If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. 116'(/+ JI'l

..J • The Prosecution of Felony Arrests 19 0 ------Bureau of Justice Statistics reports Corrections Privacy and security (revised October 1985) BJS bulletins and special reports: Computer crime: Call toll-free BOO-732-3277 (local Capital punishment 1984, NCJ-98399, 8/85 BJS special reports: 251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be added Prison admissions and releases, 1982, Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-96666,3/85 to one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak NCJ-97995, 7/85 Electronic fund transfer and crime, to a reference specialist in statistics at the Prisoners in 1984, NCJ-97118, 4/85 NCJ·92650, 2/84 Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, National Examining recidivism, NCJ-96501, 2/85 Computer security techniques, Criminal Justice Reference Service, Ret/Arnin9 t("Prison, NCJ-95700, 11/84 NCJ-84049,9/82 Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Single Time.safl¥?~ in prison, NCJ-93924, 6/84 Electronic tund transter systems and crime, copies of reports are free; use NCJ number Prisoners in State and Federal institutions on NCJ'83736, 9/82 to order. Postage and handling are charged Dec. 31, 1982 (final), NCJ'93311, 12/84 Legislative resource manual, NCJ-78890, 9/81 for bulk orders of single reports. For single Capital punishment 1982 (final), NCJ'91533, Expert witness manual, NCJ-77927, 9/81 11/84 Criminal justice resource manual, NCJ-61550, copies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are 12/79 free; 11-40 titles $10; more than 40, $20; 1979 surveyof inmates of State correctional facilities libraries call for special rates. and 1979 census of State correctional facilities: Privacy and security of criminal history Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and BJS special reports: information: The prevalence of imprisonment, NCJ-93657, Compendium of State Legislation, 1984 other criminal justice data are available overview, NCJ-98077, 9/85 from the Criminal Justice Archive and 7/85 Career patterns in crime, NCJ-88672, 6/83 A guide to research and statistical use, Information Network, P.O. Box 1248, Ann NCJ-69790, 5/81 Arbor, MI48106 (313-763-5010). BJS bulletins: A guide to dissemination, NCJ-40000, 1/79 Prisoners and drugs, NCJ·87575, 3/83 Compendium of State legislation: National Crime Survey Prisoners and alcohol, NCJ-S6223, 1/83 NCJ'48981, 7/78 Criminal victimization in the U.S.: Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-80697, 2/82 1981 supplement, NCJ'79652, 3/82 Veterans in prison, NCJ-79232, 11/81 1983 (final report), NCJ-96459, 10/85 Criminal jUGtice information policy: 1982 (final report), NCJ-92820, 11/84 Census of jails and survey of jail inmates: Data quality of criminal history records, NCJ· 1973-82 trends, NCJ-90541, 9/83 The 1983 jail census (BJS bulletin, NCJ-95536, 98079, 10/85 1981 (final report), NCJ-90208 11/84 Intelligence and investigative records, 1980 (final repor!), NCJ-84015, 4/83 Jail inmates 1982 (BJS bulletin), NCJ-87161, 2/83 NCJ·95787, 4/85 1979 (final report), NCJ-76710, 12/81 Census of jails, 1978: Data for individual jails, Victim/witness legislation: An overview, BJS special reports: vols. !-IV, Northeast, North Central, South, West, NCJ·94365, 12/84 The risk of Violent crime, NCJ-97119, 5/85 NCJ-72279'72282, 12/81 Information policy and crime control strategies The economic cost of crime to victims, NCJ- Profile of jail inmates, 1978, NCJ·65412. 2/81 (SEARCH/BJS conference), NCJ-93926, 93450,4/84 10/84 Family Violence, NCJ-93449, 4/84 Parole and probation Research access to criminal justice data, BJS bulletins: NCJ-84154, 2/83 BJS bulletins: Probation and parole 1983, NCJ-94776, Privacy and juvenile justice records, Criminal victimization, 1984, NCJ-98904, 10/85 9/84 NCJ·84152,1/83 Households touched by crime, 1984, NCJ- Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218, 8/83 Survey of State laws (BJS bullotin), 97689,6/85 NCJ·80836, 6/82 The crime of rape, NCJ-96777, 3/85 Characteristics of persons enterin9 parole Privacy and the private employer, Household burglary, NCJ-96021, 1/85 during 1978 and 1979, NCJ·87243. 5/83 NCJ'79651, 11/81 Criminal victimization, 1983, NCJ-93869. 6/84 Characteristics of the parole population, 1978, Violent crime by strangers, NCJ-80829, 4/82 NCJ·66479.4/81 Crime and the elderly, NCJ-79614, 1/82 Parole in the U.S., 1979, NCJ·695f::i2, 3/81 Federal offenses and offenders Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81 BJS speCial reports: Courts Pretrial release and miscondUct, NCJ-96132, Response to screening questions in the National 1/85 Crime Survey (BJS technical report). NCJ- BJS bulletin 97624.7/85 The growth of appeals: 1973-83 trends, BJS bulletinS: Victimization and tear of crime: World NCJ-96381.2/85 8ank robbery, NCJ'94463, 8/84 perspectives, NCJ-93872, 1/85 Case filings in State courts 1983, NCJ·95111. Federal drug law violators, NCJ·92692. 2/84 The National Crime Survey: Working papers, 10/84 Federal justice statistics, NCJ·80814. 3/82 vol. I: Current and historical perspectives, BJS special reports: NCJ-75374,8/82 Felony sentencing in 18 local General vol. II: Methological studies. NCJ·90307. 12/84 jurisdictions, NCJ-97681. 6/85 BJS bulletinS. Crime a9ainst the elderly in 26 cities, The prevalence of guilty pleas, NCJ·96018. Tracking offenders: The child victim. NCJ· NCJ-76706, 1/82 12/84 95785. 12/84 The Hispanic victim, NCJ'69261, 11/81 Sentencing practices in 13 States. NCJ·95399 The severity of crime, NCJ·92326. 1/84 Issues in the measurement of crime, 10/84 The American response to crime: An overview NCJ·74682, 10/81 Criminal defense systems: A national of criminal justice systems, NCJ·91936. 12/83 Criminal victimization of California residents, survey. NCJ·94630, 8/84 Tracking offenders, NCJ·91572, 11/83 1974-77, NCJ-70944. 6/81 Habeas corpus, NCJ·92948. 3/84 Victim and witness assistance: New State Restitution to victims of personal and household Case filin9s in State courts 1983, laws and the system's 'esponse. NCJ·87934. crimes, NCJ-72770, 5/81 . NCJ-95111, 10/84 5/83 Criminal victimization of New York State State court case load statistics. 1977 and 1981, NCJ·87587, 2/83 National survey of crime severity. NCJ-96017. l'esidents,1974-77, NCJ·66481. 9/80 10/85 The cost of negligence: Losses from preventable Supplement to the state court model statistical Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. 1984. household burglaries, NCJ·53527, 12179 dictionary, NCJ-98326, 9/85 NCJ·96382. 10/85 Rape victimization in 26 American cities, The prosecution ()f felony arrests: Criminal victimization of District of Columbia NCJ-55878, 8/79 • 1980, NCJ'97684, 10/85 residents and Capitol Hill employees, 1982-83, Criminal victimization in urban schools, 1979, NCJ-86482. 5/84 NCJ·56396, 8179 NCJ·97982;Summary, NCJ-98567: 9/85 State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711. 7/82 The DC crime victimization study implementation. Crime a9ainst persons in urban, suburban, and State court model statistical dictionary, rural areas, NCJ-53551. 7/79 NCJ-98595, 9/85, 57.60 domestlc/5920 Canadl' Supplement, NCJ-98326, 9/85 an/$12.80 foreign An introduction to the National Crime Survey, 1 st edition, NCJ·62320. 9/80 NCJ-43732, 4/78 The DC household victimization survey data bClS~: A cross-city comparison of felony case Documentation, NCJ·98586. 5640/58 40/S11 Local victim surveys: A review of the issues, proceSSing, NCJ'55171, 7/79 NCJ-39973, 8177 User manual, NCJ'98597, 5820/5980/51280 Federal criminal sentencing: Perspectives of BJS telephone contacts '85. NCJ·98292, 8/85 analysis and a design for research, NCJ·33683, Expenditure and employment How to gain access to BJS data (brochure). 10/78 BC-000022,9/84 Justice expenditure and employment, 1982 (BJS Variations in Federal criminal sentences, Information policy and crime control bulletin), NCJ-98327, 8/85 NCJ-33684, 10178 strategies, NCJ-93926. 10/84 Justice expenditure and employment in the U.S.: Predicting sentences in Federal courts: The Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law and 1980 and 1981 extracts, NCJ·96007,6/85 feasibility of a national sentenCing policy, justice statistics. 1984, NCJ·93310, 8/84 1971-79, NCJ-92596, 11/84 NCJ'33686, 10178 Report to the nation on crime and justice: 1979 (final report), NCJ·87242, 12/83 State and local prosecution and civil attorney The data, NCJ-870G8. 10/83 systems, NCJ·41334, 7/78 Dictionary of criminal justice data terminol09Y: 2nd ed. NCJ'76939, 2/82 Technical standards for machine· readable data supplied to BJS, NCJ·75318, 6/81 u.s. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics

The Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980

By Barbara Boland Elizabeth Brady

September 1985 NCJ-97684

Copyright © INSLAW, Inc., 1985 U.S. DEP ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Steven R. Schlesinger Director

Report of work performed by INSLA W, Inc.

This report was supported by grant number 81-BJ-CX-K042, awarded to INSLAW, Inc., Washington, D.C., by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, formerly the National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice, under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BJS authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material in this publication, with the exception of those items indicating that they are copyrighted or reprinted by permission of any source other than INSLAW, Inc.

U.S. Department of Justice 97684 National Institute of Justice This document .ha~ bee~ ~epr.oduced exactly as received from the person or organizatIOn ongmahng it. Points of view or opinions stated m thiS document ~re thos.e of the authors and do not necessarily represent the offiCial position or policies of the National Institute of Justice.

Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been granted by, Pub.LiC Domain/Bureau of Justice StatlstlcslOS Department of Justice

to the National Crimi nat Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).

Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the copyright owner.

ii Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Contents

Introduction, 1

Overview, 2

Data sources, limitations, and definitions, 5

Case a ttri tion, 'I The problem of attrition, 7 How much attrition? 7 Handling attrition: Screening, charging, and postfiling dismissals, 9 Screening and the decision to charge, 10 Reasons for case attrition, 12 Evidence and witness problems, 12 Victim-arrestee relationship and victim-witness traits, 13 Police as contributors to evidence and witness I?roblems, 15 Prosecutor-caused evidence and witness problems, 16

Guilty pleas and trials, 18 Prevalence of guilty pleas, 18 Plea process in the jurisdictions, 18 The debate on plea bargaining, 22 Trials, 24

Sentencing, 27 Sentencing patterns, 27 Disparity in sentencing decisions, 28

Length of time for case processing, 31 Case-processing times, 31 The role of continuances, :33 Other issues, 33

Appendix A: Jurisdictional characteristics, 35 Appendix B: Case-processing statistics by crime type, 73

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 iii Introduction

The Prosecution of Felony Arrests, reduced charge, to insist on pleas to controls are employed to restrict 1980 is the third report of a statis­ the top charge or go to trial, and in attorney discretion to "negotiate" tical series describing felony case some jurisdictions they can and do pleas (Guilty pleas and trials). processing in urban prosecutors' of­ recommend specific sentences to fices. The first two reports looked judges. • Of defendants arrested for a at felony prosecution in 13 and 14 felony, jurisdictions, on average, jurisdictions and covered cases The presentation and examination of sentence 10% to State prison. Of procesied in 1977 and 1979, respec­ case-processing statistics in a num­ defendants arrested for a felony tively. This report includes 28 ber of jurisdictions will contribute and convicted of a misdemeanor or jurisdictions. In most instances the generally to the understanding of felony charge, an average of 21 % data analyzed ~efer to cases pro­ how State and local criminal justice aro. sentenced to State prison cessed in 1980. The series explains systems operate and of the prosecu­ (Sentencing). the role of the prosecutor in the fel­ tor's role in determining arrest dis­ ony disposition process and provides positions. In addition, by identifying • The speed with which defendants' statistics that fill the gap in infor­ differences and similarities in these cases are disposed by the courts also mation on what happens to criminal same statistics among jurisdictions, varies subs tan tially am ong jurisdic­ cases between arrest and sentence to one can begin to understand both the tions. The median case-processing prison. extent to which differences in policy time from arrest to final disposition and operating procedures affect case for cases disposed in the felony trial Each year the FBI publishes the outcomes and the extent to which courts ranges from 57 to 246 days Uniform Crime Reports containing certain outcomes may be beyond the (Length of time for case processing). detailed data on the number of de­ control of criminal justice authori­ fendants arrested for different types ties. of crimes. But until the initiation of this series by the Bureau of Justice Key findings that are beginning to Statistics, no government agency had emerge from this and previous edi­ assumed responsibility for keeping tions of the series include (chapter track of what happens to a crime titles, in parentheses, indicate where after the police make an arrest. No to look for details): further counting was done until con­ victed defendants showed up at a • Approximately 50% of all felony State prison to serve a sentence of arrests the police make do not lead incarceration-a small fraction of to a conviction but are rejected by those arrested. the prosecutor before court charges are filed or are later dism issed in The prosecutor, of course, is not the court (Case attrition). only law enforcement official re­ sponsible for the numerous decisions • A high rate of case attrition is a that determine the final outcomes of problem that is common across juris­ felony arrests, but he does exercise dictions. In jurisdictions where th.e enormous power and discretion in de­ dispositions of all felony arrests can termining arrest dispositions. In be tracked, case attrition rates many jurisdictions the prosecutor range between 38 and 52% (Case alone has the authority to determine attrition). if court charges will be filed against a defendant and whether the court • In all jurisdictions most convic­ charge will be a felony or a less tions are the result of guilty pleas. serious misdemeanor. Prosecutors Among the 28 jurisdictions the frac­ decide whether to accept pleas to a tion of all plea and trial adjudica­ tions that are guilty pleas ranges 1Kathleen Orosi, A Cross-City Comparison of between 78 and 97% (Guilty pleas Felony Case Processing (Washington, DC: U.S. and trials). Government Printing Office, July 1979), and Barbara Doland et al., The Prosecution of Felony Arrests 1979 (Washington, DC: U.S. • H(,,",' the plea process is handled, Government Printing Office, December 1983). however, varies significantly among 2Statistics were collected for 1981 in those jurisdictions. Contrary to the pop­ jurisdictions for which 1980 data were ular assumption that aU pleas are the incomplete or unavailable. (n two jurisdictions result of "bargains," in som e juris­ 1982 data were used. Exact definitions of case load and data years are contained in Chapter dictions plea offers are routinely n. presented on a "take it or leave it" basis. Rigorous administrative

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 1 Chapter I Overview

Almost everyone who studies crime points out that a major obstacle to Participating jurisdictions understanding the problems and Jurisdiction improving the work of police, pros­ Hajor cities Legal population ecutors, and the courts is the lack of in jurisdiction jurisdiction 1980 systematic data on the entire system of criminal justice. Despite the fact Large cities that the crime commissions of the Los Angeles, California Los Angeles County 7,477 ,657 early 20th century com~lained about Detroit, Hichigan Wayne County 2,337,240 the very same problem, in most San Diego, California San Diego County 1,861,846 Manhattan, New York New York County 1,427,533 cities it is still difficult for anyone Rhode Island (Providence) Rhode Island 947,154 to say what happens to ;nost criminal Indianapolis, Indiana Marion County 765,233 cases from the time an arrest is Louisville, Kentucky Jefferson County 684,793 made on the street to the point of t1ashington, D.C. t1ashington, D.C. 637,651 Kansas City, Missouri Jackson County 629,180 final disposition in the courts and Salt Lake City, Utah Salt Lake County 619,066 commitment to prison. Portland, Oregon Multnomah,County 562,640 New Orleans, Louisiana Orleans Parish 557,482 From the FBPs Uniform Crime St. Louis, Missouri St. Louis City 453,085 Reports it is known that the police Suburban areas made close to 1.5 million adult 2 Dedham, Massachusetts (Boston) Norfolk County 606,587 arrests for serious crim es in 1980. Golden, Colorado (Denver) 1st Judicial District 374,182 At the other end of the system, Littleton, Colorado (Denver) 18th Judicial District 330,287 National Prisoner Statistics data on Cobb County, Georgia (Atlanta) Cobb County 297,694 new imprisonments show that 142,122 Geneva, Illinois (Chicago) Kane County 2].3,405 persons were committed by the court Brighton, Colorado (Denver) 17th Judicial District 245,944 to State and Federal prisons. Very Medium cities few felony arrests-less than 10 out of every 100-result in a defendant's Colorado Springs, Colorado 4th Judicial District 317,458 Des Hoines, Iowa Polk County 301,879 being sent to prison. Statistics on Lansing, Michigan Ingham County 272,1137 what happens to the other 90 adult Davenport, Iowa Scott. County 157,000 defendants after arrest (or more Pueblo, Colorado lOt:, Judicial District 125,975 precisely to all defendants arr1dsted Small cities for felony crimes) are the subject of the Prosecution of Felony Arrest Kalamazoo, Michigan Kalamazoo County 213,378 serie~. Tallahassee, Florida 2nd Judicial Circuit* 202,000 Fort Collins, Colorado 8th Judicial District 151,047 Greeley, Colorado 19th Judicial District 123,438 The data in this report were col­ lected from the 28 jurisdictions *Data available for Leon County only. Note: The categorization of jurisdictions by large city, listed in exhibit 1, which shows the suburban area, medium city, and small city was designed to type of urban areas represented and approximate the Uniform Crime Report's population group the population size of the legal categories I-III and suburban areas. The categorization was jurisdictions served. The 28- based on the population of the major city in the jurisdiction. jUrisdiction sample very closely approximates a national picture of Exhibit 1 the four urban population groups that account for the vast majority of all areas and 26f> in medium-size and Before it is possible to derive mean­ reported crimes. Rural jurisdictions, small cities. Nineteen, or 68%, of ingful statistics on felony arrest which account for a small fraction of the 28 jurisdictions represent either dispositions and to make comparisons total crime, are not represented. major cities or suburban areas; 9, or among jurisdictions, it is necessary According to FBI statistics, 85% of 32% of the jurisdictions, represent to understand the arrangements that all crim e occurs in urban areas. medium-size and small cities. Over­ exist for processing of felony cases Further, 74% of all urban crime all these jurisdictions represent 10% and how these arrangements vary occurs in major cities and suburban of the total U.S. population and 14% across jurisdictions. A t several of the population in urban areas. points in the felony disposition pro­ Isee, for example, Felix Frankfurter and cess, statistical differences in Roscoe Pound, eds., Criminal Justice in '3U";;iform Crime Reports for the United outcomes among jurisdictions are Cleveland (1922, reprint ed., Montclair, NJ: States, 1980 (Washington, DC: Federal Bureau just as likely to reflect differences Patterson Smith, 1968: VI). of Investigation, 1981). 2In 1980 the Uniform Crime Reports indicated in institutional arrangements as they that 2,338,600 persons were arrested for index are to reflect differences in sub­ crimes. An estimated 63% of those arrests stantive outcomes of felony cases. were of persons 18 and older. In this report particular attention is

2 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 paid to describing these arrange­ If the prosecutor decides to file a minor exceptions, felony arrests that ments in the individual jurisdictions felony charge (he may alternatively are not indicted or bound over are (see Appendix A) and to explaining file misdemeanor charges or reject either rejected by the prosecutor at their effect on the statistical the case and file no charges at all), screening, dismissed in the lower measures presented in each chapter. the next major step in the felony court, or convicted of a misdemean­ disposition process is either a or in the lower court. In some Most jurisdictions have a two-tier preliminary hearing in the lower jurisdictions, preindictment disposi­ court structure for processing felony court or presentation of the case to tions are primarily rejections and arrests. Initial proceedings in felony the grand jury. Legally these two dismissals and include very few cases, such as arraignments, bond proceedings operate very aiffer­ misdemeanor convictions. These are hearings, and preliminary hearings to ently: Grand jury proceedings are typically jurisdictions in which a determine that probable' cause exists secret, and the defendant and de­ relatively high fraction of felony to proceed on a felony charge, are fense counsel are not present. Only arrests are prosecuted in the felony usually handled by the lower or mis­ the prosecutor's view of the crime is court. In jurisdictions in which a demeanor court of the jurisdiction. presented to a jury of lay persons, relatively low fraction of arrests are These courts also handle'felohy who then vote on whether the case prosecuted in the felony court, the arrests that are reduced to misde­ should proceed to the felony trial preindictment dispositions include a meanors and original misdemeanor court on the felohy charge. substantial number of misdemeanor arrests. convictions. The preliminary hearing is an open The felony or upper court of a court proceeding presided over by a The decision to pursue a misde­ jurisdiction assumes responsibility judge. The defendant is present and meanor versus a felony conviction for felony cases after a "bindover" both the prosecutor and defense may may be made at the time of initial decision at the lower court pre­ present evidence and question wit­ screening and charging, but it is also liminary hearing or after a grand nesses. The final decision on common for jurisdictions to initially jury indictment on the felony whether the case should be "bound file many felony arrests as felonies charge. Almost all jurisdictions in over" to the felohy trial court is and for the reduction to a misde­ the United States require at least made by the judge. meanor to occur at some later stage., one of these two "due process" pro­ such as when the case is reviewed ceedings before a prosecutor can From the defendant's perspective, for presentation at a preliminary proceed with a case to the felony whichever proceeding is used, the hearing or to a grand jury. court for a possible felony trial. critical fact is that a decision to Only the felony court has legal juris­ indict or to bind over means that the Because of these differences among diction to accept pleas to felohY case will be disposed in the felony jurisdictions in the point of the court charges or hear felony trials. In court and the defendant potentially process at which key decisions are some jurisdictions both a preliminary faces conviction and sentence on a made and because the purpose of this hearing and a grand jury indictment felony charge. The indictment/ report is to piece together an overall are required before a case can be bindover decision is also a critical picture of what happens to felony transferred to the felony court one for the prosecutor. These cases arrests, in the chapters that follow (Washington, D.C., is an example). include the most serious crimes; they disposition statistics will frequently In a few jurisdictions, the prosecutor alsO involve defendants the prose­ be presented frofll several perspec­ can proceed directly' from arrest to cutor has judged to be legally as well tives. In some instar.ces disposition the felony court by filing a "bill Of as factually guilty. They are, in measures will reflect the outcomes information" with the court clerk. short, the cases prosecutors think of all arrests, in some instances the deserve the greatest attention. To outcomes of initial court filings For the defendant, the first appear­ prosecutors, a felony case most (referred to as cases filed), and in ance in court is in the lower court. often means a case that is indicted still other instances the outcomes of In all Jurisdictions, defendants or bound over and ultimately'dis­ cases indicted or bound over to the appear in court within a matter of posed in the felony court. Most fel­ felony court. Each measure presents hours after arrest for a bail/bond ony arrests, however, are disposed a different view of the felony dispo­ hearing. In many jurisdictions this is either at screening or in the lower sition process, but all are useful for also the time at which the defendant court and never reach the bindover explaining how prosecutors and is informed of the formal charges or indictment stage of prosecution. courts dispose of felony arrests. filed by the prosecutor against him or her. Many prosecutors thus must Among the jurisdictions in this re­ Exhibits 2 and 3, for example, pre­ screen and make an initial charging port, the fraction of felony arrests sent very different views of the decision within the short time period indicted or bound over to the felony felony disposition process. Exhibit 2 (in some jurisdictions as little' as 20 court for disposition ranges from a shows dispositions for all felony hours) between arrest and the initial high of approximately 50% to a low arrests and exhibit 3 shows dispo­ court appearance. of approximately 20%. With a few sitions only for cases disposed in the felony court.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 3 Overview

Viewing the disposition process from the point of view of the felony court Dispositions of all felony arrests suggests that the vast majority of defendants either plead guilty or go Percent Number of rejected Percent to trial and are convicted. Among arrests Pe rcent Percent and guilty Percent Percent the 19 jurisdictions, an average Jurisdiction diseosed rejected dismissed dismissed ~ trials other (jurisdiction median) of 72% of fel­ Cobb County 3,778 * 51 51 37 2 10 ony court cases result in a guilty Golden 2,279 19 23 42 47 3 8 plea and 11 % are settled by a court Greeley 865 27 14 41 48 1 10 or jury trial. Of the cases settled by Lansing 2,403 39** 13** 52** 39** 5** 4** trial, 76% result in a finding of Los Angeles*** 70,044 37 13 50 50 NA 0 Manhattan 27,386 4 34 38 60 2 0 guilty. New Orleans 7,095 45 6 51 36 8 6 Salt Lake 3,017 28 17 45 40 4 11 This is quite different from the Tallahassee 1,465 5 43 48 41 6 5 Washington, D.C. 8,554 17 32 49 39 8 4 picture that emerges when the dispo­ sition process is viewed from the Jurisdiction median 23 20 49 41 5 6 point of all felony arrests made by *1n Cobb County all felony arrests are filed by the police in the lower the police. The disposition statistics court before they are screened by the prosecutor. Cases on which the for the 10 jurisdictions in exhibit 2 prosecutor does not wish to proceed are terminated by a dismissal. suggest an average of 49% of all fel­ **Estimated ony arrests are either rejected for ***Derived using California Offender Based Transaction (OBTS) data. Data on total trials were unavailable. Trial convictions are included prosecution or dismissed in court. und~r gUilty pleas and acquittals under dismissals. The difference between the two sets of statistics reflects the fact that in the early pretrial stages of case pro­ exhIbit 2 cessing prosecutors and the courts weed out the majority of nonconvict­ able arrests. Rejections occur Dispositions of felony indictments/bindovers before any court charges at all are in felony court filed and most dismissals occur in All diseositions Trials Number of Percent the lower courts before indictment felony court Pe rcent guilty Percent Percent Pe rcent or bind over to the felony court. Jurisdiction disEositions dismissed ~ trials convicted acquitted

Cobb County 1,726 15 81 4 81 19 In the chapters that follow, data Dedham 366 18 64 15 83 17 from the 28 jurisdictions will be used Des floines 1,222 10 74 16 76 24 to focus on case outcomes at specif­ Detroit 10,439 18 65 17 57 43 ic points in the flow of criminal Golden 866 21 61 5 85 15 Indianapolis 2,591 20 66 12 81 19 cases. Chapter III addresses case Kalamazoo 933 15 78 7 61 39 attrition both at screening Kansas City 1,649 23 63 10 69 31 (rejections) and after cases have Lansing 676 9 79 12 69 31 Los Angeles* 14,545 8 80 11 79 21 been accepted for prosecution Louisville 1,547 12 61 18 75 25 (dismissals). Chapter IV describes Manhattan 5,906 15 75 10 79 21 the plea negotiation process and New Orleans 3,502 11 72 17 61** 39** Portland 3,641 24 61 15 88 12 presents statistics on dispositions by Pueblo 173 31 58 2 NA NA plea and trial. Chapter V examines Rhode Island 3,817 14 80 5 55 45 sentencing patterns and the role of St. Louis 3,116 15 76 9 64 36 the prosecutor in sentencing, which San Diego 4,205 9 80 11 78** 22 is traditionally viewed as a judicial Washington, D.C. 2,678 14 67 19 71 29 function. Finally, Chapter VI looks Jurisdiction median 15 72 11 76 24 at length of time required to dispose *OBTS data of cases and how disposition times **Estimated vary by the method of disposition. Note: Percents in some jurisdictions do not add to 100 Data from all 28 jurisdictions will because of exclusion of "other" dispositions. not appear in every table or chap­ ter. Limits on the extent to which Exhibit 3 data for each jurisdiction can be presented throughout the report jurisdictions in insti tutional and data. These and other limitations reflect both differences among the administrative arrangements and the are discussed in Chapter II on data availability of complete system sources, limitations, and definitions.

4 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Chapter II Data sources, limitations, and definitions - The primary data source for this report, and the two that preceded it, Data sources and definitions is a computer-based management information system called PROMIS Legal (Prosecutors Management Informa­ jurisdiction Felony felony/ Data Data case load Case load tion SystF.!m) developed by INSLAW Jurisdiction misdemeanor source year definition size in the early 1970's under funding from the Law Enforcement Assist­ Brighton, Colorado F&M PROMIS 1980* Filings 1,142 Cobb County, Georgia F PROMIS 1981 Arrests 3,778 ance Administration. PROMIS is a Colorado Springs, Colorado F&M PROMIS 1980* Filings 1,484 generalized tracking and manage­ Davenport, Iowa F&M PROMIS 1980 Filings 2,011 ment information system used by Dedham, Massachusetts F&M Manual 1980 Indictments 366 prosecutors and other justice Des Moines, Iowa F&M Manual 1981 Filings 1,401 Detroit, l11ch1gan F&M Hanua1 1982 Filings 12,365 agencies to monitor the movement Fort Collins, Colorado F&M PROMIS 1980* Filings 776 of cases and defendants through Geneva, Illinois F&M PROMIS 1980 Filings 1,262 intricate legal and administrative Golden, Colorado F&M PROMIS 1980* Arrests 2,279 Greeley, Colorado F&M PROMIS 1981 Arrests 865 processes. Indianapolis, Indiana F&M PROMIS 1980 Indictments 2,591 Kalamazoo, Michigan F&M Manual 1981 Indictments 933 In 20 jurisdictions, PROMIS data Kansas City, Missouri F&M Manual 1982 Indictments 1,649 tapes containing complete data files Lansing, Michigan F&M Manual 1981 Arrests 2,403 Littleton, Colorado F&M PROMIS 1980* Filings 923 on all cases initiated in 1980 or 1981 Los Angeles, California F PROMIS** 1980 Arrests 70,044** were obtained from the jurisdictions Louisville, Kentucky F PROMIS 1980 Indictments 1,547 and processed at INSLAW. In two Hanhattan, New York F&H PROMIS 1980 Arrests 27,386 jurisdictions (Tallahassee and Cobb New Orleans, Louisiana F&M PROMIS 1980 Arrests 7,095 Portland, Oregon F&M PROMIS 1981 Filings 3,894 County), tables were prepared by the Rhode Is land F PROMIS 19RO Indictments 3,817 jurisdictions in cooperation with Pueblo, Colorado F&M PROmS 1981 Filings 339 INSLAW. In several jurisdictions, St. Louis, Missouri F&M PROMIS 1980 Filings 3,801 Salt Lake City, Utah F&M PROMIS 1980 Arrests 3,017 PROMIS data were supplemented by San Diego, California F&M PROmS 1.9RO Filings 8,668 manual or other data sources. Six Tallahassee, Florida F&M PROmS 1980 Arrests 1,465 jurisdictions participated by making Washington, D.C. F&H PROMIS 1980 Arrests 8,554 their manual statistics available to *In these jurisdictions, data year was July 1980 to June 1981. INSLAW. Manual statistics refer to **PROHIS data in Los Angeles were supplemented by California cases disposed as opposed to cases Offender Based Transaction Data (OBTS). Because the jurisdiction initiated in 1980 or 1981. In two of of the district attorney is limited to the felony court, felony the manual sites, Detroit and Kansas arrests disposed as misdemeanors are not tracked by the district attorney's PRm!IS system. Cases tracked by the OBTS system City, data refer to cases disposed in represent approximately 70 percent of the actual number of cases 1982. Data sources and data years disposed. See Criminal Justice Profile 1980, Los Angeles County, for all jurisdictions are listed in Department of Statistics, State of California. exhibit 4. Exhibit 4 also provides case load definitions and case load Exhibit 4 size for each jurisdiction. In PROMIS jurisdictions, case load size reflect charges at arrest rather than 29%, of the jurisdictions are located represents the number of cases initi­ plea, dismissal, or trial. in the South or Northeast, whereas ated in 1980 or 1981 and closed at the these regions account for approxi­ time the data tapes were prepared The statistics for each jurisdiction mately 50% of reported crime. by the jurisdictions. presented in the text and Appendix B summarize the outcomes of all de­ Perhaps the most serious limitation In each jurisdiction the counts of fendants processed in each juris­ of the data for deriving comparable arrests or cases refer to the number diction, and thus reflect the average cross-jurisdictional sta tistics is the of individual defendants processed as outcome among defendants. The differing definition of "felony cases" opposed to separate criminal inci­ jurisdiction averages presented in that jurisdictions use in designing dents. A crime involving three the text, however, indicate how the their manual and automated case defendants, for example, would be "average jurisdiction" disposes of tracking systems. In some juris­ counted as three arrests or cases. cases and not how "on average" ar­ dictions it is possible to track the Where data are presented by crime restees in urban areas are handled. dispositions of all felony arrests, type, the most serious charge ever It also is important to point out that including those rejected or filed as associated with the case is used to the urban areas in the 28-jurisdiction misdemeanors; in others only cases characterize the crime. As the sample disproportionately represent initially filetl as felonies, but seriousness of charges associated urban areas in the West and North disposed as felonies or misdemean­ with criminal cases frequently Central census regions; urban juris­ ors, are tracked; apd in others, declines from arrest to disposition, dictions in the South and Northeast statistics are collected only for the crime types more accurately' are underrepresented. Only eight, or those cases ultimately indicted or

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 5 Data sources, limitations, and definitions

bound over to the felony court, and filing, as distinguished from the bindover-The decision by the lower typically disposed as felohies. filing of the case in the upper court court requiring that a person charged after indictment 01' bindover. with a felony appear for trial on that Because of differing administrative charge in the upper court as the re­ arrangements for charging and weed­ arraignment-Arraignments are sult of a finding of probable cause at ing out cases in the preindictment/ hearings before a court having a preliminary hearing. bindover stage, jurisdictions vary jurisdiction in a criminal case in considerably in the fraction of felony which the identity of the defendant information-The informatioll is the arrests filed. Thus, dispositions is established and the defendant is charging document filed by the pros­ measured from the point of filing informed of the charges and of his or ecutor to initiate the trial stage of a show a great deal of variation her rights. The usage of the term felony case subsequent to a bindover primarily reflecting these differing varies considerably among juris­ decision in the lower court. In a few administrative arrangements. Where dictions. States an information may be filed appropriate the effect of these without a preliminary hearing and arrangements on the statistical initial appearance-In this report bindover decision. measures is explained in the text. the term arraignment is used to To assist the reader in understanding indicate the initial appearance or indictment-The indictment is the the administrative procedures neces­ first appearance of a defendant foi'~'nal charging document which sary to process felony arrests, the in the first court having juris­ initiates the trial stage of a felony definition of key terms is provided diction over his or her case. case after grand jury consideration. below. arraignment on the indictment or lower court-Lower courts are those information-The terms arraign­ having no felony trial jurisdiction, or ment on the indictment or ar­ trial jurisdiction limited to less than raignment on the information all felohies. In many jurisdictions refer to the first appearance in the lower court is referred to as the the upper or felony court subse­ misdemeanor court, but in addition quent to an indictment by a grand to jurisdiction over misdemeanors jury or a bindover decision by the these courts also handle ini tial pro­ lower court. ceedings in felony cases, such as arraignments, bail/bond hearings, preliminary hearing-The preliminary and preliminary hearings. hearing is a proceeding before a judicial officer in which three mat­ upper court-Upper courts are those ters must be decided: whether a with trial jurisdiction over all crime was committed; whether the felohies, Typically, they receive crime occurred within the territorial felony cases after indictment by a jurisdiction of the comt; and wheth­ grand jury or a bindover decision by er there are reasonable grounds to the lower court at a preliminary believe that the defendant commit­ hearing. The upper court often is ted the crime. In several states, the referred to as the felony or trial prelim inary hearing, usually held in court. the lower court, is the point at which it is determined whether proceedings filing-F iling is the initiation of a will continue in felony cases. If the criminal case in a court by formal court finds probable cause the defen­ submission to the court of a charging dant will be bound over or "held to document alleging that one or more answer" in the upper or felony court. named persons have committed one or more specified criminal offenses. grand jurY-A body of persons In this reportl, case filing will.be who have been selected according to used to indicate the filing of/a case law and sworn to hear evidence in the lower court, the first' court against accused persons and de­ termine whether there is sufficient IThe definitions were derived from the evidence to bring those persons to Dictionar of Criminal Justice Data trial. In some States, all felony Terminology Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice charges must be considered by a Statistics, second edition, 198!). grand jury before filing in the trial court. The grand jury decides whether to indict or not indict.

6 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ------~----

Chapter III Case attrition

OVer at least the last half century, case attrition studies, which measure this narrow perspective, however, is criminal justice reformers, scholars, case dropout from the point of police that little systematic information or and the public have discovered and arrest (a system perspective), prose­ understanding has accumulated about frequently rediscovered the probleln cutors rarely measure their own per­ why cases are dropped after arrest of case attrition. A common (and formance on the basis of all arrests or what, if anything, caQ be done often the only) response is a case the police present to them for about it. Answers to the following study of prosecution and court prosecution. questions, for example, are not dispositions in a single city at a routinely known. How many cases single point in time. Such ad hoc Police authority to arrest is based on typically fall out? What types of studies have looked at the probleln the legal concept that "probable cases are they? Could some have re­ of case attrition in cities as di- cause" exists to believe a crime has sulted in a conviction if police and verse as Cleveland of the 1920's and been committed and the defendant prosecutors had treated them differ­ New Y£rk and Los Angeles of the has committed the crime. The pros­ ently? Which ones? What actions 1970's. The results are remarkably ecutor's responsibility to convict might they have taken to enhance similar. Most arrests, it is found, do rests on the much more stringent the probability of a conviction? In not result in any conviction at all but legal standard of "proof of guilt those instances in which the police drop out of the criminal justice beyond a reasonable doubt." The and prosecutor have littIeor no con­ system. The most common disposi­ prosecutor is supposed to "enforce trol over conviction, how are such tion for a felony arrest is a rejection the law" but is also supposed to cases to be identified and weeded or nolle by the prosecutor or a court protect the rights of the legally as out of the court process in a fair and dismissal. well as the factually innocent. To expeditious manner? obtain a conviction on all arrests the The problem of attrition police present, from a legal per­ The broader system perspective spective, could be (and has been) adopted by this report, it is hoped, A t one time this finding was sup­ viewed as an abrogation of this duty. will promote a common understand­ posed to contrast with the public's ing of case attrition and lay the view that most arrests lead to a Thus it is not surprising that pros­ groundwork for constructive inves­ conviction decided by a jury at tigations. Too often when the case trial. Now it is more likely to be ecutors traditionally measure con­ viction rates not from arrest but attrition problem is "discovered" the cited as evidence that the criminal response is for the prosecutor to justice system has failed; in other from other points in the court system. The most common is from blame the police for bringing "bad" words, for most criminals, when cases and for the police to counter caught, "nothing" happens. How is it the point of indictm ent or bindover to the felony court. Indictment or tha t the prosecutor does nothing then that prosecutors and the courts with their "good" arrests. can report that as many as 85 to 90% bindover is a far more serious action against an individual than an arrest, of the cases they handle result in a How much attrition? conviction? and the decision reflects a much more careful assessment of the evi­ The findings of past stUdies that As the first report in this series dence than is possible by the police on the street. Although the formal attempt to measure total case attri­ pointed out, the discrepancy is 2 tion from felony arrest to a final largely a matter of perspective. legal standard is still probable cause, virtually all prosecutors apply a disposi tion, in the prosecutor's office Because the criminal justice system or the court, are rem arkably consis­ is not a system at all, but rather a higher standard of proof. Most do not carry forward into the felony tent; from 40 to 60% of cases initial­ loose confederation of independent ly charged as felonies by the police agencies (including the l?olice, prose­ court cases for which they do not think the evidence is sufficient to are dropped at some point after cution, courts, and corrections), each arrest. A 1971 study of 75,000 adult agency views its performance from support a conviction. Calculation of case attrition rates (or conversely felony arrests made by the police in an agency rather than a system wide New York City found that 56% led to perspective. Thus, in contrast to conviction rates) from this point, however, means that cases that are a conviction. Forty-four percent dropped between a.rrest and i'ndict­ resulted ~n all police charges being lSee Felix Frankfurter and Roscoe Pound, dropped. A more recent study of eds., Criminal Justice in Cleveland (1922, ment are not included in the reprint ed., Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith, calculation. two cities, San Diego, California, 1968: VI); Felony Arrests: Their Prosecution and Jacksonville, Florida, in 1978 and Disposition in ~l. Y. City's Courts (New a~d 1979 similarly reported that in York: Vera Institute of Justice, 1977); and Prosecutors have valid reasons for Peter Greenwood et al., The Prosecution of paying special attention to indicted San Diego 48% and in Jacksonville Adult Felon Arrests in Los An eles Count: felony cases. Felony court cases are 42% of robberies, burglaries, and A Police Perspective Santa Monica, CA: not only those for which the evi­ Rand, 1973). 3See, Felony Arrests. 2Kathleen B. Brosi, A Cross-City Comparison dence has been judged legally sound, of Felony Case Processing (Washington, DC: they also typically include the most U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1979). serious crimes. The disadvantage of

