supervised release 14

7/23/2019 Supervised Release 14

1/29

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMSAND MANHATTAN PROGRAM START-UP:

CASE SCREENING AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION PROCESS

Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.Senior Research Fellow

andProject Director

FINAL REPORT

April 2014

52 Duane Street, Third Floor, New York, NY 10007-1231 (646) 213-2500

The mission of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.,is to assist the courts and the City in reducing unnecessary pretrial

Jerome E. McElroyExecutive Director


2/29

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS

AND MANHATTAN PROGRAM START-UP:CASE SCREENING AND PARTICIPANT SELECTION PROCESS

Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.Senior Research Fellow

andProject Director

Jonathan CarmonaSenior Research Assistant

Geraldine Staehs-GoirnIT Programmer Analyst

Wayne NehwadowichIT Deputy Director for Programming

April 2014

This report can be downloaded from: www.nycja.org/library.php

2014 NYC Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.

When citing this report, please include the following elements, adapted to your citation style:

Solomon, Freda F. 2014. CJAs Supervised Release Programs and Manhattan Program Start-Up: CaseScreening and Participant Selection Process. New York: New York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc.


3/29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report reflects the combined efforts of many both within and outside of theNew York City Criminal Justice Agency, Inc. (CJA).

Jerome McElroy, CJAs Executive Director, has long advocated introducing an

alternative between ROR and money bail into the Citys Criminal Courts. That goal hasbecome a reality due to the vision and tireless efforts of Mari Curbelo, CJAs Director ofCourt Operations, who crafted and implemented CJAs successful Supervised Releaseprograms currently operating in two counties. She also assembled, along with AndreaBarrow, Director of Manhattans Supervised Release program, the courtroom team whonot only screen and advocate for prospective program clients, but also carefullydocument their work.

Wayne Nehwadowich, IT Deputy Director for Programming, has been responsiblefor creating the programs computerized information system, and is indispensable to ourresearch efforts. Geraldine Staehs-Goirn, IT Programmer Analyst, created the data filethat forms the basis of the information analyzed in this report, combining items from the

programs database with additional variables from CJAs main computerized informationsystem.

I greatly appreciate all the hard work of Jonathan Carmona, Senior ResearchAssistant. He has taken the lead, assisted by Steven Corrente, Supervised ReleaseRecords Management Assistant, in the review of program screening forms, overseeingand assisting in their data entry, and performing quality control for the Manhattanprogram data. He also created the analytic data set for this research, performed someof the analysis, and assisted in the writing of the report.

There are no adequate words of thanks for all of the assistance provided by JoannDeJesus, Executives Manager of Special Projects. The range of her responsibilities

and contributions to all of us involved with the Supervised Release programs, so ablyperformed, are too numerous to list.

CJAs Supervised Release programs have been made possible by thecommitment of the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator (nowrenamed the Mayors Office of Criminal Justice) to the development and funding ofthese programs. Within that Office special thanks are due to Michele Sviridoff, DeputyCoordinator for Policy and Planning for her ongoing assistance, and to its Counsel,Jordan M. Dressler and Gerald T. Foley, Assistant Director of Program Managementand Development.

I am indebted to many of my Agency colleagues who gave so generously of theirtime to review and comment on earlier drafts of this report. However, I alone amresponsible for any errors.

Thanks always are due to Annie Su, the Research Departments AdministrativeAssociate, who oversees all the final details that lead to the production and distributionof research reports.

Freda F. Solomon, Ph.D.Senior Research Fellow andProject Director


4/29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS ............................................................3

Charge Criteria ..........................................................................................................3

CJA Release Recommendation, Criminal Conviction History and Related Items ..... 3

Defendant Access and Interview ...............................................................................5

Community Ties ........................................................................................................6

Assignment to the Supervised Release Program ......................................................6

Data Collection During the Screening Process .........................................................7

IMPLEMENTING THE MAHATTAN SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAM:THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, April 8 through October 8, 2013.....................................7

SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................22


5/29

INTRODUCTION

The primary mission of the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA), Inc. is to

provide pretrial services to defendants prosecuted in the Citys adult Criminal Court

system. For defendants held in custody pending Criminal Court arraignment CJA uses

a validated risk-assessment instrument to make a release recommendation based onstatistical probabilities of failure to appear (FTA) if released on recognizance. New

York remains one of only several states which rely solely on factors related to FTA as

the basis for pretrial release decisions. In addition, New York judges must choose

between personal recognizance or bail for pretrial release in almost all cases continued

at Criminal Court arraignment.1

For a number of years CJA has advocated for offering community supervision as

an alternative to money bail for defendants posing a moderate risk of failing to appear if

released on unsupervised personal recognizance. After extensive consultation with the

New York City Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, and with their support, anexperimental pretrial alternative-to-detention (ATD) program was designed to offer the

option of supervised release as a bail alternative at Criminal Court arraignment in a

limited number of non-violent felony cases with a high likelihood of having bail set.

