DOCSLIB.ORG

The Author(S) Shown Below Used Federal Funds Provided by the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Author(S) Shown Below Used Federal Funds Provided by the U.S This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Policy Change In New York City, Final Report Authors: Jim Parsons (Principal Investigator), Qing Wei, Joshua Rinaldi, Christian Henrichson, Talia Sandwick (Vera Institute of Justice) Travis Wendel and Ernest Drucker (Co-Principal Investigator) (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) Michael Ostermann, Samuel DeWitt, and Todd Clear (Co- Principal Investigator) (School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University) Document No.: Date Received: January 2015 Award Number: 2010- IJ-CX-0030 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally-funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. A Natural Experiment in Reform: Analyzing Drug Policy Change In New York City Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 Jim Parsons (Principal Investigator), Qing Wei, Joshua Rinaldi, Christian Henrichson, and Talia Sandwick The Vera Institute of Justice Travis Wendel and Ernest Drucker (Co-Principal Investigator) John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York Michael Ostermann, Samuel DeWitt, and Todd Clear (Co-Principal Investigator) School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University January 2015 This research was supported by grant number NIJ 2010-IJ-CX-0030 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the support and participation of many people from organizations across New York State. We would like to express our appreciation to the following organizations and individuals and apologize to anyone that we have neglected to mention. Teresa Salo, Leslie Kellam, Leigh Bates, Jeehoon Kim, Renee Konicki, and Diane Cavin at the New York State Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) for preparing administrative data for us, responding to numerous questions, and graciously sharing their many insights on drug law reform. Joseph Pariso, Kevin Lasko and Alison Hamanjian at the New York State Office of Court Administration for providing data for the study, advising on the operation of the courts and facilitating interviews with judges. Eric Sorensen and his research team at the New York City Department of Correction (DOC) for his patience and support providing data from the New York City jail. District Attorneys in the five boroughs of New York City and the Office of Special Narcotics Prosecutor for allowing us to interview their staff and granting access to DTAP data. Staff-members at The Bronx Defenders‘ office and Legal Aid Society who assisted us with the casefile review portion of the study. Members of our expert panel for providing invaluable guidance and assistance to this project, including: Sandeep Varma from the New York Therapeutic Community, Inc.; Reginald Fluellen from Forensic Health Services, Addiction Research and Treatment Corporation; William Gibney from the Legal Aid Society Criminal Practice Special Litigation Unit; Elizabeth Brady from the New York City Police Department; Corinne Carey from the New York Civil Liberties Union; Daliah Heller from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 iv Hygiene Bureau of Alcohol and Drug Use Prevention, Care and Treatment; Rhonda Ferdinand from the New York City Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor; Nestor A. Ferreiro from Bronx District Attorney‘s Office; David Heslin and Anne J. Swern from Kings District Attorney‘s Office; Douglas Knight from Queens District Attorney‘s Office; Timothy Koller from Richmond District Attorney‘s Office; Martin F. Horn from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York; Leslie Kellam, Chief of Research and Evaluation, New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services; Glenn E. Martin, at The Fortune Society, Inc.; Anita R. Marton, at the Legal Action Center; Gabriel Sayegh from the Drug Policy Alliance; and Robin Steinberg and Justine Olderman at The Bronx Defenders. All of the interviewees who took time out from their busy lives to answer our sometimes confused queries, and to attempt to explain this very complex system to us all, and give their own assessments of how it may have changed in response to the 2009 DLRs and other factors that we now know have had great importance in the patterns of outcomes that so many are now trying to understand. John Jay Department of Anthropology undergraduates Leonardo Dominguez, who performed an enormous amount of procedural and analytic labor on the casefile component of the case records, and Adriana Synné Alicea, who assisted with coding and transcription of interview files. John Jay Department of Anthropology undergraduates Leonardo Dominguez and Robert Riggs for reaching out treatment service providers to gather treatment information. The John Jay Office of Sponsored Programs and Office for the Advancement of Research for support and bureaucratic ninja skills, and colleagues at the John Jay Social Network Research Group for inspiration, solidarity, and fellowship. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 v Our current and former colleagues at the Vera Institute of Justice for their collegiality, support, guidance and good humor, including Ayesha Delaney-Brumsey, Olivia Sideman, David Cloud, Valerie Levshin, Shelley Azumbrado, Siobhan Carney, Tina Chiu, Alice Chasan, Michael Mehler, Mary Crowley, Adair Iacono, Vera‘s director, Nick Turner, and our former director Michael Jacobson, as well as interns—Ashley Schappell, Neha Mehta, Nnenna Onyema, and Sara Gorman. At the National Institute of Justice, we want to thank our program officer Linda Truitt for her support and encouragement. Finally, we would like to thank our families for putting up with us, and giving us a reason to go to work in the morning. