the first 2 program years.

Group 3 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year 2 or year 1.

Group 4 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the 2 previous sequential years (years 3 and 2).

Group 5 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in 2 other program years, either years 3 and 1, or years 2 and 1.

Group 6 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

GROUP 1 (N=2,027)

GROUP 2 (N=941)

GROUP 3 (N=293)

GROUP 4 (N=623)

GROUP 5 (N=331)

GROUP 6 (N=641)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

890 33 11 1089 4 0

43.9% 1.6% 0.5% 53.7% 0.2% 0.0%

433 9 7 490 1 1

46.0% 1.0% 0.7% 52.1% 0.1% 0.1%

119 0 3 171 0 0

40.6% 0.0% 1.0% 58.4% 0.0% 0.0%

274 3 6 340 0 0

44.0% 0.5% 1.0% 54.6% 0.0% 0.0%

140 2 3 183 1 2

42.3% 0.6% 0.9% 55.3% 0.3% 0.6%

299 2 2 337 1 0

46.6% 0.3% 0.3% 52.6% 0.2% 0.0%

278 26 756 8 21 1089

25.5% 2.4% 69.4% 0.7% 1.9% 100.0%

122 4 356 0 8 490

24.9% 0.8% 72.7% 0.0% 1.6% 100.0%

41 3 122 1 4 171

24.0% 1.8% 71.3% 0.6% 2.3% 100.0%

60 3 267 2 8 340

17.6% 0.9% 78.5% 0.6% 2.4% 100.0%

38 3 135 1 6 183

20.8% 1.6% 73.8% 0.5% 3.3% 100.0%

59 4 267 0 7 337

17.5% 1.2% 79.2% 0.0% 2.1% 100.0%

25 1630 329 5 38

1.2% 80.4% 16.2% 0.2% 1.9%

6 783 141 1 10

0.6% 83.2% 15.0% 0.1% 1.1%

2 251 36 0 4

0.7% 85.7% 12.3% 0.0% 1.4%

1 525 90 2 5

0.2% 84.3% 14.4% 0.3% 0.8%

3 268 57 0 3

0.9% 81.0% 17.2% 0.0% 0.9%

2 543 88 0 8

0.3% 84.7% 13.7% 0.0% 1.2%

1607 47 130 154 73 16 2027

79.3% 2.3% 6.4% 7.6% 3.6% 0.8% 100.0%

800 13 48 44 27 9 941

85.0% 1.4% 5.1% 4.7% 2.9% 1.0% 100.0%

245 5 12 16 13 2 293

83.6% 1.7% 4.1% 5.5% 4.4% 0.7% 100.0%

558 6 28 16 13 2 623

89.6% 1.0% 4.5% 2.6% 2.1% 0.3% 100.0%

272 4 18 41 25 14 374

82.2% 1.2% 5.4% 12.4% 7.6% 4.2% 113.0%

577 4 26 22 11 1 641

90.0% 0.6% 4.1% 3.4% 1.7% 0.2% 100.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Unknown TOTAL CONTINUED ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for court appearances through November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 40 -

TABLE 11B (continued) BROOKLYN CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=2,027)

GROUP 2 (N=941)

GROUP 3 (N=293)

GROUP 4 (N=623)

GROUP 5 (N=331)

GROUP 6 (N=641)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

893 21 176 3 1093

44.1% 1.0% 8.7% 0.1% 53.9%

432 9 53 1 495

45.9% 1.0% 5.6% 0.1% 52.6%

154 1 12 0 167

52.6% 0.3% 4.1% 0.0% 57.0%

295 7 17 0 319

47.4% 1.1% 2.7% 0.0% 51.2%

160 2 8 1 171

48.3% 0.6% 2.4% 0.3% 51.7%

312 5 29 0 346

48.7% 0.8% 4.5% 0.0% 54.0%

266 76 342

13.1% 3.7% 16.9%

157 23 180

16.7% 2.4% 19.1%

43 6 49

14.7% 2.0% 16.7%

109 18 127

17.5% 2.9% 20.4%

52 8 60

15.7% 2.4% 18.1%

119 24 143

18.6% 3.7% 22.3%

104 7 111

5.1% 0.3% 5.5%

61 8 69

6.5% 0.9% 7.3%

14 1 15

4.8% 0.3% 5.1%

39 1 40

6.3% 0.2% 6.4%

10 2 12

3.0% 0.6% 3.6%

29 0 29

4.5% 0.0% 4.5%

77

3.8%

29

3.1%

9

3.1%

19

3.0%

10

3.0%

23

3.6%

90 31 198

4.4% 1.5% 9.8%

54 9 92

5.7% 1.0% 9.8%

9 8 26

3.1% 2.7% 8.9%

49 4 72

7.9% 0.6% 11.6%

24 0 34

7.3% 0.0% 10.3%

29 2 54

4.5% 0.3% 8.4%

7

0.3%

4

0.4%

1

0.3%

10

1.6%

8

2.4%

9

1.4%

50 4 61

2.5% 0.2% 3.0%

22 3 29

2.3% 0.3% 3.1%

10 3 14

3.4% 1.0% 4.8%

14 2 26

2.2% 0.3% 4.2%

15 1 24

4.5% 0.3% 7.3%

21 2 32

3.3% 0.3% 5.0%

104 8 112

5.1% 0.4% 5.5%

37 3 40

3.9% 0.3% 4.3%

18 0 18

6.1% 0.0% 6.1%

23 2 25

3.7% 0.3% 4.0%

18 0 18

5.4% 0.0% 5.4%

18 1 19

2.8% 0.2% 3.0%

110

5.4%

36

3.8%

4

1.4%

14

2.2%

12

3.6%

18

2.8%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other Charges Subtotal Property Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons Other Cases Subtotal

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 41 -

TABLE 11C BROOKLYN CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=2,027)

GROUP 2 (N=941)

GROUP 3 (N=293)

GROUP 4 (N=623)

GROUP 5 (N=331)

GROUP 6 (N=641)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

1271 8 11 111

82.1% 0.5% 0.7% 7.2%

673 2 3 48

86.7% 0.3% 0.4% 6.2%

210 1 0 12

92.1% 0.4% 0.0% 5.3%

467 1 2 30

86.2% 0.2% 0.4% 5.5%

228 1 0 12

89.8% 0.4% 0.0% 4.7%

516 2 1 14

91.8% 0.4% 0.2% 2.5%

144 4 0 1549

9.3% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

46 3 1 776

5.9% 0.4% 0.1% 100.0%

5 0 0 228

2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

42 0 0 542

7.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

13 0 0 254

5.1% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

29 0 0 562

5.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

1006 265 1271

79.2% 20.8% 100.0%

552 121 673

82.0% 18.0% 100.0%

180 30 210

85.7% 14.3% 100.0%

386 81 467

82.7% 17.3% 100.0%

203 25 228

89.0% 11.0% 100.0%

448 68 516

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days 1-15

318

31.6%

135

24.5%

26

14.4%

73

18.9%

36

17.7%

85

19.0%

16-30

313

31.1%

156

28.3%

61

33.9%

105

27.2%

56

27.6%

117

26.1%

31-45

92

9.1%

49

8.9%

23

12.8%

50

13.0%

29

14.3%

49

10.9%

46-60

85

8.4%

50

9.1%

30

16.7%

57

14.8%

27

13.3%

47

10.5%

61-75

7

0.7%

5

0.9%

0

0.0%

3

0.8%

3

1.5%

7

1.6%

76-90

84

8.3%

71

12.9%

15

8.3%

53

13.7%

32

15.8%

69

15.4%

91-120

52

5.2%

28

5.1%

14

7.8%

12

3.1%

11

5.4%

30

6.7%

121-180

40

4.0%

45

8.2%

10

5.6%

26

6.7%

2

1.0%

35

7.8%

181-240

10

1.0%

6

1.1%

0

0.0%

7

1.8%

3

1.5%

4

0.9%

241-270

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

1.0%

4

0.9%

271-365

5

0.5%

6

1.1%

1

0.6%

0

0.0%

2

1.0%

1

0.2%

1006

100.0%

552

100.0%

180

100.0%

386

100.0%

203

100.0%

448

100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

176

66.4%

88

72.7%

20

66.7%

50

61.7%

15

60.0%

46

67.6%

89 265

33.6% 100.0%

33 121

27.3% 100.0%

10 30

33.3% 100.0%

31 81

38.3% 100.0%

10 25

40.0% 100.0%

22 68

32.4% 100.0%

* Most severe sentences of a conditional discharge with a community service component are shown separately from other conditional discharge sentences.

This category may underreport community service sanctions because OCA does not always indicate the community service part of the conditional discharge sentence, and because it occasionally is part of other more severe types of sentences.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

TABLE 11C shows that:

Imprisonment dominates Brooklyn sentencing.