Criteria for defendants in these cases were agreed to with a goal of creating a program

model that would achieve jail displacement for the target population along with controls

to prevent the inappropriate substitution of community supervision for traditional release

on recognizance (ROR). To accomplish this requires an extensive screening process

for prospective program clients in charge-eligible cases. The screening elements

include an assessment of CJAs pretrial release recommendation and review of the

defendants criminal history record in order to exclude those with the lowest and highestrisks of pretrial misconduct. Strength of community ties is another key factor necessary

to ensure successful supervision.

In August 2009 the New York City Criminal Justice Agency (CJA) introduced an

experimental Supervised Release (SR) program In the Queens Criminal Court. Based

on the success of that program the New York City Office of the Criminal Justice

Coordinator contracted with CJA to develop a similar three-year demonstration project

in the New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court, which was implemented in April

2013.

1 For an excellent review of New Yorks practices in comparison with other jurisdictions see

Mary T. Phillips, New York Citys Bail SystemA World Apart, New York City Criminal JusticeAgency RESEARCH BRIEF series No. 30 (2012), New York: New York City Criminal JusticeAgency, Inc. available at www.nycja.org/library.php


6/29

2

The interval between CJAs start-up of its Queens and Manhattan programs saw

renewed national, state and local attention on issues of bail and pretrial release. In May

2011, the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice in conjunction

with the Pretrial Justice Institute convened a symposium to assess the

accomplishments and challenges in bail reform in the decades since the 1964 National

Conference on Bail and Criminal Justice. A key focus of this symposium was the

assessment that throughout state court systems access to money, rather than risks of

pretrial misconduct, continue to be the basis for pretrial release decisions.2 The

symposiums renewed call for bail reform was underscored in the 2013 State of the

Judiciary address delivered by New York States Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman on

February 5, 2013. In his address he called for major changes in the States bail statute

and the expansion of community supervision as an alternative to money bail, citing

CJAs Queens program.3

The interest in CJAs supervised release programs frequently results in requests

for more information about the criteria and screening processes used, and is the subjectof the first section of this report.

The second section of this report follows the process of how, when and by whom

decisions were made during the first six-month start-up period of the Manhattan

program. It is designed to offer readers an illustration of the how the programs

screening process works in an applied setting. Introducing anything new into an

established workgroup environment such as arraignment courtrooms always will be

expected to be approached with some wariness and caution among all stakeholders.

And in the case of CJAs Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program this was

magnified by the amount of heightened scrutiny when the program was implementedagainst the backdrop of renewed interest in pretrial release decision making. Therefore

the data presented in part two should be viewed in this context, with the expectation that

some changes are likely to occur as the program matures and becomes more

established.

2A summary of the proceedings from this conference are available on the Pretrial Justice

Institutes web site, http://www.pretrial.org/wpfb-file/nspj-report-2011-pdf/

3The full text is available from the new York State Office of Court Administration web site,

http://www.nycourts.gov/admin/stateofjudiciary/SOJ-2013.pdf


7/29

3

CJAS SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAMS

There are many criteria used by program court staff in the process of screening

prospective cases and defendants for the opportunity to be offered supervised release.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the decision-making modes developed to implement

the programs design. It sequentially identifies each of the key decision points andcriteria used as program court staff reviews cases and defendants appearing on the

court calendars of each covered Criminal Court arraignment session. The remainder of

this section of the report examines each stage in the decision model in greater detail.

Charge Criteria

Court staff review the calendar for each covered session to identify cases awaiting

arraignment on selected non-violent felony charges. These are the charges in each

program location for which planning research showed a high likelihood of bail setting at

Criminal Court arraignment. In both the Queens and Manhattan program locations this

includes most felony drug charges such as the B-felony charges of sale or possessionof narcotics and property crimes such as grand larceny. In Manhattan, but not Queens,

eligible charges also include fraud/theft charges such as possession of a forged

instrument or identify theft. Defendants in these cases are proactively screened further.

However, charge-eligible cases that appear to involve domestic violence are excluded

at the outset.

CJA Release Recommendation, Criminal Conviction History and Related Items

CJA serves as the Citys pretrial services agency, using a statistically validated

risk-assessment instrument to make a release recommendation based on the likelihood

that defendants will fail to appear if released on recognizance.