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 7 Case attrition

felony assault cases initiated by th~ police did not lead to a conviction. Total attrition rate from police arrest Attrition rate from initial court filing And the California Criminal Justice Percent Profile series, which in recent years of arrests Percent Number has re ported.s ta te wide disposition dismissed Number of filed of statistics on adult felony arrests, or rejected of cases cases for arrests Jurisdiction dismissed filed reported Statewide attrition sates in Jurisdiction Erosecution disEosed 1978, 1979, and 1980 of 44%. Nor Cobb County 51% 3,778 do these recent measures of case L,gnsing 52* 2,403 Geneva 4'; 1,262 Cobb County 51 3,778 Tallahassee 45 1,390 attrition differ markedly from those New Orleans 51 7,095 Washington, D.C. 39 7,101 reported by studies of court disposi­ Los Angeles** 50 70,044 Hanhattan 35 26,298 tions performed by the various crime Washington, D.C. 49 8,554 Pueblo 34 339 commissions of the 1920's. The Tallahassee 48 1,465 Colorado Springs 32 1,484 Salt Lake 45 3,017 Davenport 31 2,011 Wickersham Commission of 1931 re­ Golden 42 2,279 'Detroit 31 12,365 ported an average attrition rate of Greeley 41 865 Brighton 30 1,142 59% in the cities of New York, Manhattan 38 27,386 St. Louis 29 3,801 Golden 28 1,879 Chicago, Cleveland, and St. Louis Jurisdiction median 49 Salt Lake 25 1,996 (based on data collected during Littleton 24 923 various years from 1919 to 1926).6 *Estimated Lansing 23* 1,358 **OBTS data Portland 23 3,894 The last edition of this series Des Hoines 21 1,401 Exhibit 5 Los Angeles** 20 44,336 (The Prosecution of Felony Arrests, Fort Collins 19 776 1979), which analyZed data for cases Greeley 19 630 processed in 1979 reported total Definition oC attrition San Diego 18 8,668 rates of attrition for five jurisdic­ New Orleans 11 3,502 tions: Manhattan, Cobb County, Los Case studies of attrition typically meas­ Jurisdiction median 29 Angeles, Washir.gton, D.C., and New ure attrition from the point of felony arrest. Attrition is usually defined to Orleans. The estimates of attrition *Estimated include arrests the police do not present **OBTS ranged from 54% i~ New Orleans to for prosecution, arrests declined for 43% in Manhattan. The mean attri­ prosecution by the prosecutor, and ar­ tion rate among these jurisdictions rests filed in court but later dismissed or Exhibit 6 was 48%. Total rates of attrition for acquitted at trial. Once cases are filed the jurisdictions in this report are in court, all charges associated with a The calCUlation of attrition rates case must result in a dismissal or acquit­ after a court filing has occurred or shown in exhibit 5. Even though the tal for a case to be counted as dropped. data include a greater number of after bindover to the felony trial Conversely, felony arrests that lead to a courts, however, shows substantially cities, the results are strikingly conviction on the original felony charge similar. The median rate of attrition or to a reduced felony or misdemeanor lower rates. The attrition rates in among jurisdictions is 49%, and the charge Me counted as convictions. exhibit 6 measure attrition from the range among cities is 38 to 52%. This report uses a modified version of point of initial court filing (typically the above definition. Arrests referred to in the lower court). The rates in Rates of attrition when consistently other courts or jurisdictions for prosecu­ exhibit 7 measure attrition after tion or referred to diversion programs indict.ment by a grand jury or bind­ measured from arrest appear to be are not counted as dropped cases. Diver­ relatively stable both across cities sion programs represent a significant over to the felony court as a result and over time. And, more impor­ intrusion into defendants' lives and in of a preliminary hearing. Afte'r the tantly, total rates of attrition are some jurisdictions eligibility requires an initial case filing, the median rate of high. The finding that large numbers informal or formal admission of guilt. attrition among jurisdictions is 29%; of arrests do not lead to a conviction Cases referred to other courts for prose­ and after bindover or indictment, is a problem common to all urban cution may still result in a conviction. 15%. This decline in attrition as Also, acquittals at trial are not count­ cases advance through the various ed in the measure of attrition. Studies of stages of the court has been inter­ 4Derived from tables 10-1 and 10-2 in Floyd attrition often conclude or imply that Feeney, Forrest Hill, and Adrienne Weir, some dropped cases could result in a preted as a continual process of Arrests Without Conviction: How Often and conviction if only prosecutors or the identifying and eliminating weak and ~ Center on Administration of Criminal police worked harder and did a better unprovable cases. By the time cases Justice (Davis: University of California, 1982). job. This view seems Inappropriate for advance to the felony court stage, 5Criminal Justice Profile-1980 (State of those cases the prosecutor pursues to the question of guilt for the majority California, Department of Justice). triaL of defendants has to a large extent 6Wickersham Commission, Report on Crimi.!1'l.1 Statistics (1931, reprint ed., Montclair, NJ: already been answered. One review Patterson Smith, 1968).' courts and prosecutors. In no juris­ of both old and new case attrition 7Barbara Boland et al., The Prosecution of diction does this study (or others) studies concluded that !four system Felony Arrests, 1979 (Washington, DC: U.S. find total attrition rates to be of criminal courts is organized to Government Printing Office, 1983). substantially less than 40%. deal with a situation in which police

8 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ------.------

typically, prosecutors do not take Handling attrition: Screening, Attrition rate from bindover forward to the felony court large charging, and post filing to felony court numbers of cases that are not likely dismissals to result in a conviction. Exhibit 8 Percent of Number indicted/ of cases. shows the fraction of total attrition The first task of the prosecutor in bound-over indicted/ that occurs before and after the the processing of felony arrests is to bound Jurisdiction di;~i~~ed over indictment or bindover stage in those screen cases and make a charging jurisdictions where it was possible to decision. After a defendant is PUElb10 31% 173 measure both total attrition and arrested by the police, either the Brighton 24 562 Portland 24 3,641 attrition in the felony court alone. patrol officer who made the arrest Kansas City 23 1,649 In those jurisdictions 81 to 97% of all or a detective who did follow-up Golden 21 866 case attrition occurs before cases work on the case prepares the paper­ Indianapolis 20 2,591 are formally charged in the felony work necessary to present the case Dedham 18 366 Detroit 18 10,439 court. In no jurisdiction does the to the prosecutor. The attorney who Cobb County 15 1,726 fraction of total attrition occurring screens the case reviews the written Kalamazoo 15 933 at the postindictment/bindover stage materials, usually interviews the Manhattan 15 5,906 police officer, and also may talk to St. Louis 15 3,116 exceed 20%. Rhode Island 14 3,817 victims and witnesses either in per­ Washington, D.C. 14 2,678 Jurisdictions do vary considerably, son or by telephone. Before filing a Louisville 12 1,547 however, in how they handle the case court charge against a defendant the New Orleans 11 3,502 Des Moines 10 1,222 attrition problem before cases reach prosecutor must determine, at a Lansing 9 676 the felony court. Some weed out minimum, that all the elements of San Diego 9 4,205 large numbers of cases immediately the crime are present and that evi­ Los Angeles* 8 14,545 after arrest, at the time of dence exists to link the defendant to Jurisdiction screening, before any court charges the crime. median 15 are filed at all. Others dismiss most of their nonconvictable cases after In addition, the screening attomey *OBTS data the court process has begun in the looks for and evaluates other factors lower court (but before indictment related to the seriousness of the Exhibit 7 or bindover), and some use both crime and strength of the evidence. screening and the lower court pre­ In most jurisdictions, for example, a and prosecutors screen out all but liminary proceedings to eliminate burglary of a residence is considered the most clearly guiltl before nonconvictable cases. These differ­ a more serious crime than a burglary involving the courts.tI ences in the handling of the case of another type of building, such as a attrition prohl;::;m account for the warehouse. The prosecutor usually is The data from participating juris­ large variation in attrition rates as also interested in information about dictions are consistent with this measured from initial case filing in the victim's behavior at the time of conclusion to the extent that, exhibit 6. The data in exhibit 6 the incident. A robbery precipitated appear to suggest that jurisdictions by the victim's attempt to purchase 8Edward Barret, "Police Practices and the vary greatly in their ability to drugs from the defendant may, for a Law-From Arrest to Release or Charge," number of reasons, turn out to be a California Law Review 50 (I962): lI, 45, 30. prevent case atb'ition after arrest (attrition rates vary from a low of tlproblemtl case. Such victims fre­ 11 % to a high of 51 %). In fact, these quently have criminal records, and Fraction of total attrition data reflect differences in the insti­ their credibility as witnesses at trial occurring before and after tutional arrangements that exist for thus may be subject to doubt. The indictmenVbindover the screening and initiation of for­ victim's immediate account of the mal court charges, as well as differ­ crime even may be internally incon­ Percent of total attrition: ences in screening policies among sistent, or inconsistent with other Before After jurisdictions. facts presented by the police, sug­ indictment/ indictment/ gesting that the issue of culpability Jurisdiction bindover bindover To understand what these differ­ is not clear. Los Angeles 97% 3% ences are and the extent to which Lansing 95 5 SUbstantive policy decisions are The attorney also may consider the Manhattan 91 9 involved, it is first necessary to Washington, D.C. 91 9 prior record of the defendant in New Orleans 89 11 understand the mechanics of the charging. A number of prosecutors Gobb County 87 13 screening and charging process and have special programs to handle Golden 81 19 lower court proceedings. cases involving career criminals, and Note: Derived from exhibits 5 and 7. in some jurisdictions formal legis­ lative provisions exist for "enhanced chargingtl of career crim inals. Also, Exhibit 8

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 9 Case attrition

some prosecutors have initiated make a SUbstantive charging decision after arrest, the case is not formally diversion programs for less serious roughly along the lines described screened until the arresting officer categories of offenders, such as above. A number of factors, how­ prepares and sends to the DA's office first-time shoplifters. Most studies ever, can vary considerably. The (usually within a week) a detailed of prosecutors' behavior, however, most important include: the fraction written account of the crime. have found that strength of the evi­ of all felony arrests presented to the dence and seriousness of the crime prosecutor for screening (in some Among the 28 prosecution agencies tend to be much more important to jurisdictions the police prescreen and included in this report, only four the prosecutor's charging decisi~n drop charges), the point in the court (Louisville, Rhode Island, Dedham, than a defendant's prior record. process at which screening occurs, and Cobb County) have a system in And although most prosecutors try to and the time periods between arrest, which cases are officially filed with have a defendant's criminal record screening, and court charging. the court before the prosecutor has available at the time of screening, an opportunity to screen and make a they often are not able to obtain it The most common screening/charg­ charging decision. Nationwide, until after the initial charging ing arrangement among the 28 however, this type of processing is decision has been made. sample jurisdictions is for all police more common than our sample juris­ arrests to be brought to the prose­ dictions suggest. A 1981 survey of However these and other factors are cutor for a charging decision within police and prosecution agencies by evaluated (and they may be .eval­ a matter of hours after an arrest and the Georgetown University Law uated differently in different juris­ before charges are formally filed Center found that in only one-half of dictions or by different attorneys in with the court. In Manhattan, Wash­ the surveyed jurisdictions with popu­ a single jurisdiction), the prosecutor ington, D.C., Kansas City, and St. lations over 100,000 was the prose­ typically "has several options at Louis, for example, all adult felony cutor solely responsible for screening screening: He may decide that the ,arrests are brought to the prosecutor and initial charging. Typically, the police arrest charge is the proper for screening, and the prosecutor's initial courlofiling was performed by charge and make no change from the charges are filed with the court the police. initial police decision; that the within 24 hOUl'S. In St. Louis and police charge is inappropriate but a Kansas City, Missouri State law In jurisdictions with this system; lesser felony or misdemeanor charge specifies that felony arrests must be rejection of cases by the prosecutor is warranted; that a more serious reviewed and charged within 20 is technically not possible; instead, charge can be filed (this is rare); or hours of the time of arrest. In the prosecutor usually returns the that no charge at all is warranted Washington, D.C., and Manhattan the case to the court for a dismissal. and the case should be dropped from laws are vague as to how quickly the These jurisdictions, of course, have the court system. prosecutor must screen and make a "screening policies," bu t the sta tis­ charging decision, indicating only tical results of those policies are Screening and the decision that charges must be filed as soon as masked by the institutional system to charge possible after arrest. As a matter of of having police file arrests with the policy and local custom, both juris­ court. An especially significant The decisions made at screening are dictions try to screen and file formal aspect of such a .system is the les­ obviously of enormous importance to charges within a day of arrest. sened time pressure on the prosecu­ the defendant. If the case is re­ tor to screen and make a charging jected or dropped, the defendant The most important deviation from decision. In Cobb County, for may be free shortly after being this typical pa ttern is for the initial example, the only time constraint on taken into custody by the police; if court filing of charges in the lower the district attorney's charging charged with a misdemeanor, the court to be initiated not by the decision is the statute of limita­ defendant's potential sentence in prosecutor, but by the police before tions. This contrasts markedly with most states cannot exceed a term of the prosecutor has an opportunity to the due process requirements in 1 year in a local jail; but if charged screen the case. In Cobb County, for other jurisdictions where, by law or and convicted of a felony, the de­ example, arrests are presented to a local custom, the prosecutor's fendant could spend a year or more locally elected justice of the peace, charges must be filed within a few in a State penitentiary. who virtually always approves the days. arrest by issuing a formal arrest In all jurisdictions included in this warrant. The warrant charges are One way to deal with this time report, prosecutors screen cases and then automatically filed the next day pressure (which represents yet in the State court (the lower court in another variation from the typical 9Joan Jacoby, Prosecutorial Decisionmaldn : Cobb County), and an arraignment A National Study Washington, DC: National and bond hearing are conductec1 by a 10William F. McDonald et al., Police­ Institute of Justice, 1981); Brian Forst and court magistrate within 72 hOUiS of Prosecutor Relations in the Unit'EidSTates, Kathleen Orosi, "A Theoretical and Empirical arrest. Although the distr;ct attor­ Institute of Law and Criminal Procedure Analysis of the Prosecutor," Journal of Legal (Washington, DC: Georgetown University !,aw Studies 6 (1977): 177" ney receives the warrant file shortly Center, 1981).

10 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 screening-charging pattern) is to dictions, attorneys attempt to iden­ share the screening function with the Rejections at screening tify those case types that are known police. In California, where the Perce.nt Number to fall apart frequently because of prosecutor must file charges within of of witness problems (for example, 48 to 72 hours of arrest, the author­ arrests arrests crimes involving domestic disputes, ity of the police to prescreen certain Juris

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 11 Case attrition

hours, at least 30 to f~% of felony Exhibit 11 shows the reasons for arrests are rejected. To aid the Fraction of total attrition occurring declination of felony arrests, as early identification of problem­ at screening and after court charges are filed documented by the screening pros­ witness cases under such tight time ecutors in those jurisdictions where constraints, the circuit attorney has Percent of data were available. In all juris­ a strict policy of not reviewing total attrition: dictions, witness problems and Rejections Post- police arrests unless the victims and at filing evidence-related deficiencies witnesses are brought by the police Jurisdiction screeninll dismissals accounted for half or more of the to the circuit attorney's screening rejections at screening. Witness room. There, victims and witnesses New Orleans 89% 11% problems are typically more common Lansing 75 25 are carefully interviewed and the Los Angeles 74 26 for crimes against persons than for consequences of filing court charges Greeley 66 34 crimes against property. This is thoroughly explained. This provides Salt Lake 62 38 even true for robberies, which are witnesses with an opportunity to Golden 45 55 Washington, D.C. 35 65 more likely than are assaults to indicate whether they are willing to Manhattan 11 89 involve defendants and victims who proceed with prosecution before Tallahassee 11 89 are strangers. Crimes involving formal court charges are filed. theft of property, such as burglary Note: Derived from exhibits 5 and 9. and larceny, are more likely to Rejection of cases at screening Exhibit 10 involve problems of evidence. (See clearly represents a prosecutor's Appendix B.) unilateral decision not to proceed tha t such decisipgs are im m une from with a case and is perhaps one of the judicial review. In contrast, after Patterns of dismissal reasons, most discretionary decisions the a case is filed it may be dismissed at presented in exhibit 12, are some­ prosecutor makes about a case. It is the initiation of either the judge or what more varied and more reflec­ not surprising that prosecutors the prosecutor, and the prosecutor's tive of specific jurisdictional themselves as well as legal scholars decision to drop a case at this point practices than are reasons for rejec­ long have debated the potential for usually requires judicial approval. tions. Forty percent or more of the abuse of this discretionary power. dismissals in Brighton, Colorado Some have been concerned with the Exhibit 10 shows how jurisdictions Springs, Fort Collins, and Pueblo, for affirm a tive abuses of the prosecu­ vary in the extent to which cases are example, are the result of "plea bar­ tor's power to bring charges; that is, dropped before or after court fil­ gains." Plea bargains represent the irreparable damage that an inno­ ing. Jurisdictions vary greatly in the dismissals of cases for defendants cent individual might suffer when extent to which nonconvictable cases with more than one active case. charges are brought agaf~sthim or are identified and dropped at the Typically, one case is dismissed, but her and later dismissed. Con- time of screening. In New Orleans, a plea of guilty is obtained in an­ versely, others point out that "what Lansing, and Los Angeles, 74% or other. In this situation a case is a prosecutor does negatively" (i.e., more of all case attrition occurs at dismissed, but the defendant is still the decision not to charge certain screening; in Manhattan and Talla­ convicted. persons or certain crimes) involves hassee, only 11% of a ttrition occurs as mucf4if not greater discretionary at this point. Still in 10 of the 16 jurisdictions, power. In contrast to other witness and evidence problems decisions made by the prosecutor, Reasons for case attrition together remain the most common the decision not to charge is rarely reason for a dism issal. This' pa ttern subject to court review, and court With close to half of all felony is the same as that reported in the challenges to the exercise of this arrests disposed either by rejection two previous reports of this series discretion virtually have always held or dismissal, an obviously important using data for 1977 and 1979. question is why so many arrests fail 12 The PRO~lIS data for St. Louis do not to result in a conviction. Judges, Evidence and witness problems include cases rejected. The circuit attorney's prosecutors, and police need to know office estimates that at least 30 to 40% of Recent, in-depth stUdies basically arrests are declined prosecution. That St. to what extent and in what ways Louis has a high rejection rate was confirmed their own actions (or inactions) support the prosecutors' view that by an independent check with the St. Louis . contribute to case attrition. At the evidence and witness problems police department on the number of arrests constitute the principal reason for presented for prosecution. same time, the public needs to understand the extent to which the case attrition. However, in seeking 13 Justice Jackson, Journal of the American to identify the underlying causes of Judicature Society 24 (940): 18-19. conviction of certain types of cases often is beyond the control of court such problems, the studies present 14Kenneth C. Davis, Discretionary Justice: A varying explanations. Preliminary Inquiry (Saton Rouge: Louisiana officials. State University Press, 1969): 188-98, 207-14. Discussed in more detail below, 15See, for example, Powell v. Katzenback, 359 F. 2d 234 (p .C. Cir 1965). these exp'lanations generally empha­ size three causes of evidence and

12 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 1------

Declination reasons at screening

Number of Percent distribution of cases declined b~ renson declined Lacks Due Other pros- Diver- Plea ~,,~~ cases* Evidence Witness merit process ecution sian bargain Other

Gold,n 41 59 27 5 2 2 2 2 0 Greeley 235 52 7 38 0 2 1 0 0 Indianapolis 433 44 10 28 0 18 0 0 0 Los Angeles 33,154 42 8 3 4 38 1 0 5 Manhattan 1,088 60 22 4 7 0 3 0 4 Salt Lake 1,021 57 13 9 1 16 1 0 2 Ilashington, D.C. 917 38 30 29 0 2 0 0 0

*Excludes cases where reasons are unknown. Note: Declined cases include diversions and cases referred for other prosecution. These cases are excluded from counts of rejected cases in other tables.

Exhibit 11

Dismissal reasons (cases filed or indicted)

Number of Percent distribution of cases dismissed b~ reason dismissed Lacks Due Other pros- Diver- Plea Jurisdiction cases* Evidence IUtness merit process ecution ~ bargain Other Brighton 443 16% 7% 10% 1% 2% 21% 43% 0% Colorado Springs 675 13 11 3 2 14 16 40 0 Fort Collins 257 4 5 5 1 15 27 41 0 Geneva 567 13 23 17 4 5 10 25 2 Golden 709 14 14 7 1 9 17 38 0 Greeley 207 12 25 4 1 20 20 18 0 Indianapolis 573 27 13 31 2 8 1 10 9 Los Angeles 7,196 26 21 22 4 5 8 10 4 Louisville 202 28 25 20 8 7 11 0 0 Manhattan 9,265 20 30 9 7 0 1 5 28** Portland 906 15 22 6 0 13 7 23 13 Pueblo 146 16 11 7 2 6 14 43 0 St. Louis 1,090 17 26 8 14 6 0 11 18 Salt Lake 654 11 17 4 2 19 5 28 16 San Diego 1,443 28 16 5 6 10 17 17 0 Washington, D.C. 2,992 21 26 7 3 2 7 9 25 *Exc1udes cases where reasons are unknown. **lnc1udes cases adjoined in contemplation of dismissal. Note: Dismissed cases in this table include diversions and cases referred for other prosecution. These cases are excluded from counts of dismissed cases in other tableE.

Exhibit 12

witness problems: factors associated reason I1for offering reduced charges According to prosecutors cited in the with victim-witnesses and arrestees; and light sentences in return for a Vera study, the explanation offered police practices; and prosecutory plea of guilty. Even more common­ most often for noncooperation in procedures and policies. ly, prior relUionships led to such cases was reconciliation be­ dismissals. 11 The most frequently tween victim and defendant: time Victim-arrestee relationship mentioned reason for such dismissals passed, tempers cooled, mediation and victim-witness traits was lack of cooperation by the vic­ was attempted, restitution was tim. Indeed, the reluctance of vic­ made, etc. In some instances, In its study of New York City felony tims in prior-relationship cases to however, defendants intimidated arrests in 1971, the Vera Institute of pursue prosecution accounted for a complainants. Justice reported that prior relation­ higher percentage of the dismissal ships between victims and defend­ ra te than any other fac tor. Noting that criminal conduct is often ants (such as those involving the the l1explosive spillover from rup­ victim and his or her spouse, neigh­ 16 All references to the Vera study may be tured personal relations, 11 the Vera bor, lover, customer, etc.) were found on page 20, Felony Arrests. study found that cases in which the often cited by prosecutors as their victim and defendant were known to

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 13 Case attrition

sis tent with the findings of the other Conviction rate, by victim-defendant relationship studies, casns with victim-witness and crime group* (New Orleans) problems have substantially lower Famill Friend/acguaintance Stran!ler conviction ra';,es than those that do No. of No. of No. of not have such problems. For ex­ Crime !lrou~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ample, in- Jackuonville 59% of the Robbery 14 7% 142 21% 446 37% robbery arreste~s in cases not having Violent 200 16 616 19 456 35 victim-witness problems were con­ Property 88 19 603 37 1,709 53 victed, while only 21% of arrestees in Victimless 18 72 107 56 367 52 cases with such pI'oblems were con­ All other 42 14 79 35 183 50 All offenses 362 19 1,547 30 3,161 48 victed. The cOl'renponding figures for b~6glary arrest\~es are 76% and Source: Brian Forst et al., Arrest Convictabilitl as a 23%. Measure of Police Performance (Washington, DC: INSLAW, Inc. 1981). *PROMIS data, 1977-78; includes only CRses in which the By far the most freq~lent type of relationship between victim and defendant was recorded in witness problem in ea.ch city was PROMIS. tile existence of one or more traits or characteristics that reflected Exhibit 13 adversely on the witneHs's credibility or reliability. For example, in each other constituted 83% of rape witnesses an£8arrestees who knew robbery cases some victims and arrests and 39% of burglary arrests. one another. witnesses were alcoholics, had been Overall, 56% and 35%, respectively, drinking, were seeking sex or drugs, of the violent crimes and property A more recent INSLA W study, which possessed a criminal record, were crimes analyzed involved a prior encompassed the spectrum of crime afflicted with a physical disability relationship between the victim and types, found markedly lower rates of (poor eyesight or hearing), or had a defendant. conviction when a prior relationship language2froblem (interpreter existed between arrestee and vic­ needed). Analyzing all cases of violent crime tim. Encompassing many of the jur­ brought by police to the District of isdictions included in this report, the The same study also noted that vic­ Columbia prosecutor during 1973, an study notes that prior-relationship tims or witnesses themselveH were INSLAW study documented that 53% cases ended in conviction only half sometimes engaged in criminal ac­ of the decisions to decline prosecu­ as often as cases involving strang­ tivity that made them culpable. This tion were attributed to problems ers. When a family relationship was true in about half the robbery with the complaining witness, as existed, cases resulted in conviction cases, for instance. Not only does were 40% of the decisions to dismiss from "less than a quarter to just culpability cast doubt on the credi­ before trial. Of the declinations, under half as ~~ten" as cases involv- bility of witnesses, it may ultimately 61% involved cases involving a prior ing strangers. The results of this discourage a witness-victim-fe;aring relationship (family, friends, analysis for various crimes in one incrimination-from continuing to acquaintances) between defendant sample jurisdiction-N ew Orleans­ cooperate with prosecutors. and witness; thi~ was so for 54% of are shown in exhibit 13. the dism issals. Another significant factor in cas(~ In addition to a prior relationship attrition in Jacksonville and San Of 3,826 arrests for violent crime with arrestees, victims may possess Diego was the unavailability of during 1973 in the District of certain negative traits or have witnesses. Unavailability was pri­ Columbia, 13% involved family mem­ engaged in certain activities that marily caused by military duties, bers; 44%, friends or acquaintances; contribute to case attrition. out-of-town residency, and inability and 43%, strangers. A prior rela­ Analyzing attrition of robbery, to locate. The problem of unavail­ tionship between victim and witness burglary, and felonious assault ability tended to be a general one was particularly frequent in homi­ arrests made during 1978 and 1979 in rather than associated with a partic­ cides (75%), assaults (75%), and Jacksonville, Florida, and in San ular phase of the proceedings. sexual assaults (61%). Overall, 57% Diego, California, a study by the of the violent crime cases involved Center on Administration of Crimi­ As noted earlier, the INSLA W study nal Justice at the University of of violent crime in the District of 17 Kristen M. Williams, The Role of the Victim California (Davis) noted that con- Columbia also addressed how victim in the Prosecution of Violent Crimes culpability and negative traits bear (Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Social 18 Ibid: 22-23. Research, 1978): 28. Over 60% of violent on case attrition. For example, in crime cases cleared by arrest were rejected by 19Srian Forst et al., Arrest Convictability as a the prosecutor or subsequently dismissed (p. Measure of Police Performance (Washington, 20 See, Arrests Without Conviction: 157-158. 35). DC: Institute for Law and Social Research, 1981): 12. 211bid: 157,161-162.

14 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 crime scene rather th~~ as the result The most interesting finding of the Proportion of arresting officers of investigative work. Thus, the with high and low arrest study was that in the jurisdictions convictability rates strength of a prosecutor's case is analyzed a small fraction of the highly dependent on the police-on arresting officers-from 8 to 19%­ Fraction Fraction the evidence gathered and the wit­ accounted for 50% of the arrests with with 50% of no nesses identified by police at the that ended in a conviction. (Actual convic- convic- scene of the crime. percentages are shown in exhibit Jurisdiction tions tions , 14.) This central finding, that a few In examining the police contribution Cobb County 12% 29% officers appear to be better at pro­ Indianapolis 17 37 to successful prosecution, an ducing convictable arrests, was con­ Los Angeles 19 21 INSLA W study found that, regardless firmed even after such factors as Manhattan 8 18 of the type of offense, having at officer assignment and the inherent New Orleans 11 24 least two witnesses significantly convictabilitv of arrest type were Salt Lake 14 25 held constant. Washington, D.C, 12 17 increased the chance of obtaining a conviction. The authors speculate Source: Brian Forst et al., that: Interviews with samples of high and Arrest Convictability as a Measure ... the value of witnesses lies low conviction rate officers in of Police Performance (Washington, Manhattan and Washington, D.C., DC: INSLAW, Inc. 1981). largely in their ability to corroborate the facts about the found that they generally responded offense. The testimony of a single similarly to most questions asked Exhibit 14 witness is not always enough to with important exceptions. The ' high-conviction-rate officers arrests involving victims who convict. Many cases that have only a single witness are deemed indicated they took more steps to appeared to have provoked or partic­ locate additional witnesses. They ipated in the alleged crime, insufficient for prosecution and are rejected. One lay witness may also were able to "list more proce­ prosecutors declined to prosecute dures and techniques for obtaining slightly over 50% of such cases, in cloud the facts, causing doubt in the minds of those evaluating the evidence that proves a crime was contrast to the 20% rejection rate committed and for proving that the associated with cases in which prov­ merits of the case. With two witnesses saying similar things, victim was at the scene (or that the ocation or participation was not a suspect and victim came in contact)" factor. the element of corroboration is present, which enhances the (p. 38). Regarding the impact of victim probability both that the case will trait., on attrition, alcohol abuse ~e pros~c~te~~nd that it will end While the above study, among others, In convlCtlOn. appeared to have the most influ­ suggests that there are a number of actions the police can take to pre­ ence. Victims known to be chronic The study also found that cases in vent unnecessary case attrition, to alcohol abusers were more than conclude that attrition is primarily a twice as likely as other victims to which physical evidence was recov­ have their cases rejected at screen­ ered were more than two and one­ police problem would be grossly mis­ ing (49% versus 23%, respectively). half times as likely to result in a leading. Researchers emphasize that The difference was not as great for conviction and that "arrests made case attrition often results from the the decision to dismiss before trial- between 1 and 30 minutes of the generally weak link between police and prosecutor. For instance, both 61% and 41%, respectively. offense were more likely to result in conviction than arrests made later the low- and high-conviction-rate (one-half to 24 hours)." The authors Police as contributors to evidence officers interviewed in the INSLA W and witness problems "inferred that time's influence on the study said "they were interested in conviction rate exists primarily learning the outcome of their because a shorter delay increases the arrests, but that no formal proce­ When cf~mes are solved by an probability of evidence recovery and, dures for learning ou'reomes existed" arrest, it is usually because a perhaps, because it enhances the (p. 34). witness calls the police and is able to provide them with sufficient in­ probability of obtaining witnesses" (pp. 16-19). Similarly, a study of police­ formation to identify a suspec~soon after the crim e has occurred.2 prosecutor relations by the George­ Also, the best evidence for prose­ 24peter Greenwood, Jan M. Chaiken, and Joan town University Law Center found Petersilia, The Criminal Investigation Process that prosecutors frequently complain cutihg a case is that gathered at the (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1977); Brian Forst, Judith Lucianovic, and Sarah Cox, What that the police provide them with Happens After Arrest? (Washington, DC:-­ too little information but also that 22See, Police-Prosecutor Relations: Part IV, Institute for Law and Social Research, 1977): prosecutors rarely make a system­ Chapter 5. 34-41. 23Albert J. Reiss, The Police and the Public atic effort to provide feedback 25 Sec, Arrest Convictability: 48. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971). regarding case disposition or to educate the police about the specif­ ics they need. Findings of the study

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 15 Case attrition - suggest that "the communication requesting a driver's licfm~g or other example, the authors stated that breakdown" between police and pros­ identification documents. prosecutors generally take it as a ecutors stems not ft'om a basic truism that they cannot successfully difference between them regarding Sum ming up the issue of police­ prosecute a robbery case if they what general cat

16 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Two reasons were advanced for this apparent mislabeling by prosecutors of witnesses' true intentions. First, pl'osecutors indicated noncoopera­ tiveness not on the basis of per­ ceived noncooperation in the case but in anticipation of it: The assumption was occasionally made that witnesses would not persevere in the prosecution of a friend or relative no matter how coopera tive the witness initially seemed to be. Although this prediction may have proved true in some cases, it most lifrlY was erroneous in others ... Failure to communicate effectively with the witness was the second reason advanced to explain why prosecutors often misgauged wit­ nesses' true intentions. By "failure to communicate" is meant not only failure by prosecutors to make con­ tact with witnesses either orally or by mail, but also all those impedi­ ments that prevent witnesses, once contacted, from clearly understand­ ing the communication or easily responding to what is communi- ca ted. As a result, the study found that several witnesses who were seemingly willing to cooperate were, unknown to themselves, classified by prosecutors as noncooperators.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 17 Chapter IV Guilty pleas and trials

- The statistics presented in the chapter on case attrition show that Attrition and plea rates from police arrest many, if not most, felony arrests are Percent of Percent of disposed without a conviction. In arrests arrests Number of felony those jurisdictions in which all felony Jurisdiction dropped pled guilty Total arrests di~poseJ arrests made by the police could be Cobb County 51% 37% 88% 3,778 traced to a final disposition, close to Golden 42 47 89 2,279 50% were either rejected by the Greeley 41 48 89 865 Lansing 52* 39* 91* 2,403 prosecutor at screening or dismissed Manhattan 38 60 98 27,386 by the prosecutor or judge after New Orleans 51 36 87 7,095 filing. This chapter focuses on Salt Lake 45 40 85 3,017 Tallahassee 48 41 89 1,465 arrests that are carried forward and Washington, D.C. 49 39 88 8,554 result in guilty pleas or trials. Jurisdiction median 48 40 89

Prevalence of guilty pleas *Estimated

The most common disposition of a Exhibit 15 felony arrest not rejected or dis­ missed is a plea of guilty. Exhibit 15 of the guilty plea process. At the below shows the rate at which all center of this debate is the role the Guilty pleas as percentage prosecutor plays in obtaining guilty of guilty pleas and trials* felony arrests are disposed by a (cases filed or indicted) guilty plea, along with the rate of pleas through plea bargaining. case attrition as measured in the Pleas chapter on case attrition. The table The conventional view of plea bar­ Percent and includes da ta only from those juris­ gaining holds that to avoid going to Jurisdiction ~trials dictions in which all felony arrests trial in the majority of cases Brighton 94% 699 could be traced to a final disposi­ prosecutors are willing to reduce the Cobb County 96 1,456 tion in either the felony or misde­ seriousness of charges against a Colorado Springs 92 809 Davenpurt 90 1,301 meanor court, including cases pled as defendant in exchange for a plea of Dedham 81 288 misdemeanors as well as felonies. guilty. A review of the guilty plea Des Moines 82 1,100 The median plea rate among these process in the jurisdictions included Detroit 79 8,552 in this report indicates the process Fort Collins 95 519 jurisdictions is 40%. Together, Geneva 97 680 guilty pleas and dropped cases ac­ of obtaining convictions through Golden 95 1,129 count for 85 to 98% of all felony pleas rather than trials is more Greeley 98 423 arrest dispositions. (The remaining 2 varied and more complex than this Indianapolis 85 2,016 view suggests. Kalamazoo 92 792 to 15% are primarily cases taken to Kansas City 86 1,216 trial and cases referred to diversion Lansing 89** 1,057** programs or to other agencies for Plea pl"ocess in the jurisdictions Littleton 95 699 Los Angeles 90 18,491 prosecution.) Louisville 78 1,218 Often, reduced charges are not the Manhattan 96 17,033 A more common way to look at the result of negotiations between the New Orleans 81 3,103 prevalence of guilty pleas is to prosecutor and defense counsel but Portland 81 2,986 Pueblo 98 193 calculate the percentage of all plea rather reflect the unilateral decision Rhode Island 94 3,250 and trial adjudica tions resulting from on the part of the prosecutor that St. Louis 90 2,711 a plea of guilty. This calculation is the appropriate conviction charge Salt Lake 90 1,338 shown in exhibit 16. From this per­ should be a less serious crime than San Diego 93 6,631 Tallahassee 87 684 spective the routine method for ob­ the ini tial arrest or court charges. Washington, D.C. 83 4,024 taining convictions clearly is through Often such unilateral decisions are a guilty plea. Between 78 and 98% made at screening or in the early Jurisdiction of all plea and trial adjudications are prebindover stages of felony case median 91 the result of a guilty plea. processing, before the prosecutor has *Trials include bench and jury trials. any opportunity to talk with defense **Estimated Recogni tion of this fact--tha t the counsel. The reduction of a felony vast majority of convictions are the charge to a misdemeanor, for Exhibit 16 result of a guilty plea rather than a example, most often reflects the prosecutor's decision not to carry result of a negotiated plea. That verdict of guilty-has, since the mid- these unilateral decisions can affect 1960's, fostered a vigorous national certain types of cases forward to the felony court rather than being the the conviction outcomes of a sub­ debate over the nature and propriety stantial number of felony arrests is

18 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ... M 7 - illustrated by the (lata in exhibits 17, 18, and 19, which show the disposi­ Golden: Felony arrest dispositions tions of felony arrests by the court 100 of final disposition in Golden, Man­ arrests hattan, and Washington, D.C.

In Manhattan 22% of all felony arrests are carried forward to the felony court; in Washington, D.C., 31% of felony arrests are indicted 19 rejections ill acceptances and disposed by the ~elony trial division of the D.C. Superior Court; and in Golden 39% are disposed in the district court, the felony court in MISDEMEANOR COURT FELONY COURT Colorado. Although many of the ar­ rests not carried forward are either rejected or dismissed, a sUbstantial 42 39 fraction, 18 to 43%, are disposed as misdemeanor pleas in the misde­ d~' ""'~' meanor courts. The end result is that many guilty pleas, from 46 to 72%, are to misdemeanors (exhibit 15 24 3 * to tl ial 8 3 23 5 20). dismissed pled diversions dismissed to pled diversions The decision to dispose of felony guilty trial guilty arrests in the misdemeanor court often is made unilaterally before plea discussions with the defense. In *Less than 1%. Manha ttan, the key decision point is at screening, before court charges have been filed and counsel ap­ Exhibit 17 pointed. In Washington, D.C., some felony arrests are reduced to misde­ Manhattan: Felony arrest dispositions meanors in the complaint room, while others are reduced at the time 100 attorneys review filed cases for pre­ arrests sentation to the grand jury. It is at this stage that all the evidence is reviewed, witnesses are contacted, and evidentiary weaknesses not 4 rejected~ 96 accepted apparent in the complaint room are iden tified.

Rather than viewing the plea process MISIlEMEANOR COURT FELONY COURT from a total system perspective, most studies of plea bargaining have focused on the guilty plea process /' 74 22 only in the felony court. But even disposed in disposed in after cases have been bound over to criminal court the felony court, the nature of the plea process is more varied than the notion of prosecutor and de­ ~ 3 ~ 2 17 31 43 *to trial fense attorney negotiating charge dismissed pled guilty dismissed to trial pled guilty reductions indicates.

A survey of plea bargaining in 30 jurisdictions by the Georgetown *Less than 1%" University Law Center found that in some jurisdictions judges playa key role, while in others they virtually Exhibit 18

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 19 Guilty pleas and trials

- some courts, to obtain many guilty Washington, D.C.: Felony arrest dispositions pleas without negotiation. As one of 100 the authors has noted, in some courts arrests "there is nothing negotiable about pleading guilty.1I The defendant (or the defendant's attorney) is informed of the charges and evidence against him or her by the prosecutor or judge. If the evidence cannot be 17 ~rejections 83 acceptances refuted, the defendant's choice is simple: plead guilty or go to trial.2

Exhibit 21 shows data from the juris­ MISDEHEANOR COURT dictions on the percentage of guilty '""" pleas pled to the top charge in the ~"'" felony court. In most jurisdictions it \ appears that prosecutors obtain pleas / \ in a high fraction of cases without 52 31 charge reduction. In most jurisdic­ disposed in superior court-- disposed in superior court-- tions, 75 to 89% of guilty pleas are "pled to the top charge." These sta­ 'i'd'~ tistics, however consistent with the Georgetown study results, mask a great deal of variation in the felony 'A plea process among the jurisdic­ 28 2 18 4 4 6 21 dismissed to trial pled Clther dismissed to trial pled tions. In some jurisdictions the guilty guilty sUbstance of plea discussions is focused not on the charge but on the Exhibit 19 sentence. In several jurisdictions these discussions routinely include Guilty pleas by level of court the judge. And even where charges are the subject of prosecutor­ Percent of defense counsel discussions, the pleas in Percent of primary issue is not always the re­ misdemeanor pleas in Total pleas as percent Jurisdiction court felony court of all felony arrests duction of the top or lead charge but may be the dismissal of other in­ Golden 51% 49% 47% cluded charges or another pending Manhattan 72 28 60 Washington, D.C. 46 54 39 case. In Manhattan and Rhode Island Exhibit 20 felony court judges routinely partic­ never or rarely participate in plea sentence to recommend (or merely ipate in plea discussions and are discussions. It also was reported an agreement to remain silent at willing to indicate what sentence that not all jurisdictions engage in sentencing or to keep the victim they will impose if the defendant what has been termed "explicitll bar­ away from the sentencing hearing), pleads guilty. In Manhattan assistant gaining. Explicit plea bargaining in promises by judges to impose specif­ prosecutors also routinely reduce the the Georgetown study was defined as ic sentences, and even judicial indictment charge by one count un­ "overt negotiations between two or promises to sentence to particular less aggravating circumstances are three actors (prosecutor, defense institutions. As the authors noted, present. Given the structure of New attorney, and judge) followed by an the variety of concessions offered York's penal code, in many instances agreement un the terms of the bar­ appears to be limited only by the (particularly nonviolent thefts) the gain.1I Implicit bargaining, on the lIimaginaiion of the participantsll prosecutor's decision whether to other hand, lIinvolves an understand­ involved. But the results did sug­ insist on a plea to a top or reduced ing by the defendant that a more gest that it is possible, at least in charge has little practical effect on severe sentence may be imposed for the judge's sentencing discretion and going to trial rather than pleading lHerbert S. Miller, William F. McDonald, and therefore on the sentencing promise guilty.1I The kinds of concessions James A. Cramer, Pleas Bargaining in the also were varied, including charge United States, National Institute of Law 2William F. McDonald, "From Plea Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U.s. Negotiation to Coercive Justice: Notes on the reduction by the prosecutor, agree­ Department of Justice (Washington, DC: Respecification of a Concept," Law and ments by the prosecutor as to what 1978). Society Review 13, no. 2 (1979): ~

20 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 What appears to distinguish juris­ Percentage of guilty pleas pled to top charge dictions in their approach to guilty in felony court pleas has less to do with an observed Pled to Pled to Number of or expressed willingness to reduce Jurisdiction toe charge* reduced char~e eleas** charges than with managerial attempts to limit or control the Des Moines 89% 11% 899 amount of explicit "negotiation" that St. Louis 86 14 2,298 Kalamazoo 84 16 730 occurs between individual prosecu­ New Orleans 83 17 2,526 tors and defense attorneys by con­ Los Angeles 82 18 15,192 trolling the discretion that assistant Louisville 82 18 945 Indianapolis 81 19 1,705 prosecutors may exercise in obtain­ Rhode Island 80 20 3,044 ing guilty pleas. In St. Louis and Kansas City 76 24 1,046 Detroit, for example, the SUbstance Portland 75 25 2,405 of plea discussions is very different­ San Diego 75 25 3,357 Washington, D.C. 57 43 1,783 sentences in St. Louis and charge Lansing 38 62 533 reductions in Detroit-but both juris­ Detroit 36 64 5,949 dictions allow individual trial Manhattan 35 65 4,417 Golden 26 74 460 assistants limited discretion to determine or change initial plea *Includes pleas to equivalent charges. offers. **Number of pleas for which complete disposition data were available. One of the most tightly controlled guilty plea systems among the Exhlbil21 jurisdictions in this report is that the judge can make. This situation, considered the decision of the ini tia ted by the district a ttorney in however, has been changing in recent judge. In Missouri judges are pro­ New Orleans. The office plea years with the passage of mandatory hibited by law from participating in position on each case is determined sentencing laws for habitual and explicit plea discussions. at the time of screening by one of violent felons. In such cases the the screening assistants, who are the prosecutor can insist on a plea to a Indianapolis, Detroit, and Lansing most experienced attorneys in the charge for which the judge has no are all jurisdictions in which plea office. Trial attorneys who handle choice but to sentence according to discussions can be characterized as {!ases after they are filed in court the legislative mandate. between the prosecutor and defense are not allowed to reduce charges or counsel (judges, in other words, do make sentence recommendations. If In both St. Louis and Louisville, plea not routinely participate), and the defendants do not plead to charges offers concern the sentence recom­ focus of the discussions is on as filed, assistants are required to mendation the attorney will make to charges. In Indianapolis the pros­ take the case to trial. Rigorous the judge. In Louisville individual ecuting attorneyls policy is to try to controls have been implemented to prevent reductions of charges after attorneys are given the discretion to get a plea to the lead charge, but determine what this recommendation attorneys are allowed to dismiss filing. Some defendants, of course, will be, and the recommendation it­ other included charges. Since judges are allowed to plead to a reduced self may cor.cern either the amount rarely sentence consecutively, this charge when new evidence indicates of time to be served or whether the type of bargaining, in practice, has such a charge is warranted legally, but this is not com mon and requires sentence is to be incarceration or little effect on a judge's sentencing probation. Louisville judges vary in discretion, and it is not clear that a written explanation by the trial the extent to which they are willing the defendant is "getting a break." assistant. All reductions must be to participate in plea discussions. In In both Detroit and Lansing, office approved by a trial chief. St. Louis the plea offers trial attor­ policy allows for the reduction of neys can make are tightly controlled charges but not on all types of cases, Defense attorneys in New Orleans by supervisors. All initial offers are and even reduced offers are con­ are aware of these office policies. reviewed by either the trial chief or trolled by supervisors. In Detroit, Thus, the formal criminal court the first assistant before they may for example, only five senior docket arraignment on the charges filed is be communicated to defense counsel, attorneys who supervise the work in typically the official com m unica tion and any change from the initial offer the five felony trial sections of of the DA's plea position. If defense requires supervisory approval. In all Detroit's recorder's court are au­ attorneys wish to discuss the charge cases the circuit attorney's office thorized to make or change plea with the trial assistants, they may recommends some amount of incar­ (lffers. Only charge reductions are ask to speak with them; trial assist­ ceration time. Whether the defend­ permitted, and the offers typically li.:1ts are not allowed to initiate ant should go to prison or be are presented to defense counsel on discussions about the plea. Although sentenced to probation, however, is a take-it-or-Ieave-it basis.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 21 Guilty pleas and trials

• the district attorney's plea bargain­ admin~stration of justice would break Consistent with the findings of ing policy is circumvented by some down. Heumann in Connecticut, other judges, who actively negotiate with investigations by legal historians the defense over sentences, in many increasingly, however, the case load suggest that at least by the late 19th cases defendants plead without nego­ explanation and the view that plea century guilty pleas were a common tiation by the prosecutor or the bargaining is a recent aberration method of case disposition 4n other judge. from a once ideal system are being parts of the United States. Al­ seriously questioned. One study by though there was a time when most The debate on plea bargaining Milton Heumann using data on court criminal matters were settled by dispositions in Connecticut over a trial, this appears to have been as The most strident critics of plea 75-year period, from 1880 to 1954, long ago as the 18th century. John bargaining have tended to equate has presented evidence that suggests H. Langbein, a professor of law at justice with the adversariness the ratio of trials to total convic­ the University of Chicago who has associated with formal trials and tions has not changed appreciably studied the trials of this earlier era, have viewed the lack of trials in and since the latter part of the 19th suggests that they were vastly dif­ of itself as evidence that defendants' century. The percentage of ferent from the trials of today. A constitutional rights are being convictions obtained by a trial from jury trial of the early l&,th century denied. Conviction without trial has 1880 to 1910 was about 10%, about the was a summary and not an adversary further been thought of as a rela­ same as that observed in the early proceeding, and as many as 12 to 20 tively recent aberration. In the not 1950's. The 10 to 1 ra tio is almost trials were completed per day in a too distant past, critics would con­ exactly the same as that frequently single court. Ironically, Langbein tend, a better system prevailed in cited today and virtually the same as believes it was the institution of which defendants were routinely tha t calculated' in this report. adversarial reforms-most impor­ found guilty at public trials over Heumann also compared, for the tantly, the common law of evidence, which a judge presided and a jury same period, the ratio of trials to the exclusionary rule, and advent of determined guilt after hearing argu­ convictions in three high-volume counsel for the defense and state­ ments as to the defendant's guilt or courts to that of three low-volume that led to the decline of trials. In innocence. courts. Again, he found that in both his view, trials gradually became the high- and low-volume courts the such complex, protracted affairs The most common and popularly held trial ratio varied little from the that they "could no longer be used as explanation for the current predom­ overall mean of 1 trial for every 10 the exclusive disposition pr~ceedings inance of guilty pleas stresses the dispositions of guilt. for cases of serious crime." pressure of heavy case loads that have accompanied the rise in urban 3 A review of the case load argument and its Another work that questions crime over the last several de­ centrality to explanations of plea bargaininJ is conventional notions about plea bar­ contained in :'v1ilton Heumann, Plea Bargaining gaining is Malcolm Feeley's study of cades. Given the enormous volume (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978): of cases with which the court must 24-33. While the case load argument is guilty dispositions in New Haven, contend, it is argued that the only critical to most explanations of plea Connecticut. Feeley suggests that bargaining, a number of other factors also most pleas are not in fact true bar­ way to dispense any justice at all is have been advanced as important. Sociologists by inducing the mass of defendants and political scientists, in particular, have gains; that !s, that the major focus to plead guilty in return for a prom­ argued that the situation is a result of the of plea discussions is not to obtain a ise of leniency. If most defendants "bureaucratic" or "organizational" concerns of concession for the defendant. Based key court participants. One theory posits that on observation of plea discussions, were not induced to plead guilty but attorneys (both prosecutors and defense instead were to demand a trial, the attorneys) prefer the certainty of a conviction the author typifies most so-called argument continues, the courts by plea as opposed to the uncertainty of a trial "negotiations" as informational dis­ would be hopelessly jammed and the and to avoid trial-an event they cannot cussions about the facts and circum­ control-are willing to cooperate and stances surrounding the crime. Once accommodate one another. See Abraham S. Blumberg, Criminal Justice (N ew York: New the facts are "settled" (in -other Viewpoints, 1979). A variant of this argument words, once an agreement on the is tha t participan ts in courtroom processes crime committed is reached), the have a limited capacity for conflict (in other words adversariness and trials) and therefore nature of the penalty is a foregone develop cooperative routines for disposing of conclusion. Discussions regarding cases. See James Eisenstein and Herbert concessions in return for a plea are Jacobs, Felony Justice (Boston: Little, Brown the exception rather than the rule. and Co., 1977).