- 42 -

Some form of conditional discharge sentence is largest for defendants with sentenced cases in Group 1.

Shorter non-time-served jail sentences are found in Group 1’s cases in comparison with the other groups’ cases. Combined, 37.3 percent of Group 1’s cases are for more than 30 days in comparison with 55 percent of the cases in Group 6.

The largest percentage of time-served sentences is found in Group 1’s cases (20.8%) and the smallest in Group 6’s cases (13.2%). In addition, when time-served sentences were imposed in Brooklyn cases, at least a third for most groups were at a post-arraignment appearance.

Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group: Manhattan As shown on TABLE 12A:

The percentages of Manhattan arraignment convictions are higher for each group than is found citywide or in any of the other boroughs, and there is only slight differences in the arraignment conviction rate among the groups in Manhattan.

The percentage of defendants in each group’s cases held on bail leaving arraignment is fairly consistent with the citywide rates. The percentages of ROR’d cases are highest in Group 1 (23.0%) and less than half that for cases in Group 6 (10.6%) the group with the lowest ROR rate. However, Manhattan also has the greatest percentages of cases with an unknown release status which can affect the percentage distributions.

The overall percentages of convictions as the final disposition are very similar, although slightly higher, than for each group’s citywide percentages.

. Unlike the citywide distribution, cases prosecuted for drug crimes do not constitute the largest percentage of each group’s cases. The drug category has the largest percentage of cases for Groups 1, 2 and 3, while the property crime category has the largest percentage of cases in Groups 4 through 6.

The misconduct category has the third largest percentage of cases for all but Group 5 in Manhattan. For Group 5 the Fraud category (mostly fare evasion) has the third largest percentage of cases. .

Unlike the citywide pattern where sex crimes are smallest for Group 1 and largest for Group 6, in Manhattan the sex-crimes category makes up about three percent of each group’s cases with only small differences among the groups.

Common to Spotlight sentencing patterns, TABLE 12C shows that:

Jail is the dominate sentence imposed in Manhattan cases, with the largest percentage of these sentences found in Group 6 (88.1%) and a comparatively smaller percentage imposed in Group 1 cases (81.4%). Conversely, the largest percentage

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 43 -

TABLE 12A MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP* ARREST GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Group 1 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year 3, but not in either of the first 2 program years.

Group 3 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year 2 or year 1.

Group 4 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the 2 previous sequential years (years 3 and 2).

Group 5 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in 2 other program years, either years 3 and 1, or years 2 and 1.

Group 6 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

GROUP 1 (N=2,878)

GROUP 2 (N=1,800)

GROUP 3 (N=339)

GROUP 4 (N=1,048)

GROUP 5 (N=491)

GROUP 6 (N=1,151)

1929 7 4 931 5 2

67.0% 0.2% 0.1% 32.3% 0.2% 0.1%

1210 6 5 575 4 0

67.2% 0.3% 0.3% 31.9% 0.2% 0.0%

221 1 0 116 1 0

65.2% 0.3% 0.0% 34.2% 0.3% 0.0%

698 2 1 346 1 0

66.6% 0.2% 0.1% 33.0% 0.1% 0.0%

341 0 2 146 2 0

69.5% 0.0% 0.4% 29.7% 0.4% 0.0%

782 0 1 367 1 0

67.9% 0.0% 0.1% 31.9% 0.1% 0.0%

214 18 622 9 68 931

23.0% 1.9% 66.8% 1.0% 7.3% 100.0%

96 6 410 6 57 575

16.7% 1.0% 71.3% 1.0% 9.9% 100.0%

20 1 79 2 14 116

17.2% 0.9% 68.1% 1.7% 12.1% 100.0%

57 1 260 4 24 346

16.5% 0.3% 75.1% 1.2% 6.9% 100.0%

19 1 110 0 16 146

13.0% 0.7% 75.3% 0.0% 11.0% 100.0%

39 6 281 3 38 367

10.6% 1.6% 76.6% 0.8% 10.4% 100.0%

34 2466 317 7 54

1.2% 85.7% 11.0% 0.2% 1.9%

25 1572 172 2 29

1.4% 87.3% 9.6% 0.1% 1.6%

1 300 33 0 5

0.3% 88.5% 9.7% 0.0% 1.5%

5 940 92 1 10

0.5% 89.7% 8.8% 0.1% 1.0%

5 452 29 0 5

1.0% 92.1% 5.9% 0.0% 1.0%

10 1027 100 0 14

0.9% 89.2% 8.7% 0.0% 1.2%

2498 9 152 138 54 27

86.8% 0.3% 5.3% 4.8% 1.9% 0.9%

1616 8 101 36 24 15

89.8% 0.4% 5.6% 2.0% 1.3% 0.8%

302 3 16 12 5 1

89.1% 0.9% 4.7% 3.5% 1.5% 0.3%

970 3 38 24 6 7

92.6% 0.3% 3.6% 2.3% 0.6% 0.7%

448 0 18 17 4 4

91.2% 0.0% 3.7% 3.5% 0.8% 0.8%

1076 0 37 20 6 12

93.5% 0.0% 3.2% 1.7% 0.5% 1.0%

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Unknown TOTAL CONTINUED ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for court appearances through November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 44 -

TABLE 12B (continued) MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=2,878)

GROUP 2 (N=1,800)

GROUP 3 (N=339)

GROUP 4 (N=1,048)

GROUP 6 (N=1,151)

GROUP 5 (N=491)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

630 70 171 8 879

21.9% 2.4% 5.9% 0.3% 30.5%

413 40 71 4 528

22.9% 2.2% 3.9% 0.2% 29.3%

87 7 13 0 107

25.7% 2.1% 3.8% 0.0% 31.6%

228 22 35 1 286

21.8% 2.1% 3.3% 0.1% 27.3%

124 10 8 1 143

25.3% 2.0% 1.6% 0.2% 29.1%

288 16 34 0 338

25.0% 1.4% 3.0% 0.0% 29.4%

628 101 729

21.8% 3.5% 25.3%

410 81 491

22.8% 4.5% 27.3%

69 15 84

20.4% 4.4% 24.8%

322 39 361

30.7% 3.7% 34.4%

148 15 163

30.1% 3.1% 33.2%

319 46 365

27.7% 4.0% 31.7%

322 36 358

11.2% 1.3% 12.4%

205 19 224

11.4% 1.1% 12.4%

37 2 39

10.9% 0.6% 11.5%

108 8 116

10.3% 0.8% 11.1%

68 5 73

13.8% 1.0% 14.9%

127 8 135

11.0% 0.7% 11.7%

385

13.4%

260

14.4%

46

13.6%

153

14.6%

48

9.8%

140

12.2%

51 58 494

1.8% 2.0% 17.2%

33 50 343

1.8% 2.8% 19.1%

8 19 73

2.4% 5.6% 21.5%

21 16 190

2.0% 1.5% 18.1%

5 9 62

1.0% 1.8% 12.6%

24 33 197

2.1% 2.9% 17.1%

43

1.5%

24

1.3%

6

1.8%

15

1.4%

8

1.6%

13

1.1%

23 18 84

0.8% 0.6% 2.9%

20 16 60

1.1% 0.9% 3.3%

4 1 11

1.2% 0.3% 3.2%

10 6 31

1.0% 0.6% 3.0%

6 1 15

1.2% 0.2% 3.1%

17 7 37

1.5% 0.6% 3.2%

123 5 128

4.3% 0.2% 4.4%

54 4 58

3.0% 0.2% 3.2%

3 3 6

0.9% 0.9% 1.8%

23 1 24

2.2% 0.1% 2.3%

14 1 15

2.9% 0.2% 3.1%

30 1 31

2.6% 0.1% 2.7%

206

7.2%

96

5.3%

19

5.6%

40

3.8%

20

4.1%

48

4.2%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other Charges Subtotal Property Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons Other Cases Subtotal

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 45 -

TABLE 12C MANHATTAN CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=2,878)

GROUP 2 (N=1,800)

GROUP 3 (N=339)

GROUP 4 (N=1,048)

GROUP 5 (N=491)

