Re-Arrest of Juveniles Manhattan, Queens 05

CJA

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

Jerome E. McElroy Executive Director

ADULT-COURT PROCESSING AND RE-ARREST OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN MANHATTAN AND QUEENS

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director and Senior Research Analyst

Elyse J. Revere Deputy Project Director and Junior Research Analyst

FINAL REPORT

November 2005

52 Duane Street, New York, NY 10007

(646) 213-2500

ADULT-COURT PROCESSING AND RE-ARREST OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN MANHATTAN AND QUEENS

Marian J. Gewirtz Project Director and Senior Research Analyst

Elyse J. Revere Deputy Project Director and Junior Research Analyst

Research Assistance: Raymond Caligiure Graphics and Production Specialist

Justin P. Bernstein Research Assistant

Systems Programming:

Wayne Nehwadowich Senior Programmer/Analyst

Aïda Tejaratchi Systems Programmer

Administrative Support: Nyota Muhammad Administrative Associate

November 2005

ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

This report has benefited from the contributions of many colleagues at CJA. The author acknowledges the advice, information, and editorial suggestions from Jerome E. McElroy, Executive Director of CJA, and Richard R. Peterson, Director of the Research Department, as well as Mari Curbelo, Barbara Geller Diaz, Mary T. Phillips, Frank Sergi, Qudsia Siddiqi, and Freda Solomon. The author also thanks those who provided research and other assistance for this study: Justin P. Bernstein, Raymond Caligiure, and Nyota Muhammad. Wayne Nehwadowich extracted the case-level, docket-level and indictment-level data from the CJA database for this study. A誰da Tejaratchi gathered the re-arrest data for this project from the hundreds of thousands of arrest records in the CJA database and programmed the re-arrest tallies.

The New York City Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) provided detailed data on the length of stay for the juveniles in this research. DJJ, of course, bears no responsibility for the methods of analysis used in this report or its conclusions.

The contribution of Elyse J. Revere, Deputy Project Director, has been invaluable, both to the effort to assemble the dataset as well as to the analysis of the data. The research was greatly enhanced by her knowledge and her analytical abilities. Nevertheless, the methodology, findings, and conclusions of the study, as well as any errors, omissions or misinterpretations, remain the sole responsibility of the Project Director.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………….………………….........................…………

1

I.

THE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY ……….…

3

II.

METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………….…..............

4

A. B. C. D.

Sources of Data…………………………………………………….…………...…..

The Research Sample……………………………………….…….…………….….

Collecting Re-Arrest Data …………………………………...….………………....

Measurement of Recidivism………………………………….………………….....

4 5 5 6

COMPARING CASE PROCESSING IN MANHATTAN AND QUEENS …..……....

8

A. Comparisons of Demographic and Case Characteristics….………………………..

1. Age, Gender, Ethnicity………………………………..…………………….

2. Prior Arrests………………………………………….……………………...

3. Charge at Arrest and Charge Entering Supreme Court……..…………….....

B. Release Conditions Set at Criminal Court Arraignment …………..….……………

C. Release Status at the First Appearance in the Supreme Court and at Disposition …

D. Days From Criminal Court Arraignment to the First Adjournment………..............

E. Days Between Other Case-Processing Milestones……………………..….……….

F. Detention ………………………………………………………………….………..

G. Disposition…………………………………………..………………….…...............

H. Sentence…………………………………………………………………..................

8 8 8 9 10 11 11 12 14 15 15

RE-ARREST………………………………………….…………………………………

17

A. Rate of Re-Arrest…………………………..….…………………………………….

B. The First Re-Arrest………………………………………………….………….……

1. Time at Risk to First Re-Arrest……………...…………..……….……….…

2. Stage of Case Processing at First Re-Arrest………….………….………..…

3. Charge at First Re-Arrest……………………………………….……….…..

18 19 19 20 20

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION………………………………….…….....

21

EXHIBITS …….……………………………………………………………………………….

24

APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………………………………

46

III.

IV.

ADULT-COURT PROCESSING AND RE-ARREST OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN MANHATTAN AND QUEENS

INTRODUCTION:

New York State’s Juvenile Offender (JO) Law was passed as part of the Omnibus Crime Control Bill of 1978 in response to concerns about serious crime committed by young offenders.

The JO Law lowered the age of criminal responsibility for juveniles in New York State from age 16, already among the lowest in the country, to age 14 for selected serious felony offenses and to age 13 when the charge was second degree murder. In accordance with the provisions of this law, cases are brought directly to the adult rather than the juvenile court for prosecution. Since then, particularly in recent years, there has been a national movement towards adult prosecution of juveniles, although in many states jurisdiction originates in the juvenile court and the case is transferred to the adult court if deemed appropriate.

In response to concerns regarding the criminal justice system’s handling of young offenders in the mid-1990’s, the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA) developed an annual report that provides information on court activity for serious cases with juvenile defendants in the Criminal (lower) and Supreme (upper) Court in New York City. The report provides a picture of the numbers and types of arrests of juveniles for serious crimes that enter the adult criminal justice system, as well as descriptive information at various decision points in criminal prosecution each year for cases with juvenile defendants. These “milestones” include arrest, arraignment in Criminal Court, outcome in Criminal Court, the first appearance in Supreme Court, disposition in Supreme Court, and sentence in Supreme Court.

The annual reports present a myriad of data and raise many questions. Among the most striking findings have been the substantial borough differences.

It is noteworthy that the

boroughs have differed more in the way the cases were processed and less in the characteristics of the cases as they entered or left the system. Specifically, juveniles prosecuted in the adult courts across the boroughs were overwhelmingly 15-year-old males charged with first- or second-degree robbery. On the other hand, when that “typical” juvenile offender was arraigned in the adult court, there were wide variations by borough in the likelihood of release in Criminal or Supreme Court, the likelihood of facing continued prosecution in the Supreme Court, the

likelihood of receiving an incarcerative sentence once convicted, and the total duration of the case in terms of number of days and number of scheduled court appearances.

Some of the widest borough differences were observed in average length of case. Here Manhattan and Queens represent opposite ends of the continuum and are therefore the focus of the research described in this report. The most extreme example of the wide disparity in length of case occurred among cases with juvenile defendants who were sentenced in Supreme Court in 2002.1

It took a median of 22 appearances and 18 months from disposition to sentencing for

cases sentenced in Manhattan but only four appearances and two months for similar cases to reach sentencing in Queens.

These differences probably reflect differences between the

boroughs in the use of alternative-to-incarceration (ATI) programs, which extend the number of days and number of appearances prior to sentencing. Most juveniles in Manhattan participate in at least one ATI program, but ATI participation is not part of the Queens model of juvenile prosecution in the adult court. The experiences afforded to juvenile offenders prosecuted in Manhattan and Queens are so divergent that they actually seem to constitute different models of youth crime prosecution.

The research presented in this report will examine the long-term impact of the different court-related experiences of juvenile offenders in adult court in Manhattan and Queens. The research addresses three questions: 1. What are the differences in court processing?

2. Do re-arrest rates differ?

3. If re-arrest rates differ by borough, do borough differences in the processing of juvenile cases in adult court make a difference in re-arrest rates?

In this way re-arrest will be used as the criterion to assess the relative efficacy of the Queens and Manhattan processing models. The study includes 304 Manhattan and 258 Queens juvenile cases processed in the Supreme Court in 1997 to 2000. Among the borough differences that will be considered are differences in release status at various points of prosecution, length of pretrial detention, and elapsed time between case-processing milestones.

This report will be presented in several sections.

The first section discusses how

juveniles are processed in the adult courts in New York City. The second presents the sources of 1 Gewirtz, Marian. Annual Report on the Adult Court Case Processing of Juvenile Offenders in New York City, January to December 2002. New York City Criminal Justice Agency, November 2003.

2

the data used in the report, and other data considerations including how juveniles are identified and how recidivism is measured. The third section compares the processing of the JO cases in Manhattan and Queens. Re-arrest is analyzed in the fourth section, which addresses the total number of re-arrests, the first re-arrest, the most severe re-arrest, and time at risk for re-arrest.

The report ends with a summary of the major findings and a conclusion.

I. THE PROCESSING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NEW YORK CITY In New York City, if a juvenile is arrested for any one of 17 serious offenses2 (a complete list of JO charges is contained in the Appendix) and is 13, 14 or 15 years old at the time of the offense (13 only if charged with homicide), the case is sent for review to the District Attorney's office in the borough in which the incident occurred. The prosecutor decides if there is sufficient evidence to support the filing of JO charges, and, if there is adequate evidence, the case is filed in the Criminal Court. If there is not sufficient evidence that a JO offense has been committed, the prosecutor will decline to prosecute and refer the matter to the agency responsible for prosecuting cases in the Family Court, the Corporation Counsel.3 At any point during the adult criminal court process, a case may either be referred or removed to Family Court. At the pre-filing stage, only referrals can occur, while post-filing either referrals or removals may happen. A referral is an informal transfer and may occur after the adult court concludes its case in some manner, such as a dismissal, while a removal is a judicial transfer of a proceeding pending in Criminal or Supreme Court. A removal allows the case to be prosecuted as a “designated felony”4 in Family Court. The District Attorney has the option to retain jurisdiction and prosecute the case in Family Court; if this option is not exercised, Corporation Counsel will prosecute. Further, most referrals, even those concluded through a dismissal of the JO case in either Criminal or Supreme Court, are also reviewed by Corporation Counsel for possible filing of non-JO charges in the Family Court.