Defendants with the lowest FTA risk are Recommended for ROR. Research

during the planning phase showed that among the cases of defendants Recommended

for ROR, those without other docketed cases on the DCJS criminal history report (i.e.

rap sheet) at the time of the screened case have the greatest likelihood of being

released, all other things being equal. Defendants in charge-eligible cases in this

subset of Recommended for ROR category are excluded from further consideration as

one of the safeguards against SR becoming a substitute for recognizance release. (In

the report tables this subset is shown as Recommended for ROR, first arrest and

referred to in text as the cases of defendants Recommended for ROR without a criminalhistory.)

Defendant screening can continue in all other charge-eligible cases, including

those Recommended for ROR with criminal histories.


8/29

4

FIGURE 1

SUPERVISED RELEASE DECISION MODEL

STEP 1:

Find Felony Cases

STEP 2:

Screen ChargesIneligible Eligible

STEP 3:

Locate & review CJAInterview Form forRelease Recommendationand prior arrest indicator

Recommended for ROR andfirst arrest indicator is yes(except by referral)

No interview and defendantbypassing Central Booking

STEP 4b:

Use rap sheet and complaint to review allcharges and relevant criminal historyitems including any warrant history

Too many or too recentpretrial warrants

Adult VFO convictionw/in 10 years

Violent history

Hold on defendant

None or no recent pretrialFTA

Return within 30 days

No violent criminal history

Recommended with prior arrests

Moderate FTA Risk

High FTA Risk (evaluate warranthistory for mitigating factors)

All other recommendation categories

STEP 5:

Seek defense permission fordefendant Interview.

RefusedUnable to locate

defense attorney

STEP 6:

Interview defendant

Unable to locate defendant

Defendant unwilling

Defendant unable toparticipate in interview(e.g. language barrier)

No local address/phone

Cannot verify contact info

STEP 7:

Inform defense ofprogram willingness

Not raised in court:

ROR

Remand

Bail set & made

STEP 8:

Application made to court

Rejected Accepted

STEP 4a:

Review number of criminalconvictions from CJA

Interview Form or ra sheet

Too many convictions No more than 1 felonyand/or 6 misdemeanors

Verify local address andphone contact info

Obtain supplementalinformation as needed


9/29

5

The numbers of adult felony and/or misdemeanor criminal convictions, if any, are

examined. Defendants are rejected by the program if they have more than six

convictions to misdemeanor crimes and/or more than one adult non-youthful offender

(YO) felony conviction. In addition, the felony conviction cannot be to a Violent Felony

Offense (VFO) if it occurred within the past ten years.

Defendants in charge-eligible cases are considered criminal history ineligible by theprogram staff during the initial screening process if:

> They are Recommended for ROR and are without a criminal history.

> There is more than one adult non-YO felony conviction.

> There is a felony conviction for a non-YO adjudicated VFO crime within the pastten years.

> There are more than six convictions to misdemeanor crimes.

Defendants who satisfy the initial criminal history criteria are further screened for

any history of bench warrants for FTA in prior cases. This is especially salient in cases

of defendants considered at high FTA risk and not recommended for unsupervisedrecognizance release. Defendants can fall into this CJA risk assessment category if

there ever was an FTA warrant issued in a prior case and/or based on the absence of

sufficient community ties information at the time of the initial pre-arraignment interview.

For defendants with any prior or active warrant, court staff examines the total

number of warrants, if any, and the circumstances of the most recent warrant. For

example, is the most recent warrant for a post-arraignment pre-disposition FTA versus a

warrant for failing to appear for a Desk Appearance Ticket arraignment or a post-

adjudication FTA (e.g. failure to pay a fine); how long ago did this occur; did the

defendant return within 30 days of the issuance of a bench warrant for FTA?

> Defendants with many or a recent pattern of pretrial FTA are rejected from furtherconsideration by the program. If there is any doubt, the court staff consults withthe Program Director or Manager.

Also researched by court staff is whether there may be other types of criminal

history circumstances that could preclude program participation.

> Other types of criminal history factors include an ICE or Parole hold, or the

nature or number of open cases.

Defendant Access and Interview

Program staff will seek to contact and interview defendants in charge-eligible

cases who have not already been disqualified by the program for continued screening

based on the above factors. The staff will then speak to the defense attorney to verify if

there is a significant likelihood of bail being set in the case, and if so, explain the

program participation requirements and gauge the defense attorneys interest in

supervised release in lieu of bail. This gatekeeping function by the defense, along with


10/29

6

using research-based criteria and incorporating courtroom experience, is a critical piece

of the program design to avoid net widening. Defendants are excluded from further

screening if the defense attorney refuses access.