2025 0 21 301

81.4% 0.0% 0.8% 12.1%

1350 0 9 167

83.9% 0.0% 0.6% 10.4%

251 0 1 30

83.7% 0.0% 0.3% 10.0%

836 0 2 75

86.5% 0.0% 0.2% 7.8%

375 0 1 43

84.3% 0.0% 0.2% 9.7%

944 1 2 74

88.1% 0.1% 0.2% 6.9%

69 2 69 2487

2.8% 0.1% 2.8% 100.0%

42 2 40 1610

2.6% 0.1% 2.5% 100.0%

8 0 10 300

2.7% 0.0% 3.3% 100.0%

21 2 30 966

2.2% 0.2% 3.1% 100.0%

13 1 12 445

2.9% 0.2% 2.7% 100.0%

21 1 28 1071

2.0% 0.1% 2.6% 100.0%

1476 549 2025

72.9% 27.1% 100.0%

1034 316 1350

76.6% 23.4% 100.0%

193 58 251

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

691 145 836

82.7% 17.3% 100.0%

305 70 375

81.3% 18.7% 100.0%

766 178 944

81.1% 18.9% 100.0%

GROUP 6 (N=1,151)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days 1-15

953

64.6%

602

58.2%

115

59.6%

334

48.3%

146

47.9%

344

44.9%

16-30

321

21.7%

216

20.9%

49

25.4%

175

25.3%

83

27.2%

168

21.9%

31-45

69

4.7%

84

8.1%

9

4.7%

51

7.4%

25

8.2%

58

7.6%

46-60

43

2.9%

48

4.6%

7

3.6%

53

7.7%

25

8.2%

68

8.9%

61-75

5

0.3%

4

0.4%

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

4

1.3%

10

1.3%

76-90

45

3.0%

26

2.5%

8

4.1%

29

4.2%

7

2.3%

56

7.3%

91-120

14

0.9%

17

1.6%

1

0.5%

22

3.2%

7

2.3%

23

3.0%

121-180

19

1.3%

29

2.8%

3

1.6%

17

2.5%

3

1.0%

30

3.9%

181-240

1

0.1%

1

0.1%

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

1

0.3%

4

0.5%

241-270

2

0.1%

2

0.2%

1

0.5%

2

0.3%

2

0.7%

3

0.4%

271-365

4

0.3%

5

0.5%

0

0.0%

4

0.6%

2

0.7%

2

0.3%

1476

100.0%

1034

100.0%

193

100.0%

691

100.0%

305

100.0%

766

100.0%

467

85.1%

279

88.3%

45

77.6%

116

80.0%

61

87.1%

155

87.1%

82 549

14.9% 100.0%

37 316

11.7% 100.0%

13 58

22.4% 100.0%

29 145

20.0% 100.0%

9 70

12.9% 100.0%

23 178

12.9% 100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

* Most severe sentences of a conditional discharge with a community service component are shown separately from other conditional discharge sentences.

This category may underreport community service sanctions because OCA does not always indicate the community service part of the conditional discharge sentence, and because it occasionally is part of other more severe types of sentences.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 46 -

of sentences with a community service sanction appears in Group 1 cases (12.1%) and the smallest percentage in Group 4 cases (6.9%).

For jail-sentenced cases, time-served sentences are most likely to be imposed in Group 1 cases. In all but Group 4’s cases over four-fifths of time-served sentences are imposed at Criminal Court arraignment.

Manhattan has a larger percentage of each group’s cases in the 1-15 day category than is found citywide. The percentage of non-time-served sentences in the 1-15 day category also varies considerably across groups. It is greatest in Group 1 cases (64.6%) and smallest in Group 6 cases (44.9%).

In comparison to the citywide and other boroughs’ data, Manhattan has far fewer jail sentences greater than 30 days (categories from 31-365 days combined) for Groups 1 through 4. Only the Bronx has a smaller percentage of Group 6 non-timeserved sentences greater than 30 days, and about an equivalent percentage with Manhattan for Group 5.

Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group: Queens TABLE 13A shows that:

As in all boroughs, almost all Queens’ cases end with a conviction.

Queens, like Brooklyn, has lower percentages of convictions at arraignment than is found for each group in the citywide data. However, the percentages of cases with convictions at final disposition are somewhat higher in each Queens’ group, except for Group 4, than in Brooklyn.

In comparison to both the citywide and other borough’s data, Queens has the largest percentages of defendants in continued cases held on bail leaving arraignment each group’s cases

As in all boroughs and in the citywide data the greatest percentage of continued cases with defendants ROR’d at arraignment is found in Group 1’s cases (10.9%) and the smallest in Group 6’s cases (2.1%).

Although substantial majorities of each group’s cases are prosecuted with an Amisdemeanor severity charge, Queens has the largest percentages of cases in each group with B-misdemeanor severity arraignment charges in comparison to the distributions among charge severities citywide and among the boroughs.

There are group differences in the distribution of cases among the crime categories at Criminal Court arraignment as shown in TABLE 13B.

The drug category has the largest percentage of cases for all but Group 6.

Within the drug category the percentages of cases with marijuana charges is far higher for Groups 1 and 3 than for the other groups.

The largest percentage of Group 6 cases are in the property crime category.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 47 -

TABLE 13A QUEENS CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP* ARREST GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Group 1 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year 3, but not in either of the first 2 program years.

Group 3 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year 2 or year 1.

Group 4 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the 2 previous sequential years (years 3 and 2).

Group 5 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in 2 other program years, either years 3 and 1, or years 2 and 1.

Group 6 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

GROUP 1 (N=790)

GROUP 2 (N=383)

GROUP 3 (N=76)

GROUP 4 (N=136)

GROUP 5 (N=79)

GROUP 6 (N=174)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

365 10 3 405 6 1

46.2% 1.3% 0.4% 51.3% 0.8% 0.1%

154 4 1 222 2 0

40.2% 1.0% 0.3% 58.0% 0.5% 0.0%

37 2 1 36 0 0

48.7% 2.6% 1.3% 47.4% 0.0% 0.0%

58 4 0 74 0 0

42.6% 2.9% 0.0% 54.4% 0.0% 0.0%

35 0 0 44 0 0

44.3% 0.0% 0.0% 55.7% 0.0% 0.0%

76 0 3 94 1 0

43.7% 0.0% 1.7% 54.0% 0.6% 0.0%

44 18 340 2 1 405

10.9% 4.4% 84.0% 0.5% 0.2% 100.0%

15 6 199 1 1 222

6.8% 2.7% 89.6% 0.5% 0.5% 100.0%

5 0 30 1 0 36

13.9% 0.0% 83.3% 2.8% 0.0% 100.0%

4 1 69 0 0 74

5.4% 1.4% 93.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

5 0 38 1 0 44

11.4% 0.0% 86.4% 2.3% 0.0% 100.0%

2 3 89 0 0 94

2.1% 3.2% 94.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

16 570 164 6 34

2.0% 72.2% 20.8% 0.8% 4.3%

4 295 64 1 19

1.0% 77.0% 16.7% 0.3% 5.0%

0 58 16 0 2

0.0% 76.3% 21.1% 0.0% 2.6%

2 107 19 2 6

1.5% 78.7% 14.0% 1.5% 4.4%

1 64 11 0 3

1.3% 81.0% 13.9% 0.0% 3.8%

0 146 24 0 4

0.0% 83.9% 13.8% 0.0% 2.3%

661 18 34 60 7 10

83.7% 2.3% 4.3% 7.6% 0.9% 1.3%

330 6 13 22 8 4

86.2% 1.6% 3.4% 5.7% 2.1% 1.0%

66 2 2 3 2 1

86.8% 2.6% 2.6% 3.9% 2.6% 1.3%

117 4 6 8 1 0

86.0% 2.9% 4.4% 5.9% 0.7% 0.0%

73 0 1 4 1 0

92.4% 0.0% 1.3% 5.1% 1.3% 0.0%

154 0 9 8 3 0

88.5% 0.0% 5.2% 4.6% 1.7% 0.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Unknown TOTAL CONTINUED ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for court appearances through November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 48 -

TABLE 13B (continued) QUEENS CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=790)

GROUP 2 (N=383)

GROUP 3 (N=76)

GROUP 4 (N=136)

GROUP 5 (N=79)

GROUP 6 (N=174)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

184 10 81 3 278

23.3% 1.3% 10.3% 0.4% 35.2%

117 10 23 0 150

30.5% 2.6% 6.0% 0.0% 39.2%

18 0 8 0 26

23.7% 0.0% 10.5% 0.0% 34.2%

32 1 5 0 38

23.5% 0.7% 3.7% 0.0% 27.9%

24 0 3 0 27

30.4% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0% 34.2%

44 2 9 0 55

25.3% 1.1% 5.2% 0.0% 31.6%

138 35 173

17.5% 4.4% 21.9%

72 15 87

18.8% 3.9% 22.7%

18 6 24

23.7% 7.9% 31.6%

30 5 35

22.1% 3.7% 25.7%

21 4 25

26.6% 5.1% 31.6%

56 5 61

32.2% 2.9% 35.1%

38 8 46

4.8% 1.0% 5.8%

11 3 14

2.9% 0.8% 3.7%

3 0 3

3.9% 0.0% 3.9%

10 0 10

7.4% 0.0% 7.4%

4 0 4

5.1% 0.0% 5.1%

5 0 5

2.9% 0.0% 2.9%

46

5.8%

22

5.7%

10

13.2%

5

3.7%

1

1.3%

12

6.9%

57 28 131

7.2% 3.5% 16.6%

19 2 43

5.0% 0.5% 11.2%

3 0 13

3.9% 0.0% 17.1%

3 4 12

2.2% 2.9% 8.8%

3 1 5

3.8% 1.3% 6.3%

9 4 25

5.2% 2.3% 14.4%

11

1.4%

22

5.7%

4

5.3%

9

6.6%

4

5.1%

5

2.9%

11 2 24

1.4% 0.3% 3.0%

8 1 31

2.1% 0.3% 8.1%

1 0 5

1.3% 0.0% 6.6%

5 0 14

3.7% 0.0% 10.3%

3 0 7

3.8% 0.0% 8.9%

3 0 8

1.7% 0.0% 4.6%

58 5 63

7.3% 0.6% 8.0%

20 0 20

5.2% 0.0% 5.2%

2 0 2

2.6% 0.0% 2.6%

9 1 10

6.6% 0.7% 7.4%

7 0 7

8.9% 0.0% 8.9%

10 0 10

5.7% 0.0% 5.7%

75

9.5%

38

9.9%

3

3.9%

17

12.5%

4

5.1%

10

5.7%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other Charges Subtotal Property Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons Other Cases Subtotal