2 The 17 serious offenses include two charges added to the list as of November 1, 1998: 265.02 (4), possession of a weapon in the third degree and 265.03, possession of a weapon in the second degree, where the weapon is possessed on school grounds.

3

The Corporation Counsel, representing the City of New York, or sometimes the county district attorney, is termed the "presentment agency." These agents present the petition regarding a particular respondent in Family Court.

4 “Designated felony acts” are the most serious felony charges. These include virtually the same offenses as those categorized as juvenile offender crimes.

3

If the case is not sent to Family Court prior to indictment, it will be given to the Grand Jury for review. If an indictment is handed down, the case is then transferred to Supreme Court, where it is filed in Supreme Court. For cases in which the charge is a B-, C- or D-felony JO charge and the prosecuting district attorney agrees, the defendant may consent to waive indictment and be prosecuted by a superior court information (SCI). An SCI is prepared by the prosecutor’s office and is used as the charging instrument when indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant. It is equivalent to an indictment and is used to expedite felony pleas.

Unless the case is referred or removed to Family Court post-indictment, both disposition and sentencing usually occur in Supreme Court. An offender convicted of an eligible JO offense may be adjudicated as a Youthful Offender (YO), in which case the conviction is vacated and replaced by a YO finding. A lighter sentence, one authorized for conviction at the E-felony level, is imposed. If not adjudicated a YO, a juvenile convicted of a JO offense must be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment in accordance with Penal Law 70.05, which sets ranges for the minimum and maximum terms required.

In response to concern regarding JOs, in each borough except Staten Island, the city has developed specialized courtrooms in Supreme Court called Juvenile Offender Parts (JO Parts) for the handling and disposition of JO cases. The JO cases may be assigned to these parts after indictment, either for Supreme Court arraignment or subsequent to arraignment. Exceptions to the processing in JO parts may include high publicity cases or cases with adult codefendants.

The court specialization is designed to allow for those involved to develop an expertise in the processing of JO cases.

II. METHODOLOGY A. Sources of Data The data for this study were drawn primarily from the CJA database. This database contains information about the arrest, case processing and case outcomes for most New York City arrestees, taken from the CJA pre-arraignment interview, the New York City Police Department’s Online Booking System (OLBS), and the New York State Office of Court

4

Administration (OCA) court appearance history files. For this research project, release status information was supplemented by information on pretrial detention provided by the New York City Division of Juvenile Justice.

B. The Research Sample The research includes all juveniles processed as JOs in the Supreme Courts in Manhattan or Queens between January 1997 and December 2000. Their court outcomes and re-arrests were tracked until January 31, 2005. We did not include the small number of JO cases in which an indictment number was assigned and the juvenile made one or more appearances in the upper court but the case was dismissed or transferred to Family Court without an arraignment. In the instances where two JO arrests were processed under the same (or an adjacent) indictment number, only the initial arrest is tracked in this research. The second case is not included as a rearrest either if the date of the offense was the same as or preceded the date of the initial arrest.

This occurred for ten juveniles in Manhattan and six in Queens. Also, one JO arrest in Queens was associated with three additional arrest numbers and indictment numbers but, since they were processed simultaneously, and the arrest pertained to incidents that occurred before the initial arrest, only the original arrest is included here.

C. Collecting Re-Arrest Data Re-arrest data were collected from the date of the initial arrest through January 2005.

Some of the juveniles, for example, may have been released at the initial arraignment appearance early in 1998 and may have remained at risk through January 2005, while others were detained during the course of case prosecution, through sentencing and lengthy prison incarceration.

Eight juveniles (four from Manhattan and four from Queens) were never released and remained in custody at the close of data collection, serving prison time in accordance with their sentences.

Twelve juveniles were released during the pendency of their cases but were in custody serving prison time as of January 31, 2005.

In New York State, the New York State Identification number (NYSID) is the number that is associated with a defendant’s fingerprints. It is challenging to collect re-arrest data for juveniles in New York State because of the way the NYSID is used for juveniles. The central

5

problem is that juveniles arrested after their 16th birthday are assigned new adult NYSID numbers. New NYSID numbers are also assigned when the arrest on the prior NYSID number results in any outcome other than conviction at a misdemeanor or felony level. A JO may have one or more juvenile NYSID numbers, a new adult NYSID for an initial arrest after turning 16, and additional NYSID numbers if that arrest results in dismissal, or if another results in conviction for an infraction, such as turnstile jumping, possession of a small quantity of marihuana, or disorderly conduct. For this reason, re-arrest data were collected using the NYSID number, but we also relied on database searches using name and date of birth and variations on the name and birth date.

D. Measurement of Recidivism It is simple to state that recidivism will be measured by official records of re-arrest, as recorded in the CJA database, but there are issues that impinge on measuring recidivism in a meaningful manner. First, the widely divergent case processing practices in Manhattan and Queens make it difficult to identify equivalent periods of time at risk for re-arrest for the defendants in JO cases in the two boroughs. As will be seen in the data presented in this report, about half of the Queens JO cases are brought to the upper court by SCI (“SCI cases”), rather than by indictment (“indicted cases”), but SCI cases are comparatively rare in Manhattan. The use of SCIs as the mechanism for transferring cases to the upper court has implications for the timing of the stages of prosecution. In practical terms, the juveniles in SCI cases agree to plead guilty while the case is still under lower court jurisdiction. That last day in the lower court is also the first day in the Supreme Court. Since that is the date that the plea is entered, there is no pretrial period in the upper court for the juveniles in these cases. Further, as will be shown in this report, the cases processed in Queens move far more quickly from plea to sentencing than do those processed in Manhattan, allowing far less time at risk for re-arrest prior to sentencing in Queens than in Manhattan.

Similarly, the post-sentencing period for juveniles who are

sentenced to probation begins much sooner for the juveniles sentenced in Queens than for those sentenced in Manhattan. For these reasons, it is insufficient to simply compare the boroughs with respect to re-arrest rates during any single at-risk period. Instead, we will measure re-arrest in several ways over as long a period as possible in order to shed light on the effect of the two models of juvenile case processing on recidivism. We will tally re-arrests prior to disposition,

6

between disposition and sentencing, and after sentencing, which, for some juveniles, means after serving a prison sentence.

The severity of the re-arrest may also be important. Some re-arrests are for violent felony offenses while other juveniles face subsequent charges that are far less serious. For some purposes, any re-arrest counts as recidivism, so all re-arrests are tallied in this research. These include re-arrest cases that are docketed in the Criminal Court as well as cases that are not brought to the adult court and may or may not be prosecuted in the Family Court, or cases forwarded to the Family Court by the district attorney’s office without arraignment in the adult court.

The research will focus on the first re-arrest, but here again, issues arise. For some of the juveniles, the initial re-arrest occurred while they were in pretrial custody pending the disposition of their original charges. These re-arrest charges may be the kind that can only occur in custody, such as those involving prison contraband or escape, or they may involve interpersonal violence among the juveniles in detention. Alternatively, they may reflect the police decision to clear another reported crime that was not associated with the defendant at the time of the initial arrest.

Nevertheless, from some perspectives, interest in recidivism focuses primarily on public safety, so our measure of recidivism needs to reflect re-arrests when the juvenile is at large in the community. We have collected descriptive data on each re-arrest so that we can describe the actual first re-arrest without losing the flexibility to describe the first re-arrest when the juvenile was not in custody. The detailed data for each re-arrest includes the date of the re-arrest, the most severe arrest charge and second arrest charge (penal law code and severity), whether the rearrest was docketed, and, if not docketed, whether the re-arrest case was sent to the Family Court for prosecution as a juvenile delinquent (JD) case. We collected the same detailed data for the re-arrest with the most severe arrest charge with the caveat that the selection of the re-arrest with the most severe charge was restricted to re-arrests that were docketed or marked “JD.�

Use of re-arrest to measure recidivism has two familiar disadvantages. First, and most important, re-arrest is likely to underestimate recidivism because new offenses may not lead to re-arrests. This underestimate of recidivism rates is a common problem for studies that use rearrest to measure recidivism. Here we attempt to compensate for this problem to some extent by using a long data-collection period. Since it is likely that recidivists are likely to re-offend multiple times, using a long period increases the chances that at least one of the re-offenses will

7

lead to a re-arrest. The second limitation is that the re-arrest data collected for this research are restricted to arrests that occur in NYC. However, some geographic limitation is common to most studies of re-arrest and there is no reason to believe that juvenile offenders are particularly mobile. The re-arrests in the CJA database, despite its limitation to NYC, probably include most of the re-arrests for the juveniles in this research.