4Lawrence M. Friedman, "Plea Bargaining in Historical Perspective," Law and Society Review 13, nQ. 2 (1979). 5John H. Langbein, "Understanding the Short History of Plea Bargl.lining," Law and Society Review 13, no. 2 (J!l19): 265.

22 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Feeley argues, in effect, that plea Several years ago the Federal Rules sentence bargaining to charge bar­ bargaining as it is conventionally of Criminal Procedure were amended gaining. Also some judges circum­ defined is not a sufficient explana­ to eliminate the prior prohibition on vented the ban by making sentence tion for h%w cases are resolved by plea bargaining via the so-called commitments directly to defend­ the court. Rule 11. Rule 11 pays special atten­ ants. ,Tudicial participation was tion to the issue of coercion, and~ to challenged and subsequently pro­ The issue of concessions is partic­ ensure that pleas are voluntary, hibited by a State Supreme Court ularly important for it is this aspect requires "addressing the defendant in decision (State v. Buckalew, 561 P.2d of plea bargaining that has led many open court, determining that the 289,1977). The court ruled that of its critics to characterize it as plea is voluntary and not the result judges should not participa te in coercive. The N:ational Advisory of force or promi~es apart from a either sentence or charge bargaining. Commission on Criminal Justice plea agreement." Standards and Goals, for example, in Overall, the evaluators concluded calling for the abolition of plea bar­ Despite the controversy that has that after the plea bargaining ban gaining to protect the consti tutional surrounded the issue of concessions was implemented the frequency of r.ights of the defendant stated:- and the confidence with which the explicit negotiations was drastically .•. negotiations between prose­ various positions have been sta ted, reduced. A statistical analysis of cutors and defendants-either there has been relatively little convicted cases in the first year personally or through their empirical analyses on how sentence after the ban showed that only 4 to attorneys-concerning concessions or charge concessions I'elate to the 12% involved a sentence to be made in return for gtJilty ability of the court to process cases, recommendation by prosecutors. pleas should be prohibited. and relatively few attempts to meas­ Follow-up interviews in 1977 and 1978 ure the frequency and magnitude of indicated that explicit negotiation It is significant that the commission the concessions extended to those (by prosecutors and judges) had did not say that defendants should be who plead guilty. The analyses that continued to decline and in effect prevented from entering pleas of do exist provide intriguing but had pretty In uch dried up. guilty but objected to prosecutors' conflicting results. granting concessions in exchange for Before the ban, opponents predicted pleas. One attempt to gather empirical that it would cause a "massive information on the relationships slowdown in the criminal docket" because defe:l\de.nts would refuse to Many members of the official legal among plea. bargaining, concessions, and case loads is the Alaska Judicial plead guilty. In fact, disposition community have taken a pragmatic times decreased from 192 days to 90 view of plea bargaining and the prob­ Council's evaluation of the ban on plea bal~aining in the S ta te of days. The evaluators did not attrib­ lem of coercion. The American Bar ute this decline to the plea Association (ABA) in its Standards Alaska. In August 1975 Alaska's attorney general instructed all of the bargaining ban, but rather to other Relating to Prosecution Function and administrative reforms instituted at the Defense Function did not ignore State's district attorneys to cease to engage in plea bargaining in handling the same time. It was significant, the dangers of plea bargaining but however, that the ban did not impede did recognize that it is a fact of life felony and misdemeanor cases. Spe­ cifieJally, the State's prosecutors the intended effect of the adminis­ in almost all courts today and at­ trative and calendar changes. The tempted to spell out the roles of were given written guidelines pro­ number of trials did increase, but the prosecutors and defense in an effort hibiting the reduction in charges, majority of defendants continued to g dismissal of counts in multiple-count to re ulatc but not eliminate plea plead guilty. Before the ban, 10% of bargaining. 8 charges, and the recommendation of specific sentences. Before the insti­ convictions were obtained at trial; tution of the ban, explicit sentence after the ban, 19% of convictions 6Malcolm :.~. Feeley, The Process is the bargaining by prosecutors had been were the result of trial verdicts. Punishment (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979). Feeley's study was of the the standard practice throughout the N or does the number of additional lower or misdemeanor court in New Haven, State. trials in Alaska's three major cities but it is common in many jurisdictions for as (an increase from 110 to 149) sound many as 80% of felony arrests to be disposed in the lower courts. For a time after the ban was imple­ sufficiently large to creat an mented, there was a shift by some administrative nightmare. r2 7National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Courts prosecutors from the traditional (Washington, DC: 1973): 42.-- llibid: 374. 8 American Bar ASSdciation, Standards for 9Quoted in Conrad G. Urunk, "The Problem of 12Stevens H. Clarke and Gary G. Koch, "The Criminal Justice, "Pleas of Guilty," Vol. 3, Ch. Voluntariness and Coercion in the Negotiated Effect of the Prohib1tion of Plea Bargaining on 14 (1980). Pleas," Law and Society Review 13, no. 2 the Disposition of Felony Cases in Alaska," (1979): 528. Criminal Courts: A Statistical Anal sis 10Michaei L. Rubenstein and Teresa J. White, {Alaska iudiclal Council, 1978: Exhibit V.I. "Alaska's Ban on Plea Bargaining," Law and Society Review 13, no. 2 (1979). ---

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 23 Guilty pleas and trials

On the issue of implicit penalties for Trials going to trial, the evaluation results Jury trials (in lower or felony court) as a percentage of felony arrests were somewhat less clear. A statis­ Trials may occur before a jury or a tical analysis of sentences imposed judge. The latter are referred to as Percent on defendants who pled guilty and on bench trials and in some jurisdictions of Number those who were convicted at trial they occur frequently. In Portland, arres ts '. of suggested that defendants who went for example, about half of all trials resulting arrests to trial did fare worse, but this was are bench trials. In most jurisdic­ Jurisdiction in trial disEosed true ~efore as well as after the tions in this report, however, jury Washington, D.C. 7% 8,554 ban.1 Further, the evaluators were trials are the predominant form of New Orleans 5 7,095 unable to say whether this sentence trial. Exhibits 22, 23, and 24 show Tallahassee 5 1,465 Lansing 4* 2,403 differential was a true penalty for jury trials as a percentage of all Salt Lake 4 3,017 going to trial or due to a difference arrests, all cases filed, and cases Cobb County 2 3,778 in the characteristics of the cases or bound over and disposed in the felony Golden 2 2,279 the defendants who opted for trial. court. As one would expect, the Manhattan 2 27,386 trial rate of cases disposed in the Greeley 1 865 Studies that nave attempted to look felony court is higher than the trial Jurisdiction systematically at the issue of a rate computed as a percentage of all median 4 sentence penalty for trial, and that arrests. An average (jurisdiction *Estimated include statistical controls for the median) of 4 of every 100 arrests go types of cases that go to trial, to trial; of cases bound over to the Exhibit 22 present conflicting results. An felony court 8% (jurisdiction median) INSLA W study by Rhodes of pleas, can be expected to end in a trial. move on to another job a)1fr several trials, and sentences in the District Still, these data show that even in years of trial experience. The of Columbia found that for burglary, the felony trial courts, a jury trial is significance of trials to young assis­ larceny, and assault, defendants who not a common method of tants is illustrated by the following pled guilty were sentenced no differ­ adjudica tion. account of their career objectives ently from those who went to trial. provided by a former district Robbery defendants, however, it Despite their lack of frequency, attorney: appeared, were penalized. Forty­ trials still play an important role in ...a trial assistant in a felony court three percent of the robbery pleas the work of the courts. The rules is among the most valued assign­ resulted in sentences to probation, that govern trials set the standards ments a young prosecutor can but only 24% of the robbery convic­ for the evaluation of evidence in the secure. Most assistants serve a tions by trial ended in probation. many cases in which the defendant substantial apprenticeship-­ The difference remained even after pleads guilty. And many attorneys drafting complaints and indict­ controlling for seriousness of the believe that the most efficient way ments, trying misdemeanors and offense1~nd the defendant's prior to manage their case loads (and preliminary hearings, presenting record. Another study, by Uhlman obtain pleas) is to maintain a cases to the grand jury, and per­ and Walker, of almost 30,000 guilty credible threat of trial on virtually haps briefing and arguing appeals­ verdicts in an anonymous Eastern all accepted felony cases. This before they are given the opportu­ community, found that sentences means treating all cases in the early nity to try felony cases. The were substantially more severe for stages of case preparation as if they competition for felony-court defendants convicted at a jury trial will go to trial even though it is assignments is therefore keen, and than for those who pled guilty or known that most Wtbl eventually end trial assistants who have climbed were found guilty by a judge at a in a plea of gUilty. the ladder of success sometimes bench trial. Their analysis fear that if they lose a significant also controlled for severity of the Also, for individual attorneys one of number of cases, they will be criminal charges and the prior the major attractions of working in a replaced ... the rumors to this criminality of the defendant. 5 prosecutor's office is the opportunity effect are false; the District the job provides for gaining trial Attorney looks to much more than 13Ibid• experience early in a legal career. an assistant's batting average at 14William :'.1. Rhodes, Plea Bargaining: Who In many large cities the typical trial in measuring his ability. Gains? Who Loses?, PROMIS Research assistant prosp.cutor joins the pros­ Publication no. 14 (Institute for Law and Social ecutor's office shortly after gradu­ Research, 1978). 17Jcmes J. Fishman, "The Social and ation from law school, but expects to Occupational Mobility of Prosecutors: New 15Thomus :vi. Uhlman and N. Darlene Walker, York City," in The Prosecutor, William F. "lie Takes Some of :vIy Time; 1 Take Some of :'IlcDonald, ed. (Beverly If ills, CAl Sage His: An Analysis of Sentencing Patterns in 16This view of handling cases is described in David W. Neubauer, Criminal Justice in Middle Publications, 1979). A notable exception to Jury Cases," Law and Society Review 14, no. 2 this pattern is Los Angeles, where many (1980). Ameri{'.a (New York: General Learnmg Press, 1974): 117-118. It also came up repeatedly in deputies are carecr prosecutors with 15 or our own interviews with attorneys. more years of experience in the Los Angeles District AttorneY's Office.

24 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Nevertheless, the rumors persist either one of which will make a pris­ Jury trials (in lower or felony court) with y~diminished force year after as percentage of cases filed on sentence on conviction a likely year. possibility. Based on the considera­ Percent of tion of evidence and seriousness, cases filed It is interesting that although a great Mather develops a typology of cases resulting in Cases deal of effort has been devoted to Jurisdiction trial and identifies three types most likely ~ explaining why most cases end in a to go to trial. In either a serious or New Orleans 10% 3,502 guilty plea, much less has been de­ nonserious case, if the evidence is Washington, D.C. 9 7,101 voted to understanding the reverse: Dea Moines 8* 1,401 sufficiently weak to suggest there is Lansing 7* 1,358 why some go to trial. It is clear that a reasonable doubt that the defend­ Portland 7 3,894 not all cases are equally likely to go ant was involved in the crime, the St. Louis 6 3,801 to trial. Exhibit 25 shows trial rates public defender will recommend a Salt Lake 6 1,996 in the felony court by crime type for Tallahassee 6 1,390 trial. If the evidence is strong, that Detroit 5 12,365 some of the larger jurisdictions. is, if no conceivably credible expla­ San Diego 5 8,668 Trial rates for violent crimes nation for the defendant's innocence Brighton 4 1,142 generally are higher than trial ra tes can be devised (Mather uses the term Colorado Springs 4 1,484 for property crime. In all but one Davenport 4* 2,011 "deadbang"), then a trial is not Littleton 4 923 jurisdiction, homicide is the most recom mended unless the case is very Fort Collins 3 776 likely crime to be disposed by trial. serious. In a very serious case the Cobb County 2 3,778 defendant is likely to go to prison Golden 2 1,879 Mather, in Los Angeles, has per­ Greeley 2 630 regardless of whether he pleads Manhattan 2 26,298 formed one qualitative study of the guilty or goes to trial and therefore Geneva 1 1,262 circumstances that lead public has little to lose by going to trial and Pueblo 1 339 defenders to recom mend trial to a small chance of a considerable Jurisdiction median 4 their clients. Mather suggests that gain-acquittal. (It is interesting two aspects of a case are most that the public defenders Mather *Estitnated critical to the defense counsel's surveyed did not think judges in Los decision. One is the strength of the Angeles sentenced more harshly Exhibit 23 evidence. The other is the serious­ after trial.) ness of the case in terms of the heinousness of the current offense This analysis is consistent with the Jury trials (in felony court) or the defendant's criminal record, as percentage of cases data presented here suggesting the indicted/bound over most serious cases are more likely to 18Quoted in Albert W. Alschuler, "The go to trial, especially since the Percent of Prosecutor's Role in Plea Bargaining," felony court University of Chicago Law Review 36 (1968): public defenders themselves report cases llO-lll. that most of the cases they deal with resulting Cases Jurisdiction in trial dis EO sed Percentage of felony court cases resulting Washington, D.C. 18% 2,678 in trial, by crime type* Dedham 15 366 Louisville 11 1,547 Violent Proeert;l San Diego 11 4,205 Sexual Kansas City 10 1,649 Jurisdiction Homicide assault Robber;l Burglar;l Larceny Drugs Lansing 10 676 New Orleans 10 3,502 Indianapolis 36% 15% 13% 12% 8% 9% Des Moines 9* 1,222 Los Angeles** 23 15 9 6 3 R Manhattan 9 5,906 Louisville 44 36 24 13 10 15 Brighton 8 562 Manhattan 24 20 8 6 10 a Kalamazoo 7 933 St. Louis** 41 18 14 4 5 4 Portland 7 3,641 San Diego 31 8 12 5 7 3 Detroit 6 10,439 Washington, D.C. 41 45 25 14 10 9 Los Angeles** 6 14,545 St. Louis 6 3,072 *Jury and court trials. Golden 5 866 **Rate is based on all cases presented for a preliminary hearing, Cobb County 4 1,726 a small number of which will not be bound over to the felony Indianapolis 4 2,591 court. Rhode Island 4 3,817 Pueblo 2 173 Exhibit 25 Jurisdiction median 8

*Estimated **OBTS

Exhibit 24

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 25 Guilty pleas and trials

are of the "deadhang" variety, in which questions of evidence usually Jury trial conviction rate involve the degree of involvement Percent rather than guilt or innocence. As of jury trials one attorney put it, "Most of the resulting Cases cases we get are pretty hopeless­ in conviction tried reallfgl10t much chance of acquit- tal." This statement is supported Portland 85% 262 Davenport 83 124 by the ra tes of convictions a t trial Dedham 83 54 (exhibit 26). The median conviction Indianapolis 83 III rate at trial among jurisdictions is Cobb County 81 63 69%. San Diego 80* 459 Golden 79 42 Los Angeles 79 1,073 19 Lynn A. ~'1ather, "Some Determinants of the Manhattan 73 633 ;Vlethod of Case Disposition: Decision-Maldng Salt Lake 73 113 by Public Defenders in Los Angeles," Law and Fort Collins 70 20 Society Review S (Winter, 1973): 187-~ St. Louis 70 219 Kansas City b8 165 Tallahassee 68 77 Washington, D.C. 68 638 Lansing 66 64 Littleton 66 35 Colorado Springs 63 57 Louisville 63 172 Geneva 61 18** Kalamazoo 61 62 New Orleans 61* 353 Detroit 57 669 Rhode Island 51 166

Jurisdiction median 69

*I':stimated **Includes bench trials.

Exhibit 26

26 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Chapter V Sentencing

Whether a defendant pleads guilty or is convicted at trial, an additional Percentage of arrests resulting in incarceration court appearance is required before Number of the judge formally imposes a sen­ Percent to Percent to Total Rercent arrests tence. A sentence hearing is usually Jurisdiction State Erison local jail incarcerated disEosed* held 2 or 3 weeks after conviction to Golden 13;: 20% 33% 2,279 allow time for a probation worker to New Orleans 11 8 19 7,095 conduct a presentence investigation Salt Lake 11 6 17 3,017 and submit a written report to the Manhattan 9 24 33 27,386 court. The presentence report in­ Los Angeles** 6 70,044 cludes a description of the current Jurisdiccion mean 10 15 26 offense, the defendant's criminal *Note: Because of missing sentencing data, incarceration rates record, and data on such social and in this table were derived from the conditional probabilities personal characteristics as family of conviction given arrest and incarceration given conviction. background, employment status, **OBTS data. marital status, number of depend­ ents, and evidence of drug or alcohol Exhibit 27 abuse. In some jurisdictions, proba­ tion officers also may include their take an activefosition on appropri­ preference only for proba tion or personal assessment of a defendant's ate sentences. To some extent an State prison or jail time. In still prospects for rehabilitation. aggressive prosecution stance on other jurisdictions specific recom­ sentencing is viewed as a way to mendations of time are routine. In Sentencing is generally viewed as a provide a judge with critical infor­ St. Louis specific sentences are judicial function, although in some mation on the nature of a crime. indicated, although the decision areas of the country the responsi­ The prosecutor, especially when a regarding probation versus incar­ bility (to a limited extent) is shared case is plea bargained, has access to ceration is considered the preroga­ with juries. In St. Louis and Kansas more information on the details of tive of the judge. City, for example, juries may impose the criminal event than :rlmost any sentences for defendants with no other court participant. The prior convictions who are convicted American Bar Association, in its Sentencing patterns at trial. Where juries participate in standards on the role of the prosecu­ sentencing, the division of authority tor at sentencing, maintains that One way to look at sentencing pat­ between the judge and jury and the prosecutors should participate in terns among jurisdictions is to calcu­ types of cases in which juries may sentencing by making a sentence late the rate at which defendants are sentence (capital crimes are most recommendation only when request­ sentenced to periods of incarceration common) are specified by State ed by a judge or as part o{ a plea of more or less than 1 year. For the statutes. negotiation arrangement. purposes of this report, incarceration sentences of 1 year or less are con­ The trend, however, has been away Practices regarding sentencing sidered sentences to local jails; from jury sentencing, and a number recommendations among the juris­ sentences of more than 1 year are of groups have advocated its aboli­ dictions included in this report also considered sentences to State prison. tion. The American Bar Association vary considerably. Some prosecutors has called for an end to jury sen­ recommend sentences only under As with other aspects of the felony tencing on the grounds that it is special circumstances. This is the disposition process, rates of incar­ unprofessional and likely to be arbi­ case in New Orleans, where sentence ceration vary greatly depending on trary and su~ect to popular appeals statements are made in the relative­ the point in the criminal justice to emoi:ions. ly small number of cases for which system from which they are meas­ charges are reduced. Prosecutors in ured. Sentences to incarceration as Opinions as to what role the prosecu­ other jurisdictions routinely make a fraction of arrests, for example, tor should play in sentencing vary sentence recommendations but of a appear infrequent. Exhibit 27 shows considerably. Some believe prosecu­ limited nature, such as in Los ra tes of incarcera tion to Sta te tors should not participate at all or Angeles, where deputies indicate a prisons and local jails as a fraction play only a limited role. Others of all felony arrests considered for think the interests of the public are 2Earl J. Silbert, former U.S. Attorney for the prosecution. The rate of incarcera­ sacrificed if the prosecutor does not District of Columbia, address before PROMIS tion in State prisons ranges from 6 to Users Group, Los Angeles, California, April 13 of every 100 adult arrests. In no 21,1977. 1 American Bar Association, "Sentencing jurisdiction do more than one-third Alternatives and Procedures," Section 1.1 3James Eisenstein and Herbert Jacob, Felony of felony arrests lead to some form (approved draft, 1968). ~ (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1977): 23. of incarceration, including sentences 4American Bar Association, "Sentencing of a few days served in local jails. In Alternatives and Procedures," Section 5.3(b). contrast, the rates of incarceration

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 27 Sentencing

century, the view tha t prisons should Percentage of felony court convictions resulting in incarceration in selected jurisdictions serve to rehabili ta te rather than punish became the fundamental prin­ Total ciple guiding correctional policy and Rate to Rate to incarceration Number of sentencing. The idea that criminals Jurisdiction local jail rate State Erison convictions* were to be reformed rather than Louisville 49% 23% 72% 915 punished led logically to the view Manhattan 49 22 71 4,178 that the amount of time they should Indianapolis 48 8 56 1,957 San Diego 38 51 89 3,241 spend in prison should be determined Washington, D.C. 38 15 53 1,041 primarily by the rehabilitation pro­ Los Angeles 30 51 81 14,597 cess rather than the nature of the crime committed. Sentences for a Jurisdiction mean 42 28 70 specific crime, therefore, were de­ *With complete sentencing data. signed to vary from one defendant to ahother depending on each individ­ exhibit 28 ual's capacity for rehabilita tion. shown in eKhibit 28 appear quite defendants to State prison. Still, To accommodate the rehabilitation high. The reason is tha t the figures these sta tisti cs suggest a substantial goal of prisons, sentencing laws were in exhibit 28 measure the rate of degree of variation among jurisdic­ written to allow a broad range of prison and jail sentences from con­ tions in the severity of sentences possible sentences for a given viction in the felony court of juris­ imposed on convicted defendants. crime. Judges specify either a dictions where the felony courts are minimum or a maximum sentence (or used to dispose of only the most Almost all recent stUdies of sentenc­ both), and the decision as to the serious crimes. In these jurisdic­ ing show that type of crime is an actual time served is made by cor­ tions, approximately 20 to 30% of all important variable in explaining sen­ rectional authorities or a parole felony arrests are indicted or bound tendng decisions. The most serious board. The great discretion over and the typical pattern is to crimes generally ~ceive the most accorded judges and parole boards obtain a felony conviction (i.e., very severe sentences. Exhibit 30 shows and the potential for disparity few cases are disposed as misde­ incarceration rates for the crimes of inherent in such a system of "inde­ meanors). In these felony courts, an robbery, burglary, and larceny. Con­ terminant" sentences have been the average of 70% (jurisdiction mean) sistent with the findings of most focus of considerable controversy ended with a sentence of incarcera~ sen tencing studies, in each jurisdic­ and efforts at reform. One of the tion; 42% resulted in sentences to tion incarceration rates were higher most eloquent authorities on current state prison. for robbery, a crime of violence sentencing practices, former Federal (frequently against strangers), than Judge Marvin E. Frankel, has criti­ The most useful statistic for com­ for burglary and larceny, crimes cized the "unchecked and sweeping paring sentencing practices across against property. The meltn rate of powers we give to judges in the jurisdictions is the rate of incar­ incarceration to State prison for fashioning of sentences" and ex­ ceration for felony arrests that robbery among the jurisdictions was pressed deep concern that "our laws result in a conviction for either a 54%; for burglary and larceny the characteristically leave to the felony or a misdemeanor. This sta­ comparable rates were 26% and 13%, sen tencing judge a range of choice tistic is chosen as a comparative respectively. Still, the figures in that should be unthinkable in a measure because only convicted de­ exhibit 30 suggest substantial varia­ "government of laws, not of men.,,6 fendants are subject to a potential tion among the jurisdictions in the He maintains that "sentencing is sentence and because jurisdictions severity of sentences, after control­ today a wasteland in the law. It vary in the fraction of felony arrests ling for type of crime. calls ~bove all for regulation by carried forward to the felony court. law." The rates of incarceration for all Disparity in sentencing decisions felony and misdemeanor convictions A growing body of empirical evi­ resulting from felony arrests are Over the last decade a major issue in dence on the sentencing process does shown in exhibit 29. The figures the field of criminal justice has been show that disparity in sentencing suggest tha t a great deal of varia tion the way judges make sentencing exists. Some of the most dramatic exists among jurisdictions in the use decisions and the underlying struc­ documentation that judges differ in of local jail sentences-from a high ture of sentencing laws that governs of 42% of all convicted cases ~hose decisions. In the early 20th 6Marvin E. Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law (Golden) to a low of 13% (Fort Without Order (N ew York: Hill and Wang, Collins). The ra tes of incarcera tion 5Eisenstein and Jacob, Felony Justice: 263- 1973): 5. to Sta te prison show less variation, 287; Leslie Wilkins et al., Sentencing 7 Quoted in Barbara L. Johnston et al., Guidelines, Structuring Judicial Discretion, "Discretion in Felony Sentencing-A Study of with most jurisdictions sentencing LEAA (Washington, DC: Government Printing Influencing Factors," Washington Law Review between 12 and 28% of convicted Office, 1978). 48, no. 4 (1973): 880.

28 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 w,

Percentage of felony or misdemeanor convictions proba tion or a suspended sen tence resulting in incarceration were most strongly influenced by a defendant's criminal record and the Rate to Rate to Total Number of seriousness of the current offense. Jurisdiction State erison local jail incarceration rate convictions* The length of sentence was most influenced by the sta 19ltory maxi­ New Orleans 28% 19% 47% 2,542 St. Louis 28 32 60 2,584 mum for the offense. These Golden 26 42 68 725 findings are consistent with those portland 26 2,607 reported for other jurisdictions­ Salt Lake 26 14 40 1,119 Colorado Springs 23 16 39 569 seriousness of the crime and a Pueblo 23 21 44 131 defendant's criminal ri.lfrd are Brighton 22 21 43 451 invariably key factors. Most such Fort Collins 18 13 31 351 Rhode Island 16 18 34 2,547 studies also find that these and other flanhattan 15 38 53 14,906 offense- and offender-related vari­ Los Ange1es** 12 35,353 ables fail to explain fully all vari­ Geneva 9 24 3~ 516 ation among sentences. From this, Jurisdiction mean 21 23 45 some researchers have inferred that sentencing attitudes of individual *With complete sentencing data. judges may account for at least some **08TS data. of the unexplained variation.

Exhibit 29 A nur.ber of legislative proposals have been devised, and in some Percentage of felony or misdemeanor convictions places enacted, to limit the dis­ resulting in incarceratio,n, by crime type* cretion of judges by making sen­ Robbery Burglary Larceny tences more determinate. One State Local State Local State Local proposal, termed the "flat-time" Jurisdiction prison jail Total prison jail Total prison ML Total sentencing law, would allow judges only a very narrow, legislatively Brighton 54% 17% 71% 24% 23% 47% 11% 30% 41% Colorado Springs 54 14 68 19 20 39 14 13 27 determined range of sentences from Geneva 39 29 68 12 28 40 6 25 31 which to choose. In 1976 the Golden 81 19 100 36 42 78 12 43 55 California legislature adopted a Manhattan 34 31 65 16 45 61 4 50 54 version of this proposal. The New Orleans 68 10 78 36 19 55 14 29 43 Portland** 43 11 54 36 5 41 29 6 35 California Uniform Determinate Rhode Island 64 7 71 24 20 44 10 17 27 Sentencing Act allows three possible St. Louis 64 13 77 27 38 65 16 39 55 sentences for each crime. Unless Salt Lake 40 5 45 25 14 39 15 13 28 mitigating or aggravating circum­ Jurisdiction mean 54 16 70 26 25 51 13 27 40 stan.!es are present, the judge must ch" .lse the middle sentence. The *For frequencies see Appendix B. • basic sentence also may be enhanced **Excludes probation sentences with jail time. if the defendant has a prior record or used a weapon in the current of­ ExhIbit 30 fense. Judges still maintain the discretion to decide whether to sen­ the way they sentence comes from anoth~r re~omllended at least 20 simulation studies of sentencing years In prIson. tence a defendant to probation; in decisions. Judges in a particular other words, prison sentences are not institution are given the same Other studies of sentencing decisions mandatory. information for a group of hypothet­ attempt to determine through so­ Another proposal to limit discretion ical defendants and asked to deter­ phistica ted sta tistical analyses for mine a sentence for each. One such large numbers of actual cases what is to develop sentencing guidelines. exercise, performed with Federal factors judges do take into account The recently defeated Federal judges for 16 hypothetical defend­ in making sentencing decisions. An Criminal Code Reform bill included ants, found striking variations in INSLA W study of sen tencing in the sentences among judges for the same District of Columbia found judicial 9Terence Dungworth, An Empirical defendant. In 9 of the 16 cases, at Assessment of Sentencing Practices in the decisions regarding prison versus Su erior Court of the District of Columbia least one judge recommended no PROMIS Research Publication no. 17 INSLAW, prison at all at the same time that 8INSLA Wand Yankelovich, Skelley, and White, unpublished draft, 1978). Inc., Federal Sentencing, FJRP-8l/003 (U.S. lOEisenstein and Jacob, Felony Justice; Department of Justice, Office for IV ilk ins et al., Sen tencing Guidelines. Improvements in the Administration of Justice, May 1981).

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 29 Sentencing

• a provision for the institution of a guidelines system for the Federal courts. Under the proposed scheme a Sentencjng Commission of nine members would devise sentence guidelines that would specify a range of sentences for each Federal crime. Within this range individual sentences could vary according to certain specified circumstances associated with the offender and the offense. Judges would not, however, be bound by the guidelines.

30 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Chapter V!I Length of time for case processing

A criminal defendant's right to a the F ederallaw and the speedy trial speedy trial is guaranteed by the standards of the American Bar Times from arrest to final disposition Sixth Amendment to the Constitu­ Association. These laws differ in (all felony arrests filed)* tion. Determining when this right many respects, such as what kinds of Number has been viola ted, however, is rarely events count as excludable time, but Mean Median of number number felony a matter of simple objective fact. the major difference among them is of of arrests Because of the problem of defining in the amount of time they allow Jurisdiction ~ ~ filed* what is and is not reasonable delay, from arrest to trial. In New York considerable discretion is accorded State the time limit is 180 days; in New Orleans 85 57 3,183 Portland 86 65 3,757 judges in deciding on a case-by-case Louisiana, the limit is 730 days, or 2 Greeley 90 75 615 basis when a defendant's constitu­ years, for noncapital offenses, and Manhattan 101 53 24,629 Geneva 108 79 tional right has been denied. The 1,095 ~ays, or 3 years, for capital 1,247 Pueblo 114 102 327 key Supreme Court decision on the cases. ~ Salt Lake 124 82 1,995 requirements of a speedy trial Washington, D.C. 130 82 6,937 (Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 521 The felony prosecution data allow us Colorado Springs 131 105 1,423 1972) spells out four considerations Fort Collins 153 118 754 to look at this key aspect of speedy St. Louis 155 140 3,800 that a judge should weigh in making trial rules by calculating case­ Brighton 161 131 996 a decision. Length of delay is impor­ processing times from arrest to ~inal Golden 162 127 1,804 San Diego 170 112 8,513 tant but must be judged in light of disposition for cases that ended 10 l,i.ttleton 173 137 694 the reasons for delay. Deliberate pleas, dism issals, or trials. attempts to delay by the Govern­ Jurisdiction ment, for example, weigh more In cases in which the arrest date was median 130 102 heavily in favor of the defendant missing, the date the prosecutor than such factors as court conges­ *With complete data on time from screened and filed the case, the arrest to disposition. tion, which is more neutral. And papering date, was sUbstituted. certain reasons, such as absence of a key witness, are considered valid. Exhibit 31 The court also must take into Case-processing times account whether the defendant suffi­ Times from arrest to final disposition ciently asserted his or her right The mean and median number of (cases indicted or bound over) arrest to final disposition to a speedy trial and whether delay days from Number prejudiced the case against the for filed cases in the jurisdictions of defendant. are presented in exhibit 31. The cases definition of filed cases in exhibit 31 Mean Median indict­ includes felony arrests disposed as number number ed or In recent years both State and of of bound misdemeanors in the lower court as Jurisdiction ~~ ~ Federal legislatures have passed new well as cases bound over or indicted laws to further assure a defendant's and disposed in the felony court. New Orleans 85 57 3,183 right to a speedy trial. These laws, Portland 86 65 3,714** The calculations show that sUbstan­ Salt Lake 124 82 1,995** referred to as "speedy trial laws," tial variation in processing times Los Angeles 135 98 25,632** attempt to supplement the imprecise exists among the jurisdictions for Pueblo 139 133 159 Indianapolis 170 143 2,584 definitions of the Sixth Amendment filed cases. In New Orleans and by introducing quantitative measures St. Louis 175 158 3,115 Portland, mean arrest to disposition Golden 192 169 844 of unacceptable delay. The Federal times are 85 and 86 days, respec­ Manhattan 195 152 5,899 Speedy Trial Act of 1974, passed by tively; in Littleton, the mean dispo­ San Diego 199 150 4,000 Congress in 1975, specifies time Brighton 203 193 468 sition time for filed cases is 173 Washington, D.C. 218 192 2,673 standards for each stage in the days. The average (jurisdiction Rhode Island 288 246 3,815 Federal court process. Thirty days median) among all jurisdictions is 130 are allowed from arrest to filing of days. Jurisdiction indictment or information, 10 days median 175 149 between indictment and arraign­ Exhibit 32 shows arrest to disposition *With complete data on time from ment, a~d 60 days from arraignment arrest to disposition. to trial. Certain time periods, such times for those cases bound over or **Includes cases dismissed at indicted and disposed in the felony preliminary hearing. as those associated with defense­ courts. As one would expect, the requested continuances, are consid­ average disposition time among Exhibit 32 ered excludable time. Several States jurisdictions (175 days) for this group require more due process hE!arings, have passed statutes modeled after of cases is longer than for all cases such as preliminary hearings and filed. Felony court cases typically 1Jack Hausner and Michael Seidel, An grand jury presenta tions, than cases Analysis of Case-Processinji Time in the 2Thomas Church, Jr., Justice Delayed disposed as misdemeanors in the District of Columbia Superior Court lower courts. Felony court cases {Washington, DC: INSLAW, 1981}: 1-2. (Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1978): 48. also are viewed generally as: more

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 31 Length of time for case processing

serious and worthy of greater attention and court resources than Arrest to disposition time by type of final dispOSition cases disposed in lower courts. all felony arrests filed (mean number of days) , Finally, the felony court is where Guilty Guilty Acquittal most trials, the most time­ Jurisdictions ~ trials trials Bismissals Total consuming type of disposition, take Brighton 144 271 281 183 161 place. Colorado Springs 126 205 163 126 131 Fort Collins 151 280 335 141 153 Geneva 109 140 230 104 108 Exhibits 33 and 34 show disposition Golden 146 223 177 185 162 times by whether a case ended in a Greeley 87 161 123 92 90 guilty plea, trial, or dismissal for all Littleton 180 226 224 167 173 cases filed and for felony court cases Manhattan 88 284 247 110 101 New Orleans 78 116 131 105 85 only. In most jurisdictions, disposi­ Portland 84 109 110 78 86 tion times for trials are substantially Pueblo 110 248 407 114 114 longer than disposition times for St. Louis 160 251* 251* 121 155 guilty pleas. Dismissed cases also Salt Lake 121 213 205 113 124 San Diego 181 238 175 127 170 generally are disposed more rapidly Washington, D.C. 127 278 245 101 130 than cases that go to trial. For felony court indictments and bind­ Jurisdiction overs (exhibit 34), the average dis­ median 126 226 224 114 130 position time among jurisdictions for *Represents time for total trials. Separate data for acquittals and trials is approximately 242 days, as convictions not available. compared with 166 days for guilty pleas and 147 days for dismissals. E:xhlbit 33

Despite these differences in process­ Arrest to disposition time by final disposition ing times by type of disposition, it is cases indicted or bound over (mean number ~f days) interesting to oosel've that certain Guilty Guilty Acquittal jurisdictions are consistently fast or Jurisdiction ~ trials trials Dismissals ~ slow no matter what the disposition Brighton 189 271 281 215 203 type. The felony courts in Portland Golden 187 250 193 193 192 and New Orleans show short disposi­ Indianapolis 166 216 200 160 170 tion times for pleas, trials, and Los Angeles 135 207 206 115* 135 dismissals; Rhode Isiand shows rela­ Manhattan 177 305 278 215 195 New Orleans 78 116 131 105 85 tively long times for all three Portland 84 109 110 78* 86 disposi tion types. Pueblo 131 248 407 141 159 Rhode Island 275 397 454 310 288 In New Orleans the district attorney St. Louis 162 251** 251 H 197 175 Salt Lake 121 213 205 113* 124 stresses moving cases rapidly and has San Diego 202 242 194 147 199 an office policy of moving filed Washington, D.C. 186 302 302 256 218 cases from arraignment to trial in 60 days. The district attorney is in an Jurisdiction median 166 242 205 147 175 advantageous position to facilitate this policy, because Louisiana gives *Includes cases dismissed at preliminary hearing. legal control of the court calendar to **Represents time for total trials. Separate data for acquittals prosecutors. The district attorney's and convictions not available. office also attempts to prevent cases from aging by reviewing the oldest cases on the docket each week. An E:xhlbit 34 emphasis on rapid dispositions also is Rhode Island has had a long-standing apparent in Portland. The district meanors atthe beginning of 1977). attorney's office has a policy requir­ problem of case backlog and in the The court placed about one-third of ing plea offers to be made and com­ last decade has initiated a number of the active backlog into an accele­ municated to defense attorneys innovatiVf programs to deal with the rated processing system. All single­ shortly after screening to encours.ge problem. Beginning in 1976, several defendant, private-attorney cases an early decision on whether a case actions were taken to reduce the were scheduled for pretrial confer­ backlog (6,233 felonies and misde- will be pled or go to trial. Also, ences to determine if the case was when the court backlog reaches 500 going to result in plea or trial and to cases, two judges are assigned to 3John Paul Ryan et a!., "Analyzing Court schedule a definite time, date, and work full-time on criminal cases. Delay-Reduction Progrllms: Why Do Some judge for that disposition. The court Succeed?" Judicature 65, no. 2 (1981). doubled the number of criminal trial

32 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 judges to handle this program. Other issues Continuances and (Only three of the eight judges case-processing times handled the 1,546 backlog cases, (1979 data) One of the few cross-jurisdictional however; the other five were studies of delay (in 21 urban courts) assigned trials from a pool of about Median concluded that several of the key 200 time explanations for delay appear to more recent serious crimes.) (months) from have little or no relationship to the The results of that effort are appar­ Number arres t actual speed of dispositions. Specif­ ent in a comparison of the mean of con- to dis po- ically, case load per judge and the case-processing times reported in Jurisdiction tinuances sition proportion of cases requiring trial the three editions of this series. In Cobb County 1.3 6.5 did not appear to be related to case­ 1977 the mean time to disposition for Kalamazoo 3.4 3.8 disposition times. A major factor felony cases in Rhode Island was 725 Washington, D.C. 3.4 2.7 that was found to characterize New Orleans 3.5 1.6 days, or almost 2 years. By 1979, the Salt Lake 3.8 1.9 faster courts was strong case man­ mean processing time had been re­ Golden 4.0 6.0 agement practices. Among the five duced to 420 days, and in 1980 it had Milwaukee 4.2 3.0 courts in which case management 288 St. Louis 4.3 5.0 dropped further, to days (see Louisville 4.8 5.0 practices were studied in depth, the exhibit 32). Geneva 1•• 9 1.8 faster courts were found to exert Los A:tgeles 5.3 3.1 strong control over case movement The role of continuances Rhode Island 5.4 10.0 shortly after filing. At arraignment Indianapolis 5.7 4.9 a relatively firm trial date was set Prominent among the explanations Jurisdiction and a tough continuance policy en­ for lack of sJ?eedy dispositions is the median 4.2 3.8 sured that most cases, if not settled role continuances play in increasing Source: Barbara Boland et al., before trial, commenced trial on or delay. Some continuance requests Prosecution of Felony Arrests, shortly after the date set for trial. involve SUbstantive legal motions 1979 (BJS, 1983). Pressure to push cases to trial was that require a court hearing, which generally a judicial function, al­ though in one court (N ew Orleans) not only adds to the age of a case exhibit 35 but also involves a substantial the dominant control over the calen­ amount of court time. Other re­ Exhibit 35, using data from cases dar was exercised by the prosecu­ quests, such as those by the defense disposed in 1979, shows the total tor. In the slower courts little effort or prosecution for additional time number of continuances in 13 juris­ was made to push cases to diisposL­ for case preparation, contribute dictions, along with case-processing tion until much later. Although almost nothing in terms of additional times. Total continuances include relatively few cases in all the courts court time, but add to the age of the those that are necessary to move a were settled by trial, practitioners case. Since control of continuances case through required court proceed­ indicated in interviews that Rt was is normally the responsibility of' ings (such as al-raignment, prelimi­ the imminence of trials t~at caused judges, some stUdies of delay criti­ nary hearing, and the grand jury) and many cases to be settled. cize loose continuance policies IOf those that result from unscheduled judges as a contributor to delay .. requests or events, such as non­ 6Church, Justice Delayed. Although judges want to conserve appearance of the defendant. court time, they also need to get through their daily dockets, and Clearly there is no simple relation­ granting of nonsubstantive contin­ ship between conltinuances and dis­ uanc~s is one way to achieve thnt position times. Cobb County has goal. Other critics even have relatively long disposition times and contended that in addition to very few continuBiOces, and Los reducing delays, "more stringent Angeles has a fairly high number of control of continuances on the part continuances and below average of the court would yield both an (jurisdiction median) disposition increase in convictions and a redluc­ times. But still it: is interesting to tion in costs in terms of poyee, note that if Cobb County is ex­ witnesses, and court time." cluded, the four jurisdictions with the lowest number of continuances 4Martin A. Levin, "Delay in Five Crimina.! have shorter than average (i.e., at or Courts," Journal of Legal Studies IV, no. 1 (1975). below the jurisdiction median) 5Laura Banfield and C. David Anderson, disposition times. "Continuances in the Cook County Criminal Courts," University of Chicago Law Review 35 (1968): 259.