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 49 -

TABLE 13C QUEENS CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=790)

GROUP 2 (N=383)

GROUP 3 (N=76)

GROUP 4 (N=136)

GROUP 5 (N=79)

GROUP 6 (N=174)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

524 13 18 29

82.8% 2.1% 2.8% 4.6%

277 1 5 9

87.9% 0.3% 1.6% 2.9%

64 0 0 0

98.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

104 0 1 3

92.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.7%

68 1 0 0

95.8% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0%

142 1 2 2

94.0% 0.7% 1.3% 1.3%

46 3 0 633

7.3% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%

19 4 0 315

6.0% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

1 0 0 65

1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

3 2 0 113

2.7% 1.8% 0.0% 100.0%

2 0 0 71

2.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

4 0 0 151

2.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

435 89 524

83.0% 17.0% 100.0%

231 46 277

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

57 7 64

89.1% 10.9% 100.0%

91 13 104

87.5% 12.5% 100.0%

61 7 68

89.7% 10.3% 100.0%

132 10 142

93.0% 7.0% 100.0%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days 1-15

143

32.9%

53

22.9%

17

29.8%

21

23.1%

11

18.0%

25

18.9%

16-30

107

24.6%

66

28.6%

12

21.1%

13

14.3%

11

18.0%

20

15.2%

31-45

31

7.1%

21

9.1%

4

7.0%

5

5.5%

5

8.2%

16

12.1%

46-60

39

9.0%

21

9.1%

6

10.5%

19

20.9%

9

14.8%

10

7.6%

61-75

1

0.2%

3

1.3%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

1.6%

1

0.8%

76-90

45

10.3%

22

9.5%

6

10.5%

12

13.2%

10

16.4%

26

19.7%

91-120

26

6.0%

12

5.2%

4

7.0%

7

7.7%

4

6.6%

11

8.3%

121-180

27

6.2%

23

10.0%

7

12.3%

12

13.2%

6

9.8%

10

7.6%

181-240

6

1.4%

6

2.6%

1

1.8%

0

0.0%

4

6.6%

11

8.3%

241-270

4

0.9%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

2

2.2%

0

0.0%

2

1.5%

271-365

6

1.4%

4

1.7%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

435

100.0%

231

100.0%

57

100.0%

91

100.0%

61

100.0%

132

100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

67

75.3%

31

67.4%

6

85.7%

8

61.5%

4

57.1%

9

90.0%

22 89

24.7% 100.0%

15 46

32.6% 100.0%

1 7

14.3% 100.0%

5 13

38.5% 100.0%

3 7

42.9% 100.0%

1 10

10.0% 100.0%

* Most severe sentences of a conditional discharge with a community service component are shown separately from other conditional discharge sentences.

This category may underreport community service sanctions because OCA does not always indicate the community service part of the conditional discharge sentence, and because it occasionally is part of other more severe types of sentences.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 50 -

Imprisonment is the most severe sentence for overwhelmingly majorities of all group’s cases as shown in TABLE 13C.

The percentages of convicted and sentenced cases with jail sentences are larger in every group in Queens in comparison to the percentages with imprisonment sentences citywide and in the other boroughs.

Conditional discharge sentences (with or without community service) are the second most common sentence, but only very small percentages of Queens’ cases other than in Groups 1 and 2 receive any type of conditional discharge sentence.,

Among jail-sentenced cases, the percentages of time-served sentences are smallest in each group in Queens in comparison to the other boroughs or the citywide percentages of cases with time-served sentences.

Among non-time-served jail sentences imposed in Queens’ cases smaller percentages fall into the 1-15 day category than is found among the groups citywide, and only Brooklyn has smaller percentages of cases in the 1-15 day category for some of the groups. In addition, the percentage of each group’s cases with sentences greater than 30 days (31-365 day categories combined) is larger than is found citywide or in the other boroughs, ranging from 42.5 percent for Group 1’s cases to 65.9 percent of the non-time-served Group 6 jail sentences.

Criminal Court Activity by Arrest Group: Bronx As can be seen in TABLE 14A:

The Bronx arraignment conviction rate is slightly lower than is found citywide for each group. And, while its arraignment conviction rate is second only to Manhattan, for each group the Bronx arraignment conviction rate is more than ten percentage points lower than is found among the Manhattan cases.

However, the Bronx conviction rate at final disposition is higher than for each group citywide, and in this respect very much resembles the percentages of Manhattan cases with conviction as the final disposition.

The drug crime category has the largest percentage of each Bronx group’s cases (TABLE 14B), and is fairly similar to the citywide distribution among the groups.

Citywide and among the boroughs Bronx groups all have comparatively larger percentages of cases in the misconduct category, and smaller percentages of cases in the property crime category.

As can be seen in TABLE 14C, in comparison to the other boroughs’ sentencing practices, Bronx has the smallest percentage of Spotlight cases with imprisonment as the most severe sentence, and the greatest percentage of cases with a conditional discharge as the most severe type of sentence.

A majority of sentenced Bronx cases in each group have jail as the most severe type of sentence, and the percentages of imprisonment sentences are smallest for

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 51 -

TABLE 14A BRONX CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP* ARREST GROUP CHARACTERISTICS Group 1 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers first appeared in program year four.

Group 2 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers also appeared with program-targeted arrests in year 3, but not in either of the first 2 program years.

Group 3 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared in another but not sequential program year—either year 2 or year 1.

Group 4 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared with program-targeted arrests in the 2 previous sequential years (years 3 and 2).

Group 5 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers appeared with program-targeted arrests in 2 other program years, either years 3 and 1, or years 2 and 1.

Group 6 contains the year 4 Spotlight arrests of defendants whose NYSID numbers have appeared in all four program years.

GROUP 1 (N=2,265)

GROUP 2 (N=1,301)

GROUP 3 (N=310)

GROUP 4 (N=621)

GROUP 5 (N=247)

GROUP 6 (N=711)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

1128 7 4 1012 82 32

49.8% 0.3% 0.2% 44.7% 3.6% 1.4%

696 1 4 544 47 9

53.5% 0.1% 0.3% 41.8% 3.6% 0.7%

145 0 3 152 9 1

46.8% 0.0% 1.0% 49.0% 2.9% 0.3%

330 1 2 265 19 4

53.1% 0.2% 0.3% 42.7% 3.1% 0.6%

134 1 0 100 8 4

54.3% 0.4% 0.0% 40.5% 3.2% 1.6%

388 0 3 285 30 5

54.6% 0.0% 0.4% 40.1% 4.2% 0.7%

424 29 548 4 7 1012

41.9% 2.9% 54.2% 0.4% 0.7% 100.0%

186 7 341 1 9 544

34.2% 1.3% 62.7% 0.2% 1.7% 100.0%

60 2 86 1 3 152

39.5% 1.3% 56.6% 0.7% 2.0% 100.0%

74 4 181 1 5 265

27.9% 1.5% 68.3% 0.4% 1.9% 100.0%

29 0 68 0 3 100

29.0% 0.0% 68.0% 0.0% 3.0% 100.0%

54 1 224 2 4 285

18.9% 0.4% 78.6% 0.7% 1.4% 100.0%

36 1846 329 6 48

1.6% 81.5% 14.5% 0.3% 2.1%

13 1109 149 7 23

1.0% 85.2% 11.5% 0.5% 1.8%

1 261 36 0 12

0.3% 84.2% 11.6% 0.0% 3.9%

7 508 93 0 13

1.1% 81.8% 15.0% 0.0% 2.1%

5 216 21 0 5

2.0% 87.4% 8.5% 0.0% 2.0%

5 597 96 0 13

0.7% 84.0% 13.5% 0.0% 1.8%

1951 9 71 118 76 40

86.1% 0.4% 3.1% 5.2% 3.4% 1.8%

1181 2 39 30 34 15

90.8% 0.2% 3.0% 2.3% 2.6% 1.2%

273 0 14 13 8 2

88.1% 0.0% 4.5% 4.2% 2.6% 0.6%

587 2 12 7 6 7

94.5% 0.3% 1.9% 1.1% 1.0% 1.1%

226 2 6 1 6 6

91.5% 0.8% 2.4% 0.4% 2.4% 2.4%

664 2 18 13 7 7

93.4% 0.3% 2.5% 1.8% 1.0% 1.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Unknown TOTAL CONTINUED ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for court appearances through November 15, 2006.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 52 -