III. COMPARING CASE PROCESSING IN MANHATTAN AND QUEENS A. Comparisons of Demographic and Case Characteristics 1. Age, Gender, Ethnicity Juveniles in Manhattan and Queens JO cases, and Queens SCI and indicted cases, vary little by age or gender (Exhibit 1). Roughly nine of every ten of the juveniles processed in the Supreme Court were male and two thirds were 15, rather than 14, years of age at the time of their arrest. Manhattan and Queens juveniles also vary little in ethnic distribution, with six of every ten categorized as black, little more than a third categorized as Hispanic, and few categorized as white or Asian. However, Queens juveniles whose cases reached the upper court by SCI (51%) were significantly less likely to be black than were those who were indicted (64%). Conversely, the juveniles in the SCI cases (9%) were significantly more likely to be white (9%) than were their indicted counterparts (2%). The proportions who were Hispanic or who were Asian did not differ significantly.

2. Prior Arrests More than a third of the juveniles processed in the Supreme Court in Manhattan or Queens had at least one prior arrest in the CJA database (Exhibit 1). These include arrests where the incident date, if one was recorded, was prior to the incident date on the sample arrest, even if the arrest actually took place on the same date or a date subsequent to the date of the sample arrest. Seventeen percent of the Manhattan juveniles and 15 percent of the Queens juveniles had two or more prior arrests and eight percent of the juveniles in Manhattan and six percent in Queens had three or more prior arrests (not shown in table).

8

The juveniles who reached the Queens Supreme Court by SCI were slightly less likely to have prior arrests than were those who reached the upper court by indictment (32%, compared to 41%), but the difference is not statistically significant. The differences are smaller in the percent with two or more prior arrests (14%, compared to 16%) and in the percent with three or more prior arrests (5%, compared to 8%), comparing juveniles whose cases reached the upper court by SCI to those who were indicted.

3. Charge at Arrest and Charge Entering Supreme Court The juveniles whose cases were prosecuted in the Supreme Court were more likely to be charged with robbery at arrest, upon entering the upper court, or at conviction, than with any other type of charge (Exhibit 2). Roughly eight of every ten juveniles were charged with robbery at each milestone, and this did not vary significantly by borough. The Queens SCI cases, however, were significantly more likely to have robbery charges at arrest, entering the Supreme Court, and at conviction (at each milestone), than were the Queens cases that reached the upper court via the Grand Jury.

Manhattan juveniles were significantly more likely to be charged with robbery in the second degree than were Queens juveniles at arrest (17%, compared to 10%) and entering the upper court (29%, compared to 17%), but the difference was not statistically significant at conviction (23%, compared to 18%). Queens juveniles were more likely to be charged with robbery in the first degree than were those in Manhattan, but the difference is statistically significant only for the charge entering Supreme Court (62% in Queens, compared to 50% in Manhattan). Comparison of the relative frequency of first and second degree robbery for Queens SCI versus indictment cases shows higher rates of each charge for the SCI cases, but the difference is statistically significant only for second degree robbery charges entering the upper court or at conviction (25% of the SCI cases, compared to only 11% of the indicted). Queens SCI cases were significantly more likely than the indicted cases to be charged with first or second degree robbery at each of the milestones. It may be of interest to note that all of the Queens cases involving murder or attempted murder entering the Supreme Court arrived in the upper court by indictment and not by SCI. These together account for 13 percent of the Queens indicted cases. (Assault charges are also overrepresented among the Queens indicted cases,

9

accounting for 16 percent of these cases entering the upper court, but only four percent of the Queens SCI cases.) When cases with murder or attempted murder charges are excluded from the analysis, the Queens SCI-IND difference in robbery charges is not significant for the arrest charge, but is still statistically significant for charges entering the Supreme Court (not shown).

B. Release Conditions Set at Criminal Court Arraignment Most of the youth processed as juvenile offenders were detained on bail or remanded with no bail set at Criminal Court arraignment, the first appearance in the lower court (Exhibit 3). Only 24 percent of the Manhattan juveniles and 28 percent of the Queens juveniles were released at that early stage of processing. The proportion of juveniles released at arraignment in Queens in cases that eventually reached the upper court by SCI was slightly higher (32%) than the proportion released among those who were eventually indicted (24%) but this difference was not statistically significant.

The mean (average) and median (midpoint) bail amount set at arraignment in Criminal Court were quite high for the juvenile offenders in this research, and higher in Queens ($14,576 and $5,000) than in Manhattan ($6,612 and $3,500). The mean and median bail amount for Queens cases that eventually reached the upper court by indictment was higher than for those that reached upper court by SCI ($20,449 and $5,000, compared to $8,321 and $3,500, respectively).

Examination of the distributions of bail amounts by borough shows that the amounts are not consistently higher in Queens. Instead, the proportion of juveniles for whom bail was set with bail under $2,000 was higher for Queens JO cases (30%, compared to 20% in Manhattan).

The proportion of juveniles in the $2,000-to-$5,999 category and in the $6,000-to-$10,000 category were higher for Manhattan JO cases (47%, compared to 34% in Queens, and 22%, compared to 16% in Queens, respectively). However, the Queens juveniles were nearly twice as likely to have bail set in the highest category, over $10,000 (20%, compared to 11% in Manhattan). As may be expected, the Queens juveniles who were eventually indicted were most likely to have bail set in the highest bail category; bail was set at over $10,000 for a fifth of these juveniles.

10

C. Release Status at the First Appearance in the Supreme Court and at Disposition The Queens juveniles were far more likely to be released as of the first appearance in Supreme Court (58%) than were their counterparts in Manhattan (42%), and the juveniles in the Queens SCI cases were significantly more likely to be released at that point (70%) than were the Queens juveniles who were indicted (48%) (Exhibit 4). Release at this stage of processing is measured here by the actual detention status of the juvenile as reported by DJJ. That is, a juvenile with a release status set at the first upper court appearance that suggests release on bail or on recognizance is considered detained if held at that time on another matter.5 The high rate of release at the first appearance in the upper court for juveniles in Queens SCI cases is not matched by the release rate for Queens indicted cases or by Manhattan cases even when the other cases reached disposition. Of course, only juveniles who pled guilty and whose cases were adjourned for sentencing have a release status set at disposition. The rate of release for the Queens indicted cases adjourned pending sentencing was about the same as the rate of release for all of the Queens indicted cases at the first appearance (46%, compared to 48%). The increase was substantial for the Manhattan cases, from 42 percent released at the first appearance to 54 percent at disposition for cases adjourned for sentencing, but the rate of release was far higher for the Queens SCI cases (69%).

D. Days From Criminal Court Arraignment To The First Adjournment Many more days elapsed between arraignment in the Criminal Court and the first adjournment for Queens JO cases than for JO cases processed in Manhattan (Exhibit 5). New York Criminal Procedure Law 180.80 provides for the release of a felony defendant who is in custody more than 120 hours (144 hours if a weekend or holiday is included) “without a disposition of the felony complaint or commencement of a hearing thereon,� with few exceptions. The first adjournment was within six days of arraignment for all of the Manhattan JO cases in which bail was set but not made or the defendant was remanded with no bail at arraignment. Only 16 percent of similar Queens JO cases reached the first adjournment within 5

The presence of a hold from another court is inferred when the release status in the CJA database, reflecting the release status as it appears in the OCA database, indicates release, but the actual detention status reported by DJJ indicates that the juvenile was in custody.

11

six days. The median was four days in Manhattan but 14 days in Queens. Queens cases that reached Supreme Court by indictment were more likely to reach the first adjournment within six days (23%) than were their SCI counterparts (7%), but the median numbers of days were similar (14 days for indicted cases, 15 days for SCI cases). Defendants processed in Queens frequently waive their right to release under CPL 180.80.

E. Days Between Other Case-Processing Milestones We measure length of case at several intervals in this report. In order to exclude from our tallies any delay caused by a juvenile failing to appear for a scheduled adjournment, the number of days from any missed appearance to the return was subtracted from each of the tallies as applicable. In this way, each tally measures the length of the case as it was processed in the borough rather than the delay contributed by the juvenile.

We compare five aspects of length of case, in addition to the days from arraignment to the first adjournment in the Criminal Court discussed above: 1. the number of days in Criminal Court from arraignment to the date the case was sent to the upper court 2. the number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court to the disposition 3. the number of days from the disposition in Supreme Court to the sentence, if any 4. the number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court to the last appearance in Supreme Court (sentencing, if any, else the disposition) 5. the number of days from arraignment in Criminal Court to the last appearance in Supreme Court (sentencing, if any, else the disposition) As shown in Exhibit 6, JO cases processed in the Supreme Court in Manhattan (mean of 18 days, median of 5) moved significantly more quickly through the Criminal Court than did their counterparts in Queens (mean of 51 days, median of 36). Conversely, the number of days between milestones was significantly lower in Queens than in Manhattan for each of the four remaining measures of length of case. It took a mean of only two months for Queens JO cases to move from the first appearance in the upper court to disposition, compared to six months for JO cases in Manhattan. It took a mean of less than two and half months for Queens JO cases to move from disposition to sentence, compared to 11 months in Manhattan. Taken together, a

12

mean of four months elapsed between the first appearance in Queens Supreme Court and the last appearance, compared to more than 17 months (516 days) in Manhattan.