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements iv List of Tables viii List of Figures x List of Appendices xii Part I. Introduction 1 Chapter 1. Review of Literature 3 Chapter 2. Overview of NYS Drug Law Reform 11 Chapter 3. Overview of court-mandated treatment diversion programs in New York City 16 Chapter 4. Overview of the study 26 Part II. Implementation of DLR 30 Chapter 5. Overview of Implementation Analysis of DLR 30 Chapter 6. Trend Analysis 34 Chapter 7. Quantitative Implementation Analysis 50 Chapter 8. Qualitative Analysis of Implementation of Reform 99 Qualitative interview results by interview topic 103 Case file analysis results 127 Part III. The Impact of Drug Law Reform on Reoffending 132 Chapter 9. Methodology 134 Chapter 10. Recidivism Analysis Findings 141 Part IV Cost-Benefit Analysis 151 Chapter 11: Methodology 153 Chapter 12. Findings and Discussion 172 Part V. Conclusion and Recommendations 191 References 204 Appendices 214 Final Report to the National Institute of Justice Grant No: 2010-IJ-CX-0030 vii List of Tables Table 2-1. Summary of DLR Changes Drug Conviction Charge Level .................................... 14 Table 3-1. Eligible Offenses for Different Types of Diversion ................................................. 17 Table 3-2. Treatment Diversion Programs by NYC Jurisdiction .............................................. 23 Table 6-1. Felony Drug Arrests Imprisonment Rate, by Race and Year.................................... 44 Table 7-1. Comparison of Cases Characteristics for Felony Drug Arrests between Unmatched Samples and Matched Samples .............................................................................................. 57 Table 7-2. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Average Prison Sentence, Jail Sentence, and Probation Sentence .......................................................... 66 Table 7-3. Comparison of the 2008 and 2010 Matched Felony Drug Arrest Samples: Sentencing Length for B Felony Drug Arrests .......................................................................................... 77 Table 7-4. Characteristics of Drug Court Participants.............................................................. 85 Table 7-5. Predictors of Residential Treatment Services among Drug Court Treatment Participants ........................................................................................................................... 93 Table 7-6. Predictors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Day Fines in American Courts
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs NalionallnSlilute ofJustice Day Fines in American Courts: The Staten Island and Milwaukee Experiments sa p c About the National Institute of Justice The National Institute of Justice is the research and development agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, est'~blished to prevent and redu-::e crime and to improve the criminal justice system. Specific mandates established by Congress in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended, and the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 direct the National Institute of Justice to: III Sponsor special projects and research·and development prugrums that will improve and strengthen lhe criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime. III Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovatiYe or promising approaches for improving criminal justice. III Del'e/op new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice. III Evaluate the effectiveness oj criminal justice programs ana identify programs that promise' to be successful if continued or repeated. .. Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as private organizations to improve criminal justice. III Carry out research on criminal behavior. II Develop new methods oj crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency. The National Institute of Justice has a long history of accomplishments, including the following: .. Basic research on career criminals that led to development of special police and prosecutor units to deal with repeat offenders. III Research that confirmed the link between drugs and crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Records Relating to Criminal Trials, Appeals, and Pardons Information Leaflet #9
    Records Relating to Criminal Trials, Appeals, and Pardons Information Leaflet #9 INTRODUCTION This leaflet contains summary information on records of New York trial and appellate courts pertaining to criminal prosecutions (felonies and misdemeanors) and appeals, and on records relating to applications for and grants of clemency by the Governor (pardons, commutations, reprieves). Thus the scope of the information here presented covers the continuum of the State's involvement with a criminal, from arraignment, through trial, conviction (or acquittal or dismissal), sentencing, appeal, and pardon (if any). (The leaflet does not discuss records or files of district attorneys or police agencies, which investigate crimes, apprehend suspects, and prepare cases for prosecution.) Records in the State Archives pertaining to criminal appeals and executive clemency are described in considerable detail. Records held by the trial courts or other repositories are discussed in general terms. Many of the records described in this leaflet contain information that is restricted by statute; the restrictions are noted in the appropriate location. New York's criminal justice system is large and complex, and this leaflet aims to assist researchers to locate sets of records or individual cases in that labyrinth. NEW YORK CRIMINAL COURTS County Court (1847+) In all counties outside of New York City the County Court has jurisdiction over felonies and over misdemeanors that may be prosecuted by indictment. (In exceptional circumstances the Supreme Court may accept a criminal case.) Prior to 1896 the criminal term of the County Court was called the Court of Sessions. For varying periods during the later nineteenth century certain city courts had jurisdiction over felony cases.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Annual Report
    NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM 2019 ANNUAL REPORT Ontario County Courthouse, Canandaigua, NY. As part of the 2019 Law Day celebration, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks recognized Judge Michael V. Coccoma, Deputy Chief Administrative Judge for the Courts Outside New York City. Judge Coccoma, who held the position for 10 years, stepped down in 2019 and was succeeded by the Hon. Vito C. Caruso. Left to right, Judges DiFiore, Coccoma and Marks. New York State Unified Court System 2019 ANNUAL REPORT Report of the Chief Administrator of the Courts for the Calendar Year January 1 through December 31, 2019 Janet DiFiore Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the State of New York Lawrence K. Marks Chief Administrative Judge of the State of New York Associate Judges of the New York State Unified Desmond A. Green Court of Appeals Court System Civil & Criminal Matters, Thirteenth Judicial District Jenny Rivera Hon. Sherry Klein Heitler Chief of Policy and Planning Jeanette Ruiz Leslie E. Stein NYC Family Court Hon. Juanita Bing Newton Eugene M. Fahey Dean, NYS Judicial Institute Tamiko Amaker Michael J. Garcia NYC Criminal Court John W. McConnell Rowan D. Wilson Executive Director, OCA Anthony Cannataro NYC Civil Court Paul G. Feinman Nancy Barry Chief of Operations, OCA Administrative Judges Presiding Justices of the Eileen D. Millett Outside New York City Appellate Division Counsel, OCA Thomas A. Breslin Rolando T. Acosta Sherrill Spatz Third Judicial District First Department Inspector General Felix J. Catena Alan D. Scheinkman Fourth Judicial District Second Department Administrative Judges James P.
    [Show full text]
  • New York and Queens County Clerk's Offices
    O FFICE O F THE N EW Y O RK S TATE C O MPTR O LLER DIVISIon OF STATE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY Office of Court Administration New York and Queens County Clerk’s Offices: Control and Accountability over Court and Trust Funds Report 2009-S-58 Thomas P. DiNapoli Table of Contents Page Authority Letter .............................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................7 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................9 Background ..............................................................................................................................9 Audit Scope and Methodology ................................................................................................9 Authority .................................................................................................................................10 Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................................11 Contributors to the Report ...................................................................................................11 Audit Findings and Recommendations ......................................................................................13 Accountability and Timeliness of Remittances ...................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Bail Reform Revisited: the Impact of New York's Amended Bail Law On
    Bail Reform Revisited The Impact of New York’s Amended Bail Law on Pretrial Detention By Michael Rempel and Krystal Rodriguez Bail Reform Revisited: The Impact of New York’s Amended Bail Law on Pretrial Detention By Michael Rempel and Krystal Rodriguez © May 2020 Center for Court Innovation 520 Eighth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10018 646.386.3100 fax 212.397.0985 www.courtinnovation.org For correspondence, please contact Michael Rempel ([email protected]) or Krystal Rodriguez ([email protected]) at the Center for Court Innovation. Acknowledgements We would like to express our profound gratitude to a range of partners across New York who came together to forge an understanding of how New York’s bail statute has been amended and its significance for the future use of money bail and pretrial detention statewide. We are especially indebted to Alex Rhodd and Vincent Ciaccio at the Legal Aid Society who read and coded more than 600 case files of people charged with burglary in the second degree to help us estimate the significant, yet elusive, changes in the handling of this common charge. We thank Scott Levy at The Bronx Defenders who conducted a similar analysis in the Bronx. Also at the Legal Aid Society, we thank Marie Ndiaye for her valuable comments on an earlier draft. At the New York City Council, we benefited from the timely leadership of Brian Crow and Maxwell Kampfner-Williams, who organized an early multi-agency working session on April 3 and continued to offer suggestions and guidance in the days and weeks that followed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judiciary