TABLE 14B (continued) BRONX CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=2,265)

GROUP 2 (N=1,301)

GROUP 3 (N=310)

GROUP 4 (N=621)

GROUP 6 (N=711)

GROUP 5 (N=247)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

587 84 253 11 935

25.9% 3.7% 11.2% 0.5% 41.3%

404 23 89 6 522

31.1% 1.8% 6.8% 0.5% 40.1%

88 12 25 0 125

28.4% 3.9% 8.1% 0.0% 40.3%

178 11 35 1 225

28.7% 1.8% 5.6% 0.2% 36.2%

80 0 9 2 91

32.4% 0.0% 3.6% 0.8% 36.8%

244 6 23 1 274

34.3% 0.8% 3.2% 0.1% 38.5%

177 54 231

7.8% 2.4% 10.2%

135 30 165

10.4% 2.3% 12.7%

35 7 42

11.3% 2.3% 13.5%

56 23 79

9.0% 3.7% 12.7%

41 7 48

16.6% 2.8% 19.4%

81 23 104

11.4% 3.2% 14.6%

214 24 238

9.4% 1.1% 10.5%

92 16 108

7.1% 1.2% 8.3%

20 2 22

6.5% 0.6% 7.1%

58 2 60

9.3% 0.3% 9.7%

19 5 24

7.7% 2.0% 9.7%

49 4 53

6.9% 0.6% 7.5%

400

17.7%

282

21.7%

54

17.4%

119

19.2%

42

17.0%

151

21.2%

36 47 483

1.6% 2.1% 21.3%

22 19 323

1.7% 1.5% 24.8%

9 7 70

2.9% 2.3% 22.6%

13 9 141

2.1% 1.4% 22.7%

2 3 47

0.8% 1.2% 19.0%

20 8 179

2.8% 1.1% 25.2%

22

1.0%

14

1.1%

3

1.0%

19

3.1%

2

0.8%

24

3.4%

37 5 64

1.6% 0.2% 2.8%

35 2 51

2.7% 0.2% 3.9%

5 2 10

1.6% 0.6% 3.2%

26 5 50

4.2% 0.8% 8.1%

9 0 11

3.6% 0.0% 4.5%

34 1 59

4.8% 0.1% 8.3%

81 6 87

3.6% 0.3% 3.8%

42 1 43

3.2% 0.1% 3.3%

7 0 7

2.3% 0.0% 2.3%

16 1 17

2.6% 0.2% 2.7%

5 0 5

2.0% 0.0% 2.0%

15 1 16

2.1% 0.1% 2.3%

227

10.0%

89

6.8%

34

11.0%

49

7.9%

21

8.5%

26

3.7%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other Charges Subtotal Property Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons Other Cases Subtotal

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 53 -

TABLE 14C BRONX CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY GROUP (continued) GROUP 1 (N=2,265)

GROUP 2 (N=1,301)

GROUP 3 (N=310)

GROUP 4 (N=621)

GROUP 5 (N=247)

GROUP 6 (N=711)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

1251 26 58 176

65.4% 1.4% 3.0% 9.2%

841 6 24 98

72.4% 0.5% 2.1% 8.4%

189 4 4 15

71.6% 1.5% 1.5% 5.7%

427 3 9 47

74.0% 0.5% 1.6% 8.1%

161 2 2 18

72.5% 0.9% 0.9% 8.1%

523 2 3 47

79.1% 0.3% 0.5% 7.1%

397 6 0 1914

20.7% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

192 1 0 1162

16.5% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%

52 0 0 264

19.7% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

90 1 0 577

15.6% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%

39 0 0 222

17.6% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

86 0 0 661

13.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

962 289 1251

76.9% 23.1% 100.0%

654 187 841

77.8% 22.2% 100.0%

156 33 189

82.5% 17.5% 100.0%

322 105 427

75.4% 24.6% 100.0%

128 33 161

79.5% 20.5% 100.0%

436 87 523

83.4% 16.6% 100.0%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days 1-15

580

60.3%

342

52.3%

84

53.8%

158

49.1%

68

53.1%

200

45.9%

16-30

213

22.1%

174

26.6%

44

28.2%

91

28.3%

28

21.9%

130

29.8%

31-45

50

5.2%

36

5.5%

3

1.9%

21

6.5%

4

3.1%

39

8.9%

46-60

54

5.6%

35

5.4%

6

3.8%

15

4.7%

9

7.0%

20

4.6%

61-75

6

0.6%

2

0.3%

3

1.9%

1

0.3%

0

0.0%

3

0.7%

76-90

33

3.4%

40

6.1%

5

3.2%

17

5.3%

9

7.0%

21

4.8%

91-120

14

1.5%

1

0.2%

1

0.6%

9

2.8%

1

0.8%

9

2.1%

121-180

7

0.7%

14

2.1%

9

5.8%

6

1.9%

5

3.9%

10

2.3%

181-240

0

0.0%

2

0.3%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

1

0.2%

241-270

0

0.0%

4

0.6%

0

0.0%

1

0.3%

4

3.1%

1

0.2%

271-365

5

0.5%

4

0.6%

1

0.6%

3

0.9%

0

0.0%

2

0.5%

962

100.0%

654

100.0%

156

100.0%

322

100.0%

128

100.0%

436

100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

128

44.3%

91

48.7%

13

39.4%

47

44.8%

18

54.5%

41

47.1%

161 289

55.7% 100.0%

96 187

51.3% 100.0%

20 33

60.6% 100.0%

58 105

55.2% 100.0%

15 33

45.5% 100.0%

46 87

52.9% 100.0%

* Most severe sentences of a conditional discharge with a community service component are shown separately from other conditional discharge sentences.

This category may underreport community service sanctions because OCA does not always indicate the community service part of the conditional discharge sentence, and because it occasionally is part of other more severe types of sentences.

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 54 -

Group 1 and largest for Group 6, a consistent pattern citywide and across the boroughs.

The percentages of imprisonment sentences in each Bronx group of cases are smaller than those imposed citywide or in any of the other boroughs. For example, just under two-thirds of Bronx Group 1 cases receive an imprisonment sentence while the percentage in the other boroughs examined is at least over four-fifths. For Group 6, imprisonment sentences are under 80 percent in the Bronx, in comparison to 88 percent for Group 6 in Manhattan, 91.8 percent in Brooklyn, and 94.0 percent in Queens.

Comparing jail sentence lengths between the Bronx and the other boroughs is made problematic by the large percentage of time-served sentences imposed postarraignment. At least half of Bronx time-served sentences are imposed at a postarraignment appearance for every group except for Group 5 where it is below this benchmark. From the data in their current form it is not possible to determine in how many of these cases defendants were held on bail, or for how long, before the timeserved sentence was imposed.

Among Bronx cases with non-time-served sentences, the jail sentences are comparatively short. Among the boroughs Bronx has the largest percent of cases in the 1-15 day category for Groups 4, 5 and 6, while only Manhattan has a higher percentage of jail sentences for Groups 1 through 3 in this jail length category.

The percentages of cases designated as “other conditional discharge” are far higher for every Bronx group than are found citywide or in the other boroughs, as is the total of all Bronx conditional discharge sentences combining the percentages with and without a community service designation.

SUMMARY In this section of the report year four arrests, characteristics of defendants and cases, and court decision making have been examined by dividing year four cases into six groups based on the number and combination of years (if any) year four defendants previously had been targeted by the Spotlight program.

Citywide most arrest characteristics are common to all groups even though the percentage distributions vary. Over 80 percent of the arrests have male defendants, at least sixty percent of each group’s arrests have Black defendants, and the 40-44 age group has the largest percentage of cases. Over sixty percent of all group’s cases involve defendants who previously have been convicted of both misdemeanor and felony severity crimes. Defendants in Spotlight arrests overwhelming are not recommended for ROR release by CJA because they are of high risk of FTA. Manhattan has the largest percentage of each group’s arrests, and Bronx the second

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 55 -

largest, except for Group 5 in which Brooklyn has the second largest percentage of arrests. Over 80 percent of all groups’ cases have an A-misdemeanor severity top arrest charge, and the drug crime category has the largest percentage of arrests.

