DOCSLIB.ORG

A Altern Ea Native Astern Es to I N Distr Incarc Rict of Cerati F New Ion in W York N the K

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Altern Ea Native Astern Es to I N Distr Incarc Rict of Cerati F New Ion in W York N the K Alternatives to Incarceration in the Eastern District of New York The Pretrial Opportunitty Program and The Special Options Services Program Third Report to the Board of Judges United States District Court Eastern District of New York October 2017 I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 II. The Alternative to Incarceration Programs in the Eastern District of New York ............................. 5 A. The Brooklyn Pretrial Opportunity Program .................................................................................... 5 B. The Brooklyn Special Options Services Program ........................................................................... 10 C. The Long Island Program ............................................................................................................... 14 III. The Data .......................................................................................................................................... 15 A. Demographic Characteristics and Educational levels ..................................................................... 15 B. Substance Abuse and Mental Health History .................................................................................. 17 C. Charges, Criminal History, and Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 20 D. Program Termination ...................................................................................................................... 21 E. Cost Savings .................................................................................................................................... 23 IV. Profiles of Selected Participants ..................................................................................................... 25 A. Brooklyn Pretrial Opportunity Program ......................................................................................... 25 1. Updates on Participants Profiled in Our Original April 2014 Report ......................................... 25 2. Updates on Participants Profiled in Our August 2015 Report .................................................... 26 a. S.D. ......................................................................................................................................... 27 b. C.J. .......................................................................................................................................... 29 c. V.P. ......................................................................................................................................... 30 3. Profile of POP’s Newest Participant ........................................................................................... 30 d. R.M. ........................................................................................................................................ 30 4. Profile of an Unsuccessful POP Participant ................................................................................ 31 e. A.L. ......................................................................................................................................... 31 B. Brooklyn Special Options Services ................................................................................................. 32 1. Update on Participants Profiled in Our Original April 2014 Report ........................................... 32 2. SOS Graduates and Recipients of Deferred Prosecution or Dismissal ....................................... 32 a. J.L............................................................................................................................................ 32 b. L.C. ......................................................................................................................................... 33 c. R.I............................................................................................................................................ 34 d. A.T. ......................................................................................................................................... 35 e. T.D. ......................................................................................................................................... 36 f. C.E. ......................................................................................................................................... 38 g. R.G. ......................................................................................................................................... 39 h. R.H. ......................................................................................................................................... 41 i. E.C. ......................................................................................................................................... 42 j. D.C. ......................................................................................................................................... 43 k. E.V. ......................................................................................................................................... 44 l. W.C. ........................................................................................................................................ 45 m. K.T. ......................................................................................................................................... 46 n. A.D. ......................................................................................................................................... 48 3. Unsuccessful SOS Participants ................................................................................................... 49 4. Profiles of Current Participants ................................................................................................... 50 i a. A.M. ........................................................................................................................................ 51 b. R.F. .......................................................................................................................................... 51 c. D.D. ......................................................................................................................................... 52 C. Long Island Program ....................................................................................................................... 