Prosecution Qf Felony Arrests, 1980 33 Appendix A Jurisdictional characteristics

Preceding page blank Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 35 Brighton, Colorado (17th Judicial District)

Brighton - Case flow (felonies) County court County court

Arrest Advisement Screening -.... Return Preliminary Preliminary r-- f--..- r- appearance r-- setting r-- hearing

District court

First Notice Plea! ~ f-+ r- Motions f--+ Sentencing appearance to set trial -

Demographic characteristics hear criminal cases. Individual Several hours prior to the return and crime rate judges control their respective appearance, the district attorney's dockets. intake unit screens the case, which is Comprising one county, the juris­ presented by a police investigator, diction had a 1980 population of District AttorneY's Office: Size, who has i'eceived reports and related 245,944, reflecting a 32% growth organization, and procedures papers from the arresting officer. rate during the prior decade. Cases are filed, rejected, or di­ Headquartered in Brighton, the verted. Little, if any, prescreening The jurisdiction's crime rate in 1980 office employs 58, 22 of whom are by police occurs. was 7,489 per 100,000 population, attorneys. Most prosecutors are with 718 as the violent crime com­ assigned to one of two sections: the A t the return appearance in county ponent. Corresponding rates in 112 county court (misdemeanor and court, the complaint or information cities of comparable size are 8,742 traffic cases), staffed by six is read, the defendant is advised to and 812, respectively. attorneys, or the district court obtain an attorney, bail status is (felony cases), staffed by seven reviewed, and a preliminary setting Criminal justice setting attorneys. The latter are the more is scheduled. Occurring in county experienced prosecutors and are court about 10 days after the return The district attorney for the 17th organized into two teams of three appearance, the preliminary setting Judicial District of Colorado has attorneys each; the seventh is a scheduling appearance. Defend­ jurisdiction over misdemeanors and prosecutor rotates as needed. ants have the right to a preliminary felonies arising in Adams County. Felony cases are assigned at the hearing within 30 days; typically, Traffic, juvenile, and nonsupport county court stage and are they waive that right and a.gree to a cases also are prosecuted by the prosecuted on a vertical basis date 2 or 3 months in the future. office. beginning with the county court However, the preliminary hearing is preliminary hearing. scheduled within 30 days for defend­ Ten law enforcement agencies bring ants in custody. cases to the district attorney. About Other attorneys staff the appellate 20% of the case load is accounted and juvenile divisions. The intake Fewer than half of felony filings are for by the county sheriff's office. (screening) unit employs a former bound over to the district court. police officer, who serves as Many of these have been settled as As the lower court of the two-tiered complaint officer. A senior district pleas prior to the preliminary hear­ judicial system, the county court is court attorney serves as the ing, in which event, the county court one of limited jurisdiction and complaint deputy for a 6-month judge binds over defendants to dis­ handles traffic violations, misde­ period. The complaint deputy trict court for entry of plea and meanors, and initial felony proceed­ reviews the complaint officer's sentencing. Cases not settled at the ings (advisement, return appear~ance, decisions and signs official papers. preliminary hearing are scheduled and preliminary hearing). The for a district court first appearance county court also has jurisdiction Flow of felony cases-arrest within 2 to 3 weeks. over civil matters under $5,000. through sentencing Four of the five county court judges The information is read at the first hear criminal matters; the other, Referring to a bail/bond schedule, appearance in district court and the civil. During fiscal 1981, approxi­ police may release arrestees prior to judge asks defendants how they mately 3,100 felonies and misde­ the initial court appearance, which is plead. If guilty, sentencing is set meanors were filed in the county advisement in county court (see ac­ within 6 to 8 weeks. If the plea is court. com panying case flow chart). At the not guilty, the judge sets a motions advisement, arrestees are informed filing deadline of 30 days and sched­ The upper or district court handles of their rights, charges are read, ules the notice to set. During the felony bindovers, juvenile cases, and public defenders are appointed, and notice-to-set appearance, the judge civil matters over $5,000. The court return appearances are scheduled schedules the motions hearing and is staffed by six judges, two of whom (within 48 hours).

36 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 trial date. For defendants convicted In the vast majority of cases, the reduced to robbery, for example. at trial, a presentence investigation first plea offer is made a few Some deputies put time limits on report is prepared, and sentencing minutes before the county court their offers. For Class I and II occurs 6 to 8 weeks after trial. preliminary hearing. A second, felonies, office guidelines specify revised offer may be made during that offers should be approved by a At sentencing, the defense calls the period between the preliminary supervisor, should be to the top character witnesses but the prose­ and motions hearings. After the charge after the preliminary hearing, cution usually does not call victims. motions hearing, cases go to trial. and should not involve sentence The judge asks the defense and concessions. Judges are not directly prosecuting attorneys for their sen­ Typically, plea offers involve charge involved in the plea negotiation tencing recommendations. reductions-a" ]avated robbery process.

Cobb County, Georgia

Cobb County- Case flow (felonies) Superior court

Plea

State court

Arrest Arraignment! Arrest r--+ warrant f-+ bond Screening f- Grand Plea! Sentencing issued hearing - jury - trial - Justice of t Superior court the Peace State court Preliminary hearing (by request)

Demographie characteristics The county has a two-tierod court prosecution with each attorney and crime rate system: The State court (lower screening, preparing, and prosecuting court) is responsible for the initial his own cases. Representing a 51% increase over the arraignment and bail assignment of 1970 total, the county's-1980 popula­ all felony cases and the disposition Flow of felony cases-arrest tion was 297,694. The jurisdiction is of all other cases. There also are through sentencing predominantly white (over 90%). about 20 elected justices of the peace located around the county who After defendants are taken into cus­ The 1980 combined crime rate in sign arrest warrants brought to them tody, the police officer obtains an Marietta and Symrna, the two by the police, making the arrest arrest warrant from a justice of the largest cities in the county, was official. The initial arraignment in peace, which leads to an automatic 8,762 per 100,000 population, the felony cases will be held before one filing in State court. Within the violent crime component being 414. of the two magistrates in the State next 72 hours, defendants must be court. arraigned before one of the two Criminal justiee setting magistrates in State court. The The four-judge superior court (upper magistrate informs the defendant of The Cobb County district attorney court) adjudicates felony cases and the charges against him and a bond is responsible for the prosecution civil matters. Using an individual decision is made. Defendants who of all felony arrests within county calendaring system, the judges are held on bond may demand a pre­ boundal'ies. (All other cases, such as schedule their own civil and criminal liminary hearing in State court traffic, juvenile, and domestic cases, docket alternating weeks of jury and within 2 weeks of' arrest. are handled by the State solicitor.) nonjury work. The prosecutor's screening occurs Of the approximately 4,000 felony after the case has been initiated in District Attorney's Office: Size, State court. The district attorney's arrests presented annually to the organization, and procedures district attorney, the majority are office receives copies of arrest initiated by either the Cobb County, warrants on a daily basis. The dis­ The district attorney's staff com­ trict attorney reviews all warrants Marietta, or Smyrna police depart­ prises 10 attorneys including the DA, ments. The rest are brought by any and assigns cases to individual at­ who reviews every felony case and torneys for screening, which occurs one of 30 law enforcement depart­ assigns it to one of the assistant ments with jurisdiction in the about a week after arrest when at­ district attorneys in his office. The torneys receive written arrest county. office is characterized by horizontal

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 37 reports from police officers. If the Indicted cases are randomly assigned Plea negotiations are characterized assigned attorney feels that the case to one of the four superior colirt by intormal contact between the does not merit prosecution, he or she judges, who designa tes a court­ prosecution and defense attorneys; directs the case back to state court appointed attorney if necessary. An the judge is not involved. The sub­ for dismissal. Very few of the cases arraignment on the indictment is stance of plea bargains concerns the that are redirected to State court held 21 days after indictment. By sentence, including both the issues of are prosecuted as misdemeanors. this time, the prosecutor and defense prison versus probation and length of have discussed the case and most de­ incarceration. Judges usually accept Cases carried forward as felonies are fendants are ready to plead guilty. the recommendation of the plea sent to the grand jury, which meets Defendants who plead guilty are im­ agreement without changing the type once each week. Most cases are pre­ mediately sentenced. If no guilty of sentence; however, they occasion­ sented and indicted withir( 2 to 3 plea is entered the judge schedUles ally alter the length. There is no months after arrest. The only ex­ and hears all other hearings, formal review procedure of the bar­ ception to this process is for cases motions, and trial. gains made; however, the small size that are settled by plea negotiations of the office allows for informal prior to the grand jury hearing. con trol over such decisions. These cases skip the grand jury and are directly assigned to a superior court judge for a plea and sentence hearing. - Colorado Springs, Colorado (4th Judicial District)

Colorado Springs - Case flow (felonies)

Arrest I- Advisement I- Screening - District court County court l-+- First I- Motions Plea! r- Sentencing appearance hearing - trial

Preliminary f- hearing - District court

Demographic characteristics and some civil litigation are also the About 10,400 felonies and misde­ and crim e rate responsibility of the office. meanors were filed with the courts during a recent l2-month period. This two-county jurisdiction's popu­ Approximately six law enforcement Felonies are filed directly in district lation in 1980 was 317,458, reflecting agencies bring arrests to the office. court even though advisement is held a 10-year increase of 31%. Whites The Colorado Springs police depart­ in the lower court. comprised 79% of the population; ment accounts for about 85% of the IIispanics, 8%; and blacks, 6%. office'S case load. District A ttorney's Office: Size, organization, and procedures With 214,914 residents, the city of As the lower court of a two··tiered Colorado Springs had a 1980 crime judicial system, the county court Most of the office'S 32 attorneys are rate of 8,169 per 100,000 population, handles traffic violations, civil assigned to one of two sections of 571 being the violent crime compon­ matters under $5,000, misdemeanors, the criminal division: county court ent. Corresponding rates that year and preliminary felony proceedings and district court. for 112 cities of comparable size (advisement). Six judges share the averaged 8,742 and 812, respectively criminal and civil work load. In county court, seven deputies are responsible for prosecuting misde­ Criminal justice setting The upper or district court handles meanors and representing the office juvenile (criminal), felony, and at felony advisements. District The district attorney for the 4th domestic re~ations cases, as well as court deputies are organized into Judicial Circuit of Colorado prose­ civil matters over $5,000. The 10 three trial teams of four attorneys cutes all misdemeanor and felony judges hear both civil and criminal each. Other office assignments cases arising in El Paso and TeHel' cases. Judges maintain complete include three deputies in the juvenile Counties. Traffic violations, juve­ control over their respective section, .two in consumer fraud, two nile matters, family-support cases, doc~ets. in support and welfare, and one in appellate.

38 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 With the exception of the felony arrest. For arrests made by the to preliminary hearing or waives the advisement in county court, all Colorado Springs police department, preliminary hearing and a trial date proceedings for a given felony case the paralegal goes to the department is set. are handled by the same attorney. to review cases with detectives, not the arresting officers. Generally, A t the prelim inary hearing, probable Flow of felony cases-arrest the arrests will have occurred 2 or 3 cause is established, defendants are through sentencing days earlier. Police do not prascreen asked how they plead (this triggers cases. One of two deputies reviews the 6-month speedy trial rule), and a Police may release arrestees on bail and signs the papers prepared by the trial date is set (within 2 or 3 or bond prior to initial court appear­ paralegal. An estimated 9096 of fel­ months). ance, which is felony advisement in ony arrests are filed in the district county court, and which is held court. Following a motions hearing, trial within 1 day of arrest (see accom­ occurs. Sentencing takes place 6 to panying case flow chart). A t advise­ A t the first appearance, the defend­ 8 weeks after trial. Deputies do not ment, arrestees are read their rights, ant is given a copy of the informa­ normally present victims and wit­ notified of police charges, and asked tion, counsel is appointed, if nesses at sentencing. Judges have if they wish to be represented by a necessal'y (if counsel has not been the benefit of a presentence investi­ public defender. The judge reviews secured, the case is continued 1 gation report. the arrestee's ,bail 'Status and sets a week), discovery takes place, release return date of 1 to 10 working days status is reviewed, and a preliminary Plea negotiations begin a few days for first appearance in district court. hearing date is set (must occur with­ before the preliminary hearing and in 30 days). are usually initiated by prosecutors. Cases are screened by an experi­ Good until the hearing, offers may enced paralegal prior to the ar­ Most cases are settled prior to the involve charge reductions, sentence restee's first appearance. Arresting preliminary hearing; a guilty plea is concessions, and whether habitual officers from the sm'aller agencies entered at the hearing and sentenc­ offender charges will be filed. A review their cases with the para­ ing is scheduled to occur about 8 second offer may be made after the legal, usually within one day of weeks later. If a plea agreement has preliminary hearing, but it is not not been reached, the defendant goes supposed to be as favorable as the first. Judges are not directly involved in plea negotiations.

Davenport,- Iowa (Scott County)

Davenport - Case flow (felonies') Serious misdemeanors

Arrest Police First Second Screening Arraignment Pretrial Plea! Sentencing - filing - appearance --- appearance" ------conference --- trial -- Associate district court Associate district court LInformation r+1 filed

Fe/ony/aggravated misdemeanors

First Second Pretrial Plea! Screening r- t--- 4 Arraignment r- f- r- Sentencing I ~,~t r~ - appearance appearance" conference trial ASSOCiate dlstnct court District court , Includes felonies andaggravated and serious misdemeanors, whIch are punishable by a year In prison In Iowa. " Defendants have a right to a preliminary hearing fol/owlng second appearance, but it is always waived,

Demographic characteristics Davenport is the county sea,t and had Criminal justice setting and crime rate a population of 103,000 in 1980. The city's crime rate that year was 8,375 The county attorney for Scott With a 1980 population of 157,000, per 100,000 population, the violent County has jurisdiction over all Scott County grew by about 10% dur­ crime component being 892. Corre­ felonies and misdemeanors occurring ing the 1970's, is an industrial area sponding rates in 1980 for 112 cities in the county, which includes and is predominantly white (95%). of comparable size were 8,742 and Davenport, Bettendorf, and several 812, respectively. smaller towns.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 39 Eleven police agencies present an Case now: Felonies and Pretrial conferences occur approxi­ estimated 13,000 felony and misde­ indictable misdemeanors mately 60 days after arraignment. meanor arrests to the county attor­ Actually, there is no "conference": ney annually. The vast majority of In the past, the police typically filed Cases not settled previously simply arrests are presented by Davenport all arrests directly in the associate receive a trial date. Trial is held and Bettendorf police, the county district court before the prosecutor within 1 or 2 weeks. The speedy sheriff, and State police. had a chance to screen and make a trial rule, which is almost always charging decision. The office is now waived, requires trials to commence Felonies and the two types of indict­ trying to cha,nge this system and within 90 days from arraignment. able misdemeanors (aggravated and screen cases before they are pre­ serious) carry penalties of over 1 sented to the associate district Sentences must be imposed within 15 year in prison. In other States, court. About half of arrests are now days after the trial if the offender is indictable misdemeanors would gen­ screened and the prosecutor's charge in custody, otherwise, within a erally be considered as less serious designated before the defendant's month. Those convicted of felonies felonies and are so regarded for the first appearance. For the other half, must have a presentence investiga­ purposes of this report. What are screening occurs after the initial tion. Persons guilty of indictable termed misdemeanors elsewhere are police filing (and the defendant's misdemeanors usually waive the pre­ called simple misdemeanors in Iowa. first and second appearance in asso­ sentence investigation. ciate circuit court), but before a As part of a unified court system, filing of the information. Plea negotiations generally involve the associate district court (lower adhering to the top charge, dis­ court) adjudicates simple and serious In the associate district court, first mIssing the others, and agreeing not misdemeanors. The court also han­ appearance occurs within 24 hours of to make sentence recommendations, dles the initial appearances for felo­ arrest, if the defendant is in custody except probation, on occasion. Since nies and all types of misdemeanors. and within 48 hours, if on release. judges rarely, if ever, impose con­ A t the initial appearance, bond is secutive sentences, insisting on addi­ The upper or district court handles set, rights explained, and an attorney tional charges is not regarded as arraignment and subsequent events appointed. worthwhile. for felonies and aggravated misde­ meanors. Six of the district court's The second appearance, also in asso­ Team members negotiate their own 10 judges are assigned to hear Scott ciate district court, takes place 24 cases, but team leaders must ap­ County cases. (The district court hours after the first if the defendant prove the agreements, called Rule 9 serves other geographic areas in is still in custody and within 72 hours addition to Scott County.) memo agreements. Such agreements if on release. Persons charged with are rarely rejected by team leaders. indictable misdemeanors can plead County Attorney's Office: guilty at this point. Without excep,.. Judges almost always accept the Size, organization, and procedures tion, the preliminary hearing is Rule 9 agreement at the pretrial waived. Arraignment on the infor­ conference. If the judge rejects it, Two full-time attorneys and 14 part­ mation is scheduled to occur within 3 however, the defendant can with­ time attorneys (including the county weeks. Informations are filed after draw his plea. Negotiations are con­ attorney) staff the office. Some are the second appearance (automatic ducted over the telephone by attor­ assigned to civil cases, others to dismissal results if the filing does neys. Judges do not participate. juvenile matters, and still others to not occur within 45 days of arrest). three teams specializing in felony If a case is not settled at the pre­ and indictable misdemeanor cases. Arraignment on the information and trial conference, the only alternative Though handling all types of cases, subsequent court events for simple to trial is the open plea. When the each team tends to specialize, such and serious misdemeanors occur in defendant decides on an open plea, as in white-collar crime, violent the associate district court; for all parties present arguments (on the crime, and child-abuse cases. Pros­ felonies and aggravated misde- record) before the judge, who ecution of felonies is vertical after m eanors, in the district court. decides the outcome. screening.

40 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Dedham, Massachusetts (Norfolk County)

Dedham - Case flow (felonies)

District court District court Victim! Show Conference - Trial of witness cause plea unpled -+- Sentencing complaint r- r-- hearing discussions cases application

Discovery Arrest Complaint Arraignment Screening Grand Arraignment and Trial! Sentencing I- jury I-- r-- r-- issued - - - motions plea - District court t t Superior court Probable cause I-- Screening hearing

District court

Demographic characteristics ceration may be adjudicated either Flow of felony cases-arrest and crime rate in district court or in the upper through sentencing court. N orfoll< County is a predominantly As noted by the accompanying case white (97%), middle-class community The superior court (upper court) flow chart, the two major ways a on the outskirts of Boston. In 1980 adjudicates felonies punishable by case may be initiated is either by its population was 606,587, just a more than 5 years in prison as well arrest or by the victim or complain­ few thousand more than in 1970. Of as misdemeanor appeals. ing witness applying for a com­ the 28 municipalities in the county, plaint. In the former case, the Quincy is the largest, followed by District Attorney's Office: defendant is brought before the clerk Weymouth and Brookline. Dedham is Size, organization, and procedures magistrate and the complaint is is­ the county seat. sued in district court; in the latter Of the 27 to 30 full-time attorneys, case a show-cause hearing is held The 1980 combined crime rnte in 9 to 10 are assigned to superior court prior to issuance of the complaint. Quincy, Weymouth, and Brookline and the balance to district court. In was 6,266 per 100,000 population, the addition, about 27 law student in­ Soon after complaint issuance, the violent crime component being 364. terns conduct paralegal work for the defendant is arraigned in district office. court. Only at this point does Criminal justice setting screening occur; unless rejected (few Although the office does not operate are), cases are assigned by screening The district attorney for Norfolk special prosecution units, particular attorneys to either district or supe­ County has jurisdiction over all types of cases are customarily as­ rior court. In the busier district criminal and some civil matters signed to certain attorneys. Screen­ court, the next event is a conference occurring in the county, including ing is handled by two experienced at which the prosecutor and defense traffic violations, child support prosecutors. attorney meet to discuss the plea. cases, city ordinance violations, and (In the less busy courts the confer­ welfare fraud. In felony cases over which the upper ence is omitted.) Following any and lower courts have concurrent conference, trial occurs, if needed. Each operating its own law enforce­ jurisdiction, the district attorney has ment agency, the county's 28 munici­ absolute discretion to determine the About 90% of defendants plead palities bring cases to the office. court in which they will be prose­ guilty before their trial date in So also do the Massachusetts Depart­ cuted. For example, the district district court. Of those not pleading ment of Corrections, Massachusetts attorney will permit a case within guilty, 90% request a bench trial. Sheriff's Department, Registry of superior court jurisdiction to be Motor Vehicles, and the Department adjudicated in the district court if Of those cases determined by of Natural Resources. the character of the defendant, the screening a ttorneys to be serious severity of the crime, or the plea enough to warrant prosecution in As the lower court of the two-tiered negotiation warrants a speedier dis­ superior court, some will be SChed­ court system, the district court position, a minimum jail term, and/­ uled for a probable cause hearing in adjudicates all juvenile matters, or a closely supervised probation district court 10 days after arraign­ misdemeanors, and felonies punish­ (district court probation officers ment. If probable cause is found, the able by 5 years or less in State have a less burdensome case load and case is screened again and charges prison. In addition, some felonies are located in more municipalities can be adjusted before presentment punishable by longer terms of incar- than is true for their superior court to the grand jury in 2 or 3 weeks. counterparts). Other cases may skip the probable

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 41 cause hearing and proceed directly of incarceration. The Massachusetts Plea negotiations generally center to the grand jury after district court Department of Cor.rections controls on the sentence rather than the arraignment. Subsequent to indict­ the actual duration of time served. charges. Judges either (1) do not ment, discovery and motions occur, commit themselves to plea offers then trial. As for plea bargaining, in district but allow defendants to withdraw court attorneys are closely super­ pleas if they do not like their Under the state's speedy trial rule, vised for the first 3 or 4 months on sentences or (2) tend to involve an indictment or complaint must be the job and all pleas are discussed themselves in plea offers (the de­ tried within 1 year. Estimates of with the district court chief. Even fendant thus knows the sentence in actual time from arrest to felony experienced district court attorneys advance) but do not allow defendants disposition in superior court range consult the chief in serious or diffi­ to withdraw their pleas (they must from 6 to 9 months; in district court cult cases. A ttorneys in superior appeal). 2 to 4 months. court are more experienced and are given flexibility regarding offers but, Sentencing is usually imposed with­ in difficult cases, the first assistant out a presentence report. Judges set or the most experienced attorneys the minimum and maximum periods are consulted.

Des Moines, Iowa (Polk County)

Des Moines - Case flow (felonies*) Associate district court

Preliminary Arrest .... hearing I- (waivable)

Screening! warrant -+ First Information I- Arraignment I-- Motions Plea! f- Sentencing issuance appearance - filed - trial Associate District court district Walk·in court complaints

* Includes felonies andaggravated and serious misdemeanors, which are punishable by a year in prison in Iowa.

Demographic characteristics are made by the Des Moines police The district court (upper court) and crime rate department. exercises jurisdiction over indictable offenses (felonies, aggravated and Representing a 5% increase over the Felonies and the two types of indict­ serious misdemeanors). Thirteen 1970 total, the county's 1980 popu­ able misdemeanors (aggravated and judges are assigned to this court: lation was 301,879. The jurisdiction serious) in Iowa carry penalties of three are responsible for criminal is predominantly white (over 90%). over 1 year in prison. In other cases, two for family court, and States, indictable misdemeanors eight are on general assignment for Des Moines, the county seat, had a would generally be considered as less civil cases and as backup for crim­ 1980 population of 191,000 and a serious felonies and are so regarded inal matters. crime rate of 10,141 per 100,000 in this report. What are termed population, 571 being the violent misdemeanors elsewhere are called County Attorney's Office: Size, crime component. Corresponding simple misdemeanors in Iowa. organization, and procedures rates in 1980 for 112 cities of comparable size were 8,742 and 812, As part of a unified court system, Thirty assistant county attorneys respec ti vely. the associate district court (lower staff the office. The office includes court) hears simple misdemeanors three bureaus: pretrial, trial, and Criminal justice setting and also may take pleas to serious major offender. Each bureau and aggravated misdemeanors. In designa tes a lead attorney. All felonies and misdemeanors aris­ addition, the court handles the initial ing within Polk County fall within appearance and preliminary hearing Prosecution is horizontal. The the jurisdiction of the county a ttor­ for felonies and serious and aggra­ pretrial bureau is the intake/ ney's office, which also handles vated misdemeanors. The six judges screening unit for all cases. If a juvenile and civil matters. assigned to Polk County's associate case is not pled out during the district court also hear juvenile, pretrial stage (before an information Thirteen police agencies present traffic, and small claims cases. is filed), it is assigned to a trial arrests to the county attorney; most

42 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 bureau attorney, who handles it 24 hours of arrest. (See accompany­ demeanor cases. Most felony through disposition. Major offenses ing case flow chart.) Bond is set, defendants have presentence investi­ (such as homicide), however, are charges read, and an attorney gations, and sentencing occurs 4 to 6 handled by a single attorney from appointed, if necessary. The pre­ weeks after a guilty finding or plea. arrest to trial. liminary hearing, which is usually waived, is schedUled within 1 week The county attorney has a policy of Case flow: Felonies and after the first appearance. no plea bargaining. Those negotia­ indictable misdemeanors tions that do occur seem to center An information is filed within 45 on dism issing multiple charges and Arrests are either made immediately days after arrest (statutory limit). counts or recommending probation at the scene or on securing a warrant A substantial majority of the felony for first offenders. Most routine is a from the court. Without prescreen­ flnd indictable misdemeanor arrests plea to the top charge; all parties ing, police present arrests to the result in an information. know from past experience what the county attorney's pretrial bureau, sentence range wilt be. Generally, which screens all cases before first Arraignment on the information the county attorney makes recom­ appearance. The bureau also screens occurs in district court, usually 6 to meridations about the length of about 10 police-referred, walk-in 8 weeks after arrest. The informa­ incarceration for the most serious citizen complaints per day. These tion is read to the defendant and a felonies only. complaints are the result of police trial date is set. Statute mandates actions that did not lead to an im­ that the trial be scheduled not later Negotiations by assistant county mediate arrest. Warrants are issued than 90 days after the information is attorneys must be approved by the as appropriate. filed. bureau head. Generally, judges do not participate in plea negotiations. First appearance occurs before an The presentence investigation is associate district court judge within usually waived in indictable mis-

Detroit, Michigan (Wayne County)

Detroit - Case flow (feloni.:!!»

Motions r-- District court [ Prosecutor Police screening Preliminary Arrest Arraignment Arraignment Final Plea! Sentencing t- screening I- and warrant t- f- examination t- t- conference I- trial I- issuance Recorder's court

Demographic characteristics criminal cases arising within the traffic offenses; it also holds felony and crime rate county. Aside from administrative arraignments and preliminary exami­ offices, the prosecutor's office is nations. There are 29 recorder's The 1980 population of Wayne divided into two geographic divi­ court (upper court) judges, who County, including Detroit, was sions. One is responsible for all the handle only felonies bound over by 2,337,240, a decrease of 12.5% from criminal activity in the city of the district court. An executive the 1970 figure. Wayne County is Detroit; the other, composed of the judge, four or five other jUdges, and 60% white, 36% black. ou t-county offices, handles all other a docket clerk are located on each of criminal activity in Wayne County. the five floors of the courthouse Detroit, with J.,200,000 residents in The courts are similarly separated. where felony courtrooms are lo­ 1980, experienced a 20% population In 1981 close to 27,odo felony and cated. Executive jUdges preside over decline during the 1970's. Its 1980 misdemeanor arrests were presented the arraignment on the i[1lJormation, crime rate was 10,645 per 100,000 for prosecution; ovel' 70% of those take pleas, hear some motions, as­ population; 1,946 being the violent arrests originated in Detroit. Most sign cases to the other judges, and crime component. Corresponding were made by the Detroit city po­ also may conduct bench trials. The rates in 1980 for five cities of com­ lice. The remainder of this report other judges, who maintain their own parable size were 9,015 and 1, 704, confines itself to procedures relating calendars, preside over all jury respectively. to the prosecution and adjudication trials. of crimes occurring in Detroit. Criminal justice setting As the lower court of the city's two­ The Wayne County prosecutor's tiered court system, the district office has jurisdiction over all adult court hears misdemeanor and some

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 43 -- Prosecuting Attorney's Office: mend dismissal. If the latter, a docket attorney who works with that Size, organization, and procedures police supervisor must concur; if the judge reviews the case, makes a former, the papers prepared by the plea, and assigns a trial attorney to The Wayne County prosecutor's arresting officer and investigator are the case. office employs 120 attorneys; most submitted to a court officer, a police work in the Detroit office. The officer who acts as liaison between The first appearance in recorder's Detroit office attorneys are assigned police and prosecutor. Accompanied court, the arraignment on the to four divisions: administrative (to by the complainant or victim, the information (actually a pretrial which the rest report), screening and court officer meets with a prosecu­ conference), occurs about 1 week trial preparation, trials and dispo­ tor in the warrant section to review after the preliminary hearing if the sitions, and appeals and special the case, usually within 24 hours of defendant is in custody; otherwise, in services. arrest. (See accompanying felony 2 weeks. At this appearance the case flow chart.) final conference and trial da tes are The screening and trial preparation set. Motions may be heard until the division works almost exclusively The warrant section may issue a conference, which is usually sche­ with the district court. Of 14 felony warrant on the charge recom­ duled about 30 days after arraign­ attorneys, 5 are assigned to issuing mended by the police department or ment on the information. warrants and screening, 6 to prepar­ on a different charge, issue a mis­ ing and conducting the preliminary demeanor warrant, dismiss the case, Most defendants who go to trial examination,2 to handling traffic or adjourn the case for up to 10 days waive their right to a jury trial in cases, and 1 to prosecu ting m isde­ to give the complainant cooling off favor of a bench trial. One reason meanor trials. time. for this is that bench trials are presided over by executive judges, Six of the 41 attot'neys staffing the If a warrant is issued, the court who are regarded as more lenient trial and disposition division are officer takes it to the district court, than trial judges. If the defendant is assigned to the repeat offender where a judge signs it, making the convicted at trial, a presentence bureau. The other 35 are felony trial arrest official. If the defendant is in investigation report is prepared, and attorneys, working at the recorder's custody, arraignment on the warrant the defendant appears before the court. Five are designated as docket occurs almost immediately; other­ judge for sentencing. MiChigan attorneys, one for each floor where wise, the defendant is arrested on juries do not make sentence recom­ there are felony courtrooms. They the warrant and arraigned in district mendations; the judge sets the are experienced trial attorneys and court. At the arraignment, the ac­ sentence and usually does not follow supervise four to six other trial cused is formally charged, an attor­ the prosecutor's recommendation, if attorneys assigned to each of the ney is appointed, if necessary, and any. When a case is settled through five floors. the preliminary examination is a plea of guilty, the same sentencing scheduled (usually within 10 days). procedure applies, but the prosecutor The appeals and special services does not routinely appear. division comprises 14 trial attorneys, Plea offers are extended to the 18 juvenile-case attorneys, a few defense attorney at the arraignment Office policy reflects the view that attorneys who conduct civillitiga­ on the information and expire on the strong cases are pled out on strong tion for the county, and 3 attorneys date of the final conference; subse­ charges, and weak cases are taken to who staff the organized crime task quent pleas must be to the count trial rather than disposed of through force. originally charged. The five docket lenient pleas. Under Michigan law attorneys are the only attorneys those convicted of committing a Prosecution at the district court is authorized to make or change plea felony while armed are subject to a horizontal, at the recorder's court, offers. Plea offers are made accord­ mandatory sentence. No plea offers vertical. . ing to written office policies and are extended to defendants who may involve only the reduction or commit such crimes. Office policy Flow of felony cases-arrest dismissal of charges. further prohibits reductions for through sentencing certain other felonies and sets the If probable cause is found at the minimum that can be offered on still The arresting officer submits his or preliminary examination, the case is others. her report to an investigator, who bound over to the recorder's court conducts additional interviews and for felony prosecution. Bound over decides whether to present the cases are randomly assigned to one arrest to the prosecutor or to recom- of the five executive judges. The

44 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Z£&i_

Fort Collins, Colorado (8th Judicial District)

Fort Collins - Case flow (felonies) County court

Arrest j.-.... Advisement f--- Return appearance ~-

District court Preliminary First hearing/ status Return Motions Plea! ~ f- f-+- -+- f- f-+- Se>lltencing appearance bond conference date - hearing trial reduction

Demographic characteristics During a recent 12-month period, making the filing decision, the and crime rate about 4,200 misdemeanors and felo­ deputy relies on the arresting and nies were filed. Felonies are filed investiga ting officers' wri tten With a 1980 population of 151,047, directly in district court, even reports, as well as interviews with this two-county jurisdiction was 89% though preliminary felony proceed­ investigating officers. About 90% of white. During the prior decade, the ings occur in county court. felony arrests are filed. number of residents in the counties increased by about 6696. District Attorney's Office: Size, A t return appearance, rights and the organization, and procedures information are read and a return Comprising 43% (65,000) of. the juris­ date of 2 or 3 days is set for first diction's population, the city of Fort Of the office'S 12 attorneys, 3 are appearance in district court. During Collins had a crime rate in 1980 of county court deputies. These junior first appearance, the following 5,440 per 100,000 population, the members of the staff handle misde­ occurs: violent crime component being 190. meanors and traffic offenses. Four The corresponding rates for 280 attorneys handle felonies in district • Counsel is appointed or the defend­ cities of comparable size averaged court. ant is informed about how to obtain 7,137 and 602, respectively. representation. The complaint (screening) deputy is a Criminal justice setting senior prosecutor. In addition to • Request for a preliminary hearing deciding whether and what to file, he is made if the defendant has counsel The district attorney for the 8th handles felony advisements and (such a request must be made within Judicial District of Colorado has return appearances. 10 days of the first appearance). jurisdiction OVer felonies and m is­ demeanors committed in Larimer Except for county court appear­ • Preliminary hearing is scheduled to and Jackson Counties. Traffic, ances, all proceedings for a given occur in 2 or 3 weeks (must be set juvenile, and nonsupport cases are felony case are handled by one within 30 days of request). A bond also the responsibility of the office. deputy (i.e., prosecution is reduction hearing also is set for the essentially vertical). same date. Approximately four law enforcement agencies bring cases to the office. Flow of felony cases-arrest If a plea agreement is reached prior The Fort Collins police department through sentencing to the preliminary hearing, the par­ and Larim er County sheriff's office ties go to court as scheduled and the initiate most of the case load. Referring to a bail/bond schedule, judge either sets a sentencing date police may release arrestees prior to or imposes a sentence immediately. The three-judge county court is the their initial appearance in county For defendants who have not negoti­ lower court of the two-tiered judi­ court (advisement-see accompany­ ated a plea, the preliminary hearing cial system. It handles traffic ing felony case flow chart). Held the establishes probable cause. A status violations, civil matters under day following arrest for those in review conference and return date $5,000, mi~demeanors, and felony custody, advisement involves the are set. preliminaries (advisement and return following: rights are read, defend­ appearance). ants are notified of police charges; Three weeks after the preliminary bond is set; and a return date of 2 hearing, the status review confer­ Four judges staff the upper or dis­ working days is set for the return ence is held so that the defense and trict court. It hears felony, juvenile, appearance. prosecutor can attempt to negotiate nonsupport, and civil (over $5,(00) a plea. On the return date-1 week cases, among others. One judge The intake (screening) deputy after the status review conference-- handles calendar work and the other reviews police papers the morning of three act as trial judges. the return appearance date. In

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 4~, ______0',-,":':'1,, ______--. ______the judge wants to know if a plE!a A t this second appearance, the trial hearing and can involve negotiations agreement has been reached. If so, a judges sets a motions hearing and on charges, counts, and sentences. sentencing date is set. If the trial date if a plea agreement has Prosecutors are permitted to dispose defendant enters an open plea, the not been reached; sentences are of their cases as they see fit. How­ case is assigned to a trial judge for imposed 6 to 8 weeks after trial. ever, once a case has been set for sentencing. If a plea has not been trial and assigned a judge, plea negotiated, the case is given a The plea negotiation process is negotiations are supposed to second return date before a trial conducted very informally. It begins terminate. judge. 2 to 3 days prior tq the preliminary

Geneva, Illinois (Kane County)

Geneva - Case flow (felonies) Associate circuit court

Sentencing r- of pled Associate cases - circuit court judge Circuit court

Charge First Second Bond Pretrial Plea! Arrest f-+ authorization f--

Associate circuit J court Preliminary Associate '---~ hearing circuit (waivable) court

Demographic characteristics associate circuit court (lower court) Flow of felony cases-arrest and crime rate also are responsible for felony pre­ through sentencing lim inaries-bond, status, and prelim i­ Kane County's 1980 population, 81% nary hearings. In addition, one of The state's attorney's office reviews white, was 278,405, an 11% increase the judges is empowered to take all arrests, which may be brought by over the 1970 figure. Hispanics felony pleas. either the arresting officer or a and blacks composed 14% of the detective. An attorney must author­ population. The jurisdiction of the 13 th Judicial ize the charges (screening) within Circuit Court, the upper court, hours of arrest. (See accompanying With 116,000 residents, selected extends to all of Kane County and felony case flow chart.) A clerk cities in the jurisdiction had a 1980 part of DeKalb and Kendall from the state's attorney's office is crime rate of 6,422 per 100,000 Counties. Nine of the 11 judges are at the jail and types an information population, 386 being the violent assigned to Kane County; two of based on the authorized charges. crime component. them hear felony cases. They maintain individual calendars and Within 24 hours of arrest, the infor­ Criminal justice setting hear all events associated with their mation is issued and a bond call held respective cases. before an associate circuit court The state's attorney for Kane County judge ih the Aurora, Elgin, or Geneva has jurisdiction over all criminal State's Attorney's Office: Size, jail. During bond call, bail is set and matters occurring in the county. organization, and procedures the defendant advised of the charges The office also prosecutes civil, and his or her rights. juvenile, and traffic cases for the The state's attorney maintains county. In addition, several munici­ offices in three cities (Aurora, Elgin, The defendant's second appearance palities contract with the office to and Geneva) and a staff of 20 before a judge occurs in Geneva in prosecute violations of city assistant state's attorneys. Eight the associate circuit court about 10 ordinances. attorneys prosecute felonies; six, to 14 days after bond call. At that misdemeanors and traffic offenses; event, called the first status date, Seventeen police departments pre­ and others handle civil and juvenile charges are read again and counsel sent an estimated 6,500 to 7,000 cases. All felony attorneys and appointed, if needed. A second felony and misdemeanor arrests to experienced misdemeanor attorneys status date is usually held. Those the state's attorney annually; Aurora may screen cases (authorize who plead guilty are sentenced and Elgin bring the bulk of them. charges). The office does not have immediately by the associate circuit special prosecution teams. ProS'ecu­ court judge who took the plea. Of Presiding over misdemeanor, traffic, tion in both the lower and upper those who-do not, half waiVE: the small claims, child support, and court is conducted on a vertical preliminary hearing (usually sched­ divorce cases, the nine judges of the basis. uled 1 week after the second status