Groups 1 has some of the clearest contrasts in both arrest and court decision making characteristics in comparison to those groups in which defendants have appeared in multiple Spotlight program years, especially Group 6. Group 1, with the greatest number of cases, is made up of the arrests of those first targeted in year four, a majority of whom will most likely not continue in arrest cycles with new Spotlight arrests in the next (fifth) program year. It also therefore contains a greater mix of cases and defendants than the other groups. Group 6 by contrast contains the arrests of those who have been in Spotlight-targeted arrest cycles across all four program years.

Citywide, Group 1 contains the greatest percentage of arrests of defendants under the age of twenty-five (16.3%), and the smallest proportion of arrests of females (15.7%) in comparison with the other groups. Group 1 also has the comparatively highest percentage of arrests of defendants recommended for recognizance release (8% with the low and moderate risk categories combined). Group 1 also has a larger percentage of Queens’ county arrests (9.2%) than any other group.

In comparison, Group 6 has the smallest percentage of arrests of defendants under the age of twenty-five (5.8%) and the greatest percentage of arrests of females (18.7%). This group also has the smallest percentage of defendants recommended for recognizance release (1.9% with the low and moderate risk categories combined).

Group 1 has the largest percentage of arrests of B-misdemeanor severity (17.5%).

It also has the largest percentage of low-level marijuana arrests (10.8%) among the groups. This group also has the smallest percentage of arrests in the property-crime category (18.7%) and in the sex-crime category (3.0%). Groups with arrests of defendants across multiple program years have higher percentages of cases in the property-crime category and in the sex-crimes category, although the latter category contains only a very small percentage of cases.

Spotlight cases overwhelmingly have conviction outcomes, bail-setting as the release condition for cases continued at arraignment, and jail as the most severe

Spotlight Year Four Summary Report

- 56 -

sentence. However, comparatively Group 1 has a somewhat smaller percentage of convictions at the final (last known) disposition, and the comparatively largest percentage of cases continued at arraignment with an ROR release status. This group also has a comparatively smaller percentage of cases with imprisonment as the most severe sentence. When there is a jail sentence this group has the highest percentage of time-served sentences, and the smallest percentage of non-time-served sentences greater than thirty days. The court processing and outcomes patterns described above also are found among the boroughs examined separately, even though percentages differ.

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE A1 YEAR ONE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY* BY BOROUGH October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003

Brooklyn (N=3,443)

Manhattan (N=6,415)

Queens (N=1,424)

Staten Island (N=254)

Bronx (N=4,551)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

1,427 22 10 1,973 10 1

41.4% 0.6% 0.3% 57.3% 0.3% 0.0%

4,373 3 7 2,026 5 1

68.2% 0.0% 0.1% 31.6% 0.1% 0.0%

708 6 8 700 1 1

49.7% 0.4% 0.6% 49.2% 0.1% 0.1%

88 1 1 164 0 0

34.6% 0.4% 0.4% 64.6% 0.0% 0.0%

2,566 2 26 1,901 50 6

56.4% 0.0% 0.6% 41.8% 1.1% 0.1%

319 23 1,573 9 1,924

16.6% 1.2% 81.8% 0.5% 100.0%

344 42 1,296 43 1,725

19.9% 2.4% 75.1% 2.5% 100.0%

52 48 598 2 700

7.4% 6.9% 85.4% 0.3% 100.0%

27 4 128 5 164

16.5% 2.4% 78.0% 3.0% 100.0%

599 48 1,248 3 1,898

31.6% 2.5% 65.8% 0.2% 100.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Subtotal Release Status Unknown Total Continued

49 1,973

301 2,026

0 700

0 164

3 1,901

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other

32 2,627 732 12 40

0.9% 76.3% 21.3% 0.3% 1.2%

54 5,161 1,121 6 73

0.8% 80.5% 17.5% 0.1% 1.1%

17 1,001 365 3 38

1.2% 70.3% 25.6% 0.2% 2.7%

6 202 41 1 4

2.4% 79.5% 16.1% 0.4% 1.6%

36 3,338 1,045 5 127

0.8% 73.3% 23.0% 0.1% 2.8%

2,986 48 165 143 88 13

86.7% 1.4% 4.8% 4.2% 2.6% 0.4%

5,783 7 248 270 81 26

90.1% 0.1% 3.9% 4.2% 1.3% 0.4%

1,238 11 50 92 27 6

86.9% 0.8% 3.5% 6.5% 1.9% 0.4%

215 4 12 20 2 1

84.6% 1.6% 4.7% 7.9% 0.8% 0.4%

4,030 2 127 247 122 23

88.6% 0.0% 2.8% 5.4% 2.7% 0.5%

FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for Criminal Court appearances through October 19, 2003.

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE A2 YEAR ONE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003

Brooklyn (N=3,443)

Manhattan (N=6,415)

Queens (N=1,424)

Staten Island (N=254)

Bronx (N=4,551)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

1,422 31 227 5 1,685

41.3% 0.9% 6.6% 0.1% 48.9%

1,329 186 299 14 1,828

20.7% 2.9% 4.7% 0.2% 28.5%

344 30 148 4 526

24.2% 2.1% 10.4% 0.3% 36.9%

57 0 19 0 76

22.4% 0.0% 7.5% 0.0% 29.9%

1,302 142 401 24 1,869

28.6% 3.1% 8.8% 0.5% 41.1%

408 85 493

11.9% 2.5% 14.3%

1,264 359 1,623

19.7% 5.6% 25.3%

282 64 346

19.8% 4.5% 24.3%

82 10 92

32.3% 3.9% 36.2%

414 97 511

9.1% 2.1% 11.2%

273 10 283

7.9% 0.3% 8.2%

920 88 1,008

14.3% 1.4% 15.7%

75 3 78

5.3% 0.2% 5.5%

0 1 1

0.0% 0.4% 0.4%

309 29 338

6.8% 0.6% 7.4%

180

5.2%

511

8.0%

16

1.1%

10

3.9%

639

14.0%

195 32 407

5.7% 0.9% 11.8%

330 188 1,029

5.1% 2.9% 16.0%

151 20 187

10.6% 1.4% 13.1%

16 6 32

6.3% 2.4% 12.6%

443 59 1,141

9.7% 1.3% 25.1%

124

3.6%

230

3.6%

80

5.6%

3

1.2%

190

4.2%

183 10 317

5.3% 0.3% 9.2%

221 36 487

3.4% 0.6% 7.6%

37 4 121

2.6% 0.3% 8.5%

3 1 7

1.2% 0.4% 2.8%

118 6 314

2.6% 0.1% 6.9%

139 9 148

4.0% 0.3% 4.3%

192 19 211

3.0% 0.3% 3.3%

50 2 52

3.5% 0.1% 3.7%

19 0 19

7.5% 0.0% 7.5%

131 9 140

2.9% 0.2% 3.1%

110

3.2%

229

3.6%

114

8.0%

27

10.6%

238

5.2%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other charges Subtotal Property

Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud

Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct

Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes

Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons

Other Cases Subtotal

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE A3 YEAR ONE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2002 - September 30, 2003

Brooklyn (N=3,443)

Manhattan (N=6,415)

Queens (N=1,424)

Staten Island (N=254)

Bronx (N=4,551)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

2,324 7 20 190

82.4% 0.2% 0.7% 6.7%

4,589 7 27 727

79.9% 0.1% 0.5% 12.7%

932 6 9 94

78.6% 0.5% 0.8% 7.9%

173 6 2 0

82.8% 2.9% 1.0% 0.0%

2,770 38 63 252

69.0% 0.9% 1.6% 6.3%

277 1 1 2,820

9.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

381 14 1 5,746

6.6% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%

139 5 1 1,186

11.7% 0.4% 0.1% 100.0%

27 1 0 209

12.9% 0.5% 0.0% 100.0%

875 17 0 4,015

21.8% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%

2,128 196 2,324

91.6% 8.4% 100.0%

3,724 865 4,589

81.2% 18.8% 100.0%

823 109 932

88.3% 11.7% 100.0%

128 45 173

74.0% 26.0% 100.0%

2,463 307 2,770

88.9% 11.1% 100.0%

1-15

382

18.0%

2,056

55.2%

282

34.3%

23

18.0%

1,399

56.8%

16-30

481

22.6%

728

19.5%

201

24.4%

27

21.1%

529

21.5%

31-45

310

14.6%

241

6.5%

71

8.6%

7

5.5%

117

4.8%

46-60

297

14.0%

215

5.8%

65

7.9%

20

15.6%

156

6.3% 0.4%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days

61-75

19

0.9%

21

0.6%

11

1.3%

0

0.0%

9

76-90

297

14.0%

183

4.9%

76

9.2%

29

22.7%

118

4.8%

91-120

124

5.8%

95

2.6%

33

4.0%

13

10.2%

55

2.2%

121-180

144

6.8%

120

3.2%

46

5.6%

5

3.9%

55

2.2%

181-240

35

1.6%

28

0.8%

13

1.6%

1

0.8%

8

0.3%

241-270

10

0.5%

14

0.4%

13

1.6%

1

0.8%

10

0.4%

271-365

29

1.4%

23

0.6%

12

1.5%

2

1.6%

7

0.3%

2,128

100.0%

3,724

100.0%

823

100.0%

128

100.0%

2,463

100.0%

TOTAL JAIL Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

153

78.1%

725

83.8%

85

78.0%

21

46.7%

222

72.3%

43 196

21.9% 100.0%

140 865

16.2% 100.0%

24 109

22.0% 100.0%

24 45

53.3% 100.0%

85 307

27.7% 100.0%

* Only community service imposed in conjunction with a conditional-discharge sentence is reported separately. This category underreports community service sanctions because OCA does not have a uniform system for marking community service conditions of sentences, and because it occasionally is a condition of other types of sentences.