53 V. Alternative to Incarceration Programs in Other Districts ............................................................... 56 A. District of Arizona – Veterans Program ......................................................................................... 56 B. Central District of California – Conviction and Sentence Alternatives Program ........................... 58 C. Eastern District of California – The Better Choices Court ............................................................. 59 D. Northern District of California – Conviction Alternatives Program ............................................... 59 E. Southern District of California – Alternative to Prison Sentence Diversion Program .................... 61 F. District of Connecticut – The Support Program ............................................................................. 62 G. Central District of Illinois - Pretrial Alternatives to Detention Initiative ....................................... 62 H. Northern District of Illinois – Sentencing Options that Achieve Results ....................................... 64 I. District of Massachusetts - The Repair Invest Succeed Emerge Program ...................................... 66 J. Eastern District of Missouri – The Sentencing Alternatives Improving Lives Program ................ 68 K. District of New Hampshire – The LASER Program ....................................................................... 69 L. District of New Jersey – The Pretrial Opportunity Court ............................................................... 71 M. Southern District of New York – The Young Adult Opportunity Program .................................... 72 N. Southern District of Ohio – Special Options Addressing Rehabilitation Program ......................... 73 O. District of Oregon – The Court Assisted Pretrial Supervision Program ......................................... 74 P. Western District of Pennsylvania — Bridges Presentence Court ................................................... 75 Q. District of South Carolina – The BRIDGE Program ...................................................................... 76 R. Western District of Texas - VETS Alternative to Prosecution Program ......................................... 77 S. Western District of Texas – The Adelante Program ....................................................................... 78 T. District of Utah – The Basin Program ............................................................................................ 79 U. District of Vermont ......................................................................................................................... 80 V. Western District of Virginia – The Veterans Treatment Court ....................................................... 82 W. Western District of Washington – The DREAM Program ............................................................. 83 X. Some Concluding Observations .....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Voting Rights in New York City: 1982–2006
    VOTING RIGHTS IN NEW YORK CITY: 1982–2006 JUAN CARTAGENA* I. INTRODUCTION TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT At the time of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the continuation of Section 5 coverage to three counties in New York City, the city was at a major crossroads regarding faithful compliance with the mandates of the Act. Just one year earlier in the largest city in the United States, the largest municipal election apparatus in the country was brought to a screeching halt when the federal courts enjoined the Septem- ber mayoral primaries—two days before Election Day—because the city failed to obtain preclearance of new (and discriminatory) city council lines and election district changes.1 The cost of closing down the election was enormous, and a lesson was painfully learned: minority voters knew how to get back to court, the courts would not stand by idly in the face of obvious Section 5 noncompliance and business-as-usual politics would no longer be the same. Weeks later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not only of- ficially deny preclearance to the city council plan, but would find that its egregious disregard of the burgeoning African-American and Latino voting strength in the city had a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory ef- fect.2 In this context, the 1982 extension of Section 5 to parts of New York City should not have seemed so anomalous to a country that continued to * General Counsel, Community Service Society. Esmeralda Simmons of the Center for Law and Social Justice, Medgar Evers College, Margaret Fung of the Asian American Legal Defense and Educa- tion Fund, Jon Greenbaum of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Debo Adegbile of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund assisted in editing this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Nysba Spring 2017 | Vol
    NYSBA SPRING 2017 | VOL. 23 | No. 1 Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Newsletter A publication of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association www.nysba.org/ComFed Upcoming Commercial and Federal Litigation Section Events and Co-Sponsored Events Thursday, March 30, 2017 Legal Ethics in the Digital Age: Practical Strategies for Using Technology Ethically in Your Practice Live CLE Program and Webcast | 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. | Executive Conference Center | NYC Renowned speakers on ethics, social media and electronic discovery. Learn the ins and outs of protecting privilege in elec- tronic communications. Speakers will also cover managing records in the cloud and organizing client fi les. A panel discus- sion on the do’s and don’ts of attorney social media use and advice to clients. 4.0 MCLE Credits in Ethics. Co-Sponsored by the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, the Committee on CLE and the Law Practice Management Committee. Basic Lessons on Ethics and Civility 2017 (held in 5 locations) Live CLE Program and Webcast | 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Wednesday, April 5, 2017 in NYC | Friday, April 7, 2017 in Albany | Friday, April 7, 2017 in Rochester Friday, April 28, 2017 | in Amherst | Friday, April 28, 2017 in Melville A sound ethical compass and a civil and professional demeanor are the hallmarks of successful and respected attorneys in all areas of practice. This four hour program will provide attendees with an update on developments in the area of attorney eth- ics, including the most recent case law.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering the Battle of Brooklyn