    THE JUDICIARY INTRODUCTION THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM The Judiciary is one of the three branches of New York State Government. Article VI of the State Constitution establishes a Unified Court System, defines the organization and jurisdiction of the courts and provides for the administrative supervision of the courts by a Chief Administrator on behalf of the Chief Judge of the State of New York. The objectives of the Judiciary are to: (1) provide a forum for the peaceful, fair and prompt resolution of civil claims and family disputes, criminal charges and charges of juvenile delinquency, disputes between citizens and their government, and challenges to government actions; (2) supervise the administration of estates of decedents, consider adoption petitions, and preside over matters involving the dissolution of marriages; (3) provide legal protection for children, mentally ill persons and others entitled by law to the special protection of the courts; and (4) regulate the admission of lawyers to the Bar and their conduct and discipline. The New York State court system is one of the largest and busiest in the Western World. It consists of over 1,200 state-paid judges, 2,400 town and village justices and over 15,000 nonjudicial positions. Pursuant to the Unified Court Budget Act, the cost of operating the Unified Court System, excluding town and village courts, is borne by the State. STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS The Unified Court System is structured as follows: Court of Appeals Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court APPELLATE COURTS Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court County Courts (acting as appellate courts) Statewide: Supreme Court TRIAL COURTS Court of Claims OF SUPERIOR Family Court JURISDICTION Surrogate's Court Outside New York City: County Court New York City: Criminal Court Civil Court Outside New York City: TRIAL COURTS City Courts OF LIMITED District Courts JURISDICTION Town Courts* Village Courts* *Locally funded courts 483 JUDICIARY The jurisdiction of each court is established by Article VI of the Constitution or by statute.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery Request New York City Traffic Tickets
    Discovery Request New York City Traffic Tickets Endoplasmic Holly always stirred his knock-on if Amory is red-light or chinks formidably. Hilton communises enticingly. Georgie parches fairily? For a blatant lie, city traffic violations such as a defense Do warnings show upon on driving record? Discovery reform repeals and replaces New York State's existing discovery law dubbed. Increase Your Chances Of tool A Warning Rather propose A Ticket. Once you fact to fighting your fate a whole ridiculous situation evolves You. Some suggested forms of dissent and agency document citations in. When points go bet your driving record has your insurance company. How to manufacture a New York State Speeding Ticket plan That. Rosario Material in New York DWI Law Nave DWI Defense. To reject the flat Release Application click here. Top 10 citations Opposing discovery in mind court NY Daily. DA Sheriff New Discovery Rules Will Impact Offices News. Disbursed to the Municipal Treasurer State because New Jersey County of Passaic. Department Municipal Court plenty of Newark. Best Practices In E-Discovery In New York State and Federal. Request for Discovery for actual documentation of that training and the. Vehicle and Traffic Reduction Request Monroe County NY. How to book a Speeding Ticket & Get it Reduced Mint Intuit. Than provided determine the CPL in gait following instances Driving While Intoxicated cases. Pretextual issuance of traffic tickets to vacation and Latino City residents. How do I by a warning instead of the ticket? Chapter 1 Criminal Justice policy for Adults in NYS. New York's Criminal Discovery Law department First Responders.
    [Show full text]
  • Barriers to Justice: an Analysis of the ADA Liaison Program in New York
    Barriers to Justice An Analysis of the ADA Liaison Program in New York City Courts Disability and Aging Rights Project MFY LEGAL SERVICES, INC. 1 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS MFY would like to thank the many individuals who assisted with this report, including: Albert Del Castillo, Jr., Evan Coppotelli, Josh Forman, Emma O'Hara, Courtney Reed, and Maria Tihin. Special thanks to Matthew Longobardi and Nahid Sorooshyari who drafted this report. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction II. Summary of Findings III. Background on Disability Rights Law IV. Flaws in the ADA Liaison Program A. Lack of Awareness of the ADA Liaison Program: UCS’s Hidden Accessibility Information Webpage B. Lack of Awareness of the ADA Liaison Program: Other Notices C. Incorrect Information on the ADA Liaison Online Directory D. Lack of Court Personnel Awareness and Training E. Limited Guidance on Reasonable Accommodations F. Inadequate Accommodation of People Who Need to Appear Remotely G. Insufficient Grievance Procedure for Complaints about ADA Compliance V. Recommendations VI. Conclusion 3 I. Introduction Navigating the court system can pose challenges for anyone, but for individuals with disabilities simply accessing the court system can be very difficult. This should not be the case. Disability rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), require courts to make their programs and services accessible to people with disabilities. Courthouses must not only be physically accessible, they also must provide reasonable accommodations to people with
    [Show full text]
  • Testing the Effects of New York's Domestic Violence Courts