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE B1 YEAR TWO CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY* BY BOROUGH October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2004

Brooklyn (N=3,556)

Manhattan (N=6,714)

Queens (N=1,403)

Staten Island (N=214)

Bronx (N=4,459)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

1,518 20 14 1,992 10 2

42.7% 0.6% 0.4% 56.0% 0.3% 0.1%

4,611 6 8 2,084 5 0

68.7% 0.1% 0.1% 31.0% 0.1% 0.0%

631 8 5 758 1 0

45.0% 0.6% 0.4% 54.0% 0.1% 0.0%

88 3 2 121 0 0

41.1% 1.4% 0.9% 56.5% 0.0% 0.0%

2,773 2 16 1,589 78 1

62.2% 0.0% 0.4% 35.6% 1.7% 0.0%

289 30 1,639 8 1,966

14.7% 1.5% 83.4% 0.4% 100.0%

358 55 1,363 36 1,812

19.8% 3.0% 75.2% 2.0% 100.0%

50 25 672 11 758

6.6% 3.3% 88.7% 1.5% 100.0%

26 4 89 1 120

21.7% 3.3% 74.2% 0.8% 100.0%

467 52 1,056 6 1,581

29.5% 3.3% 66.8% 0.4% 100.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Subtotal Release Status Unknown Total Continued

26 1,992

272 2,084

0 758

1 121

8 1,589

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other

18 2,878 594 7 59

0.5% 80.9% 16.7% 0.2% 1.7%

61 5,464 973 5 211

0.9% 81.4% 14.5% 0.1% 3.1%

8 1,019 323 5 48

0.6% 72.6% 23.0% 0.4% 3.4%

4 170 35 2 3

1.9% 79.4% 16.4% 0.9% 1.4%

39 3,412 784 2 222

0.9% 76.5% 17.6% 0.0% 5.0%

3,033 49 169 190 103 12

85.3% 1.4% 4.8% 5.3% 2.9% 0.3%

6,057 9 295 236 82 35

90.2% 0.1% 4.4% 3.5% 1.2% 0.5%

1,238 13 40 74 25 13

88.2% 0.9% 2.9% 5.3% 1.8% 0.9%

173 8 15 8 7 3

80.8% 3.7% 7.0% 3.7% 3.3% 1.4%

4,102 8 104 62 91 92

92.0% 0.2% 2.3% 1.4% 2.0% 2.1%

FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for Criminal Court appearances through October 22, 2004.

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE B2 YEAR TWO CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2004

Brooklyn (N=3,556)

Manhattan (N=6,714)

Queens (N=1,403)

Staten Island (N=214)

Bronx (N=4,459)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

1,429 50 182 5 1,666

40.2% 1.4% 5.1% 0.1% 46.9%

1,482 158 349 11 2,000

22.1% 2.4% 5.2% 0.2% 29.8%

327 44 86 0 457

23.3% 3.1% 6.1% 0.0% 32.6%

51 6 7 1 65

23.8% 2.8% 3.3% 0.5% 30.4%

1,715 99 313 21 2,148

38.5% 2.2% 7.0% 0.5% 48.2%

499 86 585

14.0% 2.4% 16.5%

1,306 302 1,608

19.5% 4.5% 23.9%

293 43 336

20.9% 3.1% 23.9%

53 7 60

24.8% 3.3% 28.0%

351 99 450

7.9% 2.2% 10.1%

382 13 395

10.7% 0.4% 11.1%

1,069 55 1,124

15.9% 0.8% 16.7%

102 4 106

7.3% 0.3% 7.6%

2 0 2

0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

298 46 344

6.7% 1.0% 7.7%

158

4.4%

605

9.0%

32

2.3%

2

0.9%

362

8.1%

161 35 354

4.5% 1.0% 10.0%

236 175 1,016

3.5% 2.6% 15.1%

129 19 180

9.2% 1.4% 12.8%

15 3 20

7.0% 1.4% 9.3%

274 66 702

6.1% 1.5% 15.7%

99

2.8%

170

2.5%

97

6.9%

14

6.5%

161

3.6%

154 4 257

4.3% 0.1% 7.2%

186 28 384

2.8% 0.4% 5.7%

46 9 152

3.3% 0.6% 10.8%

2 1 17

0.9% 0.5% 7.9%

130 12 303

2.9% 0.3% 6.8%

160 8 168

4.5% 0.2% 4.7%

214 15 229

3.2% 0.2% 3.4%

69 6 75

4.9% 0.4% 5.3%

19 0 19

8.9% 0.0% 8.9%

140 13 153

3.1% 0.3% 3.4%

131

3.7%

353

5.3%

97

6.9%

31

14.5%

359

8.1%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other charges Subtotal Property

Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud

Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct

Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes

Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons

Other Cases Subtotal

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE B3 YEAR TWO CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2004

Brooklyn (N=3,556)

Manhattan (N=6,714)

Queens (N=1,403)

Staten Island (N=214)

Bronx (N=4,459)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

2,424 7 8 177

83.4% 0.2% 0.3% 6.1%

4,854 6 16 790

81.1% 0.1% 0.3% 13.2%

1,004 3 9 57

84.9% 0.3% 0.8% 4.8%

129 6 1 1

78.2% 3.6% 0.6% 0.6%

2,978 42 76 113

72.9% 1.0% 1.9% 2.8%

289 1 0 2,906

9.9% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

304 18 0 5,988

5.1% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0%

96 13 1 1,183

8.1% 1.1% 0.1% 100.0%

24 4 0 165

14.5% 2.4% 0.0% 100.0%

861 14 3 4,087

21.1% 0.3% 0.1% 100.0%

2,194 230 2,424

90.5% 9.5% 100.0%

3,879 975 4,854

79.9% 20.1% 100.0%

887 117 1,004

88.3% 11.7% 100.0%

89 40 129

69.0% 31.0% 100.0%

2,611 367 2,978

87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

1-15

407

18.6%

2,111

54.4%

301

33.9%

22

24.7%

1,435

55.0%

16-30

636

29.0%

845

21.8%

210

23.7%

14

15.7%

652

25.0%

31-45

234

10.7%

247

6.4%

68

7.7%

3

3.4%

145

5.6%

46-60

291

13.3%

241

6.2%

65

7.3%

21

23.6%

151

5.8%

61-75

23

1.0%

13

0.3%

11

1.2%

2

2.2%

1

0.0%

76-90

297

13.5%

196

5.1%

89

10.0%

15

16.9%

119

4.6%

91-120

117

5.3%

92

2.4%

46

5.2%

4

4.5%

33

1.3%

121-180

121

5.5%

94

2.4%

60

6.8%

5

5.6%

49

1.9%

181-240

28

1.3%

15

0.4%

17

1.9%

0

0.0%

9

0.3%

241-270

4

0.2%

14

0.4%

13

1.5%

2

2.2%

6

0.2%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days

271-365 TOTAL JAIL

36

1.6%

11

0.3%

7

0.8%

1

1.1%

11

0.4%

2,194

100.0%

3,879

100.0%

887

100.0%

89

100.0%

2,611

100.0%

Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

161

70.0%

857

87.9%

78

66.7%

27

67.5%

270

73.6%

69 230

30.0% 100.0%

118 975

12.1% 100.0%

39 117

33.3% 100.0%

13 40

32.5% 100.0%

97 367

26.4% 100.0%

* Only community service imposed in conjunction with a conditional-discharge sentence is reported separately. This category underreports community service sanctions because OCA does not have a uniform system for marking community service conditions of sentences, and because it occasionally is a condition of other types of sentences.