In addition, the defendant him/herself must be able and willing to be interviewed by

program staff, and willing to participate in the program if offered.Community Ties

To make community supervision possible, the program is able to accept willing

defendants only if they have program-verified ties to the local-area community. During

the defendant interview process information already collected by CJA during its pre-

arraignment interview for release-recommendation purposes will be reviewed with, and

additional information obtained from, the defendant. Defendants who are street

homeless or who cannot provide a verifiable residence in the New York City area must

be rejected by the program.

The CJA pre-arraignment interview process is a high volume operation conducted

within a narrow time frame. In addition to obtaining criminal history information for

virtually all cases of defendants held for arraignment, CJA Operations staffs attempt to

interview all of the defendants held prior to arraignment in a Central Booking facility.

Even when defendants are able to provide contact information, CJA interview staff

rarely will be able to make more than one attempt at phone verification before the

interview forms must be completed and added to the Court packagecomplaint, rap

sheet, warrants, CJA interview form with release recommendation. However, after the

court papers are assembled there can be a many hours lag before defendants appear

for the arraignment. The SR program staff uses a portion of this interval to accomplishdefendant interviews and verification attempts.

Assignment to the Supervised Release Program

For proactively screened cases, if program court staff is satisfied that there are

sufficient verified local ties the defense attorney will be informed that the defendant will

be accepted by the program if it is offered by the Court. However, in these cases it is

up to the defense attorney to raise the program option to the Court.

In the adversarial courtroom setting the prosecution is first to speak in regard to

pretrial release or bail and it is expected that the defense will raise the program option

only when there is a bail request. This is another way in which the program is designedto achieve jail displacement. However, there is nothing in the program model that would

prevent the prosecution and defense to discuss the possibility of the SR option prior to

arraignment, or for the prosecution to raise or consent to SR once raised.


11/29

7

Sometimes program staff will review cases and defendants upon referral. These

are almost always cases raised on the record at the arraignment in which the program

already excluded/rejected the case or defendant, or did not have the opportunity to

complete the screening process in advance of arraignment.

Once raised on the record in cases in which the program is prepared to accept thedefendant, the ultimate decision rests with the Criminal Court arraignment judge.

Data Collection During the Screening Process

Program court staffs document their review of every charge-eligible case and

defendant by completing a screening form which is reviewed and entered into a

dedicated computerized program information system. This form includes information

about the nature of the charges, CJA release recommendation, defendant criminal

history, other criminal history items, information about community ties collected during a

defendant interview, and interactions with all participants in the courtroom workgroup,

such as defense attorneys, as applicable. The form also contains a summary sectionfor identifying program cases or the source and reasons for rejections for non-

participant cases. The identifiers in the programs information system can be linked to

the Agencys main database for court processing and case outcome information and

other supplemental information about cases and defendants collected during the

Agencys pre-arraignment interview.

IMPLEMENTING THE MANHATTAN SUPERVISED RELEASE PROGRAM:THE FIRST SIX MONTHS, April 8 through October 8, 2013

The information captured for each stage of the screening process in the programs

database, augmented by CJA database information, is discussed in this section. At the

outset, Figure 2 illustrates some of the results of the screening process for the

Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program during its first six-month start-up period.

Among other items it shows the distribution of screened cases among three general

categoriescases with defendants found ineligible during initial criminal history

screening, cases rejected/excluded after additional screening and the program client

cases. It also shows some of the characteristics among the three groups of cases.

The criteria and decision making processes limit the number of defendants

eligible to participate in CJAs Supervised Release program. During the first six-months of the MSR program, court staff screened 2,718 cases.

Defendants in 218 of these cases became program participants and a combinedtotal of 2,500 were excluded or rejected.


12/29

8

FIGURE2

MSRSCREENING,APRIL8OCTOBER8,2013

PROGRAMPARTICIPANTCASE

N=218

CHARGESEVERITY

BFELONY=67

CFELONY=11

DFELONY=92

EFELONY=48

CJARECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDROR&NOT

FIRSTARREST=184

MODERATEFTARISK=381

HIGHFTARISK=384

BENCHWARRANT=92

INCOMPLETE

INTERVIEW=55

OTHERCATEGORIES=11

MISSING INTERVIEW=27

CJARECOMMENDATION

RECOMMENDEDforROR&

FIRSTARREST

IS

YES=10

RECOMMENDEDforROR&

NOTFIRSTARREST=38

MODERATEFTARISK=63

HIGHFTARISK=86

BENCHWARRANT=12

INCOMPLETEINTERVIEW=

OTHERCATEGORIES=3

MISSINGINTERVIEW=2

CHARGETYPE

DRUG=99

PROPERTYCRIME=81

HARM=10

FRAUD/THEFT=24

MISCONDUCT=1

OBSTRUCTJUSTICE=1

OTHER=2(VTL)