46 J?rosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 date) and their cases proceed to Defendants receive the best plea court, the judge may actively partic­ circuit court, as will the cases of offer prior to the preliminary ipate, although negotiations usually those for whom probable cause is hearing. Thereafter, offers become involve attorneys only. About 90% found at the preliminary hearing. more stringent. Plea bargains may of the resulting plea bargains are Two weeks after the preliminary involve charges (dropped or reduced), accepted by circuit court judges. hearing, the first of two or three place of incarceration, or more pretrial conferences is scheduled in commonly, sentence term. Defendants who are found guilty at circuit court. If a plea is entered, trial or who plead guilty without the defendant is sentenced the same Only attorneys participate in pIEla accepting an offer are sentenced 4 day. Of the relatively few who do bargaining when it occurs at the to 6 weeks later, following a not plead, most request jury trials. associate circuit court. The judge presentence investigation. merely accepts the offer. In circuit i"'" Golden, Colorado (1st Judicial District)

Golden - Case flow (felonies) County court County court Demand Arrest Advisement f- Screening Return r- date for r---- Preliminary - appearance preliminary hearing -- hearing J District court

First Pretrial Motions Plea! -10- I- f- I- Sentencing appearance conference hearing trial --

Demographic characteristics The five-judge county court (lower conforming to a set schedule. and crime rate court of the two-tiered judicial Advisement in county court occurs system) handles traffic violations, within 2 days for releasees; the next Predominantly white (91%), this two­ civil matters under $5,000, misde­ day for those in custody (see accom­ county jurisdiction had a 1980 popu­ meanors, and preliminary felony panying felony case flow chart). For lation of 374,182, reflecting a growth proceedings (advisement, return low-level felonies, an officer may rate of 58% over the previous 10 appearance, preliminary hearing). issue a citation or field summons years. directing a person to appear in coun­ Seven of the eight judges in the ty court; in those instances, the The crime rate in 1980 for localities upper or district court hear criminal filing decision rests with the officer. accounting for about 90,000 of the cases, which requires about 80% of jurisdiction's population was 5,202 their time. Judges control their own Advisement is conducted through a per 100,000 residents with 242 being calendars. video system; the prosecutor and the violent crime component. Cor­ public defender are at the jail and responding rates in 1980 for 280 District Attorney's Office: the judge is at county court. Arres­ cities of comparable size were 7,137 Size, organization, and procedures tees are advised of their rights en and 602, respectively. masse and notified of police charges Of the 92 persons employed by the individually. Their bail status is Criminal justice setting office, 31 are attorneys, most of l'eviewed and their return appear­ whom are assigned to the county ance is set for 2 days later. Headquartered in Golden, the dis­ court, district court, preliminary trict attorney for the lst Judicial hearing, and intake divisions of the Intake (screening) occurs on the day District of Colorado has jurisdiction office. County court deputies of or day before the return appear­ over misdemeanor and felony of­ number five; district court, eight; ance. The investigating officer fenses occurring in Gilpin and J ef­ preliminary hearing, three; and delivers the papers to the district ferson Counties. Also prosecuted by intake, three. attorney's office. Little prescreen­ the office are traffic, juvenile, and ing by police occurs. A former po­ nonsupport cases. Prosecution proceeds on a horizontal lice officer screens over 70% of the basis. (The office plans to change to cases; a prosecutor reviews the Approximately nine law enforcement vertical prosecution soon.) screening decisions and signs the agencies bring an estimated 6,000 papers. Cases are then filed in felony and misdemeanor cases to the Flow of felony cases-arrest county court. office. The Lakewood police depart­ through sentencing ment accounts for 60% of the case A t return appearance in county load. Many arrestees are released at the court, the complaint is read (unless station house, with bail amounts waived), the defendant is asked if a

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 47 public defender is required, the date tenced in 6 to 8 weeks. If a not­ tling cases. Conducted informally, for filing a preliminary hearing guilty plea is entered, the 6-month negotiations commence about 4 days request (lO days from return appear­ speedy trial r'ule goes into effect and before the preliminary hearing and ance) is set, and the demand date for the judge sets four dates: may involve charge reduction, dis­ the preliminary hearing is sched­ missal of charges or cases in ex­ uled. On the demand date, defense • Pretrial conference, in 10-20 days. change for pleas in other matters, counsel meets with the judge, who • Motions filing date, in 30-40 days. or, frequently, sentence conces­ sets the preliminary hearing date. • Motions hearing, in 60-70 days. sions. The latter must be reviewed • Trial, in 4-5 months. by the judge; district court judges The preliminary hearing division puts are reluctant to accept such on as few witnesses as possible, At the pretrial conference, the arrangements. consistent with establishing probable merits of the case are discussed in cause. About 41% of felony filings an attempt to reach a plea agree­ Plea agreements reached after the are bound over to district court. (If ment. At the motions hearing, the preliminary hearing are supposed to a felony plea has been arranged prior judge rules on previously filed be to a felony. Time limits on plea to the preliminary hearing, the hear­ motions. offers may vary by deputy and by ing is waived and the case is bound judge. over.) Sentencing occurs 6 to 8 weeks after trial. Judges have the benefit of Offers made by district court Occurring about 2 weeks after the presentence investigation reports, deputies at the pretrial conf'arence preliminary hearing, the first and prosecutors may make sentence are independent of any prior ones appearance in district court involves recommendations. and generally less favorable to the determination of whether a plea has defendant. Judges are not directly been arranged. If it has, the defend­ As for plea negotiations, prosecutors involved in plea negotiations. ant enters a guilty plea and is sen- have considerable freedom in set-

Greeley, Colorado (19th Judicial District)

Greeley - Case flow (felonies) County court County court

Return Arrest ~ Advisement I- Screening ---- appearance I District court

Discussion Presentence ..... First -+ return l- Preliminary I- Motions I-- Trial r- Plea! conference/ appearance date hearing setting trial - sentencing

Demographic characteristics Weld County. Juvenile, traffic, and The upper or district court has and crime rate nonsupport cases also are handled by jurisdiction over juvenile cases, the office. felonies, and civil matters over This one-county jurisdiction had a $5,000. Two of the four judges population of 123,438, a 38% increase Eighteen law enforcement agencies handle the criminal docket. Felonies over the 1970 figure. Whites con­ bring cases to the office. The are filed directly with the district stituted 72% of the population; Greeley police department accounts court even though preliminaries are Hispanics, 17%. for over half of the arrests; a handled by the county court. Judges substantial number also are pre­ operate under an individual calendar The crime rate in Greeley (popu­ sented by the county sheriff's office. system. About 2,800 felonies and lation 54,128) was 8,582 per 100,000 misdemeanors are filed with the population in 1981, 417 being' the The county court (lower court of the courts annually. violent crime component. Corre­ two-tiered judicial system) is one of sponding rates in 1980 for 280 cities limited jurisdiction, handling civil District Attorney's Office: Size, of comparable size were 7,137 and matters under $5,000, traffic vio­ organization, and prooadures 602, respectively. lations, misdemeanors, and prelimi­ nary felony proceedings (advisement The office employs about 30 persons, Criminal justice setting and t'eturn appearance). Hearing including 10 attorneys and 2 investi­ both civil and criminal cases, the gators. Most prosecutors are The district attorney for the 19th three county court judges spend an assigned to one of two sections: JUdicial District of Colorado has estimated two-thirds of their time county court, staffed by three junior jurisdiction over all misdemeanor on criminal matters. deputies; and district court, staffed and felony offenses occurring within by four experienced attorneys. A

48 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1~80 midlevel------deputy is responsible for The return appearance usually occurs A t trial setting, the judge inquires intake (screening). Another is 2 working days after the advise­ whether a plea agreement has been assigned to major crimes, and ment. Defendants are informed that reached; if so, sentencing is sched­ another to juve:.ile and consumer charges have been filed directly in uled. If not, trial is set to com­ matters. district court. The judge sets a mence within 2 1/2 months. If the return date of 1 to 2 weeks for the defendant is found guilty at trial, With the exception of the initial first appearance in district court. sentencing takes place within 4 appearance in county court, once a weeks. case is filed in district court it is A t first appearance, defendants are handled by the same deputy, who has advised of the charges and their To learn of everyone's position on complete discretion over its rights (often waived), given a copy of sentencing, the judge may hold a disposition. the information, and referred to the presentence conference im mediately public defender's office, if neces­ prior to sentencing. The deputy Flow of felony cases-arrest sary, to complete an application for makes his recommendation known at through sentencing attorney (in that event, the case is sentencing. A presentence investi­ continued for 2 weeks). If the gation report is available to the Referring to a bail/bond schedule, defendant has counsel, a discussion judge. police may release arrestees prior to return date is scheduled 1 to 2 weeks their initial county court appearance later. Plea negotiations are actively (advisement). If a case is initiated pursued during the 2-week period by a warrant rather than an arrest, If a plea agreement has been negoti­ between the first appearance in the person goes directly to district ated, the defendant enters a plea on district court and the discussion court for first appearance. the discussion return date and is return date, at which time about half sentenced either immediately or 4 to the defendants plead guilty. Often a A t advisement in county court (see 6 weeks later. If a plea agreement deputy is the one who initiates plea accompanying felony case flow has not been reached, the judge sets negotiations, in person or over the chart), arrestees are informed of a preliminary hearing; the defendant phone. Generally, the office's best their rights and notified of police has a right to such a hearing within offer is made at this time, with or charges. In addition, their release 30 days. without a time limit. status is reviewed, and a return appearance is scheduled (within 48 A t the prelim inary hearing, which is Office policy dictates that if the hours if arrestee is in custody; 10 a mini-trial, probable cause is defense insists on a preliminary days if on release). established, the defendant is asked hearing, subsequent plea offers are how he or she pleads (this triggers to be somewhat more severe. Prior to the return appearance, the the 6-month speedy trial rule), and a Deputies usually do not bargain on complaint deputy screens cases and motions hearing is set lor 2 weeks sentences; they want to maintain an decides whether and what to file. In later. At the hearing the judge rules independent position at sentencing. so doing, he reviews police reports on filed motions and continues the Judges are not directly involved in and record checks but does not inter­ case for 2 weeks for trial setting or the plea negotiation process. view police officers or witnesses. disposition. Police do little prescreening. About 75% of felonies presented are filed.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 49 Indianapolis, Indiana (Marion County)

Indianap-lis0 - Case flow (felonies)

Bond Plea review r'"' hearing r-

Superior court ~

Filing A, B, First Pretrial r- Trial r- C felonies - appearance I-' conference ..... Arrest/ I-- Screening r- Sentencing bond Municipal court r-

Filing 0 First Pretrial r- Plea felonies t- appearance I"- conference t- hearing r- t

Bond Trial review "- r-

Demographic characteristics and dispose of Class A, B, and C The office'S municipal court division and crime rate felonies, which are filed directly has two sections-the D-felony sec­ with the court (bypassing the lower tion, comprising about 10 attorneys, In 1980, the jurisdiction's population court). who work with the 2 D-felony judges; was 765,233 (20% black), which ex­ and the l4-attorney misdemeanor perienced a 3.6% decline during the Nine of the 17 municipal court (lower section, which works with the 7 mis­ previous decade. court) judges staff a criminal divi­ demeanor judges. Case processing in sion and dispose of Class D felonies, both sections is horizontal, and The 1980 crime rate was 5,325 per misdemeanors, and traffic cases. attorneys are assigned to judges by 100,000 population, 637 being the Two judges handle all D-felony session, not by case. Each judge violent crime component. Corre­ cases. holds seven sessions weekly, during sponding 1980 rates for 17 cities of which attorneys are responsible for comparable size were 9,106 and 1,162, Judges in both courts operate an whatever cases and matters arise respectively. individual calendar and hear all (e.g., initial appearances, pleas, matters from initial appearance to trials). Criminal justice setting triaL Flow of felony cases-arrest The Marion County prosecuting Prosecuting Attorney's Office: through sentencing attorney has jurisdiction over all Size, organization, procedures felony and misdemeanor arrests Felonies are presented to the prose­ occurring in the county, which is The prosecuting attorney's office cuting attorney's office for screening geographically identical to Indiana­ employs 58 attorneys (some part­ shortly after arr.est. By law, the polis. Also handled by the office are time), who handle the bulk of felony prosecutor's charge must be filed the majority of traffic offenses and and misdemeanor cases in two "promptly," interpreted locally as juvenile and family-support cases. divisions: criminal (superior) court meaning 24 hours, although statutes and municipal court, each of which is permit a filing delay of up to 72 Several police departments-includ­ assigned about 23 attorneys. In hours under some circumstances. ing those serving areas that were addition, two attorneys are assigned (See accompanying chart of felony formally independent townships­ to the grand jury, two to felony case flow.) present felony and misdemeanor screening (misdemeanors are not arrests to the prosecuting attorney. screened), seven to child-support Usually, cases are brought to screen­ The Indianapolis police department ~ases, six to juvenile matters, and ing attorneys by detectives, who and the county sheriff's department eight to sex and narcotics cases. submit a typed arrest form stating account for the vast majority of (Most attorneys hold more than one the charge, location, and time of the arrests. assignm en t.) crime, and information about the defendant(s), victim(s), and wit­ Marion County is served by two The criminal division is divided into nesses. Screening attorneys encour­ courts, both having civil and criminal six sections, one to work with each age detectives, prior to presenting a jurisdiction. Of the 15 judges staff­ of the six criminal division judges of case, to determine how cooperative ing the Marion County superior ~ourt the superior court. Immediately witnesses will be and to interview (the upper court), 6 are assigned to after screening, attorneys are defendant~ to obtain their side of the the criminal division (loc~lly assigned cases, which remain their story. referred to as the criminal court) responsibility until final disposition.

50 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 _1&

Screening attorneys I'eject very few complete preliminaries (filing, initial reached and execute it as written, felony arrests. Many are filed as appearance, bond review, voluntary even if it contains a sentence agree­ misdemeanors. The balance are filed discovery) within 7 to 14 days. ment (subject to the outcome of a (through an information) as Class A, presentence investigation report). B, or C felonies in the superior A decision about the plea position is court, or as Class D felonies in the made by the attorney handling the If the defendant indicates that he or municipal court. case, reviewed, and communicated she is willing to plead at the pretrial to the defense well before the pre­ conference, the plea hearing is held In both courts, the first appearance trial conference. The office's plea a few days later and sentencing occurs the day after filing. A t first policy is to pursue the most serious occurs after the preparation of a appearance, defendants are informed charge but permit dismissal of lesser presentence investigation report. of the charge and the finding of charges included in the informa­ Sentences are determinate for a probable cause (a matter of paper­ tion. Judges in Marion County rarely given crime, but variations are al­ work, completed prior to first sentence consecutively, so this form lowed for specific aggravating or appearance), advised of their' rights, of plea negotiation does not, as a mitigating circumstances. and assigned public defenders, if practical matter, constrain the necessary. Also, preliminary pleas judges' sentencing discretion and In municipal court, screening, filing, of not guilty are entered for them gives defendants very little. The and first appearance for D-felony (at this point, defendants usually agreement can, but does not usually, cases are essentially the same as for have not had an opportunity to talk include an agreement on a sentence cases processed in superior court. with a lawyer), and a date is set for recommendation. By statute, a for­ About 2 weeks after initial appear­ a pretrial conference. Some judges mal plea agreement must eventually ance, a pretrial conference is held, also set the trial date, which must be drafted by the prosecutor and at which time a prosecutor quickly not be more than 140 days from first signed by the prosecutor and defense reviews the case file and decides appearance. If, at the first appear­ counsel. whether to make a plea offer. ance, a defendant requests a review Office plea policy, the role of the of bond (initial bond is set by a Judges rarely enter into SUbstantive judge, statutory requirements re­ commissioner at the jail), a hearing discussions relating to plea negoti- garding pleas, and sentencing proce­ is held within 3 days. a tions. N or do they rou tinely indi­ dures are the same as those relating cate the sentence they will impose. to superior court A-, B-, and C­ felony cases. In superior court, attorneys are Thus, the plea agreement is between usually assigned to cases prior to the prosecutor and the defense initial appearance, receive the case counsel. By law, the judge must files within a week of arrest, and accept or reject the agreement

Kalamazoo, Michigan (Kalamazoo County)

Kalamazoo - Case flow (felonies) District court

Preliminary ,-. hearing f-- (waivable)

Arrest Screening Arraignment Arraignment Pretrial Plea! Sentencing f- f- f- f- conference f- trial f-

District court Circuit court

Demographic characteristics crime rate was 471. Corresponding In 1980, Kalamazoo County's 14 law and crime rate rates in 1980 for 1,516 cities of enforcement agencies presented' comparable size were 5,411 anp 352, 6,148 felony and misdemeanor cases In 1980, 213,378 residents lived in respec tively. for prosecution. Of these, Kala­ Kalamazoo County, a 5% increase in mazoo police accounted for the population over 1970. About 7% of Criminal justice setting majority. the population is black. The Kalamazoo County prosecuting The local distric~ court, part of The total crime rate in the city of attorney has jurisdiction over all Michigan's lower court system, is Kalamazoo in 1980 was 5,405 crimes State and county felonies and responsible for the disposition of per 100,000 population; the violent misdemeanors arising within the misdemeanors, traffic offenses, and county. certain civil matters. In felony

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 51 U""f' cases, the local district court also Felony cases are prosecuted horizon­ the defendant is already in custody, conducts initial arraignments, tally throughout the criminal justice arraignment occurs the same day and determines bail, assigns counsel for process, with an average of five unless the preliminary examination is indigent defendants, and holds attorneys reviewing the case by the waived it will be scheduled within 12 preliminary exa.minations. time it reaches the trial stage. days of arrest as mandated by law. After the preliminary examination in Defendants bound over on felony The upper, or felony, court is the district court, the case is bound over charges then appear in circuit court. circuit court. It is responsible for to the circuit court for felony prose­ felony cases after a finding of cution and is assigned to one of the The arraignment in circuit court is probable cause at the district court circuit court judges in a blind draw. a perfunctory appearance dealing preliminary examination. The prosecuting attorney's chief mostly with paperwork, and most assistant is responsible for assigning defendants waive their right to Seven judges staff the district court; cases to one of the assistant prose­ appear. A date is set for motions five, the circuit court. In both cuting attorneys for trial, and the and for a pretrial conference to courts, each judge operates as an result is that all the attorneys work discuss the motions and evidentiary individual court; that is, operates on with all the judges. matters. The trial judge sets these an independent and individually dates. Office policy on plea bar­ schedUled calendar and handles all Other than trial, all assignments are gaining is to seldom offer bargains types of criminal cases and civil distributed on a regular rotating on charges; rather, the offer will be matters. Circuit court judges devote basis. for a sentence recommendation. The about 50 to 60% of their time to office is tough on plea bargaining criminal cases. Flow of felony cases: Arrest and as the trial date approaches the through sentencing offers become even more stringent. Prosecuting Attorney's Office: Judges do not typically participate in Size, organization, and procedures Felony cases are presented to the plea discussions. After every trial screening prosecutor by either the conviction a presentence investiga­ The Kalamazoo prosecutor's office arresting officer or a detective who tion is conducted; sentencing usually comprises 22 attorneys, which staff is responsible for the felony investi­ occurs 4 to 6 weeks after the trial. the criminal trial unit, career gation. The prosecutor reviews the The prosecutor always appears at the criminal unit, juvenile prosecution arrest report and the defendant's sentencing hearing and usually makes unit, consumer and commercial fraud criminal history and determines the a recommendation. unit, and an appellate division. The charge. If the case merits prosecu­ criminal trial unit has the greatest tion, and the defendant is not eligi­ number of attorneys (14) and handles ble for diversion, the case is filed the responsibilities of screening as before a district court judge, who well as investigating and trying authorizes an arrest warrant. When cases.

Kansas City, Missouri (Jackson County)

Kansas City - Case flow (felonies) Circuit court

Preliminary ... hearing (waivable) ~ roo~:~;~~ ~ Associate Police Screening by circuit court Plea! Arrest f- case f- warrant desk Arraignment I-- Arraignment Sentencing reVIew and special I- f- trial I- unit trial teams Associate Circuit court circuit Grand court L. f-- jury

Demographic characteristics Kansas City; with 446,865 of the Criminal justice setting and crime rate county's residents in 1980, had a crime rate of 11,023 per 100,000 The prosecuting attorney for Jackson The jurisdiction's 1980 population of population, 1,569 being the violent County has jurisdiction over all adult 629,180 (19% black) reflects a 3.8% crime component. Corresponding felony and serious misdemeanor decline during the prior decade. rates in 1980 for 34 cities of arrests occurring in the county, comparable size were 10,189 and which includes Kansas City. (All 1,275, respectively. other misdemeanors, petty offenses,

52 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ______r(~ ______..... ______...... _ .... and ordinance and traffic violations Flow of felony cases-arrest to have bail reduced for the ac­ are handled by the city prosecutor through sentencing cused. Pretrial conferences may be for Kansas City.) held but generally are not. The case review unit of the Kansas Of all felony and misdemeanor City police department reviews each When a jury trial occurs for a first arrests presented annually to either felony arrest before it is presented offender and a guilty verdict is the Kansas City or Independence to the prosecuting attorney. (See reached, the jury must recommend a office of the prosecuting attorney, accompanying chart of felony case sentence. The prosecutor's recom­ most are brought by the Kansas City flow.) When the review unit receives mendation never exceeds the jury's police department. The rest are the arrest papers, the case is as­ because the judge cannot impose a presented by numerous other police signed to one of the unit's seven ex­ sentence more severe than the jury and sheriffs' departments. perienced detectives, who examines recommendation for first offend­ the various reports and interviews ers. For repeat offenders, neither The county has a two-tiered judicial the investigating officer. If the the prosecutor nor judge is con­ system. The associate circuit court detective determines that the arrest strained by the jury's sentence (lower court) is responsible for dis­ merits prosecution as a felony, a unit l'ecommendation. The judge usually posing of misdemeanors, petty and detective presents the case for imposes sentences that are close to traffic offenses, and ordinance vio­ screening to the prosecutor's warrant what the prosecutor advocates. lations and for conducting the initial desk or to one of the two special arraignment and the preliminary trial teams, depending on the nature Regarding plea negotiations, the hearing in felony cases. Six judges of the crime. When a warrant is prosecutor's initial offer is made conduct felony preliminaries. Some issued by the prosecutor and signed either before or at the preliminary are empowered to accept felony by a judge, the arrest becomes hearing, and it usually involves a guilty pleas as well, but sentences official. guilty plea in exchange for reduction are imposed by the upper court. of the felony to a misdemeanor if Missouri law states that if a suspect the offense is nonviolent and the The 18-judge circuit court (upper is being held in custody a charge accused is a first offender. Some court) adjudicates criminal must be filed within 20 hours of attorneys extend open-ended offers; (felonies), civil, domestic, juvenile, arrest (interpreted as meaning that others do not. During preparation of and other matters. Using an indi­ the case must be presented to the the case after bindover, another plea vidual calendaring system, five prosecutor for screening within that offer is usually made informally, judges hear criminal cases. period). ei ther by phone or during a chance meeting. Prosecuting A ttorney's Office: Size, Once the case is filed by the organization, and procedures screening attorney, arraignment in The substance of plea offers is left the associate circuit court follows to the discretion of individual attor­ The prosecuting attorney's staff quickly. At this hearing, charges are neys. Attorneys may bargain on comprises 35 attorneys, including 6 read, a bond decision is made if the charges and counts, the term of who work part-time. The office has defendant is held in custody, the pre­ incarceration, probation, sentence two special trial teams, which target liminary hearing is scheduled, and suspension, and imposition of special on sex crimes and career criminals, counsel is appointed, if necessary. conditions (restitution, attendance at and two general trial teams, which Held about 10 days after arraign­ drug abuse programs, etc.). How­ prosecute those felonies not handled ment, the preliminary hearing (waiv­ ever, trial team leaders do monitor by the two special units. Six attor­ able by the defendant) is conducted the plea offers of younger, less neys (one half-time) staff the special to establish probable cause. experienced attorneys. trial teams; 13 (one half-time) staff the two general trial teams, which Cases bound over to the circuit court Although State law prohibits judges handle most of the cases. from the lower court amount to from becoming involved in the plea­ roughly one-third of the felony bargaining process, some ask what The other major unit is the warrant arrests presented by police for the offer is. desk-the intake and screening unit-­ prosecution; the balance are pled out which is staffed by four full-time as misdemeanors, rejected, or dis­ and two part-time attorneys in the missed. In relativeiyfew instances, Kansas City office and by three full­ the grand jury is used to bindover time attorneys and one part-time cases (when this occurs the prelimi­ attorney in Independence. Screening nary hearing in the associate circuit for the two general trial teams is court is bypassed). Bound over cases performed by the warrant desk, and are assigned to individual attorneys cases are prosecuted horizontally for prosecution in the circuit court. until bindover to the circuit court. The two special trial teams screen Circuit court arraignment is per­ their own cases and handle them functory, amounting to little more through final disposItion (vertical than an attempt by defense counsel prosecution).

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 53 Lansing, Michigan (Ingham County)

Lansing'- Case flow (felonies) District court

Preliminary Circuit court examination - - (waivable) Plea :-- Sentencing t - hearing Felony warrant Arrest Screening 4- Arraignment -'-- f-- f-- issued/ filing Arraignment .- Plea! Sentencing trial District court - -

- Motions I-

Demographic characteristics The upper or felony court is the Screening and lower court arraign­ and crime rate circuit court. It is responsible for ments and preliminary examinations felony cases after a finding of prob­ are handled on a rotating basis. In 1980, 272,437 residents lived in the able cause at the district court jurisdiction, a 4% increase over the preliminary examination. Flow of felony cases: Arrest 1970 figure. through sentencing Nine judges staff the district court; Lansing, the jurisdiction's major city, seven, the circuit court. Both courts Frequently, the policG officer who had a 1980 population of 130,414 (14% use an individual calendaring system, presents the case to the prosecutor black) and a crime rate of 6,291 per with each judge operating an individ­ for screening is a detective who did 100,000 population, the violent crime ual court; each handles all types of follow-up work on the street arrest component being 448. Corresponding criminal cases and civil matters. made by a patrol officer. As noted rates in 1980 for 112 cities of Circuit court judges devote about 50 on the accompanying exhibit of comparable size were 8,742 and 812, to 60% of their time to criminal felony case flow, screening must respecti vely. matters. occur before arraignment, the latter usually occurring within 24 hours of Criminal justice setting Prosecuting AttorneY's Office: arrest. Size, organization, and procedures The Ingham County prosecuting Each week two assistants from the attorney has jurisdiction over all Of the office's 54 employees, 26 are criminal division are assigned to State and county felonies, misde­ attorneys, including the prosecuting screen all felonies and misde­ meanors, juvenile delinquency peti­ attorney, his chief assistant, and one meanors. They review information tions, ram ily support cases, and investigator. The other 23 attorneys presented by the police (witnesses ordinance violations (including are assigned to four divisions: crimi·· are rarely present or contacted at traffic) arising within the county. nal (16), appellate (2), probate (i.e., this point) to determine whether the However, city ordinance violations in juvenile) (3), and family support (2). evidence justifies filing the case the two largest cities of the county Headed by a chief, the criminal divi­ (i.e., issuing a felony warrant) and, if (Lansing and East Lansing) are prose­ sion includes a priority prosecution so, whether to file it as a felony or cuted by city attorneys. unit, whose two attorneys handle misdemeanor. A SUbstantial number career criminal cases only (circuit (but less than a majority) of felony In 1981 Ingham County's 10 law court). The division's 13 other attor­ arrests are rejected, some are filed enforcement agencies pl'esented neys are equally divided between dis­ as misdemeanors or diverted, and the 5,290 felony and misdemeanor trict and circuit court assignments. balance are filed as felonies. arrests for l,)rosecution. Of these, Lansing police acc;:)Unted for 60%. Felony cases are prosecuted horizon­ At district court arraignment, the tally from screening through prelimi­ judge advises defendants of their The local district court, part of nary examination in district court. right to counsel, makes a bail Michigan's lower court system, is After bindover to circuit court, they decision, and sets a date for the responsible for the disposition of are prosecuted vertically by one of preliminary examination (unless misdemeanors, traffic offenses, and seven circuit court attorneys, each waived), which by law, must be held certain civil ma tters. F or felony of whom is assigned to a judge for within 12 days. In the interim, the cases, it also conducts initial about 3 months. These attorneys, judge appoints counsel for qualified arraignments, determines bail, called docket attorneys, handle all defendants. assigns counsel for indigent criminal matters in that court, defendants, and holds preliminary including setting the docket. exam ina tions.

54 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980

'~~~'.. ------At a weekly case review session, the Among defendants bound over to the The office's plea policy varies by criminal division staff, prosecuting circuit court are many who waived type of case. For murder, armed attorney, and chief assistant deter­ the district court preliminary robbery, sex crimes, the most serious mine the plea offer to be made for hearing because they decided to assaults, and residential burglary, each case scheduled for preliminary accept the prosecutor's felony plea reductions from the "provable" examination during the following offer, which must be taken in the charge are not authorized. F or other week. At the district court prelimi­ circuit court. In such cases, the crimes, charge reductions may be nary hearing, a substantial fraction ini tial circui t court appearance is a authorized. Bottom-line plea. offers of filed felony cases are either dis­ plea hearing. For other bindovers, are determined at the office's posed of as a plea to a misdemeanor the first circuit court event is weekly case review sessions. Indi­ (22%) or dismissed (l5%). Usually, arraignment; most defendants waive vidual attorneys may take a tougher the preliminary examination is the their right to appear. stance if they so choose; those' who first opportunity for anyone from the make a more lenient plea offer must prosecutor's office to question Unless the defense counsel decides provide a written explanation. Plea witnesses directly; the results can to file motions, the next scheduled discussions do not usually concern significantly alter the office's circuit court date is for trial, set 4 tbe sentence, which is considered the assessment of the crime and related to 6 weeks after arraignment. Part domain of the judge. Only two of evidence. Cases not dismissed or of the office's strategy for encour­ the six judges were described by pled at the prelimina~y hearing are aging settlements before trial is to attorneys as willing to engage in bound over to the circuit court. maintain a credible threat that a sentence discussions. large proportion of cases set for trial will be called as scheduled.

Littleton, Colorado (18th Judicial District)

Littleton - Case flow,(felonies)

District court

Preliminary ...... f-- hearing Arrest -100 Advisement r- Screening

County court First Disposition/ Motions Pretrial r- r- r- Plea! r- Sentencing - appearance arraignment hearing - conference trial District court

Demographic characteristics felonies occurring in Arapahoe, judges t}ear adult criminal cases. and crime rate Douglas, Elbert, and Lincoln Judges control their own dockets. Counties. Prosecution of traffic This four-county, predominantly violations, juvenile matters, and Felonies are filed directly in the white (91%) jurisdiction had a 1980 nonsupport cases is also the office's district court even though population of 330,287, an 81% responsibility. advisement is held in county court. increase over the 1970 figure. In a recent year, an estimated 4,800 Arapahoe County is, by far, the Approximately 15 law enforcement misdemeanors and felonies were largest of the four counties (popu­ agencies present cases to the filed. lation 293,621) and includes all the office. The Aurora police depart­ major cities of the jurisdiction. ment generates more than half the District A ttomey's Office: Size, case load. organization, and procedures The 1980 crime rate for municipali­ ties accounting for about two-thirds The county court (lower court of the Of the 112 persons employed by the of the jurisdiction's population was two-tiered judicial system) handles office, 31 are attorneys, most of 8,389 per 100,000 population, the traffic violutions, civil matters whom are assigned to either the violent crime component being 726. under $5,000 misdemeanors, and pre­ county court or district court section Corresponding rates in 1980 for 112 liminary felony proceedings (advise­ of the criminal division. The nine cities of comparable size were 8,742 ment). The court's five full-time and deputies who cover the district court and 812, respectively. two part-time judges devote about are more experienced. 85% of their time to criminal Criminal justice setting matters. Prosecution of felonies proceeds on a vertical basis, with the exception The district attorney for the 18th The eight-judge upper or district that advisement is handled by a Judicial District of Colorado has court exercies jurisdiction over county court deputy. jurisdiction over misdemeanors and juvenile cases, felonies, and civil matters over $5,000. Five of the Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 55 rr

Flow of felony cases-arrest the defendant is asked if he or she ence, the judge determines whether through sentencing needs an attorney. If the defendant discovery has been completed and is in custody, the judge is asked to whether everyone is ready for trial. Referring to a bail/bond schedi:le, hold an immediate, second bond police may release arrestees prior to hearing. A preliminary hearing date Six weeks following trial, guilty their county court appearance is also set at first appearance (held defendants are sentenced. Both (advisement-see accompanying case within 30 days for defendants in prosecutor and defense counsel flow chart). Those released are custody). outline their respective sentencing instructed to appear in county court positions. The judge takes their within 1 week. Those not released If a plea agreement has been reached recommendations into account and is usually appear in court the next prior to the preliminary hearing, the also guided by the presentence working day. parties go to court on the hearing investigation report. date, announce the agreement, and At advisement, arrestees are receive a date either for a disposi­ Plea negotiations are usually initi­ informed of their rights and the tion/arraignment (held 4 weeks later) ated by the prosecutor about a week nature of the police charges, bail is or for sentencing. Lacking a plea before the preliminary hearing and set, and a return date of 3 working agreement, the pal·ties attend the are conducted informally. Judges days is set for district court. preliminary hearing, where probable are not directly involved. Bargaining cause is determined and disposition/­ may involve count and charge reduc­ Occurring after advisement and prior arraignment is set. tions, as well as sentence con­ to first appearance in district court, cessions. Usually, offers are good screening is conducted by a former On the disposition/arraignment date, until the preliminary hearing, unless police officer, who is the complaint which occurs about 1 month after defendants waive their right to a officer. Detectives from the various the preliminary hearing, the judge preliminary hearing, in which case police agencies send the arresting schedules sentencing in 6 weeks for offers are open until arraignment. officers' reports and any additional defendants who settled. For defend­ information to the complaint offi­ ants who have not reached a plea Depending on what happens at the cer. Little prescreening is done by agreement, the judge sets four preliminary hearing, new offers may police. Filing decisions of the dates: motions filing, motions be made or old ones accepted. complaint officer are reviewed by a hearing, pretrial conference, and Similarly, a new round of negotia­ complaint deputy, who signs the trial. tions may be initiated following papers. About 90% of felony arrests rulings on motions. are filed in district court. During the motions hearing, testi­ mony is taken, arguments made, and Deputies do not require approval A t the first appearance in district previously filed motions ruled on by from a supervisor to settle a case, court, rights al'e read, as is the the judge. At the pretrial confer- although junior attorneys often seek information (sometimes waived), and advice from their colleagues on how to handle the more complex cases.

Los Angeles, California (Los Angeles County)

Los Angeles - Case flow (felonies) Municipal court

Initial Arrest r-- Police r-- DA appearance/ r- Preliminary - screening screening - arraignment hearing

Pretrial Plea! Arraignment ~ r- r- Sentencing -- conference trial Supariorcourt

Demographic characteristics stituted about 28% of the county's (1,704 being violent crimes) for five and crime rate population; blacks, 13%; whites, 40%. cities with 1 million or more residents. In 1980, the population of Los The 1980 crime rate for the city of Angeles County was 7,477,657, Los Angeles was 9,950 per 100,000 Criminal justice setting representing a 6.2% increase over population,!, 742 being the rate for the 1970 figure. The city of Los violent crime. This compares to an The district attorney for Los Angeles Angeles accounted for 40% of the average crime rate in 1980 of 9,015 County has jurisdiction over all total (2,966,438). Hispanics con-

56 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 felonies arising within the county about 2,300, including some 550 Prior to the initial appearance in and over those misdemeanors pre­ attorneys who work in 23 separate municipal court, the detective sented to the office from unincor­ offices around the county. By far responsible for reviewing the case porated areas of the county and from the largest of the offices in the presents it to one of the complaint those cities that do not have city 4,000-square-mile county, the bureau unit prosecutors, who reviews the attorneys. Under contract, the of central operations has over 200 case with the police officer. When office also prosecutes violations of attorneys, most of whom are assign­ making a filing decision, the deputy local city ordinances for 58 ed to the complaints and trials relies on clearly defined office communities. divisions. policies, which are patterned after the uniform crime charging guide­ Over 57 law enforcement agencies The complaints unit of central lines developed by the California make a total of about 243,000 felony operations is staffed by approxi­ District Attorneys' Association. and misdemeanor arrests annually; mately 12 deputies. The trials unit is about 100,000 are felonies. Not all composed of about 70 prosecutors, Within 24 hours of filing, the initial felony arrests are presented to the organized into three trial teams. appearance/arraignment is held in district attorney. Some result in Junior members of the teams handle municipal court. The defendant is police releases and others are lower court duties; the more senior arraigned on the prosecutor's referred directly to city prosecutors members handle superior court charges, counsel is appointed, bail for misdemeanor prosecution. The prosecution of felony bindovers. is set, and a preliminary hearing is district attorney's office screens scheduled. At the preliminary approximately 50,000 felony arrests The bureau of branch and area hearing-held 9 days after ini tial a year. The Los Angeles police operations is responsible for criminal appearance-probable cause is estab­ department and the Los Angeles prosecutions in the outlying parts of lished and a superior court arraign­ County sherifrs department account the county. Staffed by about 21 ment date is set. During superior for about 70% of the office's felony deputies, each of the eight branch court arraignment, the defendant is case load. offices handles all phases of felony given a copy of the information and prosecution, up to the appellate a transcript of the preliminary Los Angeles County has two separate stage. In the 14 area offices, depu­ hearing. F our to six ,weeks later the court systems. The ISS-judge munic­ ties conduct felony preliminaries and pretrial conference is held, at which ipal court (lower court) handles civil forward cases for trial to either a the judge inquires whether the case cases under $15,000, traffic offenses, branch office or the main office. can be settled. If so, a guilty plea is misdemeanors, and prelimlnar-y fp.l­ entered and sentencing occurs 4 ony proceedings (initial appearance/­ Over 100 attorneys are assigned to weeks later. If a trial is required, it arraignment and the preliminary the bureau of special operations, is held within SO days of the superior hearing). The municipal court's 24 which is res(?onsible for appellate, court arraignment. Four weeks after judicial districts are independent of juvenile, major fraud, and other a guilty verdict, sentence is imposed each other and of the upper court, cases. Seven deputies are assigned by the judge, who refers to a pre­ the superior court of Los Angeles to the career criminal unit. sentence report prepared by the County. probation department. Flow of felony cases-arrest Superior court handles civil cases in through sentencing The office has a written case settle­ excess of $15,000, juvenile cases, ment policy, which serves as a guide family matters, and felony bind­ After making an arrest, police for deputies during plea negotia­ overs. Eleven superior court judicial review the case and decide whether tions. As a general rule, a felony districts use the services of 20S to present the arrest to the district defendant must plead to the crime judges, 54 commissioners, and 18 attorney, refer the case to a city charged unless the evidence, as referees. prosecutor for misdemeanor prosecu­ required by law, is insufficient for tion or terminate it. Slightly more conviction. Generally, too, deputies District Attorney's Office: Size, than half of all felony arrests are are not to settle a case by making organization, and procedures presented to the district attorney. sentence representations or commit­ Some arrestees are released on bail ments except under certain specified The largest prosecutor's office in the at the station house. Those remain­ circumstances. Only the most senior nation, the Los Angeles County ing in custody must appear in m unic­ deputies are allowed the discretion district attorney's office employs ipal court within 2 working days. to make sentence commitments. (See accompanying felony case flow chart.)

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 57 Louisville, Kentucky (Jefferson County)

Louisville - Case flow (felonies)

Circuit court

Screening Grand jury Pretrial Screening Probable (common- (common- conference Arrest (county Arraignment cause r-- 1-+ I- I- wealth I- wealth attorney) hearing attorney) attorney) I 1 District court Court clerk Plea! L. Sentencing case 1-+ trial I- assignment Circuit court

Demographic characteristics The circuit court (upper court) For defendants remaining in custody, and crime rate adjudicates both civil and criminal the probable cause hearing must be (felony) matters. It is staffed by 16 held within 10 days, otherwise within Jefferson County's 1980 population judges, each permanently assigned to 20 days. Prior to the hearing, an of 684,793 (16% black) reflected a a specific courtroom, who maintain attorney from the commonwealth's decline of 2% over the decade. individual calendars. Up to one-third a ttorney's office reviews the arrest of the judges' time is devoted to r~port and witness information and Accounting for 298,313 of the juris­ felony cases. asks either the arresting officer or diction's residents, Louisville experi­ the most important witness to enced a 1980 crime rate of 6,713 per Commonwealth's AttorneY's Office: testify at the hearing, which also 100,000 population, with 934 being Size, organization, and procedures serves as discovery for the defense. the violent crime component. Cor­ responding rates in 1980 for 112 cities The commonwealth's attorney's Of the felony arrests presented to of comparable size were 8,742 and office em~loys 28 prosecuting the commonwealth's attorney, about 812, respectively. attorneys. The office maintains two 20% are bound over to the grand trial divisions, each staffed by seven jury, at which point the common­ Criminal justice setting prosecutors. Other attorneys are wealth's attorney assumes responsi­ assigned to the career criminal bility. Each case bound over is The commonwealth's attorney for bureau, economic crime unit, or the assigned to an attorney in the of­ Jefferson County is responsible for screening unit. The screening unit fice's screening unit. The attorney the prosecution of all adult felony receives felony cases bound over prepares a presentment memo and arrests that occur in the county and from the district court and is re­ may recommend any of the following have been bound over to the grand sl)onsible for grand jury l)resent­ to the grand jury: dismiss the case, jury. All other criminal offenses­ ment. After indictment, cases are remand it to district court for felony arrests up to bindover, prosecuted on a vertical basis. misdemeanor prosecution, or indict felonies reduced to misdemeanors, on a felony charge, which may be misdemeanor arrests, traffic and Flow of felony cases-arrest from the bindover charge. Indict­ juvenile cases-are handled by the through sentencing ments result about 85% of the time. county attorney. A police officer or complaining An indicted case is randomly assign­ Approximately 137,000 arrests are civilian witness may bypass the ed by the circuit court clerk to one brought to the commonwealth's district court by taking a case of the 16 judges and is turned over to attorney annually. Fewer than 10% directly to the commonwealth's a trial division chief, who appoints are felonies. About 2,000 felony attorney's screening unit and an attorney to handle the case from cases a year are carried forward to requesting a grand jury present­ pretl'ial conference through trial and the commonwealth's attorney's ment. (See accompanying chart of sentencing. office for presentment to the grand felony case flow.) jury. Over 90% of all felony arrests The first plea offer is usually made are made by Jefferson County police However, the vast majority of the prior to the probable cause hearing and the Louisville police department. felony case load presented for in district court by the common­ indictment is bound over from the wealth's attorney (at least 50% of Jefferson County has a two-tiered district court. For these cases, the defendants negotiate a plea of court system. The district court screening by the commonwealth's guilty to a misdemeanor charge). (lower court) exercises jurisdiction attorney's office and arraignment The next offer, if any, is made after over traffic, ordinance, petty, and occur by the next working day indictment, usually at the circuit misdemeanor offenses and conducts following arrest. At arraignment, court pretrial conference or, if one felony arfo.ignments and preliminary defendants are informed of the is not held, whenever the opportunity hearings. Four of the district court's charges and their rights, bail is set presents itself. 23 judges are assigned to handle and is entered, and the probable felony preliminaries. cause hearing is scheduled.