    Two Sections w Facebook.com/ Twitter.com Volume 59, No. 90 FRIDAY, AUGUST 16, 2013 BrooklynEagle.com BrooklynEagle @BklynEagle 50¢ BROOKLYN Coney Amusement TODAY Remembering AUG. 16 Ride Injures Boy A 5-year-old boy suf- Good morning. Today is fered lacerations to his The Battle of the 228th day of the year. The left leg and head after Brooklyn Daily Eagle of Aug. 16, 1901, took note of the large falling off a kiddie ride at number of poolrooms existing an amusement park in Brooklyn within a few blocks of Borough Brooklyn, police said Hall. At that time, “poolrooms” Wednesday. BATTLE OF BROOKLYN WEEK meant places, usually saloons, Police are investigat- will take place from Aug. 18 where bets were placed on the ing how the boy, who is to 25, and events (including horses. Playing billiards was re-enactments such as the just one of the ways patrons re- expected to survive, was laxed until their results came in able to get out of the Sea one seen here) are planned from the track. By the beginning Serpent Roller Coaster at at Green-wood Cemetery, of World War I, however, Deno’s Wonder Wheel the Old Stone House, Brook- “pool” increasingly referred to Amusement Park in lyn Bridge Park and Fort the game of billiards itself. Coney Island. Well-known people who Greene Park. The Battle of were born today include actress The boy, whose name Brooklyn, which was the first Angela Bassett (“Waiting to Ex- was not released, was battle of the Revolutionary taken to Bellevue Hospi- hale,” “Malcolm X”), sports- War after the Declaration, caster and Hall of Fame foot- tal, where officials said he ball player Frank Gifford, TV was in stable condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge William C
    Hon. William C. Conner Inn of Court Reception and Dinner onn . C er C I m N a N i l o l f i C W o . u N r O t H I P N e 8 w 00 York 2 January 17, 2018 The Union League Club of New York Judge William C. Conner Mission of the Hon. William C. Conner Inn of Court The mission of the Hon. William C. Conner Inn of Court is to promote excellence in professionalism, ethics, civility, and legal skills for judges, lawyers, academicians, and students of law and to advance the education of the members of the Inn, the members of the bench and bar, and the public in the fields of intellectual property law. At our Inaugural Dinner in 2009, we presented Mrs. Conner with a bouquet of her favorite flowers - yellow roses. Honorable William C. Conner passed away on July 9, 2009. His wife, Janice Files Conner, passed away on September 12, 2011. We continue to commemorate Mrs. Conner every year with yellow roses on the tables at our Annual Dinner. Program Reception • 6:00 pm Dinner • 7:00 pm Presentations 2018 Conner Inn Justice Awards to Distingished Senior Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and U.S. District for the Southern District of New York 2018 Conner Inn Excellence Award to Hon. Pierre N. Leval Senior Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Presented by Hon. J. Paul Oetken District Judge, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternatives to Incarceration in the Eastern District of New York
    Alternatives to Incarceration in the Eastern District of New York The Pretrial Opportunitty Program and The Special Options Services Program Report to the Board of Judges United States District Court Eastern District of New York April 2014 Table of Contents I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3 II. The Alternative to Incarceration Programs in the ............................................................................. 6 Eastern District of New York ....................................................................................................................... 6 A. The Pretrial Opportunity Program .................................................................................................... 6 B. The Special Options Services Program ........................................................................................... 10 III. The Data .......................................................................................................................................... 13 A. Demographic Characteristics and Educational Levels .................................................................... 13 B. Substance Abuse and Mental Health History .................................................................................. 15 C. Charges, Criminal History, and Risk Assessment .......................................................................... 16 D. Program Violations and Dispositions ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Voting Rights in New York 1982-2006, LEP Language Access
    VOTING RIGHTS IN NEW YORK 1982-2006 A REPORT OF RENEWTHEVRA.ORG PREPARED BY JUAN CARTAGENA MARCH 2006 VOTING RIGHTS IN NEW YORK 1982-2006 1 JUAN CARTAGENA TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the Voting Rights Act 2 I. Section 5 Preclearance Activity 4 A. Section 5 Objections 4 B. DOJ More Information Requests 10 II. Deployment of Federal Observers 12 III. Language Assistance Litigation & Compliance Issues 13 A. Language Assistance Litigation and Compliance Issues Outside of NYC 17 IV. Voting Rights Litigation 18 V. Racially Polarized Voting in New York 20 Conclusion 26 1 General Counsel, Community Service Society. Esmeralda Simmons (Center for Law & Social Justice, Megar Evers College), Margaret Fung (Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund), Jon Greenbaum ((Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law) and Debo Adegbile (NAACP Legal Defense Fund) assisted in editing this report; and Glenn Magpantay (Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund), Gabriel Torres, Walter Fields (Community Service Society) and Paul Wooten were instrumental in collecting materials relied upon in this report. 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT At the time of the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act and the continuation of Section 5 coverage to three counties in New York City, the city was at a major crossroads regarding faithful compliance with the mandates of the Act. Just one year earlier in the largest city in the United States, the largest municipal election apparatus in the country was brought to a screeching halt in September 1981 when the federal courts enjoined the mayoral primaries – two days before Election Day – because the city failed to obtain preclearance of new (and discriminatory) city council lines and election district changes.2 The cost of closing down the election was enormous and a lesson was painfully learned: minority voters knew how to get back to court, the courts would not stand by idly in the face of obvious Section 5 noncompliance, and business-as- usual politics would no longer be the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Last Week in Gang Land Meldish Murder Suspect Fingered In