The picture was the

same if the analysis was restricted to JO cases in which the defendant was released at arraignment in the Criminal Court (Exhibit 7), or at the first appearance in the upper court (Exhibit 8). Queens cases took longer in Criminal Court, but Manhattan cases took much longer in Supreme Court.

Some of the difference between Manhattan and Queens in case processing can be attributed to the use of SCIs (superior court information) in Queens as the charging instrument when indictment by the grand jury has been waived by the defendant.6 Since the juveniles in these cases plead guilty at the first appearance in the upper court, the number of days from first appearance in upper court to disposition is zero. Nearly half of the Queens JO cases included in this research reached the upper court by SCI rather than indictment. As shown in the columns on the right in Exhibit 6, in Queens, mean and median case lengths were lower for the SCI than for the indicted cases. The difference is most marked for the second measure of length of case, the number of days from the first appearance in Supreme Court to disposition, which, almost by definition is a mean and median of zero days for the SCI cases, compared to a mean of more than three months and a median of more than two months for the indicted cases. The difference in the number of days from disposition to sentence is far narrower (mean of 64 days for SCI cases, mean of 79 days for indicted cases). Yet even the JO cases that reached the upper court by indictment in Queens move more quickly to disposition and sentencing than do those indicted in Manhattan. It may be of interest to note that 18 juveniles who were indicted in Queens also pled guilty at the first appearance in the upper court.

Exhibit 7 displays the various measures of length of case for juveniles released at Criminal Court arraignment and Exhibit 8 displays length of case for juveniles released at the first appearance in the upper court. The pattern is consistent with the findings without respect to release status. The Manhattan cases move more quickly through the lower court than do the

6

As discussed earlier in this report, an SCI is the functional equivalent of an indictment and is usually used to expedite felony pleas. Since the juveniles in SCI cases agree to plead guilty while the case is still under lower court jurisdiction, the last day in the lower court is also almost always the same day as the first day in the Supreme Court.

Since that is the date that the plea is entered, there is no pretrial period in the upper court for the juveniles in these cases.

13

Queens cases, but the Queens cases, especially the Queens SCI cases, move far more quickly through the Supreme Court.

F. Detention Detention is measured from the first day that the juvenile was admitted to the custody of the NYC Department of Juvenile Justice, to the date of release, summed across all admissions to custody on the sample case, including admissions to the NYC Department of Corrections in light of any subsequent arrest after the juvenile’s 16th birthday. This includes days of detention through the date of disposition and, if the juvenile was in custody after disposition, through the date of sentencing.

Manhattan juveniles were unlikely to reach the end of their cases without some time in custody (Exhibit 9). Only eleven percent of the juveniles processed in Manhattan, compared to more than a quarter of those in Queens, were not held at any time during the course of prosecution. While the Queens juveniles who were indicted were significantly more likely to spend some time in detention than were juveniles in cases that reached the upper court by SCI (83%, compared to only 64% of SCI cases), nearly nine of every ten Manhattan juveniles spent at least one day in detention between arraignment in Criminal Court and the completion of case prosecution.

However, most of the juveniles processed in Manhattan (75%) were detained and then eventually released: only 14 percent were held through the duration of the case. In contrast, 29 percent of the Queens juveniles were detained throughout the case. Queens indicted cases were more likely to be held for the full duration of their cases (34%) than were the Queens SCI cases (25%).

Juveniles who reached the Queens upper court by indictment spent more time in detention than did juveniles who reached the Queens upper court by SCI, and juveniles processed in Manhattan spent far longer in detention than did those processed in Queens. The differences are statistically significant and remain strong even if analysis is restricted to juveniles who were detained, or who were detained but eventually released, or who were never released, or if mean and median length-of-detention are considered.

For example, among all of the juveniles

processed in Manhattan and Queens, half of the Manhattan juveniles spent six months or more in detention, compared to only 13 percent of Queens juveniles. The median for the Manhattan 14

juveniles is 180 days, compared to 26 days for juveniles in Queens. Only three percent of Queens SCI juveniles but 24 percent of Queens indicted juveniles spent six months or more in detention, and the median length-of-detention figures are 14 and 73 days, respectively. Nearly one in five Manhattan juveniles, but only five percent of those processed in Queens, spent more than a year in detention.

G. Disposition Conviction rates are very high for the youth processed as juvenile offenders in the Supreme Court (Exhibit 10). The conviction rate in Manhattan (97%) is significantly higher than the rate in Queens (91%), and the conviction rate for SCI cases in Queens (100%, by definition), is significantly higher than the conviction rate for Queens juveniles who were indicted (83%). In both boroughs, fewer than one percent of juveniles were tried and acquitted and a few cases were transferred to the Family Court for continued prosecution. The rate of non-conviction for Queens indicted cases is particularly high (17%), compared to Manhattan cases (3%).

H. Sentence The majority of the juveniles in both boroughs were sentenced to five years on probation7. The difference between the boroughs in the proportion of juveniles sentenced to probation only without any imprisonment (63% in Manhattan and 58% in Queens) is not statistically significant (Exhibit 11). In Queens, however, the proportion of juveniles sentenced to probation alone was significantly higher for SCI (73%) than for indicted (41%) cases. The difference between the boroughs in the proportion of juveniles sentenced to imprisonment only (37% in Manhattan and 29% in Queens) was wider but still not statistically significant in a twotailed test (not shown). Split sentences account for 13 percent of the juvenile cases sentenced in Queens but none of the Manhattan juveniles was sentenced to both imprisonment and probation.

While the proportion of juveniles in JO cases that receive probation-only sentences is slightly but not significantly higher in Manhattan, the proportion of juveniles who receive youthful offender (YO) status at sentencing is significantly higher in Queens (85%, compared to 74% in Manhattan). Again, Queens SCI cases differ significantly from the indicted cases.

7

Conditional and unconditional discharges (for four juveniles) are included here with sentences of probation.

15

Nearly all (97%) of the Queens juveniles in SCI cases, but only 72 percent of the indicted juveniles, were granted YO status. The differences between the boroughs and within Queens are even wider if the analysis is restricted solely to juveniles who were sentenced to imprisonment, with or without probation. Among cases that received incarcerative sentences, Queens juveniles were twice as likely to receive YO status as were Manhattan juveniles (64%, compared to 31%).

Further, even Queens indicted cases with sentences that include imprisonment were significantly more likely to be granted YO status (52%) than were similarly sentenced Manhattan cases (31%), while Queens SCI cases were overwhelmingly granted YO status.

Sentences in Manhattan tended to be significantly longer than the Queens sentences, and the sentences tended to be longer for cases that reached Supreme Court in Queens by indictment than for those that were brought by SCI (Exhibit 12). Ten percent of the imprisonment or split sentences in Queens (21% of the SCI cases but only 5% of the indicted cases) were time served sentences, compared to none of the sentences in Manhattan.

Similarly, a quarter of the

imprisonment or split sentences in Queens (41% of the SCI cases but only 17% of the indicted cases) were definite sentences of one year or less, again compared to none of the sentences in Manhattan. Conversely, more than half of the incarcerative sentences in Manhattan were for a minimum prison time of two years or more, compared to less than a third of those for Queens cases (13% of the Queens SCI cases and 38% of the Queens indicted cases). The median length of the minimum sentence (excluding sentences to time served) was exactly one year in Queens and exactly two years in Manhattan.

Given the strong similarities between the boroughs in demographic and case characteristics, the borough differences in processing discussed in this research report are striking.

16

IV. RE-ARREST Re-arrest data were collected for re-offenses that occurred between the date of the initial offense8 and January 31, 2005 for the juvenile offenders processed in the Supreme Court in Manhattan or Queens in 1997 through 2000.

Time at risk to first re-arrest was calculated by

subtracting the total number of days the juvenile spent in custody, whether pretrial detention or in accordance with an incarcerative sentence, from the start of case processing at the initial arraignment in Criminal Court to either the date of the first re-arrest or January 31, 2005. Time at risk post-imprisonment sentence or post-imprisonment-and-probation sentence was challenging to assess since the actual date of release after serving a sentence is not available for most of the juveniles in this research.9 The actual date of release from prison was available from the NYS DOCS Inmate Population Information Search online database for only 39 juveniles.

For the remaining juveniles, an approximate release date from prison was created based on the “Calculated Sentence Length� (CSL) developed by Mary T. Phillips for a study estimating jail displacement for defendants mandated to alternative-to-incarceration programs in New York City (Phillips, 2002)10. The CSL11 was devised as a way of estimating time likely to be served,

8 Incident dates were available for little more than half of the initial arrests, three quarters of the first re-arrests, and 84 percent of the most severe re-arrests. For the remaining arrests and re-arrests, the date of the arrest was used in lieu of date of offense.