58 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Offers do not change in severity as In cases involving a jury conviction, Judge participation in plea negotia­ the trial date approaches. Attorneys the judge may suspend the sentence tion varies. Some judges ask at the are not permitted to change or recommended by the jury or impose pretrial conference what the offer bargain the charge, except in rare a shorter (but not a longer) one. The will be. Others want the offer to be instances and then only with jury's recommendation will be taken made prior to the pretrial confer­ approval of supervisors. However, into account by the prosecutor, ence. Still others do not want to be attorneys may use discretion by whose recommendations the judge involved at all. Judges rarely making plea offers involving the usually accepts. explicitly agree to the offer, yet sentence. Offers may pertain to some express disapproval if they sentence duration or to sentence believe an inappropriate offer has suspension. been made.

Manhattan, New York (New York County)

Manhattan - Case flow (felonies) Criminal court

Preliminary I-- r'"" hearing

1- Screening Arraignment Grand i-- f- f- jury

Criminal Arraignment, court L..,.. motions, Plea! Sentencing f- trial f-+ pleas

Supreme court

Demographic characteristics New York's lower court, called the cases for which trials are necessary and crime rate criminal court, is responsible for the are sent to the backup courts and disposition of violations and misde­ trial judges for resolution. Declining 7% during the 1970's, meanors, as well as for felony Manhattan's 1980 population was arrests that the district attorney District Attorney's Office: Size, 1,427,533. About 35% of its determines should be charged as organization, and procedures residents in 1980 were white; 24%, misdemeanors. The criminal court Hispanic; and 22%, black. also conducts initial arraignments The district attorney's office and determines bail for all cases, employed 450 support staff and 265 The city's crime rate in 1980 was including felonies; when necessary, it attorneys in 1980. Attorneys are 13,816 per 100,000 population, 2,992 holds preliminary hearings for felony assigned to one of three divisions: being the violent crime component. cases before they are sent to the trial (most misdemeanor and felony Corresponding rates for five cities of grand jury. arrests), investigation (major fraud comparable size were 9,015 and and racket cases), and appeals. 1, 704, respectively. The criminal court consists of 21 About two-thirds of the attorneys court parts (courtrooms): 4 arraign­ are assigned to the trial division, Criminal justice setting ment parts, 6 calendar parts, 1 jury which includes six trial bureaus and calendar part, and 10 jury trial three special units (career crime, sex The New York County district parts. The number of sitting judges offenses, and certain juvenile attorney's office prosecutes felony, fluctuates but tends to approximate crimes). The majority of the office's misdemeanor, and violation arrests the number of available court parts. case load is handled by the six trial of persons over 16 that occur in the bureaus. Each trial bureau handles county, which is geographically The supreme court-N ew York's both criminal court and supreme identical to the borough of felony court-disposes of felony court cases. Manhattan. Though arrests are cases after a grand jury has returned presented by a number of law an indictment on felony charges. The office prosecutes supreme court enforcement agencies, such as the Staffed by 39 sitting judges, the (felony) cases vertically, from transit authority and housing police, supreme court consists of 32 parts. complaint room screening to final the overwhelming majority of cases Six supreme court calendar judges disposition. Such cases remain the are generated by the New York City dispose of the bulk of the felony r,esponsibility of the bureau and police department. In 1980, 75,000 court cases. The calendar judges individual attorney who screened it criminal matters were brought to the conduct arraignments, hear motions, and determined the filing charge. To district attorney. take pleas, and determine sentences facilitate this system of vertical in guilty-plea cases. Only those prosecution, each of the six trial

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 59 - .... bureaus is associated with one of six complaint room supervisor, I.'Tho After indictment defendants are supreme court units, consisting of separates cases obviously not indict­ arraigned (approximately 2 weeks one calendar part and four or five able from those requiring more care­ after grand jury presentation) "on backup jury parts. ful screening by a senior supreme the indictment" in supreme court court assistant district attorney, before a calendar judge. This Criminal court cases are prosecuted who, in turn, decides whether cases calendar judge keeps each case on horizontally at arraignment and first should be presented to the grand his or her docket until the defendant calendar appearance. A case not jury, prosecuted in criminal court pleads guilty, the case is dismissed, settled at this point is assigned to an as misdemeanors, or investigated or the case is sent to a trial judge assistant district attorney, who further before an indictment deci­ for trial. prosecutes it on a vertical basis sion is made. Very few cases are thereafter. rejected for prosecution at Plea discussions often are initiated screening. at arraignment, with the judge an Flow of felony cases: Arrest active participant. Individual through sentencing The first court appearance is attorneys exercise considerable criminal court arraignment, where discretion in determining plea After arrest, felony defendants are bail is determined and counsel offers. Implicit office policy is to held at central booking while the appointed for indigent defendants. reduce the initial charge by one arresting officers prepare the Most felony cases skip a criminal count unless certain aggravating necessary paperwork and take the court preliminary hearing and go circumstances are present. cases to the district attorney's directly to the grand jury. Under complaint room for screening. (See New York State law, cases may pro­ In most cases, as a practical matter, accompanying felony case flow ceed directly to the grand jury if the plea position of the office has chart.) Prescreening by police is presented within 72 hours of arrest. little effect on the judge's sentenc­ minimal. The goal of the office is to The vast majority of cases presented ing discretion. Because judges screen defendants and have them to the grand jury are indicted. routinely indicate the sentence they arraigned within 24 hours of arrest. About 20% of all felony arrests will impose if the defendant pleads screened by the office lead to an guilty, the focus of the plea dis­ The police officers' felony com­ indictment. cussion is therefore on the sentence, plaints are quickly reviewed by the and the most important participants are the judge and the defense attorney.

ffl*MA • New Orleans, louisiana (Orleans Parish)

New Orleans - Case flow (felonies)

Criminal distric ,:()urt ----, Motions/ pretrial I-­ conference L-...::(judge)

Plea! Arrest Magistrate Arraignment 1-+ trial I-- Sentensing hearing Gudge) Gudge) Gudgel

Demographic characteristics and Criminal justice setting the district attorney rejected crime rate slightly more than half. Police The district attorney for New screening of adult felony arrests is Declining 6% during the 1970's, the Orleans has jurisdiction over all minimal. However, police do exer­ jurisdiction's population was 557,482 State felonies and misdemeanors cise discretion by referring less (55% black) in 1980. occurring in Orleans Parish, an area serious misdemeanors to the city geographically identical to the city attorney, whose jurisdiction over The 1980 crime rate was 9,601 per of New Orleans. In addition, the misdemeanors overlaps that of the 100,000 population, 1,465 being the office is responsible for handling district attorney. violent crime rate. Corresponding juvenile and child-support cases. crime rates in 1980 for 17 cities of A unified court, the criminal district comparable size were 9,106 and 1,162, In 1980, police (New Orleans police court, adjudicates all felony and respectively. department) presented approximate­ misdemeanor cases under the district ly 12,000 felonies and misdemeanors; attorney's jurisdiction. Once filed

60 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ------.------______&U~,

- A.& with the clerk's office, misdemean­ appear before a magistrate, who The charge is officially com­ ors are randomly assigned to the informs them of the arrest charges, municated to the defendant and court's 10 judges and 5 magistrates. advises them of their right to a defense attorney at arraignment. Magistrates are empowered to take lawyer and preliminary hearing, Trial assistants are permitted to misdemeanor pleas and to hear schedules preliminary and status discuss pleas only if such con­ misdemeanor nonjury trials. They hearings, and sets bond. (See versations are initiated by defense also conduct initial bond hearings, accompanying exhibit of case flow.) attorneys. Typically, a SUbstantial preliminary hearings for felony cases After reviewing the accused's arrest percentage of defendants, but not a (upon defendant's request), and and local rap sheets, an assistant majority, plead at arraignment. If a status hearings. from the office's magistrate division defendant does not plead, the case makes bond recommendations. either goes directly to trial or Felony cases are randomly assigned proceeds through the intermediate to the 10 judges. Each presides in his Preliminary hearings are held within steps of motions and pretrial or her courtroom, operates on an a few days and status hearings in conference. individual calendar basis, and sched­ about 10 days (sooner for jailed ules felony and misdemeanor cases defendants). Status hearings Trial assistants do not make according to individual preference. determine whether the district sentence recommendations, but they attorney has formally filed charges orally inform the judge about facts District Attomey's Office: Size, and are continuously rescheduled pertinent to the sentencing decision organization, and procedures until filing occurs. and invoke legislative provisions calling for enhanced sentences for About half of the 120 persons Shortly after arrest, the screening career crim inals. employed by the district attorney's division receives a copy of the arrest office are attorneys. Most are report and rap sheets. When the Noted earlier, the plea policy of the assigned to either the magistrate, written police report arrives, the office is rigorous. The plea position screening, or trial divisions. To­ case is assigned to an assistant. Five for a given case is determined by the gether, these three divisions handle of the nine screening assistants screening division. If defendants do misdeme'anor and felony cases on a receive cases on a rotating basis. not plead to charges as filed by the horizontal basis. (The remaining All arrests occurring on a given day di vision, assistants must take the attorneys work on juvenile, child­ are assigned to one of the five-­ cases to trial. Charge reductions are support, appeals, and economic­ except for homicides, robberies, permitted inf.-equently-only after crime cases.) rapes, and narcotics cases, which are an assistant prepares a memorandum screened by four special assistants stating the reasons for the proposed The magistrate division, staffed by a (one screens homicides; another, reduction and submits it to, and chief and five of the most recently robberies; etc.). secures approval from, a trial divi­ hired assistants, works with the sion co-chief. A similar procedure magistrate's section of the court to For each assigned case, the screen­ governs assistants' discretion to dispose of misdemeanors and conduct ing assistant gathers and evaluates dismiss cases. Adherence to the of­ felony preliminaries. evidence--including locating and fice's plea and dismissal policies is interviewing witnessess-and deter­ closely monitored. A chief and nine of the most senior mines what charge the office could assistants compose the screening prove at trial. The screening Most judges participate in the plea division. These assistants not only division rejects more than 50% of process by at least indicating the determine which cases to accept but the felony cases presented by sentence they will impose. But also playa key role in implementing police. Few felony arrests al'e filed major differences exist among judges the office's rigorous charging and no­ as misdemeanors; they are either regarding sentence severity and the plea-bargaining policies. rejected or filed as felonies. extent to which they will actively negotiate. As a result, judicial The trial division, with two co-chiefs The average time from arrest to policies largely determine how soon supervising 20 to 22 assistants, is defendants plead, how many go to responsible for felony and misde­ completion of screening and filing of charges is estimated at 15 days, trial, and what path cases follow meanor cases assigned to the 10 after arraignment. criminal court judges. Two attor­ although the office strives to file formal charges within 10 days. The neys-one junior, the other more experienced·-are assigned to each Louisiana Criminal Code permits 60 judge. days for filing felony cases if the accused is jailed, and longer if on Flow of felony cases: Arrest release. The office files each felony case by submitting a "bill of through sentencing information" to the court clerk's office, which assigns cases randomly After arrest the accused are trans­ among the 10 criminal court judges. ported to a central lockup and booked. Very little police screening occurs. Within hours, arrestees

Prosecution of Felony ArrElsts, 1980 61 Portland, Oregon (Multnomah County)

Portland -Case flow (felonies)

Grand jury t

Arrest! f-+ Screening First Preliminary - citation - appearance - hearing District court 4- Arraignment Pretrial -.. Plea! Sentencing r-- conference trial r-

Circuit court

Demographic characteristics of whom is empowered to act as a prosecution of particular crimes. and crime rate circuit' court judge to hold arraign­ The pretrial unit handles arraign­ ments and to accept plE3as in felony ments afld motions. Predominantly white (92%), the 1980 cases. population of the jurisdicton was Felonies are prosecuted vertically. 562,640, reflecting a slight decline A trial court of general jurisdiction, Felony screening duties are shared (less than 1%) during the prior the upper or ci!'cuit court handles by trial deputies and once a deputy decade. the more serious felonies and civil issues a complaint, he or she is matters. Of the 19 judges, one j,s the responsible for that case. Deputies Approximately 366,383 people presiding judge and 13 are general either directly handle the case in resided in Portland in 1980, when the trial judges who hear both civil a.nd court or issue written directions to city's crime rate was 1l,2l8 per criminal cases. These judges handle attorneys who will represent the 100,000 population, 1,362 being the calendar work on a 2-month rotating office at court proceedings, such as violent crime component. Cor­ basis. If a case goes to trial, the at lower court events. responding rates in 1980 for 34 ci ties presiding judge assigns a trial judge. of comparable size were 10,189 and Flow of felony cases-arrest 1,275. When a ba.cklog of felony cases through sentencing exists (500 or more pending cases), a Criminal justice setting "fast track" system is triggered, Arrestees may be released at the whereby two judges' calendars are station house by meeting bond The district attorney of Multnomah reserved for criminal matters only. requirements, which have been County has jurisdiction over all Average time from arrest to trial is established by the local judiciary. traffic, misdemeanor, and felony reported as 60 days. offenses occurring within the Screening occurs within a day or so county. Juvenile matters and child­ District A ttorney's Office: Size, of arrest. If police believe the case support enforcement also are organization, and procedures is a misdemeanor, the arresting handled by the office. officer presents it for screening to About 60 of the office'S 140 em­ alO attorney assigned to the intake About eight law enforcement ployees are attorneys, most of whom unit of the police's district court agencies brought over 22,000 felony are assigned to either the district section. If the case is not rejected, and misdemeanor arrests to the court or circuit court section. it may be accepted as a misdemean­ office in 1981. 'The Portland police or upgraded to a felony. If the department accounted for over 70% The 17 district court deputies are the latter, the case is screened by a of the office's total case load. most junior attorneys and are re­ circuit court deputy. sponsible for misdemeanor and traf­ Serving as the lower court of the fic dockets as well as for felony When the arresting officer books an county's two-tiered judicial system, initial appearances and preliminary individual on felony charges, the the district court is a court of hearings. paperwork is given to a detective, limited jurisdiction. It handles civil who presents the case to a deputy in cases involving claims under $3,000 The 35 or so circuit court attorneys the circuit court section of the dis­ and criminal cases carrying maxi­ are organized into eight teams, five trict attorney's office for screening mum penalties of less than a year in of which are trial teams and one a on the morning of the initial court jail and/or a $1,000 fine. The district pretrial unit. Two other teams appearance. In addition to deter­ court also conducts the initial handle juvenile matters and child­ mining the charge, the screening appearance and preliminary hearing support cases, respectively. Felony deputy makes the following decisions in felony cases. About 9 of the 14 trial teams consist of one team about accepted cases: bail amount, judges handle criminal matters, one leader and two-to-five deputies. plea offer, and presentment to the Each team is responsible for the

62 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 - grand jury or dete!'mination of prob­ If the defendant remains in custody, frequent. Sentencing is handled by able cause at a preliminary hearing. the district court preliminary hear­ the trial judge, who is guided by the ing occurs within 5 working days of presentence investigation report. Initial appearance in district court is the initial appearance, otherwise scheduled within 36 hours of arrest within 7 or 8 days. The preliminary Generally, the deputy issuing the (see accompanying felony case flow hearing operates as a mini-triaL felony complaint makes an offer, chart). However, for those low-level Many cases originally scheduled for which is given to defense counsel at felonies for which police may issue the hearing are presented to the first appearance and remains in citations in lieu of taking the person grand jury prior to the preliminary effect through the preliminary into custody, defendants are directed hearing date. If a true bill is re­ hearing. Subsequent offers are not to appear in court in one or two turned, the case is dismissed in lower as favorable. Most cases settled by weeks (screening occurs as noted court and bound over to circuit court plea are settled at the circuit court above). A t the ini tial appearance, for arraignment. level. the judge verifies the defendant's true name, advises the defendant of A t arraignment, the indictment or Plea negotiations may involve sen­ charges, appoints counsel, deter­ information is read to the defendant, tence recommendations and charge mines defendant's release status who enters a plea. A pretrial con­ and count reduction. With the ex­ (bail, recognizance, etc.), oversees ference, scheduled about one month ception of certain cases for which discovery, and schedules the prelimi­ after the arraignment, is held to charges cannot be reduced or for nary hearing. discuss plea offers. Judges do not which charges may be reduced only participate. Trials are relatively in- with written permission, deputies settle cases as they see fit.

L 'II1II" Pueblo, Colorado (10th Judicial District)

Pueblo - Case flow (felonies)

County court

Status I-- r+" call

Arrest Advisement Screening ~ Return ~ Preliminary I- appearance hearing - District court County County court First Motions Plea! court ~ I- Sentencing - appearance - hearing trial

Demographic characteristics ring in Pueblo County. Juvenile, Staffed by six judges, the upper or and crime rate family-support, and traffic cases are distrkt court hears felony, juvenile, also the responsibility of the office. and civil cases ($5,000 and over). Hispanics constituted 33% of the Four of the six judges allocate about jurisdiction's 1980 population of About six law enforcement agencies 60% of their time to felonies. 125,975, which reflected a 6.5% present close to 5,000 felony and Judges maintain complete control increase over the 1970 figure. misdemeanor arrests to the district over the docket. (Cases may be filed attorney annually. Approximately directly in district court if the office The city of Pueblo accounted for 81% 90% of the office's case load is wants to expedite prosecution, such of the jurisdiction's residents in generated by the Pueblo police as for murders and heinous crimes.) 1980. Pueblo's crime rate at that department. time was 7,678 per 100,000 popula­ District Attorney's Office: Size, tion, the violent crime componp.nt The lower court of the two-tiered organization, and procedures being 787. Corresponding rates in judicial system is the county court, 1980 for ll2 cities of comparable size whicn handles traffic violations, civil Of the 40 persons employed by the were 8,742 and 812, respectively. matters under $5,000, misdemeanors, office, 14 are attorneys and 5 are and all initial felony proceedings investigators. The attorneys are Criminal justice setting (advisement, return appearance, assigned to three sections: district preliminary hearing). The court's court, county court, or juvenile. The district attorney for the 10th three judges spend about 75% of Four attorneys are assigned to each Judicial District of Colorado their time on criminal cases. court section; one to jUvenile. The exercises jurisdiction over misde­ more experienced deputies work in meanor and felony offenses occur- district court.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 63 'H SM • .. District court deputies screen felo­ At return appearance, charges are About 4 weeks after first appear­ nies. Except for the first two county filed, the defendant is advised to ance, a motions hearing is conduct­ court appearances, all proceedings retain an attorney, if he or she has ed; at this time the judge rules on . for a felony are handled by the dis­ not yet secured one, and either a previously filed motions, takes the trict court deputy who screened the preliminary hearing is set (if the defendant's plea, and sets the case case; prosecution is essentially defendant has an attorney who has for trial within 3 to 6 months. vertical. requested it) or a status call is scheduled (if the defendant has not Unless a plea agreement has been Flow of felony cases-arrest yet obtained representation). reached subsequent to the motions through sentencing hearing, the trial occurs and lasts When a status call is required, the approximately 3 days. At sentenc­ Referring to a bail/bond schedule, judge asks if counsel has been re­ ing, the judge has the benefit of a police may release arrestees prior to tained. If the defendant has secured presentence report. Deputies mayor initial court appearance, which is an attorney, a preliminary hearing' is may not make a sentence recommen­ advisement in county court (see scheduled on request. The defendant dation and do not normally bring accom panying case flow chart). For is entitled to such a hearing within victims to the hearing. low-level felonies, an officer may 30 days of the request. If the de­ issue a citation or field summons fendant has not yet retained counsel, Regarding plea negotiations, the directing a person to appear in the judge advises him to do so and first offer is usually made within 10 county court; in those instances, the continues the case. days of the preliminary hearing and filing decision rests with the police may involve anything from charge officer. By the preliminary hearing, over half and count reduction to sentence the cases will have been settled. concessions. If the judge rules in the At advisement, which is held either Those who have worked uut felony state's favor at the motions hearing, the day of or day after arrest, arres­ pleas so inform the judge conducting the prosecutor may stiffen his offer; tees are read their rights, notified of the preliminary hearing and waive if the ruling is against the state, the nature of police charges, and tp.eir right to the hearing. The judge he may make a more lenient offer. have their release status reviewed. binds the case over to district court The judge sets two dates: return for the plea. Deputies are encouraged to avoid appearance (filing of charges) in 72 taking misdemeanor pleas after bind­ hours and status call in 10 days. Preliminary hearings are mini-trialS over and to conclude negotiations at at which probable cause is estab­ least 20 days prior to triaL Judges Between advisement and the return lished and the first appearance in are not directly involved in the plea appearance, police (who do little district court is scheduled (within 1 negotiation process but do exert screening) present cases to the to 2 weeks). A t the first appear­ influence by indicating what types of deputies, usually within a day of the ance, the information and defend­ plea offers they will accept. arrest. Felony deputies screen cases ant's rights are read (unless waived), by reviewing written material and further proceedings are set. submitted by police. Police are (Cases for which pleas were arranged interviewed only occasionally. prior to the preliminary hearing are now set for disposition within 2 to 3 weeks. )

+ e Rhode Island

Rhode Island - Case flow (felonies)

Grand I-- ~ jury

Screening Arrest Arraignment I-- I- f- conference Superior court District court L-.. Arraignment Pretrial Plea! Sentencing I-- conference I- trial I-

64 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Demographic characteristics Attorney General's Office: Size, go to the grand jury. The grand jury and crime rate organization, and procedures must be used in capital cases.

Predominantly white (89%), Rhode Most of the office'S 25 criminal pros­ If the prosecutor elects to charge Island's 1980 population was 947,154, ecutors are located in Providence. the case as a felony and a bill of a slight decrease (less than 1%) from The intake and grand jury unit is information is filed in the superior the 1970 total. staffed by three attorneys in Provi­ court, a date is set for the appear­ dence and a few attorneys in "out ance of the defendant at the arraign­ Accounting for 156,519 of the jut'is­ county" offices. The trial unit is ment on the information, which diction's 1980 population, Providence staffed by 12 prosecutors (2 are pri­ usually occurs about 4 weeks after experienced a crime rate of 9,119 per marily investigators), and the juve­ screening for defendants in custody, 100,000 residents, 922 being the vio­ nile unit by 4. The major violators and 6 weeks for those on release. lent crime component. Correspond­ unit prosecutes cases involving ing rates in 1980 for li2 cities of organized crime and on-going crimi­ A SUbstantial fraction of felony comparable size were 8,742 and 812, nal enterprises. Prosecution pro­ arrests are bound over to superior respectively. ceeds on a horizontal basis. court for arraignment on the information, where the defendant is Criminal justice setting Flow of felony cases-arrest advised of the charges, bail require­ through sentencing ments are reviewed, and a pretrial The attorney general of Rhode Island conference is scheduled (in about 4 is responsible for prosecuting all Within 48 hours of arrest, arraign­ weeks). adult felony offenses occurring with­ ment occurs in district court (see in the State. Juveniles committing accompanying felony case flow A t the pretrial conference, the vast violent felony offenses are prose­ chart). Bail is set, a screening majority of cases are disposed of by cuted in family court by a special hearing is scheduled (usually 10 to 15 plea negotiations. Cases in which unit of the office. Misdemeanors, days Ib.ter), and if necessary court­ defendants refuse plea offers are with the exception of those brought appointed counsel is granted the scheduled for trial. For defendants by a State or Federal agen.cy and defendant until arraignment on the convicted at trial, the prosecutor those attached toa felony offense, information (superior court), when almost always makes a sentence re­ are prosecuted by the county solici­ claims of indigency are investi­ commendation baSed on the sentenc­ tor, as are ordinance violations. gated. The district court arraign­ ing guidelines adopted by the State's ment is on police charges because supreme court. Forty-one law enforcement agencies the office has not yet screened the present between 6,500 and 7,500 case and filed formal charges. Prosecutors may make a plea offer felony arrests for prosecution at the screening conference if the annually. About 50 to 60% are During the period between arraign­ case is routine. Generally, however, brought by the Providence police ment and the screening hearing or plea offers occur at the pretrial department. conference, police prepare a screen­ conference, which may be continued ing package for the prosecutor (e.g., several times before the case is The lower court of Rhode Island's witness statements, arresting offi­ disposed of or set for trial. Defend­ two-tiered court structure is the cer's narrative, investigative reports, aiits will not receive more advan­ district court. It is responsible and test results). Present at the tageous offers than those advanced for the initial arraignment and screening conference are an intake by the prosecutor at the pretrial screening hearing in felony cases and unit prosecutor (who presides), de­ conference. However, this offer is for the adjudication of misdemeanor fense attorney or public defender, not given with a definite expiration offenses. and a detective from the police date. department presenting the arrest. The 20-judge upper court, called the Frequently, the defendant is encour­ The plea agreement is reached superior court, conducts the second aged to attend. The prosecutor may among the prosecutor, judge, and arraignment and subsequent court choose to accept police charges defense counsel in chambers. It is events for felonies. Approximately without changes, reject the charges fully understood to be binding on half the judges hear criminal cases, and SUbstitute new ones, remand the all parties. Characterized by sen­ at least on a part-time basis; the case to district court for misde­ tence bargaining, the plea negoti­ balance handle civil case loads. A meanor prosecution, remand the case ation process is constrained by the master calendaring system is used. to the police for further investiga­ State supreme court's sentencing Trials are by jury only. tion, or dismiss the case altogether. guidelines, which limit the latitude The only cases not scheduled for a of prosecutor and judge in most screening conference are those that instances.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 65 st. Louis, Missouri

St. Louis - Case flow (felonies) Associate circuit court Preliminary hearing r- I (waivable) Issuance Arrest i- Screening r- of felony r- Bond f-- Filing -.. Arraignment r- Plea! f- Sentencing warrant arraignment trial

Associate Circuit court circuit Preliminary court I jury r- presentment

Demographic characteristics and jury); and, for felonies, hold horizontal basis. Two other and crime rate preliminary hearings. associate circuit court attorneys handle misdemeanors. About 46% black, the St. Louis Of the circuit court section's 22 population in 1980 was 453,085, judges, 9 are assigned to handle Staff holding administrative reflecting a 27% decline over the felony cases after bindover (probable positions include the circuit previous decade. cause having been found at a prelim­ attorney, first assistant, chief trial inary hearing) or after an indictment counsel, and the chief warrant The city's 1980 crime rate was 14,331 by a grand jury. One judge handles (screening) officer. per 100,000 population, 2,435 being the less serious felonies, as the violent crime component. Cor­ designated by the circuit attorney. Flow of felony cases: Arrest responding rates in 1980 for 34 cities Most of these less serious cases end through sentencing (pre-1982) of comparable size were 10,189 and in a plea. The more serious felony 1,275, respectively. cases are handled by a circuit court Within 20 hours, arrests must be assignment judge until the defense presented by police to the circuit Criminal justice setting and prosecution indicate they are attorney's warrant office, screened, ready to settle or go to trial. Cases and charges filed. (See accompany­ The St. Louis circuit attorney prose­ are then randomly assigned (on a ing exhibit of felony case flow.) If cutes State traffic, misdemeanor, space-available basis) to other the arrest is approved by the office, and felony arrests of persons 17 and judges, who take pleas and conduct the associate circuit court issues a over occupring in the city of St. trials. warrant. Only at this point is the Louis. The office is also responsible arrest official. The attorneys who for child-support cases. Circuit Attorney's Office: Size, screen felonies for which warrants organization, and procedures (1980) are subsequently issued are usually Annually, the circuit attorney assigned those cases for circuit court screens between 20,000 and 25,000 Of the office's 120 employees, 45 are prosecution on bindover or felony and misdemeanor arrests, all attorneys. Five of the 45 handle indictment. presented by the St. Louis police child-support cases; the remainder department. Police refer city (including 5 part-time attorneys) are At screening, attorneys read the ordinance offenses, which include responsible for the misdemeanor and police report and interview the minor misdemeanors, to the St. Louis felony case load. The office deals arresting officer. Also interviewed city counselor, who prosecutes them with felony cases on a vertical are the victims and witnesses, who in the local city court. basis: senior attorneys screen felony are required to be present during cases on a rotating basis and are screening of felony cases so that the The St. Louis circuit court, a unified responsible for all cases they screen extent of their cooperation can be cou.rt, exercises jurisdiction over after bindover or indictment. (Less determined. civil matters and adjudicates misde­ experienced attorneys screen meanors and felonies brought by the m isdem eanors.) A large number of felony cases are circuit attorney. The court is rejected; most of the remainder are divided into two sections-associate In the circuit court, 2 attorneys filed as felonies, very few as misde­ circuit court and circuit court. prosecute the less serious felonies, meanors. After an associate circuit and 20 of the most experienced court judge signs felony warrants for Three of the associate circuit court's attorneys prosecute the mor& serious ca~;~s accepted by screening attor­ seven judges handle criminal mat­ ones. Felony proceedings (bond neys, the latter decide whether to ters. They issue warrants (discussed arraignments, preliminary hearings, schedule them for preliminary hear­ later) and conduct initial bond grand jury presentments) in the ing or to present them to the grand arraignments for all cases; handle associate circuit court section are jury. misdemeanor pleas and trials (bench conducted by three attorneys, on a

66 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 • M M

The first court appearance is a bond should be tried in the court division tion the attorney makes to the arraignment held a day or two after handling less serious felonies or the judge. These recommendations are arrest for jailed defendants and in 10 division adjudicating the more tightly controlled and must be days to 2 weeks for those on re­ serious cases. The assignment judge approved by the first assistant, the lease. At bond arraignment, the generally approves this decision of chief trial assistant, or the chief defendant is informed of the the chief trial assistant, who pro­ trial counsel before they are charges, arrangements for counsel ceeds to assign cases to individual communicated to the defense. are made, and a date (2 to 6 weeks attorneys. Also prior to arraign­ Deviation from the original sentence hence) for the preliminary hearing or ment, civilian and police witnesses recommendation also must be grand jury presentment is set. are contacted by the office, in­ approved. formed when and where to appear, Cases bound over at the preliminary and rated according to their A ttorneys always recommend hearing or indicted by the grand jury availability and willingness to incarceration; the "offer" relates to are subsequently filed (within 1 or 2 cooperate. the term of incarceration. By law, days) with the circuit court section, judges are not to engage in sentence which holds an initial felony Office plea policy is such that or charge bargaining. However, if arraignment. At this point discovery defendarits are generally required to defendants receive more severe occurs and a trial date is set. plead to the top charge, unless new sentences than those recommended information is revealed by the by the office, they may withdraw After bindover but prior to arraign­ defense attorney. The most their pleas. ment, the office's chief trial important aspect of the plea offer assistant determines whether cases concerns the sentence recommenda-

SM Salt Lake City, Utah (Salt Lake County)

Salt Lake City - Case flow (felonies)

Circuit court

Preliminary hearing

Arrest Screening First - --- appearance District COLrt Circuit court Pretrial Motions Plea! ~ Arraignment -+ Sentencing - conference hearing I- trial I-

Demographic characteristics State criminal code occurring in the The upper or district court has and crime rate county. The county attorney is also jurisdiction over felony bindovers, responsible for certain civil matters. civil cases over $5,000, and domestic Predominantly white (69%), the 1980 and juvenile matters. Fourteen population of Salt Lake County was Approximately nine law enforcement judges, three of whom hear criminal 619,066, a 35% increase over the 1970 agencies bring arrests to the office. cases, preside in the 3rd Judicial figure. About 26% of the jurisdic­ About 7 ;000 to 10,000 felonies and District, which includes Salt Lake tion's total, Salt Lake City's 1980 misdemeanors are presented an­ and two other counties. population was 163,033. nually. The Salt Lake city police department and the Salt Lake County A ttorneyl1s Office: Size, The 1980 crime rate for Salt Lake County sheriff's office bring the organization, and procedures City was 11, 709 per 100,000 popu­ large majority of the office's cases. lation, 694 reported as violent Of the 124 employed by the office, crimes. This compares to an average The lower court of the two-tie.red 57 are attorneys who are assigned to crime rate in 1980 of 8,742 (812 being judicial system, the circuit court, the civil, l'ecovery, and justice the violent crime component) for 112 handles misdemeanors, infractions, divisions. cities of comparable size. civil matters under $5,000, and initial felony proceedings (first Four teams, each with four attor­ Criminal justice setting appearance and preliminary neys, staff the civil division. hearing). Each of the circuit court's The county attorney for Salt Lake nine judges hear both civil and Employing nine attorneys, the recov­ County functions as the State's criminal matters. ery division provides legal counsel attorney and is responsible for and litigation services to units of .prosecuting all violations of the county government and is divided

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 67 into three sections-family support A day or two after charges are filed, ence: motions filing and hearing enforcement, fines, and civil first appearance is held in circuit deadlines and a trial date. A t sen­ collections. court (see accompanying case flow tencing, the prosecutor usually chart). Charges are read, counsel is makes a statement or recommen­ The justice (criminal) division is assigned, bail is established, and a dation. organized into six units. The felony preliminary hearing is scheduled unit is composed of five trial teams, (within 10 days for defendants in Pleas to reduced charges in serious each with three or four deputies. custody; 30 days, if on release). cases may be offered only under These teams handle cases involving specified circumstances and only child abuse, arson and major fraud, If both parties agree that the case with the approval of a team leader general felony crimes and traffic will be settled by aplea, the or assistant division chief. In other violations, major offenders, and defendant waives his right to the cases, deputies may, among other drugs. Two or three prosecutors preliminary hearing and a district options, dismiss multiple counts in from the trial teams are assigned to court arraignment is scheduled. Of favor of a plea to the top charge or screening on a daily basis. Pros­ those cases for which a preliminary dismiss pending cases in favor of a ecution proceeds on a horizontal hearing (probable cause) is held, plea to the top charge in the current basis. most are bound over for arraign­ case. Prosecutors are told never to ment, which occurs a week later. agree to remain silent at sentencing. Flow of felony cases-arrest through sentencing At district court arraignment, Written plea offers are made shortly charges are read and a plea is after the prelim inary hearing or are entered. If the defendant pleads communicated to defense counsel at After arrest, police may release the guilty, the judge orders a presen­ arraignment. Plea negotiation accused on bond. An investigating tence investigation and continues the centers on charge reductions; offers officer or detective from the arrest­ case 1 month for sentencing. If the are open until triaL Judges may ing agency presents the case to a defendant enters a plea of not guilty, schedule a hearing to review pro­ screening deputy, who reviews the a pretrial conference is scheduled posed offers and to indicate their police materials. The deputy may within 3 weeks in an attempt to opinion of them. However, judges ask for more information, reject the settle the case prior to trial. If the are unwilling to commit themselves case, or issue a complaint. Charges case is not settled, the judge sets on the issue of prison time. must be filed within 72 hours of three dates at the pretrial confer- arrest.

N San Diego, California (San Diego County)

. San Diego - Case flow (felonies) Municipal court

Arrest -.. Police DA r- Initial Settlement f- Preliminary - screening - screening appearance - conference hearing

Readiness Plea! -+ Arraignment --.. Sentencing conference r- trial r-

S',lperior court

Demographic characteristics corresponding rates for 17 cities of misdemeanor arrests annually. and crime rate comparable size averaged 9,106 and These agencies are authorized to 1,162, respectively. release felony and misdemeanor San Diego County, with a 1980 arrestees, thereby terminating the population of 1,861,846, is pre'­ Criminal justice setting cases. Cases not terminated by the dominantly white (67%) but has a police are presented to the district large Hispanic community (15%). The district attorney for San Diego attorney's office for screening. The Between 1970 and 1980, the county's County has jurisdiction over all San Diego police department population increased by about 37%. felonies occurring within the county accounts for more of the office's and over misdemeanors and traffic case load than does any other The city of San Diego (875,133 resi­ offenses presented to the office agency. dents) accounted for 47% of the from the unincorporated areas of the jurisdiction's 1980 population. That county. The county has two separate court year the city's crime rate was 8,058 systems. As the lower court, the per 100,000 population, the violent Over 37 law enforcement agencies municipal court handles civil cases crime component being 607. The make close to 80,000 felony and (under $15,000), traffic offenses,

68 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 misdemeanors, and preliminary in appeals, 6 in the major violators' About one-half of defendants opt for felony proceedings (initial appear­ unit, and 8 in the fraud unit. a settlement conference. At the ance and preliminary hearing). On conference, the judge wants to know an experimental basis, the lower Except for homicides, sexual if a plea agreement has been court judges also are empowered to assaults, and career criminal cases, reached. If so, the case is continued take felony pleas and impose sen­ prosecution is conducted on a for sentencing. If not, the judge tences in such cases. horizontal basis. reminds the parties of the prelimi­ nary hearing date. Four municipal court judicial dis­ Plow of felony cases-arrest tricts are within the county. Each is through sentencing In each case for which probable independent of the other and of the cause was found at the preliminary upper court, which is the superior After arrests, police screen the hearing, a worksheet is prepared, court of San Diego County. cases and release about 20% of the which is reviewed by a panel of arrestees. Those not screened out senior deputies, who indicate The superior court (upper court) may post bond at the station house. acceptable dispositions. handles felony cases bound over by If so, such arrestees are told to municipal court preliminary hear­ appear in municipal court in 5 to 10 In superior court, the defendant is ings. In addition to bindovers, the days (see accompanying felony case arraigned on the information. The upper court hears civil matters over flow chart). Arrestees in custody judge sets a readiness conference $15,000. must be brought before a magistrate date (2 weeks before trial date) and within three working days. a trial date (within 60 days of the District Attorney's Office: Size, filing of the information). organization, and procedures Prior to the initial appearance in municipal court, one of two exper­ A t the readiness conference, the Most of the office's 135 attorneys (all ienced deputies reviews the case, judge inquires whether a plea career prosecutors) are assigned to primarily on the basis of written agreement has been reached. If not, the various sections of the criminal materials submitted by a detective. the case is sent to the presiding division. Deputies working in the (However, homicide, sexual assault, judge for assignment to a trial municipal court section handle the and career criminal cases are judge. Sentencing is scheduled misdemeanor and traffic dockets as immediately assigned to a superior approximately 1 month after trial. well as felony arraignments and pre­ court deputy for vertical prose­ liminary hearillgs. These prosecutors cution.) Whether the intake deputies Plea negotiations commence prior to are closely supervised and their accept or reject cases, their deci­ the settlement conference. Offers discretion severely limited. sions are reviewed by the chief issued by the prosecutor must be deputy of the complaint unit. approved by a supervisor. The office The superior court deputies, has a fairly tough plea policy, organized into 5-member teams, A t first appearance in municipal including several review proce­ dispose of the bindovers. Like their court, the defendant is notified of dures. The office discourages lower court counterparts, their the prosecutor's charges, is advised sentence concessions, and deputies discretion is circumscribed: a panel of his or her rights, is appointed are held accountable for their plea of senior attorneys reviews each counsel if necessary, and is asked for decisions. bindover and suggests a disposi tion a plea (always not guilty). In before the superior court division addition, the judge reviews the The judge may become involved in chief assigns a case to a deputy. defendant's release status and sets the negotiation process during the Major deviations from the panel's two dates, one for a settlement settlement conference by informing decisions must be authorized. conference (if requested by the the attorneys of his view. Once the defense) and the other for the readiness conference has been Other office assignments include 2 preliminary hearing. concluded, plea negotiations are attorneys in intake, 11 in juvenile, 7 supposed to cease.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 69 ....

M 64

Tallahassee, Florida (2~nd Judicial Circuit)

Tallahassee - Case flow (felonies)

County court

Adversary preliminary I-- r hearing

Arrest f--t.- First I- Screeninil Arraignment "- Docket I- Plea! Sentencing appearance sounding trial - County Circuit court court I Grand jury -

Demographic characteristics Serving as the upper court, the First appearance in county court and crime rate circuit court has jurisdiction over occurs within 24 hours of arrest felonies, among other matters. unless the defendant has already This six-county jurisdiction had a Three criminal division judges hear PQsted bond. A t first appearance, 1980 population of about 202,000. all felony cases in the 2nd Circuit, the judge reads the complaint to the Approximately 83,725 residents (74% one on a full-time basis and two defendant, advises him of his rights, white, 24% black) lived in Talla­ handling civil cases as well. appoints an attorney if necessary, hassee at that time, a 15% increase sets bail, and routinely finds over the 1970 figure. State's Attorney's Office: Size, probable cause. organization, and procedures Tallahassee's crime rate was 11,970 After first appearance, the first per 100,000 population in 1980, the The office employs approximately 25 assistant screens the case. He notes violent crime component being attorneys. In Leon County, 10 assis­ the probable-cause affidavit, the 1,149. The corresponding rates for tants handle felonies; 4, misdemean­ SAIW, complaint, offense report, and 280 cities of comparable size ors; 2, traffic violations; 1, juvenile he may have the defendant's rap averaged 7,137 and 602, respectively. matters; and 1, worthless check sheet. If the case is a capital cases. Assistants in the outlying offense, potentially controversial, 01' Criminal justice setting counties prosecute all cases arising weak, the first assistant may present in their respective counties. The it to a grand jury. The state's attorney for the 2nd office also employs six investigators. JUdicial District has jurisdiction over Following screening, an information misdemeanors arising in the district, All cases are screened by the first is filed in circuit court, where the which includes the counties of Leon, assistant. After arraignment on the defendant's first appearance is Jefferson, Gadsen, Liberty, Franklin, information (circuit court), a given arraignment on the information, and Wakulla. Jurisdiction also ex­ case is prosecuted by 'one attorney approximately 2 weeks after first tends to child-support cases, URESA until disposition. appearance in county court. If an hearings (involuntary hospitalization information is not filed within 21 for alcohol, drug, or mental-health­ Flow of felony cases-arrest days, the defendant is entitled to an related conditions), juvenile matters, through sentencing adversary preliminary hearing and probation violations. (county court) and may call wit­ After arrest, the officer completes a nesses and obtain discovery. Such In 1980, 28 law enforcement agencies state's attorney information work­ hearings are rare. presented an estimated 11,000 felony sheet (SAIW), a primary document and misdem eanor arrests to the used by the office. A law enforce­ Approximately 90 to 95% of felony office. About 70% of the office's ment screening officer assigns the arrests are brought to circuit court case load is from 'Leon County, the charges. The SAIW is taken to for arraignment, which is the first Tallahassee police department and county court, where a complaint and appearance for defendants who were Leon County department being the probable cause are filed. released on bond prior to the major law enforcement agencies. probable cause hearing in county court. At arraignment, the informa­ The eight-judge county court (lower tion is read and a trial date set. For those defendants making their first court) has jurisdiction over misde­ court appearance, their rights arc meanors, felony first appearances, read and a public defender is and felony adversary preliminary appointed, as appropriate. hearings.