CHARGESEVERITY

AFELONY=10

BFELONY=323

CFELONY=49

DFELONY=423

EFELONY=325

AMISDEMEANOR=4

CHARGETYPE

DRUG=452

PROPERTYCRIME=382

HARM=62

FRAUD/THEFT=206

PROSTITUTION=1

MISCONDUCT=18

OBSTRUCTJUSTICE=12

OTHER=1

NONPARTICIPANTCRIMINAL

HISTORYELIGIBLECASES

N=1,134

REJECTEDBY

PROGRAM=670

DEFENSE=262

DEFENDANT=19

JUDGE/COURT=137

NOTRAISED=46

INELIGIBLECRIMINALHISTORY

N=1,366

PROGRAMEXCLUSIONS

DUETO:

RECOMMENDEDfor

ROR

&

FIRSTARRESTISYES=352

TOOMANYPRIOR

CONVICTIONS=955

PRIORFELONYISANADULT

VFO=52

ELIGIBILITYCOULDNOTBE

DETERMINED=7

CHARGESEVERITY

AFELONY=4

BFELONY=536

CFELONY=42

DFELONY=471

EFELONY=307

AMISDEMEANOR=6

CHARGETYPE

DRUG=686

PROPERTYCRIME=451

HARM=53

FRAUD/THEFT=156

MISCONDUCT=13

OBSTRUCTJUSTICE=6

OTHER=1

CHARGEELIGIBLESCREENEDCASES

N=2,718


13/29

9

The majority of defendants in screened non-participant cases will be excluded orrejected by the program.

Of the 2,500 non-participant cases the program staff had to exclude 1,366 (54.6% ofnon-participant cases) during the initial screening phase based on criminal historyrelated eligibility criteria:

In 352 of these cases defendants without any criminal history wereRecommended for ROR.

In 955 cases the defendants had more than a single felony conviction and/ormore than six misdemeanor convictions.

An additional 52 cases were rejected when it was found that the single felonyconviction was for a VFO within the past ten years.

There were seven cases of defendants that bypassed the Central Booking facilityso that there was insufficient information to determine eligibility.

There were 1,134 non-participant cases that received further evaluation and of these

the program rejected/excluded 670 cases (59.1% of the non-participant criminalhistory eligible cases). Among the most common reasons for this were:

Other criminal history issues such as extensive warrant histories, or the nature ornumber of open cases;

A lack of verifiable or verified local community ties or residences too far awayfrom the program site; and,

Cases arraigned before the program was able to complete its review.

Defense attorneys are effective gatekeepers and reduce contact with defendantslikely to be released at arraignment.

There were in total 262 non-participant cases in which defense attorneys refused aprogram interview with defendants who so far had met the programs criteria.

There were 220 of these cases continued at arraignment in which defensecounsel refused access based on an expectation of ROR. In over 90% of thesecases the defendant received ROR.

Defendants almost always will consent to the interview and the program option ifoffered.

There were only 19 instances in which the defendant refused to be considered, andin eight of these cases the defendant expressed a preference for bail.

It is expected that the program option will be raised on the record in cases inwhich the District Attorneys (DA) Office is seeking bail. In addition, the AssistantDistrict Attorney (ADA) may choose to consent or object to the program or evenraise the program as an alternative to bail.


14/29

10

The program option was raised on the record in a total of 384 cases, including notonly those rejected by judges but also some cases subsequently rejected by theprogram, defense or defendant. The position of the DAs office was known in all but33 of these cases.

Among the 218 cases of program participants the ADA position was recorded in

199 of the cases. Bail was requested in 196 of the cases; in two cases the DArequested bail but would consent to SR as a bail alternative; and in one caseconsented outright to the program in lieu of any bail request.

The DAs office placed an objection to the program on the record in 16 of theprogram participant cases.

Among the 166 cases rejected after the program was raised on the record theDAs position was known in 152 cases. Bail was requested in 146 of the caseswith consent to the program in six cases.

Among the non-participant cases in which the program was raised on the record,the DAs office placed an objection to the program in lieu of bail in eleven ofthese cases. Bail was set in nine of the cases, with an ROR release in the othertwo cases.

Judges make the final decision regarding supervised release.

There were 137 instances in which judges rejected the supervised release option.

In 31 (22.6%) of these cases the judge released the defendant on personalrecognizance, set bail in 105 (76.7%) of the cases among which two cases haddefendants able to post bail at the arraignment, and remanded the remainingcase.