    6/17/2016 Meldish Murder Suspect Fingered In Shooting Of Bonanno Soldier Real Stuff About Organized Crime The nation's foremost EXPERT on the American Mafia Home This Week Capeci's Books Archives Log In Search GANG LAND IS A PAID SUBSCRIPTION SITE. Last Week in Gang June 9, 2016 FOR MORE INFORMATION, Land PLEASE CLICK HERE By Jerry Capeci Meldish Murder Suspect Fingered In Shooting Of Bonanno Soldier Things haven't This Week in progressed very Gang Land smoothly for the Last Week in feds since they Gang Land moved to take This Month in control of the Bronx District Attorney's Gang Land History investigation into the 2013 gangland­ style slaying of longtime Luchese associate Michael Meldish, the former boss of a notorious team of drug The Five Families dealers from the Bronx and East Harlem known as the Purple Gang. More than a year after federal prosecutors stepped into what looked like a sure­fire murder and racketeering case, the murder indictment against Luchese mobster Christopher Londonio and mob associate Terrence Caldwell languishes in Bronx Supreme Court. The duo is cooling their heels behind bars. And informed sources say there is little chance that the FBI and Manhattan U.S. John Gotti John "Junior" Attorney's office will move to take over the prosecution in Gotti the foreseeable future. This news comes as law enforcement officials tell Gang Land that Caldwell, the alleged gunman who killed Meldish with a single shot to the head as he sat in his car in front of his Throgs Neck home on November 15, 2013, Alfonso "Little Salvatore "Bull" is suspected in another mob rubout attempt.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Sentence Letter
    Case 1:07-cr-00543-DLI Document 462 Filed 12/01/10 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 4255 TONI MESSINA, Esq. 100 Lafayette Street, Suite 502 New York, NY 10013 11.30.10 The Honorable Judge Dora Irizarry U. S. District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York PRE-SENTENCE LETTER In Re: U.S.A. v. Abdul Kadir, 07 CR 543 Dear Judge, This letter is written to help the court determine the appropriate sentence for Abdul Kadir in keeping with the mandates of 18 USC 3553(a). It will review his personal history, his role as a Parlimentarian and leader in his home country, Guyana, the context ofthis crime and his minor role therein, comparative sentences of other defendants in the U.S. convicted of terrorist crimes and will argue against the 40 years recommended by the Department of Probation. Defendant's History Abdul Kadir is a 59-year-old Guyanese man whose mother died before he reached age two. He grew up under his father's care and remained close to his dad, Victor Seaforth, until his recent death, Sept. 2010, due in part to the stress related to Abdul's incarceration and subsequent conviction. While he was raised in what he describes as a middle-income environment, it was middle income in context only. Guyana is a third-world country, and a middle-income upbringing there would be considered a subsistence existence in the U.S. He was, however, loved, encouraged and taken care of. Through government-sponsored scholarships he attended university and studied engineering in Trinidad at the University of the West Indies.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Bar Council Quarterly, Pete Eikenberry and Anna Stowe Denicola Celebrate Judge Robert Katzmann’S Tenure As Chief Judge of the Second Circuit
    June/July/Aug. 2020 www.federalbarcouncil.org Vol. XXVII, No. 4 In This Issue: From the Editor ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Bennette D. Kramer recently spoke with Sheila S. Boston, the newly inducted president of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, about some of her goals as president of the City Bar and her view of the current pandemic of racism, the antiracism movement, and a range of other topics. Personal Reflections ......................................................................................................................................... 6 In one of the longest and most in-depth articles ever to appear in the Federal Bar Council Quarterly, Pete Eikenberry and Anna Stowe DeNicola celebrate Judge Robert Katzmann’s tenure as Chief Judge of the Second Circuit. Speaking with more than 20 judges, court staff members, and law school deans, the not-to-be-missed article, “The Remarkable Seven-Year Tenure of Chief Judge Robert Katzmann,” reflects on Judge Katzmann’s background, judicial career, and involvements before and during his tenure as chief judge. From the Bench .............................................................................................................................................. 20 The newest member of the Board of Editors of the Federal Bar Council Quarterly, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave, is the author of the next article in this issue, “The Impact of COVID-19
    [Show full text]
  • FC16 Program Book.Indd
    F C 1 6 Asian American Bar Association of New York 4 TIMES SQUARE / NEW YORK, NY 10036 / SEPTEMBER 24, 2016 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates Skadden is proud to support and host the 7th Annual Fall Conference of the Asian American Bar Association of New York. Diversity and excellence are inextricably intertwined. Beijing Los Angeles Shanghai Boston Moscow Singapore Brussels Munich Tokyo Chicago New York Toronto Frankfurt Palo Alto Washington, D.C. Hong Kong Paris Wilmington Houston São Paulo London Seoul skadden.com FALL CONFERENCE 2016 CONFERENCE FALL Contents 4 AABANY Welcome Letter 1 7 History of AABANY 8 Schedule 10 Norman Lau Kee Trailblazer Award 12 2016-2017 AABANY Officers / 13 2016-2017 AABANY Directors OF NEW YORK ASSOCIATION AMERICAN BAR ASIAN 14 2016-2017 Advisory Committee 15 2016-2017 Committee Co-Chairs 16 Past Presidents of AABANY 17 Fall Conference Sister Bar Partners 18 Panels 2 28 CLE Accreditation 29 2nd Annual Diversity Career Fair & Expo 31 Group Mentoring Sessions 32 Pitch Sessions 33 Biographies 76 Acknowledgments 3 77 Thank You to Our Sponsors 79 Advertisements 3 / 84 Dear AABANY Members and all attendees: I welcome you to AABANY’s 7th Annual Fall Award and Michelle Lee, Under Secretary Conference: “Speak Up, Rise Up, Lift Up.” of Commerce for Intellectual Property AABANY is very excited to present this full and Director of the United States Patent day of valuable professional opportunities. and Trademark Office (USPTO) with the Whether you are a 1st year law student or a AABANY Women’s Leadership Award. seasoned practitioner, our flagship Annual Fall Conference has something for you.