9

The New York State Department of Correctional Services (NYS DOCS) Inmate Population Information Search online database was consulted for each of the juveniles who was sentenced to imprisonment to determine if any of the sample juveniles were still in custody on their original case, or a later case, or to learn the actual date of the juvenile’s release from custody. The data was available from this source for only 55 juveniles included in this research.

This source revealed that 16 juveniles are still serving time for their initial cases, including four juveniles sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment. Four additional juveniles appear to be still in custody as of the cutoff date based on the calculated approximate release date. However, only the eight juveniles who also had no pretrial time at risk are considered here to have no time at risk. For the 39 juveniles for whom the NYS DOCS database showed the actual date of release, the actual date was substituted for the calculated approximate release date.

10

Phillips, Mary T. Estimating Jail Displacement for Alternative-to-Incarceration Programs in New York City.

The New York City Criminal Justice Agency, August 2002, pages 46-47.

11 The CSL for felony cases was set to equal two thirds (.667) of definite sentences, two thirds (.667) of the maximum for indeterminate sentences, and six sevenths (.857) of determinate sentences.

17

assuming time off for good behavior. The CSL is added to the juvenile’s sentence date, and presentence detention time12 is subtracted from the total to estimate credit for time served.

The at-risk period was standardized by including only juveniles who were at risk for rearrest for four years or who were re-arrested within that time. The eight juveniles who spent no time at risk and the 37 juveniles who spent less than four years at risk are excluded.

The focus on a standardized period of risk for re-arrest necessitated the exclusion of the re-arrests that took place while the juvenile was in custody. The first re-arrest arose from offenses that took place while the juvenile was in custody, either pending disposition or pending sentence, on the sample arrest, for 22 of the juveniles, and the arrest in custody was the only rearrest for eight of these juveniles. The charges included contraband offenses, escape, and assault. The first re-arrest after release from custody is tallied as the first re-arrest for the 14 juveniles who had a subsequent re-arrest. The eight juveniles whose first re-arrest was in custody, but who had no re-arrests during their at-risk period, are tallied as not re-arrested.

A. Rate of Re-Arrest Most of the juvenile offenders in this research were re-arrested. Among the juveniles who were eligible for re-arrest for four years, the rate of re-arrest is higher for juveniles processed in Manhattan (80%) than in Queens (75%), but the difference is not statistically significant (Exhibit 13). Similarly, the difference in re-arrest rates between the Queens juveniles whose cases were brought to Supreme Court by SCI (71%) and those who were indicted (79%) is not statistically significant. Re-arrest rates for juveniles with shorter amounts of time at risk are lower, but do not vary significantly by borough. If the re-arrest analysis is truncated at three years time at risk, the re-arrest rates are almost identical for the boroughs (71% and 70% for Manhattan and Queens, respectively).

At a two-year cutoff, 60 percent of the Manhattan

juveniles and 58 percent of those processed in Queens were re-arrested. The rate of re-arrest

12 Nine juveniles spent so much time in custody before sentencing (reflecting more than one arrest) that, once they were sentenced, the estimated credit for time served was longer than the CSL, allowing time at risk to appear to have started prior to the sentence. For these juveniles, estimated time at risk was adjusted to begin after the initial sentence.

18

after only one year at risk is slightly higher for juveniles processed in Queens (44%) than for those in Manhattan (38%).

More than a quarter of the first re-arrests were not docketed for prosecution, but this did not vary significantly by borough (not shown). Non-docketed cases include those that were declined prosecution as well as cases that were sent to the Family Court for prosecution.

The remainder of the discussion of re-arrests for juveniles processed as adults will focus only on the juveniles who were re-arrested.

B. The First Re-Arrest 1. Time at Risk to First Re-Arrest Re-arrests occurred very quickly for some of the juveniles in this research. One juvenile was first re-arrested after only four days at risk and six juveniles in each borough were first rearrested within ten days at risk. Exhibit 14 displays the amount of time re-arrested juveniles were at risk to re-offend prior to their new arrest. Re-arrest tended to occur faster for juveniles whose sample case was processed in Queens Supreme Court than for those whose sample case was processed in Manhattan. The proportion of re-arrested juveniles who were first re-arrested within three months at risk or within six months at risk was higher for Queens than for Manhattan juveniles (26% versus 21% and 41% versus 33%, respectively) but the differences are not statistically significant. However, re-arrested juveniles who were processed in Queens were significantly more likely to be first re-arrested within a year of time at risk: 61 percent of rearrested Queens juveniles were re-arrested within a year, compared to 51 percent of those processed in Manhattan. There is virtually no difference between the boroughs in the proportion of the re-arrested juveniles who are re-arrested within two years because of the high proportion of re-arrested Manhattan juveniles who were first re-arrested between the first and second year at risk (29%, versus 20% in Queens).

The average time at risk to the first re-arrest is also presented in Table 14. The rearrested Queens juveniles were at risk for a mean of only 380 days before their first re-arrest, compared to 434 days for Manhattan juveniles. The median figures indicate that half of the re-

19

arrested Queens juveniles were at risk only about nine months prior to their first re-arrest while half of the re-arrested Manhattan juveniles were at risk for nearly a year.

2. Stage of Case Processing at First Re-Arrest Few juvenile offenders were re-arrested before the sample case reached disposition in the Supreme Court. Only 17 percent of re-arrested juveniles processed in Manhattan Supreme Court and 14 percent of those processed in Queens were first re-arrested at that early stage of prosecution (Exhibit 15). First re-arrests between disposition and sentencing were significantly more common among re-arrested juveniles who were initially processed in Manhattan (32%) than in Queens (12%).

Most of the re-arrested juveniles in this research were first re-arrested

after the close of case processing on their sample case. This includes juveniles whose sample cases were dismissed or transferred to the family court as well as those who were sentenced to probation or to time in prison. First re-arrests after the close of case processing on the sample case were significantly more frequent among the Queens (74%) juveniles than among the rearrested juveniles initially processed in Manhattan (51%). This finding reflects differences between the boroughs in the stage of case processing at which the juveniles are at risk for rearrest. JO cases processed in Queens proceed so quickly to disposition and then to sentencing that there is very little time at risk for re-arrest prior to case completion.

3. Charge at First Re-Arrest Roughly half of the first re-arrests in both boroughs were for felony-level charges. The most common single charge for the first re-arrest was PL 221.10, criminal possession of marihuana in the fifth degree, a B misdemeanor, which accounts for about one of every seven first re-arrests in both boroughs (Exhibit 16). Nearly a fifth of the first re-arrests are for any marihuana charge, and 11 percent of the Manhattan re-arrests but only five percent of the Queens re-arrests were for a felony narcotics charge. All controlled substance offenses considered together account for three of every ten first re-arrests for Manhattan juveniles but only a quarter of the first re-arrests for juveniles initially processed in Queens. Robbery charges account for about a fifth of the first re-arrests for juveniles in both boroughs, and assault and related charges account for about one in every seven first re-arrests.

20

The charge at the first re-arrest was frequently far less serious than the charge at the most severe re-arrest. While the first re-arrest was a felony for about half of the juveniles who were re-arrested, the most severe re-arrest was a felony for 81 percent of Manhattan and 87 percent of Queens juveniles who were re-arrested (Exhibit 17). While PL 221.10 was the most common single charge for the first re-arrest, accounting for about 15 percent of the arrests, it was the most severe re-arrest charge for only four percent of re-arrested juveniles in Manhattan and only two percent of those in Queens. Instead, the most common single charge among the most severe rearrests was first-degree robbery (PL 160.15), a B felony, which accounts for about one of every six of the most severe re-arrests in both boroughs. All robbery charges considered together account for 28 percent of the most severe re-arrests in Manhattan and 35 percent of those in Queens. The second most common single charge was PL 220.39, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, also a B felony. Here there are significant borough differences.

The most severe re-arrest charge was far more likely to be PL 220.39 for Manhattan juveniles than for Queens juveniles (15%, compared to 9%). If all felony narcotics charges are considered together, the difference is even wider: Felony narcotics charges were top charges at the most severe re-arrest for about three of every ten re-arrested Manhattan juveniles but for only 17 percent of the re-arrested Queens juveniles. In contrast, PL 125.25, murder in the second degree (ten juveniles) and attempted murder in the second degree (nine juveniles) was surprisingly common among the most severe re-arrest charges for the Queens juveniles. Together, one of every ten Queens juveniles who was re-arrested was charged with such a severe charge, compared to only one out of every 100 re-arrested Manhattan juveniles.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:

The focus of this study is on comparing the effectiveness of processing juveniles in the Supreme Court in Manhattan versus Queens, measured in terms of minimizing juvenile recidivism.

Despite strong similarities between the boroughs in case and demographic

characteristics, this report documents marked differences in case processing.

Manhattan cases

proceeded far more quickly through the lower court but far more slowly through the upper court.

The juveniles prosecuted in Queens were far more likely to be released, either on bail or on recognizance, as of the first appearance in the upper court, than were juveniles prosecuted in

21

Manhattan. Juveniles processed in Manhattan were more likely to spend at least one day in detention and were likely to spend more time in detention than were Queens juveniles. Queens juveniles were more likely to be held for the duration of case processing.