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Testing the Effects of New York’s Domestic Violence Courts: A Statewide Impact Evaluation Author(s): Amanda B. Cissner, Melissa Labriola, Michael Rempel Document No.: 242583 Date Received: June 2013 Award Number: 2008-WG-BX-0001 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant report available electronically. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. research A Project of the Fund for the City of New York Testing the Effects of New York’s Domestic Violence Courts A Statewide Impact Evaluation By Amanda B. Cissner, Melissa Labriola, and Michael Rempel February 2013 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Justice of the US Department of Justice (contract #2008-WG-BX-0001). We are deeply grateful to our two grant managers at the National Institute of Justice: to Bernie Auchter, for his guidance and continued assistance throughout the majority of the project, and to his successor, Karen Stern, for her assistance during the final reporting and peer review periods.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts the Udicj Ial Committee on Women in the Courts
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 19 | Number 2 Article 4 1992 Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts The udicJ ial Committee on Women in the Courts Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Law and Gender Commons Recommended Citation The udJ icial Committee on Women in the Courts, Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts, 19 Fordham Urb. L.J. 313 (1992). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol19/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Five Year Report of the New York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts Cover Page Footnote The eN w York Judicial Committee on Women in the Courts is chaired by Hon. Kathryn A. McDonald. Its members are Nicholas Capra, Michael Colodner, Hon. Betty Weinberg Ellerin, Hon. Zelda Jonas, Hon. May W. Newburger, Hon. Juanita Bing Newton, Peter J. Ryan, Fern Schair Sussman, Amy S. Vance and Adrienne White. Jill Laurie Goodman is counsel to the committee. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol19/iss2/4 FIVE YEAR REPORT OF THE NEW YORK JUDICIAL COMMITTEE ON WOMEN IN THE COURTS* Table of Contents I.
    [Show full text]
  • A Broken Clock: Fixing New York's Speedy Trial Statute
    A Broken Clock: Fixing New York’s Speedy Trial Statute DANIEL HAMBURG* New York City’s criminal courts, and those in the Bronx especially, are in crisis. Following the institution of “Broken Windows” policing in the mid- nineties, New York City courts have been flooded with misdemeanor cases, preventing the timely administration of justice. The outsized delay that now regularly accompanies misdemeanor cases in the New York City crim- inal justice system creates grave consequences for defendants and for socie- ty as a whole. This Note argues that a major source of the delay in the ad- judication of misdemeanors is New York’s speedy trial statute, CPL 30.30, and the New York Court of Appeals’ decisions interpreting it. In contrast to the statutory approach of the federal government and other states, New York calculates speedy trial time from the prosecution’s declaration of trial readiness rather than from when the defendant’s case is actually heard. As a result, the speedy trial clock is often stalled for months while the de- fendant awaits trial. This Note suggests that by adopting a true speedy trial rule and excluding routine court congestion as a permissible source of delay, while also reviving the constitutional right for misdemeanor cases, the promise of speedy trials can be restored to New York’s criminal courts. I. INTRODUCTION: THREE DEFENDANTS Michailon Rue, a 40-year old Iraq War veteran and resident of the Bronx, was arrested for possession of marijuana in August of 2011.1 He rejected a series of plea deals offered by the Bronx dis- * Notes Editor, COLUM.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Domestic Violence Case Processing
    RESEARCH A Public/Private Partnership with the New York State Unified Court System Criminal Domestic Violence Case Processing A Case Study of the Five Boroughs of New York City Submitted to the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Office on Violence Against Women of the U.S. Department of Justice 1 This publication was supported by funding from the Office on Violence Against Women, US Department of Justice, under the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies program, grant number 2000-WE-VX-0009. The opinions and recommendations expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Office on Violence Against Women or the Center for Court Innovation. Written by Chandra Gavin About the Authors Nora K. Puffett Chandra Gavin is a former Research Associate at the Center for Court Innovation. Nora K. Puffett is a Senior 2005 Research Associate at the Center for Court Innovation. Acknowledgments The authors thank the many judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, resource coordinators, victim advocates, clerks and other court staff in the five boroughs who volunteered their time to participate in interviews and provide information for this project. We would also like to thank Deirdre Bialo-Padin, Andy Liu, Wanda Lucibello, Jessica Marcus, Michelle Maroney, Audrey Moore, Terri Roman, and Yolanda Rudich for reviewing the final draft and providing essential corrections and thoughtful feedback. Any remaining errors are entirely the authors’ own. Finally, we offer our deepest gratitude to Michael Rempel and Liberty Aldrich at the Center for Court Innovation for their patience, support, and continued faith that this document would, eventually, be completed.
    [Show full text]