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE C1 YEAR THREE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY* BY BOROUGH October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005

Brooklyn (N=3,852)

Manhattan (N=6,977)

Queens (N=1,558)

Staten Island (N=286)

Bronx (N=4,980)

ARRAIGNMENT OUTCOMES Conviction ACD Dismissed Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

1,712 41 17 2,074 5 3

44.4% 1.1% 0.4% 53.8% 0.1% 0.1%

4,678 14 8 2,264 11 2

67.0% 0.2% 0.1% 32.4% 0.2% 0.0%

730 9 12 803 4 0

46.9% 0.6% 0.8% 51.5% 0.3% 0.0%

100 1 0 185 0 0

35.0% 0.3% 0.0% 64.7% 0.0% 0.0%

3,286 5 24 1,516 98 51

66.0% 0.1% 0.5% 30.4% 2.0% 1.0%

392 39 1,599 6 2,036

19.3% 1.9% 78.5% 0.3% 100.0%

426 43 1,503 25 1,997

21.3% 2.2% 75.3% 1.3% 100.0%

75 27 695 6 803

9.3% 3.4% 86.6% 0.7% 100.0%

48 12 124 1 185

25.9% 6.5% 67.0% 0.5% 100.0%

369 47 1,055 3 1,474

25.0% 3.2% 71.6% 0.2% 100.0%

ARRAIGNMENT RELEASE STATUS--continued cases ROR Bail Set, Made Bail Set, Not Made Remand Subtotal Release Status Unknown Total Continued

38 2,074

267 2,264

0 803

0 185

42 1,516

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE SEVERITY Felony A Misdemeanor B Misdemeanor U Misdemeanor Other

33 3,073 662 9 75

0.9% 79.8% 17.2% 0.2% 1.9%

71 5,903 822 14 167

1.0% 84.6% 11.8% 0.2% 2.4%

9 1,134 344 4 67

0.6% 72.8% 22.1% 0.3% 4.3%

4 228 48 2 4

1.4% 79.7% 16.8% 0.7% 1.4%

51 3,867 812 6 244

1.0% 77.7% 16.3% 0.1% 4.9%

3,304 80 191 176 92 9

85.8% 2.1% 5.0% 4.6% 2.4% 0.2%

6,250 26 370 200 77 54

89.6% 0.4% 5.3% 2.9% 1.1% 0.8%

1,377 17 45 82 32 5

88.4% 1.1% 2.9% 5.3% 2.1% 0.3%

236 1 23 19 5 2

82.5% 0.3% 8.0% 6.6% 1.7% 0.7%

4,597 16 134 85 89 59

92.3% 0.3% 2.7% 1.7% 1.8% 1.2%

FINAL DISPOSITION Conviction ACD Dismissed/ACQ Continued Warrant Other Outcomes

* Data for docketed arrests are reported for Criminal Court appearances through November 15, 2005.

Operation spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE C2 YEAR TWO CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005

Brooklyn (N=3,852)

Manhattan (N=6,977)

Queens (N=1,558)

Staten Island (N=286)

Bronx (N=4,980)

ARRAIGNMENT CHARGE TYPE Drugs A Misdemeanor Possession (PL 220.03) A Misdemeanor Marijuana Other Marijuana Other Charges Subtotal Drugs

1,583 37 236 3 1,859

41.1% 1.0% 6.1% 0.1% 48.3%

1,376 166 315 19 1,876

19.7% 2.4% 4.5% 0.3% 26.9%

378 39 97 0 514

24.3% 2.5% 6.2% 0.0% 33.0%

90 3 18 1 112

31.5% 1.0% 6.3% 0.3% 39.2%

1,724 111 350 23 2,208

34.6% 2.2% 7.0% 0.5% 44.3%

658 118 776

17.1% 3.1% 20.1%

1,747 300 2,047

25.0% 4.3% 29.3%

282 45 327

18.1% 2.9% 21.0%

65 9 74

22.7% 3.1% 25.9%

460 135 595

9.2% 2.7% 11.9%

303 10 313

7.9% 0.3% 8.1%

857 75 932

12.3% 1.1% 13.4%

85 13 98

5.5% 0.8% 6.3%

0 0 0

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

301 49 350

6.0% 1.0% 7.0%

103

2.7%

814

11.7%

102

6.5%

3

1.0%

634

12.7%

173 32 308

4.5% 0.8% 8.0%

209 177 1,200

3.0% 2.5% 17.2%

94 29 225

6.0% 1.9% 14.4%

13 6 22

4.5% 2.1% 7.7%

214 90 938

4.3% 1.8% 18.8%

93

2.4%

114

1.6%

110

7.1%

7

2.4%

100

2.0%

156 6 255

4.0% 0.2% 6.6%

127 43 284

1.8% 0.6% 4.1%

73 7 190

4.7% 0.4% 12.2%

7 0 14

2.4% 0.0% 4.9%

207 20 327

4.2% 0.4% 6.6%

182 9 191

4.7% 0.2% 5.0%

263 16 279

3.8% 0.2% 4.0%

74 5 79

4.7% 0.3% 5.1%

22 1 23

7.7% 0.3% 8.0%

152 10 162

3.1% 0.2% 3.3%

150

3.9%

359

5.1%

125

8.0%

41

14.3%

400

8.0%

Property Petit Larceny (PL 155.25) Other charges Subtotal Property

Fraud Theft of Services (PL 165.15A) Other Charges Subtotal Fraud

Misconduct A Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.15) B Misd. Criminal Trespass (PL 140.10) Other Charges Subtotal Misconduct

Sex Crimes Loitering for Prostitution (PL 240.37A,B,V) Prostitution (PL 230.00) Other Charges Subtotal Sex Crimes

Harm to Persons Assault (PL 120.00, 120.14 120.20, 120.50) Other Charges Subtotal Harm To Persons

Other Cases Subtotal

Operation Spotlight: Year Four Annual Report

APPENDIX TABLE C3 YEAR THREE CRIMINAL COURT ACTIVITY BY BOROUGH (continued) October 1, 2004 - September 30, 2005

Brooklyn (N=3,852)

Manhattan (N=6,977)

Queens (N=1,558)

Staten Island (N=286)

Bronx (N=4,980)

MOST SEVERE SENTENCE TYPE Imprisonment Fine/Jail Alternative Fine Community Service* Other Conditional Discharge Probation Other Sentence TOTAL

2,662 10 9 192

83.9% 0.3% 0.3% 6.1%

4,996 8 38 889

80.4% 0.1% 0.6% 14.3%

1,152 13 16 46

87.3% 1.0% 1.2% 3.5%

189 4 1 2

84.4% 1.8% 0.4% 0.9%

3,221 32 88 381

70.7% 0.7% 1.9% 8.4%

295 3 1 3,172

9.3% 0.1% 0.0% 100.0%

261 22 1 6,215

4.2% 0.4% 0.0% 100.0%

76 17 0 1,320

5.8% 1.3% 0.0% 100.0%

26 1 1 224

11.6% 0.4% 0.4% 100.0%

823 10 0 4,555

18.1% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%

2,193 469 2,662

82.4% 17.6% 100.0%

3,896 1,100 4,996

78.0% 22.0% 100.0%

1,000 152 1,152

86.8% 13.2% 100.0%

146 43 189

77.2% 22.8% 100.0%

2,703 518 3,221

83.9% 16.1% 100.0%

1-15

611

27.9%

2,143

55.0%

337

33.7%

45

30.8%

1,548

57.3%

16-30

565

25.8%

815

20.9%

210

21.0%

35

24.0%

711

26.3%

31-45

228

10.4%

264

6.8%

111

11.1%

13

8.9%

160

5.9%

46-60

235

10.7%

221

5.7%

93

9.3%

15

10.3%

108

4.0%

61-75

17

0.8%

20

0.5%

8

0.8%

0

0.0%

9

0.3%

76-90

271

12.4%

198

5.1%

90

9.0%

16

11.0%

81

3.0%

91-120

92

4.2%

105

2.7%

63

6.3%

3

2.1%

39

1.4%

121-180

135

6.2%

105

2.7%

62

6.2%

10

6.8%

30

1.1%

181-240

21

1.0%

8

0.2%

9

0.9%

0

0.0%

3

0.1%

241-270

10

0.5%

11

0.3%

5

0.5%

2

1.4%

5

0.2%

IMPRISONMENT SENTENCES Jail Time Time Served TOTAL Jail Days

271-365 TOTAL JAIL

8

0.4%

6

0.2%

12

1.2%

7

4.8%

9

0.3%

2,193

100.0%

3,896

100.0%

1,000

100.0%

146

100.0%

2,703

100.0%

Time Served At Arraignment Post Arraignment TOTAL TIME SERVED

292

62.3%

910

82.7%

116

76.3%

21

48.8%

368

71.0%

177 469

37.7% 100.0%

190 1,100

17.3% 100.0%

36 152

23.7% 100.0%

22 43

51.2% 100.0%

150 518

29.0% 100.0%

* Only community service imposed in conjunction with a conditional-discharge sentence is reported separately. This category underreports community service sanctions because OCA does not have a uniform system for marking community service conditions of sentences, and because it occasionally is a condition of other types of sentences.