In sum, previous research suggests that low-level cases such as those that result in convictions for disorderly conduct are not adjudicated solely on the basis of the facts of the case. Rather, the defendant’s history of encounters with the criminal justice systems seems to drive the outcome of these cases. F. The Research Data Set The data for this study were drawn from the CJA database which contains information about the arrest, case processing, and case outcomes of most New York City arrestees. CJA receives arrest data through automated electronic transmissions from the New York City Police Department (NYPD), case�processing data from the Office of Court Administration (OCA), and bail-making data from the New York City Department of Correction (DOC). CJA staff interview defendants prior to arraignment in custodial arrests in order to collect information that is used to make a release recommendation to the arraigning judge. Data from the interview, including defendants’ criminal history, demographic, and community ties information, are entered in the CJA database. There is no opportunity to interview defendants who are released after receiving a DAT, so criminal history and community ties data are not available for these defendants. The report is based on analyses of the 2015 Annual Dataset. Annual datasets are compiled from the CJA database by Research Department staff with the assistance of the Information Technology Department. The datasets initially track case processing for six months beyond the last arrest of the previous calendar year and are updated the following year to extend tracking for a total of 18 months following the latest arrest. The research described in this report is based on all arrests between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015, that were docketed in the criminal courts in NYC. Because the research is focused on case outcomes, we excluded the 25,317 (7%) docketed arrests that had not reached final disposition as of June 30, 2016, either because the case was still pending or because the defendant failed to appear as scheduled and a warrant was issued. We also excluded the small number of arrests (2,766, 1%) that reached other dispositions, primarily arrests that were consolidated with another case or those in which the defendant was extradited to another jurisdiction. When defendants were arrested multiple times during 2015, each arrest was
6