The outcomes of the cases also differed somewhat for the boroughs. Conviction rates are very high for the youth processed as juvenile offenders in the Supreme Court, but conviction rates were significantly higher for Manhattan JO cases than for those processed in Queens. The likelihood of a sentence that includes imprisonment did not vary significantly for the boroughs and the majority of the juveniles in both boroughs were sentenced to five years on probation only.

However, while most of the juveniles received youthful offender (YO) status at

sentencing, the proportion granted YO status was significantly higher for Queens compared to Manhattan juveniles. Additionally, imprisonment sentences for JO cases in Manhattan tended to be significantly longer than those in Queens.

To summarize further, similar kinds of JO cases arrive in the Supreme Court in the boroughs, but there are significant borough differences in case processing in terms of length of case, detention, dispositions, and sentences.

The most striking findings concerning re-arrests among youth in JO cases in the Supreme Courts of Manhattan and Queens are the high likelihood of re-arrest and the similarities between the boroughs. Most of the juveniles in each borough were re-arrested. The findings concerning time at risk to re-arrest indicate minimal borough differences with 80 percent of juveniles processed in Manhattan and 75 percent of those processed in Queens first re-arrested within four years at risk. The re-arrest rate for Queens juveniles at risk for one year is slightly higher than for Manhattan juveniles (44% compared to 38%) but the difference is not statistically significant.

About half of first re-arrests were for felony-level offenses but about eight of every ten most severe re-arrests in each borough involved felony-level charges.

Differences between the boroughs in re-arrests were subtle. The most severe re-arrest charge was significantly more likely to be criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (a B felony), or other felony narcotics charges, for Manhattan juveniles who were rearrested while the most severe re-arrest charge was significantly more likely to be murder in the second degree, or attempted murder in the second degree, for Queens juveniles. Also, Manhattan juveniles were significantly more likely to be first re-arrested between disposition and sentence (32%) than were Queens juveniles (12%), while those processed in Queens were significantly

22

more likely to be re-arrested after case completion (74%, compared to 51% for Manhattan juveniles). The average number of days that Manhattan juveniles were at risk to re-offend prior to the first re-arrest was greater for Manhattan juveniles, but, again, the difference was not statistically significant. However, Queens juveniles who were re-arrested were significantly more likely to be first re-arrested within the first year at risk It seems that the longer length of case, longer detention, and longer sentences for juveniles in JO cases in Manhattan Supreme Court might account for the slightly longer average time to the first re-arrest for juveniles processed in Manhattan. In particular, it seems likely that the long period that Manhattan juveniles spend under the supervision of a placement program prior to sentencing during the juveniles' first months at risk for re-arrest might serve to delay reoffending behaviors. However, the wide borough differences in the court processing of juveniles in Supreme Court did not affect the proportion of juveniles who were re-arrested.

23

Exhibit 1: Demographic Characteristics Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan % 87 13 100 (303)

GENDER Male Female Total (N of cases)

Queens

NS

% **51 **9 36 5 100 (126)

% **64 **2 31 2 100 (132)

Sig. p < .05

% 38 62 100 (304)

Total (N of cases)

% 35 65 100 (132)

% 58 5 34 3 100 (258)

NS

PRIOR ARRESTS Yes No

% 33 67 100 (125) NS

% 60 3 35 2 100 (302)

Total1 (N of cases)

% 88 12 100 (132)

% 34 66 100 (258)

NS

ETHNICITY Black White Hispanic Asian

% 93 7 100 (126) NS

% 37 63 100 (302)

Total (N of cases)

Queens IND

% 90 10 100 (258)

NS*

AGE 14 15

Queens SCI

% 37 63 100 (258)

% 32 68 100 (126)

% 41 59 100 (132)

NS

* Not statistically significant. ** Sig. p < .05 1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

24

Exhibit 2: Charges Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

%

%

%

%

Murder 2 Attempted Murder 2 Kidnapping 1 Arson 2 Rape 1 and Sodomy 1 Assault 1 Robbery 2 Robbery 1 Burglary 1 Possession of a Weapon 2 and 3 Total1 (N of cases)

2 2 <1 2 2 8 *17 66 <1 1 100 (304)

3 4 <1 1 1 9 *10 70 1 <1 100 (258)

2 1 1 8 13 74 2 100 (126)

5 7 1 1 1 10 8 67 1 1 100 (132)

Robbery 1 or Robbery 2 Other charges

83 17 100 (304)

81 19 100 (258)

87 13 100 (126) Sig. p < .01

74 26 100 (132)

A. CHARGE AT ARREST

Total (N of cases) NS

* Sig. p < .05 1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

25

Manhattan B. CHARGE ENTERING SUPREME COURT Murder 2 Attempted Murder 2 Manslaughter 1 Kidnapping 1 Arson 2 Rape 1 and Sodomy 1 Assault 1 Robbery 2 Robbery 1 Burglary 1 and 2 Possession of a Weapon 2 Total1 (N of cases) Robbery 1 or Robbery 2 Other charges Total (N of cases) NS

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

%

%

%

%

2 2 <1 2 2 10 ∗∗29 ∗50 2 1 100 (304)

2 5 1 1 1 10 ∗∗17 ∗62 1 100 (258)

2 1 1 4 ∗25 66 2 100 (126)

4 9 1 1 16 ∗11 58 1 100 (132)

80 20 100 (304)

79 21 100 (258)

91 9 100 (126) Sig. p < .001

69 31 100 (132)

1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding. ∗ Sig. p < .01 ∗∗ Sig. p < .001

26

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

C. CHARGE AT PLEA OR CONVICTION

%

%

%

%

Murder 2 Attempted Murder 2 Manslaughter 1 Kidnapping 1 Arson 2 Rape 1 and Sodomy 1 Assault 1 Robbery 2 Robbery 1 Burglary 1 and 2 Possession of a Weapon 2

1 1 1 <1 2 2 6 23 62 2 1 100 (296)

1 3 2 1 1 9 18 64 1 100 (236)

2 1 1 4 ∗25 66 2 100 (126)

2 6 1 1 1 14 ∗11 63 1 100 (110)

85 15 100 (295)

83 17 100 (236)

91 9 100 (126) Sig. p < .01

74 26 100 (110)

Total1 (N of cases) Robbery 1 or Robbery 2 Other charges Total (N of cases) NS

∗ Sig. p < .01 1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

27

Exhibit 3: Release Conditions Set at Arraignment in Criminal Court Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

RELEASE STATUS

%

%

%

%

Released: On Recognizance On Bail Subtotal Released

19 5 24

23 5 28

25 7 32

21 3 24

Detained: On Bail No Bail Set Subtotal Detained

73 3 76

69 3 72

66 2 68

71 5 76

Total1 (N of cases)

100 (304)

100 (258)

100 (126)

100 (132)

Total (N of cases)

24 76 100 (304)

28 72 100 (258)

32 68 100 (126)

24 76 100 (132)

%

%

%

20 30 47 34 22 16 11 20 Total Bail Set1 100 100 (N of cases) (236) (190) Sig. p < .01 Mean $6,612 $14,576 Median $3,500 $5,000 Sig. of mean p < .01

32 39 14 15 100 (126)

28 29 18 20 100 (132)

$8,321 $3,500 Mean NS

$20,449 $5,000

Released Detained

NS %

BAIL SET Less than $2,000 $2,000 - $5,999 $6,000 - $10,000 More than $10,000

1

NS

NS

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

28

Exhibit 4: Release Status at First Appearance in Supreme Court and at Disposition Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan

Released Detained

Queens SCI

Queens IND

%

%

%

58 42 100 (258)

70 30 100 (126) Sig. p < .001

48 52 100 (132)

%

%

%

%

54 46 100 (288)

58 42 100 (230)

69 31 100 (124) Sig. p < .001

46 54 100 (106)

%

AT FIRST APPEARANCE

42 58 Total 100 (N of cases) (304) Sig. p < .001

AT DISPOSITION (for cases adjourned for sentence) Released Detained Total (N of cases) NS

Queens

29

Exhibit 5: Days from Arraignment in Criminal Court to the First Adjournment Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan Days to first Adjournment for Bail Set or Remand at Arraignment Six days or less Seven to 14 days 15 days or more

Queens IND

%

%

%

100 0 0 Total 100 (N of cases) (242) Sig. p < .001

16 34 50 100 (199)

7 34 59 100 (95) Sig. p < .001

23 35 42 100 (104)

4 4 Sig. of mean p < .001

14 14

16 15 Sig. of mean p < .001

13 14

%

%

%

%

34 17 49 Total1 100 (N of cases) (59) Sig. p < .01

10 33 56 100 (57)

10 40 50 100 (30) Sig. p < .05

11 26 63 100 (27)