Judges infrequently provide an on-the-record explanation for choosing bail over

supervised release in cases in which MSR was prepared to accept the defendant.

Defendant criminal history, other open cases or current charges were most oftencited among the small number of cases for which a judicial rejection reason wasgiven.

In most instances the program alternative will be raised on the record by defenseattorneys in instances in which the program has vetted defendants and foundthem qualified. However, there can be instances in which the program alternativewill be raised in cases in which the program already may have excluded/rejectedthe case or did not have the opportunity to fully assess the defendants eligibility.

There were 92 cases in which SR was raised on the record as a result of a referralduring the arraignment process.

Judges were the most frequent referral source, accounting for 71 cases.

Defense attorneys made 17 on-the-record referrals, with the DAs office anddefendants themselves each accounting for two cases.


15/29

11

Among the 71 cases in which SR was raised on the record by judges, the programaccepted defendants in 62 of the cases and rejected nine.

In most of these cases the defendants were found to have met the CJArecommendation and criminal history criteria but were disqualified based onunverified community ties, other criminal history issues, personal circumstances,

or because the defense attorney had expected ROR. In all of these casesnegotiations and information provided after the program was raised in court weresufficient to resolve the impediment to program acceptance.

There were eight cases in which defendants were Recommended for RORwithout an adult criminal record and in each of these cases the defendants wereaccepted when it was clear that without the program the judge would set bail.

There was one case in which the defendant had a VFO conviction dated 9 years earlier. The program accepted the defendant upon the consent of both the

ADA and Program Manager.

The most common reason for program rejection of judicial referrals was becauseof insufficient community ties.

Among the 17 defense attorney referrals the program ultimately accepteddefendants in 12 of the cases and rejected defendants in the other five.

Defendants in all but one of these cases were criminal history eligible but hadinitially been disqualified by the program due to a potential conflict with courtappearances in pending cases or personal circumstances.

There was a single case in which the defendant was Recommended for Releasewithout a criminal history but an exception was made by the Program Directorbased on the defense referral.

In total there were two cases in which the ADA initiated the on-the-record discussionof Supervised Release.

In one case the defendant had been rejected by the program because of apotential conflict with court appearances in pending matters, but agreed to acceptthe defendant who was otherwise qualified for the program.

There was one case in which the ADA raised SR in the bail application in theevent the judge was considering an ROR. The judge in this case rejected SRand chose ROR because the defendant had no criminal history.

Sometimes the SR option will not be raised on the record even though theprogram was prepared to accept the defendant.

There were 46 cases of eligible defendants in which the program option was notraised on the record.

There was an ROR in 39 of these cases.

Among the other seven cases, bail was set in five, one case had a remandeddefendant and the remaining case was disposed at the arraignment.


16/29

12

In most instances SR is raised in the course of the arraignment process withoutthe need to second call the case.

Overall 83 of the 384 cases raised on the record had a second call.

There were 62 participant cases with a second call, 47 of which were judicial

referrals. There were 18 rejected cases with a second call, 10 of which were judicial

referrals.

The crime types of the first complaint charge in the cases differ among theparticipant and non-participant categories.

The first complaint charge in the overwhelming majority of all screened cases fallsinto the drug, property or fraud/theft categories, but these are found in differentproportions among the categories.

Drug charges make up the largest percentage of cases of defendants excludeddue to an excessive criminal history.

The second largest percentage of drug cases is found among programparticipants, 45.4%.

Charge-eligible cases in the property crime category have the largest percentageof the cases excluded because defendants without criminal records areRecommended for ROR.

Property crimes make up the second largest category of charges for programparticipants, (37.2%) only somewhat greater than the percentage of property-crime category cases found in the eligible but rejected category (33.7%).

Fraud/theft category charges make up the greatest percentage of cases of

defendants without criminal records excluded due to an ROR recommendation,23.0%, and the smallest percentage of the cases of defendants rejected forexcessive criminal records, 7.3%.

Fraud/theft category charges make up the third largest percentage ofManhattans participant cases, 11.0%.

ArraignmentChargeCharacteristics

Participants

N=218

CriminalHistory Eligiblebut Rejected

N=1,134

Not CriminalHistory Eligible

N=1,007(Excludes 7

cases)

Recommendedfor ROR with NoCriminal Record

N=352

Charge Type N % N % N % N %

Drug 99 45.4 452 39.9 603 59.9 80 22.7

Property 81 37.2 382 33.7 283 28.1 166 47.2

Harm 10 4.5 62 5.5 40 4.0 12 3.4

Fraud/Theft 24 11.0 206 18.2 74 7.3 81 23.0


17/29

13

Misconduct 1 0.5 18 1.6 0 0.0 13 3.7

Obstruct Justice 1 0.5 12 1.0 6 0.6 0 0.0

Other 2 1.0 2 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0

There are some differences in the distribution of charges within crime categoriesamong the participant and non-participant categories.