70 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ~~ ~-~---.------

The trial date is usually set 6 to 8 the judge can push the attorneys to or agreement by the State to remain weeks after arraignment. Florida's dispose of the case by not granting silent at sentencing. If a plea speedy trial rule requires that continuances or encouraging them to agreement is reached, sentencing felonies be disposed of within 180 negotiate a plea. usually occurs about 6 weeks after days from the date of arrest. Prior the plea is taken. to trial, "docket sounding" occurs. The office encourages prosecutors to The prosecutor and public defender obtain pleas to the lead charge, but alert the judge to what is likely to the primary focus of plea negotia­ happen in the case. At this point, tions is on the terms of the sentence

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C. - Case flow (felonies)

Plea Sentencing hearing r-

Intake/ Court Grand Arrest screening/ Presentment Preliminary clerk- Plea! Sentencing ~ r- hearing r-- jury I-- trial r- filing - case assignment -

Demographic characteristics exercises jurisdiction over non­ criminal unit, cases are prosecuted and crime rate Federal misdemeanors and felonies. horizontally through indictment. (The Federal district court adjudi­ After indictment cases are assigned In 1980, Washington's population was cates Federal and dual-jurisdiction to individual attorneys. 637,651 (70% black), 16% under the crimes.) Twelve judges staff the 1970 total. superior court's felony trial division; About 21 attorneys staff the grand eight staff the misdemeanor trial jury section; 40 (divided into 7 The 1980 crime rate was 10,026 per division. The judges maintain teams) the misdemeanor trial sec­ 100,000 population, 2,011 being the individual calendars. tion; and 36 (12 teams) the felony violent crime component. Cor­ trial section. Each of the misde­ responding rates in 1980 for 17 cities Three of the felony judges handle meanor and felony trial teams of comparable size were 9,106 and cases involving first degree murder, always prosecutes cases before its 1,162, respectively. rape, or cases with more than four own judge. co-defendants (Felony I cases). Criminal justice setting Other felo:lies are assigned to one of Flow of felony cases-arrest the eight Felony II judges, except through sentencing The superior court division of the cases being handled by the vertical United States Attorney's Office prosecution team (pilot project), Arrestees taken into custody have (USAO) for the District of Columbia which has its own felony judge. their cases screened within a day of has jurisdiction over non-Federal arrest. (See accompanying chart of misdemeanors and felonies commit­ Felony presentment and preliminary felony case floW.) Police take their ted in Washington, D.C. Traffic and hearings are conducted by two com­ arrest reports to the intake unit at petty offenses, ordinance violations, missioners. Another commissioner superior court, where any criminal and juvenile cases are handled by the handles misdemeanor arraignments. history information pertaining to the District's cOl'poration counsel. accused is retrieved from various USAO, Superior Court Division: data bases. The screening unit Most of the non-Federal misdemean­ Size, organization, procedures supervisor decides whether the case ors and felonies brought to the USAO should be pursued as a felony. If SQ~ (22,000 annually) are presented by The superior court division of the a staff attorney from the grand jury the D.C. metropolitan police USAO employs 121 attorneys, assign­ section, who is working intake that department, aJthough other law ed among six sections: grand jury week, reviews the arrest report and enforcement agencies also bring (incorporates intake and screening), evidence to determine the merits of cases to the U.S. Attorney. felony trial, misdemeanor trial, and the case; charge and bond recom­ such small sections as the vertical mendations are made, and the case is Part of a unified court system, the prosecution pilot project, witness filed. superior court of the District of assistance, and career criminal Columbia (equivalent to a State units. With the exception of cases For defendants in custody, felony court of general jurisdiction) assigned to the vertical prosecution presentment occurs on the same day unit and, to some extent, the career

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 71 . as filing; otherwise, presentment is If a plea bargain is to be offered by cOm',idered the sole domain of the usually scheduled 3 days after the prosecutor, a form letter out­ judge. The routine recommendation arrest. Charges may be read (usually lining the offer is prepared at is for "a substantial period" of waived by the defense), bond screening and given to the defense incarcera tion (but not ac tual established, and dates set for the attorney at presentment. The offer amounts of time). The most sub­ preliminary hearing (normally in 10- expires on the date of the prelimi­ stantial concession an attorney can 20 days) and grand jury (within 30 nary hearing. However, very few make to the defense is to waive the days after preliminary hearing). cases plead out prior to indictment. right to speak at the sentence hearing. Judges do not participate in Most cases for which probable cause the plea bargaining process. is not found at the preliminary Routinely, another plea offer is hearing are appealed to the grand made after indictment, but it is jury as grand jury originals. Cases usually less generous than the one not indicted are almost always extended at screening. Allplea dismissed. Indicted cases are offers must be approved by a randomly assigned to a felony trial supervisor. Although counts and judge by the clerk of the superior charges are normally included in the court. After indictment, the chief plea negotiation process, the of the trial section assigns substance of the offer concerns the prosecution of the case to a member right to speak at the sentence of the trial team assigned to that hearing. The office does not bargain judge. on incarceration or nonincarceration recommendations; that decision is

72 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Appendix B Case-proc'Sssing statistics by crime type

Introduction

Six types of tables showing case­ processing statistics by crime type are included in this appendix:

• Results at screening • Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions e Dispositions from filing through trial • Reasons for nolles and dismissals I • Case-processing time • Incarceration rates given conviction Tables for each jurisdiction are presented in this sequence except when data for all six tables were not available. The term nolle is used in many jurisdictions to distinguish prosecutor initiated dismissals from dismissals initiated by the court. In this report these two types of dismissals have been combined into one category. Crime type represents the most serious charge at the time of arrest or initial charging. (See Chapter II, Data sources, limitations, and definitions.) In some jurisdic­ tions the number of cases for certain crimes is too small in anyone year to make valid generalizations about how such cases are typically handled. Generally, this statement applies when the number of cases is less than 30.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 73 Table 1 Brighton, Colorado Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissalsl ~ _N_ ~ convictions* ~ nolles Acguittals* Other Homicide Frequency 12 4 4 8 3 a 1 Percent 33 33 67 25 0 8 Sexual assault Frequency 55 27 1 28 20 6 1 Percent 49 2 51 36 11 2 Robbery Frequency 63 49 0 49 12 0 2 Percent 78 0 78 19 0 3 Burglary Frequency 281 176 2 178 96 3 4 Percent 63 1 63 34 1 1 Assault Frequency 131 76 5 81 45 5 0 Percent 58 4 62 34 4 0 Larceny Frequency 174 75 2 77 89 5 3 Percent 43 1 44 51 3 2 Weapons Frequency 8 7 0 7 1 0 0 Percent 88 0 88 13 0 0 Drugs Frequency 89 56 1 57 31 1 0 Percent 63 1 64 35 1 0 *Trial data are incomplete.

Table 2 Brighton, Colorado Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime .!:!. Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other

Homicide Frequency 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Percent 33 0 0 0 67 0 0 0

Sexual assault Frequency 20 2 4 0 3 6 5 0 0 Percent 10 20 0 15 30 25 0 0

Robbery Frequency 12 2 2 0 1 :J 1 1 0 Percent 17 17 0 8 42 8 8 0 Burglary Frequency 96 15 14 2 9 42 13 0 Percent 16 15 2 9 44 14 0

Assault Frequency 45 13 6 0 3 13 9 1 0 Percent 29 13 0 7 29 20 2 0

Larceny Frequency 89 13 2 7 36 29 1 0 Percent 15 2 8 40 33 1 0

Weapons Frequency 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0

Drugs Frequency 31 1 1 1 0 23 3 2 0 Percent 3 3 3 0 74 10 6 0

74 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ;',eble 3 Blighton, Colorado Case-processing time* Sexual Diseosition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Weaeons Drugs

Guilty pleas ( f) 4 27 49 174 75 74 7 56 Hean 176 142 177 129 140 174 87 135 Hedian 173 131 162 103 106 120 43 115 Trial conviction** (f) 4 1 0 2 5 2 0 1 Hean 250 410 0 310 246 215 0 244 Hedian 246 410 0 310 218 215 0 244

Acquittals** (f) 0 6 0 3 5 5 0 1 Hean 0 283 0 362 282 273 0 233 Hedian 0 260 0 381 303 262 0 233 Dismissals/nolles (f) 1 14 11 69 21 55 1 27 Hean 330 185 135 173 179 226 141 219 Hedian ~30 197 116 151 155 221 141 221 Other (f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hedian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Calculated in days from arrest or papering date. **Trial data are incomplete.

Table 4 BrIghton, Colorado Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State Crime Guilty* Incarcerated prison

Homicide Frequency 7 5 4 Percent 71 57

Sexual assault Frequency 25 14 9 Percent 56 36

Robbery Frequency 48 34 26 Percent 71 54

Burglary Frequency 169 79 40 Percent 47 24

Assault Frequency 77 22 10 Percent 29 13

Larceny Frequency 66 27 7 Percent 41 11

Heapons Frequency 6 2 0 Percent 33 0

Prugs Frequency 55 12 2 Percent 22 4 *Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 75 Table 5 Colorado Springs, Colorado Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime _N__ ~ convictions ~ no11es Acguittals a the!. Homicide Frequency 22 15 4 19 3 0 0 Percent 68 18 86 14 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 97 47 6 53 36 8 0 Percent 48 6 55 37 8 0 Robbery Frequency 121 50 8 58 50 6 7 Percent 41 7 48 41 5 6 Burglary Frequency 319 183 9 192 122 3 2 Percent 57 3 60 38 1 1 Assault Frequency 196 91 8 99 90 4 3 Percent 41 4 45 41 2 1 Larceny Frequency 215 112 2 114 99 1 1 Percent 52 1 53 46 * * Weapons Frequency 10 7 0 7 2 0 1 Percent 70 0 70 20 0 10 Drugs Frequency 83 47 2 49 32 0 2 Percent 57 2 59 39 0 2 'kLE'sS than .5%.

Table 6 Colorado Springs, Colorado Reasons for noUes and dismissals Due Lacks plea Other Crime ! Ev~~ process merit bargain Diversion Erosecution Other Homicide Frequency 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Percent 33 0 0 0 67 0 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 36 8 9 0 2 10 7 0 0 Percent 22 25 0 6 28 19 0 0 Robbery Frequency 50 6 5 1 2 35 0 1 0 Percent 12 lO 2 4 70 0 2 0 !:Jurglary Frequency 122 15 12 2 2 86 4 0 Percent 12 10 2 2 70 3 0 Assault Frequency 90 11 28 0 7 26 15 :1 0 Percent 12 31 0 8 29 17 3 0 Larceny Frequency 99 14 5 2 4 37 35 2 0 Percent 14 5 2 4 37 35 2 0 Weapons Frequency 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 Drugs Frequency 32 3 0 5 0 15 8 0 Percent 9 0 16 0 47 25 3 0

76 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Te,;';, 'f Colc;rado Springs, Colorado Case-processing time* Sexual DisEosition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larcenl!. \,eapons Drugs Guil ty pleas (f) 15 44 50 177 87 108 5 45 Mean 178 133 102 121 114 143 110 131 Median 188 110 82 105 103 114 117 105 Trial convictions (f) 4 6 7 9 8 2 0 2 Mean 280 245 232 133 208 290 0 90 Median 291 205 170 151 217 290 0 90 Acquittals (f) 0 8 5 3 4 1 0 0 Mean 0 169 153 138 157 323 0 0 Median 0 149 130 162 146 323 0 0 Dismissals/nolles (f) 1 35 48 119 85 93 2 31 Hean 576 136 156 142 115 158 200 144 Median 576 126 147 113 104 119 200 148 Other (f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Ca1cu1ated in days from arrest or papering oate.

Table 8 Colorado Springs, Colorado Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State Crime Gui1ty* Incarcerated Erison Homicide Frequency 17 12 11 Percent 71 65 Sexual assault Frequency 50 24 18 Percent 48 36 Robbery Frequency 56 38 30 Percent 68 54 lJurglary Frequency 185 73 36 Percent 39 19 Assault Frequency 93 24 8 Percent 26 9

Larceny Frequency 114 31 16 Percent 27 14 Weapons Frequency 5 4 2 Percent 80 40 Drugs Frequency 49 15 10 Percent 31 20

*Inc1udes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 77 Table 9 Fort Collins, Colorado Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N__ ~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals Other Homicide Frequency 9 3 2 5 2 2 0 Percent 33 22 56 22 22 0 Sexual assault Frequency 26 20 0 20 4 2 0 Percent 77 0 77 15 8 0 Robbery Frequency 9 7 1 8 1 0 0 Percent 78 11 89 11 0 0 Burglary Frequency 150 118 1 119 30 0 1 Percent: 79 1 79 20 0 1 Assault Frequency 93 69 3 72 19 0 2 Percent 74 3 77 20 0 2 Larceny Frequency 199 122 4 126 68 3 2 Percent 61 2 63 34 2 1 ;.1eapons Frequency 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Percent 100 0 100 0 0 0 Drugs Frequency 47 33 1 34 13 0 0 Percent 70 2 72 28 0 0

Table 10 FOil Collins, Colorado Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other ~ .! Evidence Witness .E!~ merit jargai!!. niversion 2rosecution Other Homicide Frequency 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent 50 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 4 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 Percent 0 25 0 25 25 25 0 0 Robbery Frequency 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 Burglary Frequency 30 2 5 0 1 15 7 0 0 Percent 7 17 0 3 50 23 0 0

~ssault Frequency 19 2 3 0 1 6 6 1 0 Percent 11 16 0 5 32 32 5 0 Larceny Frequency 68 3 2 4 22 34 2 0 Percent 4 3 6 32 50 3 0 Weapons Frequency 0 0 0 0 (J 0 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dr.ugs Frequency 13 I 1 0 2 4 4 1 0 Percent 8 8 0 15 31 31 8 0

78 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Tablil11 Fort Collins, Colorado Case-processing time* Sexual Dis2osition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Wea~ Drugs Guilty pieas ( f) 3 19 7 117 66 120 1 32 Mean 289 227 183 120 165 151 192 Median 181 282 233 73 90 141 123 192 157 Trial convictions ( f) 2 0 1 1 3 4 0 1 Mean 263 0 285 321 229 287 0 Median 403 263 0 285 321 229 232 0 403 Acquittals (f) 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 Mean 314 257 0 0 0 482 0 Median 0 314 257 0 0 0 497 0 0 Dismissals/nolles (f) 1 4 1 30 17 62 0 12 Mean 282 170 75 166 132 162 Median 0 190 1..82 161 75 144 105 144 0 170 Other (f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

Tllble 12 Fort COllins, Colorado Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State ~ Guilty'" Incarcerated prison Homicide Frequency 4 4 3 Percent 100 75 Sexual assault Frequency 17 7 5 Percent 41 29 Robbery Frequency 8 5 4 Percent 63 50 Burglary Frequency 114 43 27 Percent 38 24 Assault Frequency 66 13 5 Percent 20 8 Larceny Frequency 111 26 15 Percent 23 14 Weapons Frequency. 1 0 0 Percent 0 0 Drugs Frequency 30 11 5 Percent 37 17 *Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 79 Table 13 Geneva, illinois Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N_ ~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals Other Homicide Frequency 13 10 0 10 3 0 0 Percent 77 0 77 23 0 0

Sexual assault Frequency 48 2,' 1 21 24 2 1 Percent 4't 2 44 50 4 2

Robbery Frequency 71 37 1 38 29 1 3 Percent 52 1 54 41 1 4 Burglary Frequency 274 154 2 156 117 0 1 Percent 56 1 57 43 0 * Assault Frequency 146 67 1 68 76 2 0 Percent 46 1 47 52 1 0 Larceny ],'requency 262 118 1 119 137 0 6 Percent 45 * 45 52 0 2 L/eapons Frequency 21 16 0 16 5 0 0 Percent 76 0 76 24 0 0 Drugs Frequency 177 121 4 125 50 1 1 Percent 68 2 71 28 1 1 *Less than .5%.

Table 14 Geneva.. illinois Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime ~ Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other liomicide Frequency 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percent 0 33 0 0 33 33 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 24 4 11 0 3 3 0 1 2 Percent 17 46 0 13 13 0 4 8 Robbery Frequency 29 7 11 0 4 0 2 1 4 Percent 24 38 0 14 0 7 3 14

Burglary Frequency 117 8 26 6 19 32 20 3 3 Percent 7 22 5 16 27 17 3 3

Assault Frequency 76 3 45 2 7 14 4 0 Percent 4 59 3 9 18 5 0

Larceny Frequency 137 20 22 8 25 38 19 2 3 Percent 15 16 6 18 28 14 1 2

t~eapons Frequency 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Percent 20 0 40 0 0 0 0 40

Drugs Frequency 50 18 5 4 10 10 1 0 2 Percent 36 10 8 20 ZO 2 0 4

80 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 15 Geneva, illinois Case-processing time* .~ Sexual Dis12osition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Weapons Drugs

Guilty pleas (f) 10 20 37 154 67 U8 16 121 Mean 133 164 219 110 79 104 70 100 Median 134 149 109 91 53 82 64 88

Trial convictions (f) 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 4 Mean 0 146 112 108 221 42 0 182 Median 0 146 112 108 221 42 0 205

Acquittals (f) 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 Mean 0 210 152 0 179 0 0 525 Median 0 210 152 0 179 0 0 525

Dismissals/nolles ( f) 3 24 29 117 76 137 5 50 Hean 71 85 87 104 72 125 69 95 Median 67 66 68 77 50 83 74 73

Other (f) 0 0 2 1 0 6 0 1 Mean a 0 92 7 0 18 0 4 Hedian 0 0 92 7 0 1 0 4

*Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

Table 16 Geneva, Illinois Incarcera~ion rates given cQnviction Sent to State Crime Guilty* Incarcerated prison

Homicide Frequency 10 7 4 Percent 70 40

Sexual assault Frequency 19 10 1 Percent 53 5

Robbery Frequency 38 26 15 Percent 68 39

Burglary Frequency 142 57 12 Percent 40 12

Assault Frequency 62 11 0 Percent 18 0

Larceny Frequency 108 33 7 Percent 31 6

Weapons Frequency 15 1 0 Percent 7 0

Drugs Frequency 122 26 6 Percent 21 5

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 81 ------~------

-Table 17 Golden, Colorado Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime _N_ ~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals ~ Homicide Frequency 21 9 6 15 4 2 a Percent 43 29 71 19 10 0

Sexual assault ~'requency 59 39 2 41 15 i 2 Percent 66 3 59 25 2 3

Robbery Frequency 65 27 8 35 26 a 4 Percent 42 12 54 40 a 6

Burglary Frequency 427 277 11 288 130 ~ 6 Percent 65 3 67 30 1 1

Assault Frequency 219 14:!.. 10 151 64 a 4 Percent 64 5 69 29 a 2

Larceny Frequency 379 216 a 216 157 3 3 Percent 57 a 57 41 1 1

Weapons Frequency 3 2 a 2 1 0 a Percent 67 a 67 33 a a

Drugs Frequency 160 105 4 109 46 1 4 Pexcent 66 3 68 29 1 3

Table 18 Golden, Colorado - Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due La,:ks Plea Other Crime !i Evidence Witness procesl~ merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 4 a a a 1 2 1 a a Percent a a a 25 75 25 a a Sexual assault Frequency 15 3 1 a 2 6 3 a a Percent 20 7 a 13 40 20 a a

Robbery Frequency 26 4 4 4 1 13 a a a Percent 15 15 15 4 50 a a a

Burglary Frequency 130 20 14 2 8 72 12 2 a Percent 15 11 2 6 55 9 2 a

Assault Frequency 64 9 32 a 4 15 4 a a Percent 14 50 a 6 23 6 a a

Larceny Frequency 157 26 12 13 67 37 a Percent 17 8 8 43 24 a

Weapons Frequency 1 a a a a a a a Per.cent 100 a a a a a a a

Drugs Frequency 46 6 a a 3 27 8 2 a Percent 13 a a 7 59 17 4 a

82 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 19 Golden, Colorado Case-processing time* Sexual DisEosition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary ~ Larceny WeaEons Drugs Guilty pleas (f) 9 37 27 273 139 213 2 103 Mean 193 133 159 151 123 151 231 154 Nedian 162 96 133 114 102 121 231 139

Trial convicti,)ns ( f) 6 2 8 11 10 0 0 4 Mean 209 206 191 290 204 0 0 189 Median 215 206 181 272 222 0 0 205 Acquittals (f) 2 1 0 3 0 3 0 1 Mean 215 104 0 188 0 238 0 70 Median 215 104 0 160 0 296 0 70 Dismissals/nolles (f) 4 14 26 124 57 140 0 43 Mean 220 166 177 227 128 230 0 235 Median 203 141 149 190 71 184 0 231 Other ( f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

Table 20 Golden, Colorado Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State ~ Guilty* Incarcerated prison Homicide Frequency 15 1/, 6 Pel'cent 93 40

Sexual assault Frequency 29 24 14 Percent 83 48 Robbery Frequency 31 31 25 Percent 100 81 Burglary Frequency 229 178 83 Percent 78 36

Assault Frequency 134 84 20 Percent 63 15 Larceny Frequency 193 107 23 Percent 55 12

Weapons Frequency 2 0 0 Percent 0 0

Orugs Frequency 92 54 21 Percent 59 23

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 83 Table 21 Table 22 Greeley, Colorado Greeley, Colorado Results at screening Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions Cases Other Rejections Other screenins decisions pre- Re- screening Due Lacks Plea Other ~ sented Filed jected decision* ~ B. Evidence Witness process ~ bargain Other Diversion prosecution Homicide Homicide Frequency 11 10 1 0 Frequency 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Percent 91 9 0 Percent 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 Sexual Sexual assault assault Frequency 13 8 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 Frequency 66 53 13 0 Percent 62 8 0 31 0 0 0 0 Percent 80 20 0 Robbery Robbery Frequency 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Frequency 12 8 4 0 Percent 75 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 Percent 67 33 0 Burglary Burglary Freqllen::y 38 24 5 0 9 0 0 0 0 Frequency 198 160 38 0 Percent 63 13 0 24 0 0 0 0 Percent 81 19 0 Assault Assault Frequency 45 21 5 0 15 0 0 1 3 Frequency 200 155 41 4 Percent 47 11 0 33 0 0 2 7 Percent 78 21 2 Larceny Larceny Frequency 29 17 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 Frequency 138 109 29 0 Percent 59 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 Percent 79 21 0 Weapons \,eapons Frequency 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Frequency 4 2 2 0 Percent 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 Percent 50 50 0 Drugs Drugs Frequency 5 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Frequency 28 23 5 0 Percent 20 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 Percent 82 18 0

*Inc1udes cases referred to other aeencies for prosecution.

Table 23 Greeley, Colorado Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissa1s/ Crime __N_~ convictions* suilty* no11es Acguitta1s* Other Homicide Frequency 7 4 2 6 1 0 0 Percent 57 29 86 14 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 44 24 1 25 19 0 0 Percent 55 2 57 43 0 0 Robbery Frequency 5 0 5 2 0 0 Percent 71 0 71 29 0 0 Burglary Frequency J.43 105 2 107 34 2 0 Percent 73 1 75 24 1 0 Assault Frequency 147 101 3 104 43 0 0 Percent 69 2 71 29 0 0 Larceny Frequency 85 56 0 56 29 0 0 Percent 66 0 66 34 0 0 Weapons Frequency 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 Percent 50 0 50 50 0 0 Drugs Frequency 21 17 0 17 4 0 0 Percent 81 0 81 19 0 0 *These statistics undercount the number of trials.

84 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 24 Greeley, Colorado Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime ! Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency a 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

Sexual assault Frequency 19 3 9 0 1 3 3 0 0 Percent 16 47 0 5 16 16 0 0

Robbery Frequency 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0

Burglary Frequency 34 8 7 0 0 6 12 1 0 Percent 24 21 0 0 18 35 3 0

Assault Frequency 43 4 24 0 2 8 1 4 0 Percent 9 56 0 5 19 2 9 0 Larceny Frequency 29 3 2 0 3 1 16 4 0 Percent 10 7 0 10 3 55 14 0 Weapons Frequency 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Pe~cent 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0

Drugs Frequency 4 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Percent 25 0 0 0 25 25 25 0

Table 25 Greeley, Colorado Case-processing time* Sexual Disposition Homicide ~ Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Weapons Drugs Guilty pleas ( f) 4 24 5 105 101 SS 1 17 Mean 130 99 85 85 76 88 99 129 Median 129 75 98 67 64 82 99 103 Trial convictions ( f) 2 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 Mean 156 261 0 202 104 0 0 0 Median lS6 261 0 202 lG'3 0 0 0 Acquittals (f) 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 Dismissals/nolles (f) 1 18 2 32 39 28 1 4 Mean 85 100 63 108 73 107 14 117 Median 85 81 63 82 56 9S 14 100 Other (f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 85 ~"'"'

Table 26 Ind!anapolls, Indiana Results at screening*** Other Cases screening ~ presented ~ Reject'"!!. decision* Homicide Frequency 217 193 23 1 Percent 89 11 ** Sexual assault Frequency 236 216 19 Percent 92 8 ** Robbery Frequency 520 498 21 1 Percent 96 4 "'* Burglary Frequency 748 654 94 0 Percent 87 13 0 Assault Frequency 170 105 59 6 Percent 62 35 4

Larceny Frequency 893 853 19 21 Percent 96 2 2 Weapons Frequency 21 11l 2 Percent 86 10

Drugs Frequency 642 641 0 Percent 99 0 ** *Inc1udes cases referred to other agencies for prosecution. **Less than .5%. "'**Cases presented exclude a nu,nber of felony arrests presented but filed as misdemeanors.

Table 27 In~ianapolln, Indiana Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions Rejections Other screenin& decisions Due Lacks Plea Other ~ .!! Evidence Witness process ~ bar&ain Other Diversion Erosecution Homicide Frequency 24 18 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 Percent 75 13 0 8 0 0 0 4 Sexual assault Frequency 20 5 5 0 9 0 0 0 1 Percent 25 25 0 45 0 0 0 5 Robbery Frequency 27 15 3 0 2 1 0 0 1 Percent 68 14 0 9 5 0 0 5 Burglary Frequency 94 48 9 0 37 0 0 0 0 Percent 51 10 0 39 0 0 0 0 Assault Fr.equency 65 23 12 0 24 0 0 0 6 Percent 35 18 0 37 0 0 0 9

Larceny Frequency 40 9 2 0 8 0 0 0 21 Percent 23 5 0 20 0 0 0 53

Weapons Frequency 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Percent 0 33 0 33 0 0 0 33 Drugs Frequency 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100

86 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 28 Indianapolis, Indiana Dispositions from filing through trial* Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N_ ~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals Other Homicide Frequency l' 52 41 93 27 2 0 Percent 43 34 76 22 2 a Sexual assault Frequency 159 94 22 116 40 2 1 Percent 59 14 73 25 1 1 Robbery Frequency 376 228 38 266 98 12 0 Percent 61 10 71 26 3 0 Burglary Frequency 475 371 51 422 48 5 0 Percent 78 11 89 10 1 0 Assault Frequency 68 41 8 49 16 3 0 Percent 60 11 72 24 4 0 Larceny Frequency 612 417 39 456 144 12 0 Percent 68 6 75 24 2 0 \,eapons Frequency 11 10 1 11 0 0 0 Percent 91 9 100 0 0 0 Drugs Frequency 401 278 27 305 86 9 1 Percent 69 7 76 21 2 ** *Represents indicted cases only. **Less than .5%.

Table 29 Indianapolis, Indiana Reasons for nolles and dismissals

Due Lacks Plea Other ~ !i Evidence Witness process ~ bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 27 16 4 0 1 0 1 1 4 Percent 59 15 0 4 0 4 4 15 Sexual assault Frequency 40 12 13 2 6 4 2 0 1 Percent 30 33 5 15 10 5 0 3 Robbery Frequency 98 62 16 3 7 8 0 0 2 Percent 63 16 3 7 8 0 0 2 Burglary Frequency 48 23 10 0 8 4 0 0 3 Percent 48 21 0 17 8 0 0 6 Assault Frequency 16 1 4 1 3 2 0 3 2 Percent 6 25 6 19 13 0 19 13 Larceny Frequency 144 11 18 0 69 15 0 30 Percent 8 13 0 48 10 0 21 Weapons Frequency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Drugs Frequency 86 11 4 3 38 9 1 0 20 Percent 13 5 3 44 10 1 0 23

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 . 87 Table 30 Indianapolis, Indiana Case-processing time* Sexual DisEosition Homicide ~ Robbery Burglary ~ Larceny Weapons Drugs Guilty pleas (f) 52 94 228 371 41 416 10 278 Mean 223 199 183 158 151 136 104 190 Median 199 169 159 122 135 108 73 163 Trial convictions (£) 41 22 38 51 8 36 1 27 Mean 248 207 204 201 197 191 171 263 Median 197 188 217 177 181 176 171 227 Acquittals (f) 2 2 12 5 3 12 0 9 Mean 133 197 200 173 242 133 0 283 Hedian 133 197 137 121 244 125 0 232 Dismissals/nolles (£) 27 40 97 48 16 144 0 86 Mean 139 135 146 134 138 164 0 200 Median 118 112 90 104 120 145 0 184 Other (f) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mean 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 149 Median 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 149

*Calculated in days from arrest or papering date. Represents indicted cases only.

Table 31 Indianapolis, Indiana Incarceration rates given conviction** Sent to State ~ Guiltylr Incarcerated prison Homicide Freq.:ency 93 85 82 Percent 91 88 Sexual assault Frequency 116 94 83 Percent 81 72 Robbery Frequency 266 226 219 Percent 85 82 Burglary Frequency 422 256 231 Percent 61 55 Assault Frequency 49 33 27 Percent 67 55 Larceny Frequency 456 189 145 Percent 41 32 Weapons Frequency 11 5 3 Percent 45 27 Drugs Frequency 305 105 78 Percent 34 26 *Includes only cases with known sentencing data. Irlr Reprp.sen~s indicted cases only.

88 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980

------~--

California at screening Other Cases screening # presented ~Rejected decision'" ~cJde ttequency 1,682 1,238 372 72 rercent 74 22 4 sexual assault Frequency 3,267 1,492 1,250 525 Percent 46 38 16 Robbery Frequency 7,595 4,616 2,418 561 Percent 61 32. 7 Burglary Frequency 10 ,585 6,259 2,277 2,049 Percent 59 22 19

Assault Frequency 7,624 2,225 3,186 2,213 "ercent 29 42 29 Larceny Frequency 6,406 2,895 1,779 1,732 Percent 45 28 27

Weapons Frequency 1,482 590 449 443 Percent 40 30 29 Drugs Frequency 13 ,667 6,8'49 3,960 2,858 Percent 50 29 21

"'Includes cases referred to other agencies for prosecution. In Los Angeles, a substantial number of felony arrests are referred to city prosecutors for misdemeanor prosecution in municipal courts. The dispOSition of these cases is not tracked in PROMIS.

Table 33 Los Angeles, Colltornla Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions ______"-Re::,j::.:e:,:c:,:t"'i;,::o;;:n"'s=_--;::;-:-:- ___ Other screening decisions Due Laeks Plea Other 1!. Evidence Witness process ~ bargain Other Diversion prosecution Homicide Frequency 444 331 11 1 27 1 0 72 Percent 75 2 '" 6 ... '" 0 16 Sexual assault Frequency 1,775 877 323 2 34 9 5 0 525 Percent 49 18 ... 2 1 ... 0 30 Robbery Frequency 2,979 1,932 416 8 28 25 9 0 561 Percent 65 14 '" 1 1 ... 0 19 Burglary Frequency 1,945 163 91 35 24 19 0 2,409 Percent 45 4 2 1 1 'k 0 47 Assault Frequency 5,399 1,708 1,034 7 150 35 252 0 2,213 Percent 32 19 ... 3 1 5 0 41 Larceny Frequency 3,511 1,442 162 28 63 62 22 0 1,732 Percent 41 5 1 2 2 1 0 49 l"/eapons Frequency 892 331 5 67 34 11 0 443 Percent 37 1 8 4 1 0 50 Drugs Frequency 6,818 2,838 35 884 158 44 0 2,858 Percent 42 1 13 2 1 '" 0 42 "'Less than • Sr..

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 89 Table 34 Los Angeles, California Dispositions from filing through trial* Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime _N__ ~sonvictions .!l.!:!!1EL nolles Acguittals Other Homicide Frequency 927 490 180 670 215 42 0 Percent 53 19 72 23 5 0

Sexual assault Frequency 1,298 793 133 926 313 5q 0 Percent 61 10 72 24 5 0 Robbery Frequency 4,187 2,759 284 3,043 1,063 81 0 Percent 66 7 73 25 2 0

Burglary Frequency 5,602 4,192 191 4,383 1,157 62 0 Percent 75 3 78 21 1 0

Assault Frequency 1,953 1,094 147 1,241 613 99 0 Percent 56 8 64 31 5 0

Larceny Frequency 2,296 1,648 56 1,704 570 22 0 Percent 72 2 74 25 1 0

Weapons Frequency 502 324 13 337 156 9 0 Percent 65 3 67 31 2 0

Drugs Frequency 5,375 3,082 213 3,295 2,006 74 0 Percent 57 4 61 37 1 0 *Data exclude a substantial number of felony arrests filed as misdemeanors and prosecuted by city prosecutors.

Table 35 Los Angeles, California Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime .!! Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 215 84 30 6 53 2 0 39 Percent 3q 14 3 25 1 0 * 18

Sexual assault Frequency 313 56 89 12 93 12 0 50 Percent 18 28 4 30 4 0 * 16 Robbery Frequency 1,063 295 324 36 242 22 0 9 135 Percent 28 30 3 23 2 0 1 13

Burglary Frequency 1,157 282 297 38 251 55 0 33 201 Percent 24 26 3 22 5 0 3 17

Assault Frequency 613 132 202 20 170 15 0 3 71 Percent 22 33 3 28 2 0 * 12

Larceny Frequency 570 134 145 30 142 30 0 6 83 Percent 24 25 5 25 5 0 1 15

Weapons Frequency 156 54 23 7 44 4 0 2 22 Percent 35 15 4 28 3 0 1 14

Drugs Frequency 2,006 635 224 79 342 37 544 12 133 Percent 32 11 4 17 2 27 1 7 *Less than .5%.

·9,0 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 36 Los Angeles, California Case-processing time* Sexual Diseosition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Weapons Drugs

Guil ty pleas (f) 490 793 2,579 4,191 1,094 1,647 324 3,081 Mean 194 162 119 106 140 138 131 174 Median 172 132 89 80 111 103 98 143

Trial convictions ( f) 180 133 284 191 147 56 13 213 Mean 260 216 179 179 199 225 231 222 Median 246 190 151 159 163 195 197 197

Acquittals (f) 42 59 81 62 99 22 9 74 Mean 280 213 182 168 189 206 178 237 l1edian 261 211 148 149 165 186 139 230

Dismissalslnol1es (f) 215 312 1,062 1,153 612 570 156 2,004 Mean 116 85 72 81 86 112 123 184 Median 6Q 52 34 39 43 66 75 147 Other ( f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Calcu1ated in days from arrest or papering date. Data exclude a substantial number of felony arrests filed as misdemeanors and prosecuted by city prosecutors.

Table 37 Los AngelQs, California Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State Crime Guilty* Incarcerated prison Homicide Frequency 603 519 417 Percent 86 69

Sexual assault Frequency 856 663 385 Percent 77 45

Robbery Frequency 2,869 2,429 1,369 Percent 85 48 Burglary Frequency 4,143 3,522 1,125 Percent 85 27

Assault Frequency 1,151 907 272 Percent 79 24

Larceny Frequency 1,583 1,266 322 Percent 80 20

Weapons Frequency 318 239 71 Percent 75 22

Drugs Frequency 3,074 2,260 369 Percent 74 12

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data. Excludes a substantial number of felony arrests filed as misdemeanors and prosecuted by city prosecutors.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 91 Table 38 Table 40 Louisville, Kentucky louisville, Kentucky Dispositions from filing through trial* Incarceration rates given conviction** Closed Sent to cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ State Crime __N__ ~ convictions ~ noUes Acguittals ~ ~ Guilty* Incarcerated prison Homicide Homicide Frequency 80 34 33 67 10 3 0 Frequency 65 56 51 Percent 43 41 84 13 4 0 Percent 86 78

Sexual assault Sexual assault Frequency 104 54 23 77 13 14 0 Frequency 77 63 39 Percent 52 22 74 13 13 0 Percent 82 51 Robbery Robbery Frequency 239 147 45 192 31 12 4 Frequency 191 161 141 Percent 62 19 80 13 5 2 Percent 84 74

Burglary Burglary Frequency 239 182 28 210 17 4 8 Frequency 209 147 113 Percent 76 12 88 7 2 3 Percent 70 54

Assaul~ Assault Frequency 144 88 22 110 19 11 4 Frequency 106 55 25 Percent 61 15 76 13 8 3 Percent 52 24 Larceny Larceny. Frequency 169 115 9 124 30 7 8 Frequency 124 101 36 Percent 68 5 73 18 4 5 Percent 81 29 Weapons Weapons Frequency 13 6 5 11 1 0 1 Frequency 11 8 4 Percent 46 39 85 8 0 8 Percent 73 36 Drugs Drugs Frequency 150 113 20 133 12 2 3 Frequency 132 71 43 Percent 75 13 89 8 1 2 Percent 54 33 *Represents indicted cases only. *Includes only cases with known sentencing data. **Represents indicted cases only.

Table 39 loUisville, Kentucky Reasons for nolles and dismissals* Due Lacks Plea Other Crime N Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 10 2 1 1 2 0 0 1 3 Percent 20 10 10 20 0 0 10 30 Sexual assault Frequency 13 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 Percent 31 54 0 0 0 0 0 15 Robbery Frequency 31 9 9 4 6 0 0 2 1 Percent 29 29 13 19 0 0 6 3

Burglary Frequency 17 5 4 2 3 0 3 0 0 Percent 29 24 12 18 0 18 0 0

Assault Frequency 19 5 4 0 7 0 0 3 0 Percent 26 21 0 37 0 0 16 0

Larceny Frequency 30 10 7 1 6 0 5 1 0 Percent 33 23 3 20 0 17 3 0

Weapons Frequency 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 Drugs Frequency 12 2 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 Percent 17 0 25 25 0 17 17 0

*Represents indicted cases only.

92 Prosecution of. Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 41 - Manhattan, New York Results at screening

Other Cases screening Crime 2resented Filed Rejected decision* Homicl.ae Frequency 760 739 21 0 Percent 97 3 0

Sexual assault Frequency 348 333 13 2 Percent 96 4 1 Robbery Frequency 5,348 5,111 210 27 Percent 96 4 1 Burglary Frequency 3,746 3,628 116 2 Percent 97 3 ** Assault Frequency 3,415 3,344 68 3 Percent 98 2 ** Larceny Frequency 6,138 5,914 224 0 Percent 96 4 0 Weapons Frequency 1,503 1,414 89 0 Percent 94 6 0 Drugs Frequency 5,210 5,100 110 0 Percent 98 2 0

*Includes cases referred to other agencies for prosecution. **Less than .5r..

Table 42 Manhattan, Naw York Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions Rejections Other screening decisions Due Lacks Plea Other ! Evidence Witness process merit bargain Other ~ .. sion prosecution Homicide Frequency 21 18 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 Percent 86 5 0 0 0 10 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 15 6 6 0 0 0 1 0 2 Percent 40 40 0 0 0 7 0 13 Robbery Frequency 237 135 60 1 7 0 7 0 27 Percent 57 25 * 3 0 3 0 11 Burglary Frequency 118 77 22 7 4 0 6 I I Percent 65 19 6 3 0 5 1 1

Assault Frequency 71 35 25 2 3 0 3 2 1 Percent 49 35 3 4 0 4 3 1

Larceny Frequency 224 142 57 6 5 0 14 0 0 Percent 63 25 3 2 0 6 0 0 Weapons Frequency 89 56 7 21 0 0 5 0 0 Percent 63 8 24 0 0 6 0 0 Drugs Frequency 110 70 6 14 13 0 7 0 0 Percent 64 5 13 12 0 6 0 0

*Less than .5%.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 93 Table 43 Manhattan, New York DispositiohS from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N_ pleas convictions ~ no11es Acguitta1s Other Homicide Frequency 635 266 86 352 257 24 2 Percent 42 14 55 40 4 * Sexual assault Frequency 301 80 14 94 205 2 0 Percent 27 5 31 68 1 0 Robbery Frequency 4,578 2,605 135 2,740 1,790 48 0 Percent 57 3 60 39 1 0 Burglary Frequency 3,321 2,345 55 2,400 916 4 1 Percent 71 2 72 28 * * Assa:u1t Fre,quency 3,043 1,324 50 1,374 1,637 32 0 Per'cent 44 2 45 54 1 0 Larceny Frequency 5,283 3,930 52 3,982 1,285 16 0 Per(:ent 74 1 75 24 * 0 Weap()ns Frequency 1,204 578 32 610 581 13 0 Percent 48 3 51 48 1 0 Drugs Frequency 4,393 2,821 58 2,879 1,499 15 0 Percent 64 1 66 34 * 0 *Less than .5%.

Table 44 Manhattan, New York Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other ~ l!. Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion** prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 257 48 55 26 33 28 12 5 50 Percent 19 21 10 13 11 5 2 19 Sexual assault Frequency 205 19 113 12 12 5 25 5 14 Percent 10 55 6 6 2 12 2 7 R()bbery Frequency 1,790 309 740 157 119 102 119 52 192 Percent 17 41 9 7 6 7 3 11 Burglary Frequency 916 131 245 53 107 54 210 10 106 Percer.lt 14 27 6 U 6 23 1 12 Assault Frequency 1,637 104 883 82 133 22 259 17 137 Perc~nt: 6 54 5 8 1 16 1 8 L,,;cceny Frequency 1,285 190 332 63 111 80 382 17 110 Percent 15 26 5 9 6 30 1 9 Weapons Frequency 581 197 87 71 56 23 37 S 102 Percent 34 15 11- 10 4 6 1 18 Drugs Frequency 1,499 675 84 136 144 95 143 6 216 Percent 45 6 9 10 6 10 * 14 *Less than .5%. **Inc1udes cases adjoined in contemplation of dismissal.