15 15

15 14

15 15

Days to first Adjournment for ROR at Arraignment

Mean Median

1

Queens SCI

%

Mean Median

Six days or less Seven to 14 days 15 days or more

Queens

24 13 Sig. of mean p < .01

Mean NS

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

30

Exhibit 6: Length of Case Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

Days in Criminal Court Mean Median

18 51 5 36 (N of cases) (304) (258) Sig. of mean p < .001

44 57 28 48 (126) (132) Sig. of mean p < .05

Days from First Appearance in Supreme Court to Disposition Mean Median

188 55 146 0 (N of cases) (303) (258) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from Disposition to Sentence in Supreme Court Mean Median (N of cases)

331 71 272 43 (294) (235) Sig. of mean p < .001

0 107 0 67 (126) (132) Sig. of mean p < .001

64 42 (125) Mean NS

79 52 (110)

Days from First Appearance in Supreme Court to Sentence Mean Median

516 122 455 59 (N of cases) (295) (235) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from First Appearance in Criminal Court to Last in Supreme Court Mean Median (N of cases)

552 183 478 126 (304) (258) Sig. of mean p < .001

64 188 42 145 (125) (110) Sig. of mean p < .001

114 249 76 213 (126) (132) Sig. of mean p < .001

31

Exhibit 7: Length of Case for Defendants Released at Arraignment in Criminal Court Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

Days in Criminal Court Mean Median

35 65 17 56 (N of cases) (73) (72) Sig. of mean p < .001

54 80 34 84 (40) (32) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from First Appearance in Supreme Court to Disposition Mean Median

165 40 126 0 (N of cases) (73) (72) Sig. of mean p < .001

0 90 0 54 (40) (73) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from Disposition to Sentence in Supreme Court Mean Median

314 60 248 44 (N of cases) (72) (65) Sig. of mean p < .001

51 42 (40) Sig. of mean p < .05

75 58 (25)

Days from First Appearance in Supreme Court to Sentence Mean Median

477 93 453 55 (N of cases) (72) (65) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from First Appearance in Criminal Court to Last in Supreme Court Mean Median (N of cases)

534 182 472 144 (73) (72) Sig. of mean p < .001

51 161 42 136 (40) (25) Sig. of mean p < .001

122 257 79 234 (40) (32) Sig. of mean p < .001

32

Exhibit 8: Length of Case for Defendants Released as of the First Appearance in Supreme Court Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

Days in Criminal Court Mean Median

31 55 10 43 (N of cases) (129) (151) Sig. of mean p < .001

43 72 26 70 (88) (63) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from First Appearance in Supreme Court to Disposition Mean Median

172 35 129 0 (N of cases) (128) (151) Sig. of mean p < .001

0 83 0 49 (88) (63) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from Disposition to Sentence in Supreme Court Mean Median

332 69 288 47 (N of cases) (126) (134) Sig. of mean p < .001

66 42 (87) Mean NS

76 54 (47)

Days from First Appearance in Supreme Court to Sentence Mean Median

500 98 444 53 (N of cases) (127) (134) Sig. of mean p < .001

66 158 42 136 (87) (47) Sig. of mean p < .001

Days from First Appearance in Criminal Court to Last in Supreme Court Mean Median

555 166 491 116 (N of cases) (129) (151) Sig. of mean p < .001

117 234 76 213 (88) (63) Sig. of mean p < .001

33

Exhibit 9: Detention Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

DETENTION

% Not detained 11 Detained and released 75 Detained and not released 14 1 Total 100 (N of cases) (304) Sig. p < .001

% 27 44 29 100 (258)

% 36 39 25 100 (126) Sig. p < .01

% 17 49 34 100 (132)

LENGTH OF DETENTION

% 27 13 23 24 8 5 100 (258)

% 36 10 32 19 2 1 100 (126) Sig. p < .001

% 17 15 14 29 15 9 100 (132)

% Not detained 11 A week or less 7 8 days to two months 12 61 days to six months 20 181 days to one year 31 Over a year 19 1 Total 100 (N of cases) (304) Sig. p < .001 Mean Median

215 180 Sig. of mean p < .001 Correlation r =-.341 (N of cases) (562)

LENGTH OF DETENTION: Cases ever detained only A week or less 8 days to two months 61 days to six months 181 days to one year Over a year

1

84 26

Sig. p < .01

40 126 14 73 Sig. of mean p < .001 r =-.304 (258)

Sig. p < .001

%

%

%

%

8 14 23 34 21 1 Total 100 (N of cases) (272) Sig. p < .001

17 31 33 12 7 100 (189)

16 50 30 3 1 100 (80) Sig. p < .001

18 17 35 18 11 100 (109)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

34

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

LENGTH OF DETENTION: Cases ever detained only (continued) Mean Median

240 114 204 68 Sig. of mean p < .001 Correlation r =-.316 (N of cases) (461) Sig. p < .01 LENGTH OF DETENTION: Cases Detained and Released A week or less 8 days to two months 61 days to six months 181 days to one year Over a year

63 152 34 114 Sig. of mean p < .001 r =-.287 (189) Sig. p < .001

%

%

%

%

10 16 25 31 18 Total1 100 (N of cases) (229) Sig. p < .001

29 42 21 6 2 100 (113)

27 59 12 2 100 (49) Sig. p < .01

31 28 28 9 3 100 (64)

Mean Median

219 60 179 23 Sig. of mean p < .001 Correlation r =-.408 (N of cases) (342) Sig. p < .001 LENGTH OF DETENTION: Cases Detained and Not Released

31 81 17 48 Sig. of mean p < .01 r =-.290 (113) Sig. p < .01

%

%

%

%

A week or less 8 days to two months 61 days to six months 181 days to one year Over a year

2 12 51 35 1 100 Total (N of cases) (43) Sig. p < .001

16 50 20 14 100 (76)

36 58 3 3 100 (31) Sig. p < .001

2 44 31 22 100 (45)

Mean Median

354 196 309 128 Sig. of mean p < .001 Correlation r =-.355 (N of cases) (119) Sig. p < .001

1

113 253 70 197 Sig. of mean p < .01 r =-.359 (76) Sig. p < .01

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

35

Exhibit 10: Final Disposition in Supreme Court Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments

Manhattan DISPOSITION Convicted: Pled Guilty – adjourned for sentence Pled Guilty – sentence imposed Tried – Found Guilty Subtotal Convicted Not Convicted: Dismissed Tried – Acquitted Transferred to Family Court Subtotal Not Convicted Total1 (N of cases)

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

%

%

%

%

93

88

98

78

3 1 ∗97

2 1 ∗91

2 ∗∗100

3 2 ∗∗83

2 <1 1 3 100 (304)

6 <1 2 9 100 (258)

100 (126)

11 1 4 17 100 (132)

∗ Sig. p < .01 ∗∗ Sig. p < .001 1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

36

Exhibit 11: Sentences Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments Manhattan

Queens SCI

Queens IND

%

%

%

29 13 58 100 (235)

13 14 73 100 (125) Sig. p < .001

48 11 41 100 (110)

63 37 100

58 42 100

73 27 100 Sig. p < .001

41 59 100

%

%

%

%

85 15 100 (234)

97 3 100 (125) Sig. p < .001

72 28 100 (109)

%

%

%

64 36 100 (98)

88 12 100 (34) Sig. p < .001

52 48 100 (64)

%

SENTENCE Imprisonment Imprisonment and Probation Probation Only

37 63 Total1 100 (N of cases) (295) Sig. p < .001

Probation Only Sentence Includes Imprisonment Total

Queens

NS CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE: All Sentences Youthful Offender Juvenile Offender

74 26 Total 100 (N of cases) (294) Sig. p < .01

CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE: Imprisonment or Imprisonment and Probation Youthful Offender Juvenile Offender

1

%

31 69 Total 100 (N of cases) (108) Sig. p < .001

May not sum to 100% due to rounding

37

Exhibit 12: Length of Sentence Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments Manhattan LENGTH OF SENTENCE Imprisonment only Time Served Definite 1 year or less Minimum sentence of at least 1 year Minimum sentence of at least 2 years Minimum sentence of at least 3 years Maximum sentence of life

%

Cum %

46 46 40 86 12 98 2 101

Total1 100 (N of cases) (108)

LENGTH OF SENTENCE Imprisonment OR split Time Served Definite 1 year or less Minimum sentence of at least 1 year Minimum sentence of at least 2 years Minimum sentence of at least 3 years Maximum sentence of life

%

1

% 1 6 61 22 7 3

Cum % 1 7 68 90 97 100

100 (69) Cum %

46 46 40 86 12 98 2 101

Total1 100 (N of cases) (108)

Queens

%

10 25 42 15 5 2 100 (99)

Queens SCI

Queens IND

Cum %

Cum %

% 6 13 69 13 -

6 19 88 101 101 101

100 (16) Cum %

10 35 77 92 97 100

%

21 41 32 6 100 (34)

% 4 59 25 9 4

4 62 87 97 101

100 (53) Cum %

21 62 94 100 100 100

%

5 17 48 20 8 3

Cum %

5 22 69 89 97 100

100 (65)

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

38

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI

Queens IND

0.9 0.8

1.6 1.3

MINIMUM SENTENCE LENGTH IN YEARS∗ Imprisonment and Split Sentences

Minimum: mean Minimum: median

1.9 2.0 (N of cases)

1.4 1.0

(108) (89) Sig. of mean p < .001

(27) Sig. of mean p < .05

(62)

Imprisonment Only

Minimum: mean Minimum: median (N of cases)

1.9 2.0

1.6 1.3

1.3 1.3

1.7 1.3

(108) Mean NS

(68)

(15) Mean NS

(53)

5.3 6.0

3.4 3.0

2.2 0.8

4.0 4.0

MAXIMUM SENTENCE LENGTH IN YEARS∗∗ Imprisonment and Split Sentences

Maximum: mean Maximum: median (N of cases)

(106) (87) Sig. of mean p < .001

(27) Sig. of mean p < .05

(60)

Imprisonment Only

Maximum: mean Maximum: median

5.3 6.0 (N of cases)

4.4 4.0

3.6 4.0

4.6 4.0

(106) (66) Sig. of mean p < .05

(15) Mean NS

(51)

__________________________ ∗ Time served sentences are excluded. ∗∗ Time served and life imprisonment sentences are excluded.