    [Show full text]
  • Lightsmonday, out February 10, 2020 Photo by Teresa Mettela 50¢ 57,000 Queensqueensqueens Residents Lose Power Volumevolume 65, 65, No
    VolumeVol.Volume 66, No. 65,65, 80 No.No. 207207 MONDAY,MONDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARYFEBRUARY AUGUST 6,10,10, 2020 20202020 50¢ A tree fell across wires in Queens Village, knocking out power and upending a chunk of sidewalk. VolumeQUEENSQUEENS 65, No. 207 LIGHTSMONDAY, OUT FEBRUARY 10, 2020 Photo by Teresa Mettela 50¢ 57,000 QueensQueensQueens residents lose power VolumeVolume 65, 65, No. No. 207 207 MONDAY,MONDAY, FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 10, 10, 2020 2020 50¢50¢ VolumeVol.VolumeVol.VolumeVol. 66, 66,66, No.65, No. No.65,65, 80No. 80 80183No.No. 207 207207 MONDAY,THURSDAY,MONDAY,MONDAY,THURSDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARY FEBRUARYFEBRUARYFEBRUARY AUGUST JANUARY AUGUSTAUGUST 6,10, 6,10,6,10, 10,7,2020 2020 20202021 20202020 50¢50¢50¢ Volume 65, No. 207 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2020 50¢ VolumeVol.TODAY 66, No.65, 80No. 207 MONDAY,THURSDAY, FEBRUARY AUGUST 6,10, 2020 2020 A tree fell across wires in50¢ TODAY AA tree tree fell fell across across wires wires in in TODAY ‘It remindedQueensQueensQueens Village, Village, Village, knocking knocking knocking me outoutout power power power and and and upending upending upending A treeaa chunka chunkfell chunk across of of ofsidewalk. sidewalk. sidewalk.wires in VolumeVolumeVolumeQUEENSQUEENSQUEENSQUEENS 65, 65,65, No. No.No. 207 207207 LIGHTSLIGHTSduring intenseMONDAY,MONDAY, OUTOUTOUT FEBRUARY FEBRUARYFEBRUARY 10, 10,10, 2020 20202020 of GeorgeQueensPhotoPhoto PhotoVillage, by byFloyd’ byTeresa Teresa Teresa knocking Mettela Mettela Mettela 50¢50¢50¢ QUEENS out power and upending 57,00057,000 Queens QueensQueensQueensQueensQueens
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Uniformity and Individuality in Mass Litigation
    DePaul Law Review Volume 64 Issue 2 Winter 2015: Twentieth Annual Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy - In Article 3 Honor of Jack Weinstein Notes on Uniformity and Individuality in Mass Litigation Jack B. Weinstein Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Jack B. Weinstein, Notes on Uniformity and Individuality in Mass Litigation, 64 DePaul L. Rev. (2015) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol64/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES ON UNIFORMITY AND INDIVIDUALITY IN MASS LITIGATION Jack B. Weinstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. DILEMMAS .............................................. 251 A. Law’s Fundamental Dilemma ....................... 252 B. Sentencing .......................................... 255 C. Class Action ........................................ 256 II. MECHANISMS ........................................... 257 A. Juries and Others ................................... 257 B. Judges .............................................. 257 C. Legal Community ................................... 259 III. MASS ACTIONS.......................................... 261 A. Unavailability of Efficient Procedures for Courts .... 261 B. Limitations on Individual Access to the Courts ...... 265 1. Lack of Lawyers ...............................
    [Show full text]