94 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 45 Manhattan, New York Case-processing time* Sexual DisEosition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny WeaEons Drugs Guilty pleas (f) 265 79 2,502 2,057 1,173 3,470 563 2,722 Mean 248 137 113 73 77 61 140 105 Median 228 79 74 29 34 14 104 32

Trial convictions (f) 80 14 128 49 42 42 28 51 Mean 353 287 253 243 271 242 271 368 Median 341, 277 227 214 250 190 249 328

Acquittals ( f) 24 2 48 4 32 16 13 15 Mean 311 301 201 261 219 167 2.41 399 Median 308 301 2.05 224 213 150 232 369

Dismissa1s/no11es (f) 257 199 1,769 904 1,570 1,260 553 1,478 Mean 130 81 96 115 102 133 114 100 Median 7fJ 48 56 90 60 115 71 53

Other ( f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Ca1cu1ated in days from arrest or papering date.

Table 46 Manhattan, New York Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State Crime Gui1ty* Incarcerated Erison Homicide Frequency 286 239 217 Percent 84 76

Sexual assault Frequency 81 59 38 Percent 73 47

Robbery Frequency 2,460 1,606 835 Percent 65 34

Burglary Frequency 2,182 1,326 360 Percent 61 16

Assault Frequency 1,249 523 89 Percent 42 7

Larceny Frequency 3,587 1,935 130 Percent 54 4

Weapons Frequency 525 235 112 Percent 45 21

Drugs Frequency 2,424 1,188 319 Percent 49 13

*Inc1udes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 95 Table 47 Table 48 New Orleans, louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana Results at screening Dispositions from filing through trial Other Closed Trial Dismis- Cases Re- acreening cases Guilty con- Total salsl Ac- Crime Eresented Filed jected decision* Crime _N__ ~ victions* ~ no11es guittals* Other Homicide Homicide Frequency 386 224 114 48 Frequency 139 90 19 109 17 13 0 Per.::ent 58 30 12 Percent 65 14 78 12 9 0 Sexual Sexual assault assault Frequency 246 117 106 23 Frequency 82 60 7 67 7 8 0 Percent 48 43 9 Percent 73 9 82 9 10 0 Robbery Robbery Frequency 836 363 449 24 Frequency 282 213 40 253 B 6 0 Percen~ 43 54 3 Percent 76 14 90 8 2 0 Burglary Burglary Frequency 1,285 817 420 48 Frequency 688 580 24 004 70 14 0 Percent 64 33 4 Percent 84 3 88 10 2 0 Assault Assault Frequency 636 175 366 95 Frequency 144 115 4 119 16 q 0 Percent 28 58 15 Percent 80 3 83 11 6 0 Larceny Larc. 'y Frequency 1,083 717 304 62 Frequency 589 496 23 519 51 19 0 Percent 66 28 6 Percent 84 4 88 9 3 0 Weapons Weapons Frequency 345 163 170 12 Frequency 124 89 7 96 25 3 0 Percent 47 49 3 Percent 72 6 77 20 2 0 Drugs Drugs Frequency 1,334 639 676 19 Frequency 510 367 14 381 110 19 0 Percent 48 51 1 Percent 72 3 75 22 4 0 *Inc1udes cases referred to other agencies *T rial data are incomplete. for prosecution.

Table 49 Table 50 New Orleans, louisiana New Orleans, Louisiana Case-processing time* Incarceration rates given conviction Sexual Sent to Dis[!osition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Wea[!ons Drugs Incar- State Guilty* cera ted Guilty pleas ~ [!rison (f) 90 60 213 580 115 496 89 367 Homicide Mean 100 130 80 59 73 81 70 79 Frequency 91 57 51 Median 82 98 61 42 52 49 52 56 Percent 63 56 Trial Sexual convictions assault (f) 19 7 40 24 4 23 7 14 Frequency GO 46 41 Mean IG5 153 116 114 81 91 122 114 Percent 77 68 Median 131 138 108 91 78 72 74 96 Robbery Acqui.ttals Frequency 235 183 159 (f) 13 8 6 14 9 19 3 19 Percent 78 68 Hean 161 195 78 120 114 108 208 109 Hedian 128 229 74 79 119 79 202 91 Burglary Frequency 581 317 209 Dismissals/ Percent 55 36 noUes (f) 17 7 23 70 16 51 25 110 Assault Hean 159 153 126 77 91 89 104 92 Frequency 113 36 20 Median 131 149 95 55 73 71 104 78 Percent 32 18 Other Larceny Cf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Frequency 503 218 69 Mean 0 a a 0 0 0 a 0 Percent 43 14 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weapons *Calculated in lays from arrest or papering date. Frequency 95 48 32 Percent 51 34 Drugs Frequency 345 88 45 Percent 26 13

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

96 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 _,ll",______,I-..""i':!______------

TabieSI Portland, Oregon Dispositions from filing through (,rial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ plea:; ~onvictions guilty no11es Acguittals ~ ~ _N_ Homicide 65 35 17 53 10 2 2 Frequency 2 Percent 54 26 82 15 3 Sexual assault 232 96 45 142 78 12 Frequency * Percent 41 19 61 34 5

Robbery 392 190 79 276 107 8 8 Frequency 2 Percent 48 20 70 27 2

Burglary 572 362 109 477 92 3 6 Frequency 1 Percent 63 19 83 16 1

Assault 201 96 14 112 81 8 2 Frequency 1 Percent 48 7 56 40 4

Larceny Frequency 624 363 95 459 151 14 Percent 58 15 74 24 2 *

Weapons 0 Frequency 67 42 10 52 14 1 0 Percent 63 15 78 21 1

Drugs 527 408 37 445 79 3 0 Frequency 0 Percent 77 7 84 15 1

*Less than .5%.

TableS2 Portland, Oregon Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Evidence Witness process ~ bargain Diversion prosecution ~ ~ !!.

Homicide 2 10 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 Frequency 0 20 Percent 30 30 0 20 0 0

Sexual assault 1 24 Frequency 78 9 19 0 3 22 0 1 31 Percent 12 24 0 4 28 0

Robbery 15 107 22 49 1 4 10 5 1 Frequency 1 14 Percent 21 46 1 4 9 5

Burglary 17 92 19 17 1 6 20 10 2 Frequency 2 18 Percent 21 18 1 7 22 11

Assault 13 81 11 41 0 0 4 11 1 Frequency 1 16 Percent 14 51 0 0 5 14

Larceny 9 151 30 19 1 7 70 14 1 Frequency 1 6 Percent 20 13 1 5 46 9

Weapons 4 14 3 1 0 2 2 0 2 Frequency 14 29 Percent 21 7 0 14 14 0

Drugs 8 79 13 4 0 15 37 0 2 Frequency 3 10 Percent 16 5 0 19 47 0

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 97 Table 53 "'-="" Portland, Oregon Case-processing time* Sexu.:1 Disl2osition Homicide ~ Robbery Burglary ~ Larceny Weapons Drugs Guilty pleas (f) 35 91 179 350 96 358 42 382 Mean 90 85 85 76 99 99 92 72 Median 74 73 64 57 74 75 69 53 Trial convictions ( f) 17 45 79 109 14 95 10 37 Mean 125 124 100 92 106 130 133 123 Median 104 94 87 78 94 114 lOO 97 Acquittals (f) 2 12 8 3 8 14 1 3 Mean 102 116 102 101 79 150 98 75 Median 102 111 85 104 73 114 98 74 Dismissals/nol1es (f) 10 77 107 92 80 151 14 78 Mean 65 79 n 49 52 130 84 120 Median 58 77 S 21 10 106 52 88 Other ( f) 1 1 7 6 2 1 0 0 Mean 115 76 93 89 146 101 0 0 Median 115 76 71 91 146 101 0 0 *Ca1culated in days from arrest or papering date.

Table 54 Portland, Oregon Incarceration rates given conviction

Sent to State Crime Guilty* Incarcerated** prison Homicide Frequency 45 30 30 Percent 67 67 Sexual assault Frequency 119 46 43 Percent 39 36 Robbery Frequency 259 140 III Percent 54 43 Burglary Frequency 452 182 162 Percent 40 36 Assault Frequency 94 28 13 Percent 30 14 Larceny Frequency 420 145 121 Percent 35 29 Weapons Frequency 50 16 9 Percent 32 18 Drugs Frequency 407 58 37 Percent 14 9 *Inc1udes only cases with known sentencing data. **Excludes probation sentences with jail time.

98 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 , Table 55 Pueblo, Colorado Dispositions from filing through' trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Oismissalu'/ Crime _N__ ~ convictions lli!EL noUee Acgui t tals_ Other

Homicide Frequency 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 1.00 0 0

Sexual assault Frequency 16 10 0 10 6 0 0 Percent 63 0 63 38 0 0

Robbery Frequency 18 11 0 11. 7 0 0 Percent 61 0 6t 39 0 0

Burglary Frequency 105 62 0 62 40 0 3 Percent 59 0 59 38 0 3

Assault Frequency 3,5 20 1 21 13 1 0 Percent 57 3 60 37 3 0

Larceny Frequency 53 27 0 27 25 1 0 Percent 51 0 51 47 2 0

Weapons Frequency 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent 100 (, 100 0 0 0 Drugs Frequency 32 20 0 20 12 0 0 Percent 63 0 63 38 0 0

Table 56 Pueblo, Colorado Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime !l. Evidenc,~ Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 2 7. 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Percent 100 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Sexual assault Frequency 6 1 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 Percent 17 50 0 0 17 17 0 0

Robbery Frequency 1 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 Percent 14 14 0 14 43 0 14 0

Burglary Frequency 40 7 3 1 3 25 1 0 0 Percent 18 8 3 8 63 3 0 0

Assault Frequency 13 3 j 0 1 6 0 0 0 Percent 23 23 0 8 46 0 0 0

Larceny Frequen<.:y 25 2 3 1 1 12 5 1 0 Percent 8 12 4 4 48 20 4 0

Weapons Frequency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Drugs Frequency 12 3 3 2 0 1 3 0 0 Percent 25 2S 17 0 8 25 0 0

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 99 TableS7 Pueblo, Colorado Case-processing time* Sexual Disl!osition Homicide ~ Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Weapons Drugs Guilty pleas (f) 0 9 11 60 20 27 2 20 Mean 0 140 III 104 150 86 Median 39 94 0 155 89 101 112 76 39 94 Trial convictions ( f) 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hean 0 0 0 0 248 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 248 0 0 0 Acquittals ( f) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 442 371 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 442 371 0 0 Dlsmissals/nolles (f) 1 6 5 39 8 23 0 11 M(.~an 46 79 88 124 127 124 Median 0 103 46 78 58 129 114 132 0 101 Other (f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Calculated in days from arrest or papering date. ., Table 58 Puablo, Colorado Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State ~ Guilty* Incarcerated prison Homicide Frequency 0 0 0 Percent 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 9 3 1 Percent 33 11 Robbery Frequency 10 8 7 Percent 80 70 Burglary Frequency 53 32 19 Percent 60 36 Assault Frequency 17 6 2 Percent 35 12 Larceny Frequency 23 6 1 Percent 26 4 Weapons Frequency 2 1 0 Percent 50 0 Drugs Frequency 17 2 0 Percent 12 0

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

100 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ------_.------

Table 59 Rhode Island Dispositions from filing through trial* Closed cases Guilty rd,ll Total Dismissals/ Crime ___N__ ~ convictions guiltL nolles Acguittals Other Homicide Frequency 46 20 15 35 6 5 0 Percent 43 33 76 13 11 0

Sexual assault Frequency 80 46 7 53 17 10 0 Percent 58 9 67 21 13 a

Robbery Frequency 193 163 9 172 i2 9 a Percent 84 5 89 6 5 a

Burglary Frequency 806 734 5 739 64 3 0 Percent 91 1 92 8 ** 0 Assault Frequency 497 401 12 413 69 15 a Percent 81 2 83 14 3 0

Larceny Frequency 300 251 7 257 40 2 a Percent 84 2 86 13 1 0 Weapons Frequency 106 96 a 96 10 a a Percent 91 0 91 9 a a Drugs Frequency 494 427 6 433 56 5 a Percent 86 1 87 11 1 a

*Represents indicted cases only. **Less than .5%.

Table 60 Table 61 Rhode Island Rhode Island Case-processing time* incarceration rates given conviction* Sexual Sent to DisEosition Homicide assault Robbery ~lary Assault Larceny Weapons Drugs State Crime Guilty** Incarcerated prison Guilty pleas (f) 20 46 163 733 401 251 96 427 Homicide Mean 360 292 262 292 272 294 226 270 Frequency 32 22 21 Median 297 302 212 262 235 268 208 240 Percent 69 66

Trials** Sexual assault (f) 20 17 18 8 27 9 a 11 Frequency 46 22 22 -Mean 343 287 307 359 348 376 0 237 Percent 48 48 Median 338 325 296 360 347 465 a 229 Robbery Dismissals/nolles Frequency 163 115 105 (f) 6 17 12 64 69 40 10 56 Percent 71 64 Mean 467 331 287 309 270 353 269 355 Median 570 299 219 270 228 340 210 346 Burglary Frequency 682 302 163 Other Percent 44 24 (f) a a a a a a a a Mean a a a a a a a a Assault Uedian a a a a a a a a Frequency 311 83 29 Percent 27 9 *Calculated in days from arrest or papering date. Represents indicted cases only. l.arceny **Separate data for trial convictions and acquittals not available. Frequency 216 58 22 Percent 27 10

Weapons Frequency 81 10 3 Percent 12 4

Drugs Frequency 364 83 13 Percent 23 4 *Represents indicted cases only, but in Rhode Island all convictions resulting from a felony arrest occur in the felony court. **Includes only cases with known srntencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 101 ,~:::

Table 62 Sl Louis, Missouri Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N_~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals Other

Homicide Frequency 136 35 37 72 54 10 a Percent 26 27 53 40 7 a

Sex'Jal assault Frequency 165 66 13 79 75 11 0 Percent 40 8 48 45 7 a

Robbery Frequency 437 263 30 293 121 23 0 Percent 60 7 67 28 5 a

Burglary Fr'equency 910 671 19 690 212 8 a Percent 74 2 76 23 1 0

Assault Frequency 266 121 21 142 109 15 0 Percent 45 8 53 41 6 0

Larceny Frequency 483 327 12 339 136 8 0 Percent 68 2 70 28 2 0

Weapons Frequency 454 299 17 316 134 4 0 Percent 66 4 70 30 1 0

Drugs Frequency 533 401 12 413 115 5 0 Percent 75 2 77 22 1 0

Tabla 63 Sl Louis, Missouri Rsasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime !i Evidence Witness process merit bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 54 9 16 2 4 14 0 1 8 Percent 17 30 4 7 26 0 2 15

Sexual assault Frequency 75 13 23 6 2 12 1 0 18 Percent 17 31 8 3 16 1 0 24

Robbery Frequency 121 26 43 7 9 6 0 5 25 Percent 21 36 6 7 5 0 4 21

Burglary Frequency 212 34 64 11 11 23 0 18 51 Percent 16 30 5 5 11 a 8 24 Assault Frequency 109 16 45 7 11 3 0 3 24 Percent 15 41 6 10 3 0 3 22

Larceny Frequency 136 22 42 18 8 9 0 16 21 Percent 16 31 13 6 7 0 12 15

Weapons Frequency 134 30 18 44 13 13 0 5 11 Percent 22 13 33 10 10 a 4 8

Drugs Frequency 115 22 5 42 12 IB 0 11 5 Percent 19 4 37 10 16 0 10 4

102 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 64 Sl Louis, Missouri Case-processing time* Sexual Disl2osition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Weapons Drugs

Guilty pleas ( f) 35 66 263 670 121 327 299 401 Mean 236 216 190 145 184 141 157 155 Median 221 195 172 126 177 122 140 137

Trials** ( f) 47 24 53 27 36 20 21 17 Hean 317 278 226 214 261 236 176 276 Median 275 251 212 212 236 237 176 278

Dismissals/nolles ( f) 54 75 121 212 109 136 134 115 Hean 166 107 107 113 112 111 116 142 Hedian 175 84 59 74 77 59 82 110

Other (f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

*Ca1culated in days from arrest or papering date. **Separate data for trial convictions and acquittals not available.

Table 65 Sl Louis, Mlssollrl Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State Crime Guilty* Incarcerated prison

Homicide Frequency 70 59 55 Percent 84 79

Sexual assault Frequency 79 63 51 Percent 80 65

Robbery Frequency 291 224 186 Percent 77 64

Burglary Frequency 685 443 185 Percent 65 27

Assault Frequency 142 76 47 Percent 54 33

Larceny Frequency 333 184 54 Percent 55 16

Weapons Frequency 309 150 39 Percent 49 13

Drugs Frequency 407 203 43 Percent 50 11

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 103 Table 66 Salt Lake, Utah Results at screening Other Cases screening Crime I!resented Filed Rejected decision* Homicide Frequency 34 32 2 a Percent 94 6 0 Sexual assault Frequency 167 123 38 6 Percent 74 23 4 Robbery Frequency 262 186 69 7 Percent 71 26 3 Burglary Frequency 606 443 141 22 Percent 73 23 4 Assault Frequency 325 121 186 18 Percent 37 57 6 Larceny Frequency 384 260 95 29 Percent 68 25 8 Weapons Frequency 78 46 27 5 Percent 59 35 6 Drugs Frequency 380 323 48 9 Percent 85 13 2

*Includes cases referred to other agencies for prosecution.

Table 67 Salt Lake, Utah Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions

Rejections Other screening decisions Due Lacks Plea Other R EVidence Witness I!rocess ~ bargain ~ Diversion I!rosecution Homicide Frequency 2 2 a a a a a a a Percent 100 a a 0 a 0 a a Sexual assault Frequency 44 20 15 a 3 0 0 2 Percent 4 45 34 a 7 a a 5 9 Robbery Frequency 76 41 20 0 5 a 3 Percent 0 7 54 26 a 7 0 4 a 9 Burglary Frequency 163 102 24 1 12 a 2 Percent a 22 63 15 1 7 0 1 0 13 Assault Frequency 204 117 42 0 24 0 3 0 Percent 18 57 21 0 12 a 1 0 9 Larceny Frequency 124 70 10 1 11 0 3 0 29 Percent 56 8 1 9 a 2 a 23 Weapons Frequency 32 14 0 5 5 0 0 3 5 Percent 44 0 16 16 0 0 9 16 Drugs Frequency 57 42 2 2 1 0 1 a 9 Percent 74 4 4 2 0 2 0 16

104 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 68 Salt Lake, Utah Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissa1s/ N pleas convictions ~ nol1es Acguittals ~ ~ Homicide 26 17 8 25 0 1 0 Frequency 0 Percent 65 31 96 0 4

Sexual assault 106 59 11 70 32 4 0 Frequency 4 0 Percent 56 10 66 30

Robbery 4 1 Frequency 166 101 10 111 50 2 1 Percent 61 6 67 30

Burglary 0 Frequency 391 270 22 292 92 7 2 0 Percent 69 6 75 24

Assault 0 Frequency 113 61 12 73 35 5 4 0 Percent 54 11 65 31

Larceny 0 Frequency 211 151 10 161 47 3 1 0 Percent 72 5 76 22

Weapons 40 29 2 31 7 2 0 Frequency 0 Percent 73 5 78 18 5

Drugs 258 176 3 179 79 0 0 Frequency 0 Percent 68 1 69 31 0

Table 69 Salt Lake, Utah Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other !!. Evidence Witness process ~ bargain Diversion prosecution Other ~

Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Frequency 0 0 Percent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sexual assault 7 14 0 0 7 2 0 2 Frequency 32 0 6 Percent 22 44 0 0 22 6

Robbery 7 50 9 15 2 1 13 0 3 Frequency 6 14 Percent 18 30 4 2 26 0

Burglary 13 92 9 15 2 5 42 5 Frequency 5 14 Percent 10 16 2 5 46

Assault 3 35 2 18 0 6 6 0 0 Frequency 0 9 Percent 6 51 0 17 17 0

Larceny 7 47 9 8 0 1 14 7 1 Frequency 2 15 Percent 19 17 0 2 30 15

Weapons 0 2 Frequency 7 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 29 Percent 29 14 0 0 29

Drugs 14 79 9 13 1 6 33 3 0 Frequency 0 18 Percent 11 16 1 8 42 4

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 105 ~ ------

Table 70 Salt Lake, Utah Case-processing time* Sexual DisE!0sition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary ~ Larceny Weapons Drugs Guilty pleas (0 17 59 101 270 61 151 29 176 Mean 193 133 100 107 112 122 75 135 Merlian 201 95 64 74 87 96 40 107 Trial convictions (f) 8 11 10 22 12 10 2 3 Mean 231 257 231 222 207 162 132 228 Median 226 215 196 149 153 133 132 222 Acquittals (f) 1 4 4 7 5 3 2 0 Mean 250 252 211 162 217 117 359 0 Median 250 241 166 91 206 73 359 0 Dismissals/nolles (f) 0 32 50 92 34 47 7 79 Mean a 163 82 123 125 142 78 122 MedIan a 79 27 87 98 89 68 65 Other (f) a a 1 0 0 a a 0 Mean 0 0 147 a 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 *Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

Table 71 Salt Lake, Utah Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State ~ Guilty* Incarcerated E!rison Homicide Frequency 22 17 15 Percent 77 68 Sexual assault Frequency 66 35 27 Percent 53 41 Robbery Frequency 101 45 40 Percent 45 1,0 Burglary Frequency 259 101 65 Percent 39 25 Assault Frequency 62 39 19 Percent 63 31 Larceny Frequency 127 35 19 Percent 28 15 Weapons Frequency 23 9 5 Percent 39 22 Drugs Frequency 143 24 Percent 17 5 *Inc1udes only cases with known sentencing data.

106 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 ------~------

Ta"ble 72 San Diego, California Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N__ ~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals Other

Homicide Frequency 83 50 19 69 10 4 a Percent 60 23 83 12 5 0

Sexual assault Frequency 172 145 7 152 16 4 0 Percent 84 4 88 9 2 0

Robbery Frequency 774 529 61 590 170 9 5 Percent 68 8 76 22 1 1

Burglary Frequency 1,864 1,488 47 1,535 296 20 13 Percent 80 3 82 16 1 1

Assault Frequency 599\ 438 36 474 U8 6 1 Percent 73 6 79 20 1 * Larceny Frequency 728 564 23 587 130 8 Percent 77 3 81 18 1 *

Weapons Frequency 26 16 1 17 9 0 0 Percent 62 4 65 35 0 0

Drugs Frequency 1,413 924 20 944 450 7 12 Percent 65 1 67 32 * 1

*Less than .5%.

Table 73 S'ln Diego, California Reasons for nolles and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other Crime ~ Evidence W~tuess process merit bargain Diversion Erosecution Other Homicide Frequency 9 4 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 Percent 44 11 0 22 11 0 0 11

Sexual assault Frequenr:y 14 5 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 Percent 36 7 14 14 14 0 0 14

Robbery Frequency 149 51 46 6 8 18 0 2 18 Percent 34 31 4 5 12 0 1 .2

Burglary Frequency 244 76 44 19 8 63 2 0 32 Percent 31 18 8 3 26 1 0 13

Assault Frequency 107 34 45 3 12 2 0 10 Percent 32 42 3 11 2 0 9

Larceny Frequency 110 31 19 4 5 25 1/, 2 10 Percent 28 17 4 5 23 13 2 9

Weapons Frequency 6 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 Percent 17 0 17 17 17 33 0 0

Drugs Frequency 430 83 30 31 11 46 199 5 25 Percent 19 7 7 3 11 46 1 6

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 107 Table 74 San Diego, California Case-processing time* Sexual Dis2osition Homicide ~ Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny Wea20ns Drugs Guilty pleas (f) 49 145 529 1,487 436 564 16 922 Mean 188 187 192 173 174 223 192 167 Median 172 132 133 112 131 116 90 116 Trial convictions (f) 19 7 61 47 36 23 1 20 Mean 251 253 215 235 244 281 324 236 Median 214 212 164 179 197 233 324 240 Acquittals (f) 4 4 9 20 6 8 0 9 Hean 250 186 160 172 195 172 0 176 Median 248 212 107 164 213 135 0 137 Dismissals/nolles (f) 10 16 170 296 118 129 9 449 Mean 41 123 66 92 83 102 166 208 Median 21 88 30 65 61 69 110 209 Other (£) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mean 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Median 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

Table 75 San Diego, California Incarceration rates given conviction Sent to State Guilty· Incarcerated prison Homicide Frequency 67 64 58 Percent 96 87 Sexual assault Frequency 100 71 31 Percent 71 31 Robbery Frequency 469 447 283 Percent 95 60 Burglary Frequency 918 830 359 Percent 90 39 Assault Frequency 268 225 84 Percent 84 31 Larceny Frequency 258 228 92 Percent 88 36 Weapons Frequency Percent Drugs Frequency 376 311 72 Percent 83 19 *Includes only felony court cases with known sentencing data. Felony court cases in San Diego are defined as cases disposed in superior court and felony pleas taken in muniCipal court.

108 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 76 Tallahassee, Florida Results at screening Other Cases screening Crime eresented Filed Rejected* decision**

Homicide Frequency 19 19 0 0 Percent 100 0 0

Sexual assault Frequency 46 46 0 0 Percent 100 0 0

Robbery Frequency 100 99 1 0 Percent 99 1 0

Burglary Frequency 390 378 12 0 Percent 97 3 0

Assault Frequency 221 203 18 0 Percent 92 8 0

Larceny Frequency 332 310 22 0 Percent 93 7 0

Weapons Frequency 29 28 1 0 Percent 97 3 0

Drugs Frequency 147 145 2 a Percent 99 1 a *Reason for rejection unknown. **Inc1udes cases referred to other agencies for prosecution.

Table 77 Tallahassee, Florida Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals/ Crime __N__ ~ convictions ~ nolles Acguittals Other Homicide Frequency 19 6 9 15 1 a 3 Percent 32 47 79 5 0 16 Sexual assault Frequency 44 7 10 17 22 2 3 Percent 16 23 39 50 5 7 Robbery Frequency 94 37 4 41 51 1 1 Percent 39 4 44 54 1 1 Burglary Frequency 360 134 9 143 208 7 2 Percent 37 3 40 58 2 1

Assault Frequency 197 61 7 68 117 10 2 Percent 31 4 35 59 5 1 Larceny Frequency 248 101 4 105 139 3 1 Percent 41 2 42 56 1 * Weapons Frequency 27 16 0 16 9 2 a Percent 59 a 59 33 7 a Drugs Frequency 137 31 4 35 101 a 1 Percent 23 3 26 74 0 1 *Less than .5%.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 109 Table 78 Washington, D.C. Results at screening Other Cases screening Crime Eresented Filed Rejected decision* Homicide Frequency 176 172 I, a Percent 98 2 0

Sexual assault Frequency 289 243 45 1 Percent 84 16 ** Robbery Frequency 1,799 1,563 234 2 Percent 87 13 **

Burglary Frequency 1,315 1,195 118 2 Percent 9'1 9 ** Assault Frequency 1,688 1,258 428 2 Percent 75 25 **

Larceny Frequency 945 859 83 3 Percent 91 9 **

Weapons Frequency 195 179 16 0 Percent 92 8 0

Drugs Frequency 398 367 30 1 Percent 92 8 ** *lnc111des cases referred to other agencies for prosecution. **Less than .5%.

Table 79 Washington, D.C. Reasons for rejections and other screening decisions Rejections Other screening decisions Due Lacks Plea Other B. Evidence Witness process merit bargain Other Diversion prosecution

Homicide Frequency 4 o 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 Percent o 0 0 50 0 50 0 0 Sexual assault Frequency 46 9 13 0 10 0 13 0 1 Percent 20 28 0 22 0 28 0 2

Robbery Frequency 236 41 78 0 43 0 72 0 2 Percent 17 33 0 18 0 31 0 1

Burglary Frequency 120 37 17 0 15 0 49 0 2 Percent 31 14 0 13 0 41 0 2

Assault Frequency 430 29 115 1 93 0 190 0 2 Percent 7 27 * 22 0 44 J * Larceny Frequency 86 24 12 0 16 0 31 0 3 Percent 28 14 0 19 0 36 0 3

Weapons Frequency 16 6 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 Percent 38 0 0 6 0 56 0 0

Drugs Frequency 31 8 0 3 4 0 15 0 1 Percent 26 0 10 13 0 48 0 3

*Less than .5%.

110 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 Table 80 Washington, D.C. Dispositions from filing through trial Closed cases Guilty Trial Total Dismissals! Crime __N__ ~ convictions ~ nol1es Acguitta1s Othe!. Homicide Frequency 148 63 35 98 43 5 2 Percent 43 24 66 29 3 1 Sexual assault Frequency 229 73 39 112 95 15 7 Percent 32 17 49 41 7 3

Robbery Frequency 1,520 658 143 801 640 59 20 Percent 43 9 53 42 4 1 Burglary Frequency 1,164 648 68 7,16 414 23 11 Percent 56 6 62 36 2 1 Assault Frequency 1,214\ 405 83 488 645 75 6 Percent 33 7 40 53 6 * Larceny Frequency 825 408 25 433 360 29 3 Percent 49 3 52 44 4 * I,eapons Frequency 168 96 13 109 50 9 0 Percent 57 8 65 30 5 0 Drugs Frequency 358 198 15 213 136 8 1 Percent 55 4 59 38 2 * *Less than .5%.

Table 81 Washington, D.C. Reasons for nones and dismissals Due Lacks Plea Other ~ !!. Evidence Witness process ~ bargain Diversion prosecution Other Homicide Frequency 43 12 12 0 4 1 0 6 8 Percent 28 28 0 9 2 0 14 19 Sexual assault Frequency 95 20 35 0 5 11 8 0 16 Percent 21 37 0 5 12 8 0 17 Robbery Frequency 640 199 240 0 42 35 5 4 115 Percent· 31 38 0 7 5 1 1 18 Burglary Frequency 414 120 91 0 22 40 25 4 112 Percent 29 22 0 5 10 6 1 27 Assault Frequency 645 46 242 0 32 34 36 2 253 Percent 7 38 0 5 5 6 * 38 Larceny Frequency 360 32 44 0 13 62 74 7 128 Percent 9 12 0 4 17 21 2 36

Weapons Frequency 50 14 2 6 6 13 0 0 9 Percent 28 4 12 12 26 0 0 18 Drugs Frequency 136 49 10 14 6 26 3 5 23 Percent 36 7 10 4 19 2 4 17

*Less than .5%.

Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 111 Table 82 Washington, D.C. Case-processing time* Sexual DisEosition Homicide assault Robbery Burglary Assault Larceny WeaEons Drugs Guilty pleas ( f) 63 73 658 647 405 408 95 198 Mean 241 204 168 133 121 107 145 134 Median 225 145 144 98 72 70 111 95

Trial convictions (f) 35 39 143 68 83 25 13 15 Mean 336 310 325 272 231 227 209 243 Median 321 293 321 255 226 222 189 194 Acquittals (f) 5 15 59 23 75 29 9 8 Mean 373 333 289 230 193 217 255 315 Median 358 343 262 214 161 200 218 438 Dismissals/nolles (f) 42 95 621 403 624 346 48 136 Mean 110 70 92 110 99 119 109 160 Median 58 37 43 57 62 92 65 118 Other (f) 2 7 19 11 6 3 0 1 Mean 181 89 84 84 55 26 0 4 Median 181 52 53 60 38 36 0 4 *Calculated in days from arrest or papering date.

TableB3 Washington, D.C. Incarceration rates given conviction"* Sent to State Crime Guilty* Incarcerated Erison Homicide Frequency 20 19 17 Percent 95 85 Sexual assault Frequency 36 21 18 Percent 58 50 Robbery Frequency 270 140 132 Percent 52 49 Burglary Frequency 214 90 66 Percent 42 31 Assault Frequency 87 48 33 Percent 55 38

Larceny Frequency 109 48 30 Percent 44 28 Weapons Frequency 39 29 20 Percent 74 51 Drugs Frequency 72 50 21 Percent 69 29

*Includes only cases with known sentencing data. **Oata are for indicted cases only.

112 Prosecution of Felony Arrests, 1980 To be added to any mailing list of the Please put me on the mailing list for: Bureau of Justice Statistics, fill in and Justice expenditure and employment mail this sheet to the address below. reports-annual spending and staffing by Federal/State/local governments The National Criminal Justice Reference and by function (police, courts, etc.) Service (NCJRS) abstracts documents pub­ Computer crime reports-electronic lished in the criminal justice field. fund transfer system crimes Persons registered with the Reference Privacy and security of criminal Service receive NIJ Reports every other history information and information month. It includes an order form for policy-new legislation; maintaining Bureau of Justice Statistics publications. and releasing intelligence and inves­ If you are not registered with NCJRS and tigative records; data quality issues wish to be, please check here: and BJS bulletins and special reports­ you will receive a registration form. timely reports of the most current justice data To receive copies of recent BJS reports, Courts reports-Sta te court caseload list their titles and NCJ numbers here: surveys, model annual State reports, State court organization surveys Corrections reports-results of sample surveys and censuses of jails, prisons, parole, probation, and other corrections da ta National Crime Survey reports-the Nation's only regular national survey of cdme victims Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (annual}-broad-based data from 150+ sources (400+ tables, 100+ figures, index)

Name: Title: Organization: Street or box: City, State, Zip: Telephone: Interest in criminal justice:

U.S. Department of Justice Place Bureau of Justice Statistics stamp Washington, DC 20531 here

User Services Department 2 National Criminal Justice Reference Service Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20850

" u, S. GOVERNMENT PlillITING OFFICE: 1985 491-518/46680 Bureau of Justice Statistics reports Corrections Privacy and security (revised October 1985) . BJS bulletins and special reports: Computer crime: Call toll-free 800-732-3277 (local Capital punishment 1984, NCJ-98399, 8/85 BJS special reports: 251-5500) to order BJS reports, to be added Prison admissions and releases, 1982, Electronic fund transfer fraud, NCJ-96666, 3/85 to one of the BJS mailing lists, or to speak NCJ-97995, 7/85 Electronic fund transfer and crime, to a reference specialist in statistics at the Prisoners in 1984, NCJ-97118, 4/85 NCJ-92650, 2/84 Justice Statistics Clearinghouse, National Examining recidivism, NCJ-96501, 2/85 Computer security techniques, Criminal Justice Reference Service, Returning to prison, NCJ-95700, 11/84 NCJ-84049,9/82 Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20850. Single Time served In prison, NCJ-93924, 6/84 Electronic fund transfer systems and crime, copies of reports are free; use NCJ number Prisoners in State and Federal insiitutions on NCJ-83736, 9/82 Dec. 31, 1982 (final), NCJ-93311, 12/84 Legislative resource manual, NCJ-78890, 9/81 to order. Postage and handling are charged Expert witness manual, NCJ-77927, 9/81 for bulk orders of single reports. For single Capital punishment 1982 (final), NCJ-91533, 11/84 Criminal justice resource manual, NCJ-61550, copies of multiple titles, up to 10 titles are 12/79 free; 11-40 titles $10; more than 40, $20; 1979 surveyof inmates of Statecorrectionalfacllities and 1979 census of State correctional facilities: Privacy and security of criminal history libraries call for special rates. information: Public-use tapes of BJS data sets and BJS special reports: Compendium of State Legislation, 1 984 other criminal justice data are available The prevalence of imprisonment, NCJ-93657, overview, NCJ-98077, 9/85 7/85 A g,uide to research and statistical use, from the Criminal Justice Archive and Career patterns in crime, NCJ-88672, 6/83 Information Network, P. O. Box 1248, Ann NCJ-69790, 5/81 Arbor, MI48106 (313-763-5010). BJS bulletins: A guide to dissemination, NCJ-40000, 1/79 Prisoners and drugs, NCJ-87575, 3/83 Compendium of State legislation: National Crime Survey Prisoners and alcohol, NCJ-86223, 1/83 NCJ-48981, 7/78 Prisons and prisoners, NCJ-80697, 2/82 1981 supplement, NCJ-79652, 3/82 Criminal victimization in the U.S.: Veterans in prison, NCJ-79232, 11/81 1983 (final report), NCJ·96459, 10/85 Criminal justice information policy: 1982 (final report), NCJ·92820, 11/84 Census of jails and survey of jail inmates: Data quality of criminal history records, NCJ- 1973-82 trends, NCJ-90541, 9/83 The 1983 jail census (BJS bulletin, NCJ-95536, 98079, 10/85 1981 (final report), NCJ-90208 11/84 Intelligence and investigative records, 1980 (final report), NCJ-84015, 4/83 Jail inmates 1982 (BJS bulletin), NCJ-87161, 2/83 NCJ-95787, 4/85 1979 (final report), NCJ-76710, 12/81 Census of jails, 1978: Data for individual jails, Victim/witness legislation: An overview, vols. I-IV, Northeast, North Central, South, West, NCJ-94365, 12/84 BJS special reports: NCJ-72279-72282, 12/81 Information policy and crime control strategies The risk of violent crime, NCJ-97119, 5/85 Profile of jail inmates, 1978, NCJ-65412, 2/81 (SEARCH/BJS conference). NCJ-93926, The economic cost of crime to victims, NCJ- 10/84 93450,4/84 Parole and probation Research access to criminal justice data, Family violence, NCJ-93449, 4/84 BJS bulletins: NCJ-84154, 2/83 BJS bulletins: Probation and parole 1983, NCJ-94776, Privacy and juvenile justice records, Criminal victimization, 1984, NCJ-98904, 10/85 9/84 NCJ-84152,1/83 Households touched by crime, 1984, NCJ- Setting prison terms, NCJ-76218, 8/83 Survey of State laws (BJS bulletin). 97689,6/85 NCJ-80836, 6/82 The crime of rape, NCJ-96777, 3/85 Characteristics of persons entering parole during 1978 and 1979, NCJ-87243, 5/83 Privacy and the private employer, Household burglary, NCJ-96021, 1/85 NCJ-79651, 11/81 Criminal victimization, 1983, NCJ-93869, 6/84 Characteristics of the parole population, 1978, Violent crime by strangers, NCJ-80829, 4/82 NCJ-66479.4/81 Parole in the U.S., 1979, NCJ-69562. 3/81 Federal offenses and offenders Crime and the elderly, NCJ-79614, 1/82 BJS speCial reports: Measuring crime, NCJ-75710, 2/81 Courts Pretrial release and misconduct. NCJ-96132, Response to screening questions in the National BJS bulletin 1/85 Crime Survey (BJS technical report), NCJ- The growth of appeals: 1973-83 trends, BJS bulletins: 97624,7/85 NCJ-96381 . 2/85 Bank robbery, NCJ-94463, 8/84 Victimization and fear of crime: World Case filings in State courts 1983, NCJ-95111. Federal drug law violators, NCJ-92692, 2/84 perspectives, NCJ-93872, 1/85 10/84 Federal justice statistics, NCJ-80814, 3/82 The National Crime Survey: Working papers, BJS special reporls: vol. I: Current and historical perspectives, General NCJ-75374,8/82 Felony sentencing in 18 local vol. II: Methological studies, NCJ-90307, 12/84 jurisdictions, NCJ-97681, 6/85 BJS bulletins: Crime against the elderly in 26 cities, The prevalence of guilty pleas, NCJ-96018, Tracking offenders: The child victim, NCJ- NCJ-76706,1/82 12/84 95785. 12/84 The Hispanic victim, NCJ-69261. 11/81 Sentencing practices in 13 States, NCJ-95399, The severity of crime, NCJ-92326. 1/84 Issues in the measurement of crime. 10/84 The American response to crime: An overview NCJ-74682, 10/81 Criminal defense systems: A national of criminal justice systems, NCJ-91936, 12/83 Criminal victimization of California residents, survey, NCJ-94630, 8/84 Tracking offenders, NCJ-91572, 11/83 1974-77, NCJ-70944, 6/81 Habeas corpus, NCJ-92948, 3/84 Victim and witness assistance: New State Restitution to victims of personal and household Case filings in State courts 1983, laws and the system's response, NCJ-87934. crimes, NCJ-72770, 5/81 NCJ-95111, 10/84 5/83 Criminal victimization of New York State State court case load statistics, 1977 and National survey of crime severity, NCJ-96017. residents, 1974-77, NCJ-66481, 9/80 1981, NCJ-87587, 2/83 10/85 The cost of negligence: Losses from preventable Supplement to the state court model statistical Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 1'984, household burglaries, NCJ-53527, 12/79 dictionary, NCJ-98326, 9/85 NCJ-96382. 10/85 Rape victimization in 26 American cities, The prosecution of felony arrests: Criminal victimization of District of Columbia NCJ-55878, 8/79 1980, NCJ-97684, 10/85 residents and Capitol Hill employees, 1982-83. Criminal victimization in urban schools, 1979, NCJ-86482, 5/84 NCJ-97982;Summary, NCJ-98567, 9/85 NCJ-56396,8/79 State court organization 1980, NCJ-76711, 7/82 The DC crime victimization study implementation, Crime against persons in urban, suburban, and State court model statistical dictionary, NCJ-98595, 9/85, 87.60 domestlc/8920 Canadl­ rural areas, NCJ-53551, 7/79 Supplement, NCJ-98326, 9/85 an/$12.80 foreign An introduction to the National Crime Survey, 1 st edition, NCJ-62320, 9/80 The DC household victimization survey data base: NCJ-43732, 4/78 A cross-city comparison of felony case Documentation, NCJ-98586. 86.40/88.40/811 Local victim surveys: A review of the issues, processing, NCJ-55171, 7/79 User manual, NCJ-98597. 88.20/89.80/81280 NCJ-39973, 8/77 Federal criminal sentencing: Perspectives of BJS telephone contacts '85, NCJ-98292. 8/85 analysis and a deSign for research, NCJ-33683, How to gain access to BJS data (brochure)' Expenditure and employment 10/78 BC-000022,9/84 Justice expenditure and employment, 1982 (BJS Variations in Federal criminal sentences, Information policy and crime control bulletin), NCJ-98327,8/85 NCJ-33684, 10/78 strategies, NCJ-93926, 10/84 Justice expenditure and employment in the U.S.: Predicting sentences in Federal courts: The Proceedings of the 2nd workshop on law and 1980 and 1981 extracts, NCJ-96007, 6/85 feasibility of a national sentenCing policy, justice statistics, 1984, NCJ-93310. 8/84 1971-79, NCJ-92596, 11/84 NCJ-33686, 10/78 Report to the nation on crime and justice: 1979 (final report), NCJ-87242, 12/83 State and local prosecution and civil attorney The data, NCJ-87068, 10/83 systems, NCJ-41334, 7/78 Dictionary of criminal justice data terminology: 2nd ed. NCJ-76939, 2/82 Technical standards for machine-readable data supplied to BJS, NCJ-75318. 6/81