39

Exhibit 13: Re-Arrest Rates by Number of Years at Risk1 to First Re-Arrest Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens Indictments versus Queens SCIs

Manhattan NUMBER OF YEARS AT RISK:

%

N

Queens %

N

Queens SCI %

N

Queens IND %

N

Four years

80

276

75

241

71

124

79

117

Three years

71

284

70

247

67

124

72

123

Two years

60

290

58

250

55

125

62

125

One year

38

298

44

253

39

126

48

127

1

Each at-risk category includes juveniles who were re-arrested within the time or were at risk for re-arrest for at least that long. For example, a juvenile who was re-arrested six months after release from pretrial detention will be tallied as a re-arrest at risk for six months and will therefore be included in the shortest ‘years at risk’ category. Juveniles who were still at risk for re-arrest after one year at risk are also included in the base of the ‘one year at risk’ category, even if they were eventually re-arrested. The base of the four years at risk category includes juveniles who were re-arrested by the time four years at risk elapsed or who were still at risk at that time. Juveniles who were not at risk or who could only be tracked for less than one year at risk with no re-arrest are not included in any at-risk category.

40

Exhibit 14: Time at Risk to First Re-Arrest Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens Indictments versus Queens SCIs Manhattan % Three months or less Over 3 months to 6 months Over 6 months to 1 year Over 1 year to 2 years Over 2 years to 3 years Over 3 years Total1 (N of cases) Mean Median

21 12 18 29 12 8 100 (220)

Cum % 21 33 ∗51 80 92 100

434 352 NS

Queens % 26 16 20 20 14 4 100 (180)

Cum % 26 41 ∗61 81 96 100

Queens SCI % 24 10 22 23 16 6 100 (88)

380 273

Cum % 24 34 56 78 94 100

Queens IND %

Cum %

27 21 18 17 13 3 100 (92)

27 48 66 83 97 100

426 320

336 214

NS

∗ Sig. p < .05 1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

41

Exhibit 15: Stage of Case Processing at First Re-Arrest as a Percentage of First Re-Arrests Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments Manhattan STAGE OF CASE PROCESSING: Before disposition Between disposition and sentence After case completion Total First Re-Arrests1 (N of cases)

1

Queens SCI

Queens IND

%

%

%

17

14

∗∗6

∗∗23

∗∗∗32 ∗∗∗51

∗∗∗12 ∗∗∗74

12 ∗82

11 ∗66

100 (180)

100 (88) Sig. p < .01

100 (92)

%

100 (220) Sig. p < .001

Queens

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

∗ Sig. p < .05 ∗∗ Sig. p < .01 ∗∗∗ Sig. p < .001

42

Exhibit 16: Charge at First Re-Arrest Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments Manhattan CHARGE AT FIRST RE-ARREST: SEVERITY OF CHARGE Felony Non-felony TOTAL FIRST RE-ARRESTS1 (N of cases)

Queens

%

%

%

%

52 48 100

48 52 100 (180)

50 50 100 (88)

47 53 100 (92

(220) NS

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSES: Criminal Possession of Marihuana in the 5th degree (PL 221.10, B misdemeanor) Other Marihuana Charges Subtotal Marihuana charges Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the 3rd Degree (PL 220.39, B felony) Other Felony Narcotics Charges Subtotal Felony Narcotics charges Misdemeanor Narcotics Charges Subtotal Controlled Substance Offenses1

Queens SCI Queens IND

NS

15 3 18

14 5 19

11 3 15

17 7 24

6 5 ∗11 1 30

4 1 ∗5 1 25

5 2 7 2 24

3 0 3 0 27

ROBBERY CHARGES: Robbery in the First Degree (PL 160.15, B felony) Other Robbery Charges Subtotal Robbery Charges1 ASSAULT AND RELATED CHARGES: Murder in the Second Degree (PL 125.25, A-I felony) Attempted Murder in the Second Degree Felony Assault Charges Misdemeanor Assault Charges Subtotal Assault and Related Charges WEAPONS OFFENSES THEFT OF SERVICES (PL 165.15A) OTHER CHARGES

9 10 19

6 16 22

2 15 17

9 17 26

<1 8 8 16 3 9 23

0 1 7 6 14 6 5 28

0 2 8 6 16 3 7 36

0 5 5 11 9 3 24

TOTAL FIRST RE-ARRESTS (N of cases)

100 (220)

100 (180)

100 (88)

100 (92)

1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

∗ Sig. p < .05

43

Exhibit 17: Charge at Most Severe Re-Arrest Juvenile Offender Cases in Supreme Court 1997 – 2000 Manhattan versus Queens and Queens SCIs versus Queens Indictments Manhattan CHARGE AT MOST SEVERE RE-ARREST:

Queens

Queens SCI Queens IND

%

%

%

%

81 19 100 (220)

87 13 100 (180)

85 15 100 (88)

88 12 100 (92)

SEVERITY OF MOST SEVERE CHARGE Felony Non-felony Total Most Severe Re-Arrests1 (N of cases) NS

NS

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSES: Criminal Possession of Marihuana in the 5th degree (PL 221.10, B misdemeanor) Other Marihuana Charges Subtotal Marihuana charges Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the 3rd Degree (PL 220.39, B felony) Other Felony Narcotics Charges Subtotal Felony Narcotics Charges1 Misdemeanor Narcotics Charges Subtotal Controlled Substance Offenses1 ROBBERY CHARGES: Robbery in the 1st Degree (PL 160.15, B felony) Other Robbery Charges Subtotal Robbery Charges1 ASSAULT AND RELATED CHARGES: Murder in the 2nd Degree (PL 125.25, A-I felony) Attempted Murder in the 2nd Degree (PL 110-125.25, A-I felony) Subtotal Murder Charges Felony Assault Charges Misdemeanor Assault Charges 1 Subtotal Assault and Related Charges 1

4 2 6

2 <1 2

1 1 2

2 0 2

∗15 9 ∗24 <1

∗9 5 ∗14 <1

12 6 18 0

5 5 11 0

∗∗31

∗∗17

20

13

17 ∗11 28

17 ∗18 35

14 19 33

21 16 37

∗1 ∗∗0

∗5 ∗∗5

6 3

4 7

∗∗∗1 10 ∗7 18

∗∗∗10 11 ∗2 13

9 11 2 13

11 11 2 14

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

∗ Sig. p < .05

∗∗ Sig. p < .01

∗∗∗ Sig. p < .001

44

Manhattan

Queens

Queens SCI Queens IND

%

%

%

%

WEAPONS OFFENSES

5

6

3

8

THEFT OF SERVICES (PL 165.15, A misdemeanor)

2

2

1

3

16

17

23

14

100 (220)

100 (180)

100 (88)

100 (92)

CHARGE AT MOST SEVERE RE-ARREST:

OTHER CHARGES TOTAL MOST SEVERE RE-ARRESTS1 (N of cases)

1

May not sum to 100% due to rounding.

45

APPENDIX JUVENILE OFFENSES

Offense

Penal Law

Felony Class

Aggravated sexual abuse in the first degree Arson in the first degree Arson in the second degree Assault in the first degree Burglary in the first degree Burglary in the second degree Kidnapping in the first degree Attempted kidnapping in the first degree Possession of a weapon in the second degree Possession of a weapon in the third degree Manslaughter in the first degree Murder in the second degree

130.70 150.20 150.15 120.10 (1) (2) 140.30 140.25 (1) 135.25 110/135.25 265.03* 265.02 (4)* 125.20 125.25 (1) (2) 125.25 (3)** 110/125.25 130.35 (1) (2) 160.15 160.10 (2) 130.50 (1) (2)

B A B B B C A B C D B A A B B B C B

Attempted murder in the second degree Rape in the first degree Robbery in the first degree Robbery in the second degree Sodomy in the first degree

Defendant Age 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 13, 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15 14, 15

* Added in November 1998, but only where the weapon is possessed on school grounds. ** But only where the underlying crime is also a JO offense.

46