There are differences in the distribution of charges in the drug category.

The B-felony narcotic sale charge (PL 220.39) is a far larger percentage of thetop arraignment charges among cases of defendants with excessive criminalhistories, 53.4%, and the smallest percentage, 21.2%, of program participantdrug cases.

B-felony drug possession (PL 220.16) has the greatest percentage of drugcharges among participant cases, 46.5%, and also among the cases ofdefendants excluded when Recommended for ROR without a criminal record,

45.1%.

The greatest percentage of cases arraigned on the D-felony possession charge(PL 220.06), 15%, is found among program participant cases in comparison withthe other eligibility categories.


ParticipantsEligible butRejected



Drug Charges N % N % N % N %

PL 220.39 21 21.2 167 36.9 321 53.4 23 28.0

PL 220.16 46 46.5 150 33.2 141 23.5 37 45.1

PL 220.31 12 12.1 57 12.6 84 14.0 4 4.9

PL 220.06 15 15.2 31 6.9 20 3.3 8 9.8

PL 220.34 0 9 2.0 10 1.7 0

PL 221.25 0 11 2.4 1 0.2 6 7.3

PL 220.09 3 3.0 3 0.7 5 0.8 0

PL 220.44 0 2 0.4 8 1.3 0

PL 220.21 0 8 1.8 1 0.2 1 1.2

PL 221.20 1 1.0 3 0.7 1 0.2 2 2.4

All Other Drug 1 1.0 11 2.4 9 1.5 1 1.2

Total Drug 99 100.0 452 100.0 601 100.0 82 100.0


18/29

14

There are differences in the first complaint charges found in the cases in theproperty-crime category.

The greatest percentage of property cases in each eligibility category is the E-felony grand larceny (PL 155.30) charge, but this charge makes up a smallerpercentage of participant cases (35.8%) in comparison with the other categories.

The largest percentage of cases arraigned with the top charge of D-felony grandlarceny (PL 155.35) is found in the Recommended for ROR with no criminalrecord (32.5%) and program-participant categories (27.2%). This charge makesup a far smaller percentage of cases of those not eligible due to an excessivecriminal history (11.0%).

The third largest percentage of participant cases (17.3%) is those with a D-felonyburglary (PL 140.20) top arraignment charge. This charge makes up only 4.2%of the cases excluded in the Recommended with no criminal record category and30.0% of the cases of defendants with excessive criminal histories.


Participants Eligible butRejected



PropertyCharges

N % N % N % N %

PL 155.30 29 35.8 172 45.0 109 38.5 74 44.6

PL 155.35 22 27.2 77 20.2 31 11.0 54 32.5

PL 140.20 14 17.3 49 12.8 85 30.0 7 4.2

PL 165.45 8 9.9 44 11.5 35 12.4 8 4.8

PL 145.05 2 2.5 15 3.9 10 3.5 8 4.8PL 155.40 5 6.2 8 2.1 0 10 6.0

PL 165.50 0 7 1.8 2 0.7 2 1.2

Attempted

PL 155.350 5 1.3 4 1.4 0

All Other PropertyCharges

1 1.2 5 1.3 7 2.5 3 1.8

Total Property 81 100.0 382 100.0 283 100.0 166 100.0

The third largest category of cases has a charge in the fraud/theft category, andhere too there are differences in the percentage distributions of charges within thiscrime type by eligibility category.

The largest percentage of cases in each eligibility category has a D-felonypossession of a forged instrument charge (PL 170.25) but the percentage variesfrom 44.4% among Recommended for ROR with no criminal record and 45.8%


19/29

15

among participant cases, to 58.1% among the cases of those excluded due to anexcessive criminal history.

A quarter of program participant cases (6 of the 24) have a top arraignmentcharge of D-felony identity theft (PL 190.80), a charge that is less than 5% of thecases in the other categories.


ParticipantsEligible butRejected



Fraud/TheftCharges

N % N % N % N %

PL 170.25 11 45.8 109 52.9 43 58.1 36 44.4

PL 170.10 1 4.2 18 8.7 15 20.3 8 9.9

PL 170.30 1 4.2 20 9.7 6 8.1 4 4.9

PL 190.79 2 8.3 11 5.3 5 6.8 7 8.6

PL 190.80 6 25.0 10 4.9 2 2.7 2 2.5

PL 175.35 0 10 4.9 0 6 7.4

PL 170.40 2 8.3 3 1.5 1 1.4 4 4.9

All Other FraudCharges

1 4.2 25 12.1 2 2.7 14 17.3

Total Fraud/Theft 24 100.0 206 100.0 74 100.0 81 100.0

The severity of the first complaint charge differs among the participant and non-

participant categories.

Severity differences among eligibility categories to a large extent reflect differencesin charge composition among the crime categories.

D-felony charges make up the greatest percentages of cases of programparticipants and defendants excluded when Recommended for ROR withoutcriminal records (42.2 and 41.8 percent respectively).

The greatest percentage of cases with B-felony severity charges is found amongdefendants excluded due to excessive criminal records (47.0%). B-felony casesmake up the second largest percentage of program participant cases (30.7%).


20/29

16


Participants

N=218

Eligible butRejected

N=1,134


N=1,007(Excludes 7

cases)


N=352

Charge Severity N % N % N % N %

A felony* 0 0.0 10 0.9 3 0.3 0 0.0

B felony 67 30.7 323 28.5 474 47.0 60 17.0

C felony 11 5.0 49 4.3 24 2.4 18 5.1

D felony 92 42.2 423 37.3 323 32.1 147 41.8

E felony 48 22.0 325 28.7 179 17.8 125 35.5

A Misdemeanor** 0 0.0 4 0.4 4 0.4 2 0.6

*Cases with a non-violent A-felony charge were not excluded from screening during the

first weeks of the programs implementation.**These are referrals from early in the program.

Other differences are found in comparing the participant and non-participantdefendants and cases.

There are differences in defendant characteristics among program participantsand non-participants.

Defendants excluded because of their extensive criminal histories areproportionately older, male and non-Hispanic black in comparison with participants

and with non-participants in the other rejection categories. The average (mean) age of non-participants excluded due to an excessive

criminal history is 42 with a median (midpoint) age of 44.

Program participants and those excluded from consideration due to beingRecommended for ROR and not having a criminal record have the most similarage distribution. The average age for participants is 30 with a median of 26years; the average age for the excluded Recommended for Release group is 30with a median age of 27.

The representation of women defendants differs among the categories.

The smallest percentage of female defendants, 8.2%, is found among the casesexcluded due to extensive criminal histories.

The largest percentage of female defendants is found in the cases excluded dueto an ROR recommendation with no criminal histories, 33.5%. Programparticipants have the second largest group of female defendants, 28.0%.


21/29

17

In every category the overwhelming majority of screened cases have defendants ofcolor.

The greatest percentage of cases with non-Hispanic white defendants, 19.9%, isfound among the cases excluded due to an ROR recommendation with nocriminal history.

Less than a tenth of program participants are non-Hispanic white defendants.

DemographicCharacteristics

Participants

N=218


N=1,134


N=1,007(Excludes 7

cases)


N=352

Age Group N % N % N % N %

16-19 37 17.0 102 9.0 4 .4 59 16.8

20-23 44 20.2 203 17.9 47 4.7 67 19.024-29 48 22.0 303 26.7 114 11.3 83 23.6

30-39 42 19.3 258 22.8 229 22.7 66 18.8

40-49 28 12.8 138 12.2 325 32.2 47 13.4

50-59 14 6.4 96 8.5 242 24.0 22 6.3

60+ 5 2.3 34 3.0 46 4.6 8 2.3

Mean age 30 32 42 30

Median Age 26 29 44 27

Sex N % N % N % N %Male 157 72.0 895 78.9 924 91.8 234 66.5

Female 61 28.0 239 21.1 83 8.2 118 33.5

Ethnicity N % N % N % N %

Black 108 49.5 504 44.4 588 58.4 139 39.5

Hispanic 82 37.6 384 33.9 303 30.1 109 30.9

White (Non-Hispanic)

20 9.2 156 13.8 81 8.0 70 19.9

Other 6 2.8 67 5.9 13 1.3 34 9.7

Unknown 2 0.9 23 2.0 22 2.2 0 0.0


22/29

18

Criminal conviction characteristics differ among the categories examined.

The proportions of cases of defendants with New York State adult convictions tocrimes of misdemeanor and/or felony severity differ among some of the categories.

Over three-fifths of program participants have no New York State adult

convictions to crimes of misdemeanor or felony severity, very similar to thosefound criminal history eligible but rejected after additional screening.

Over four-fifths of defendants in the cases excluded because of their criminalhistories have convictions to both misdemeanor and felony crimes.

CriminalConvictionHistory

Participants

N=218


N=1,134


N=1,007(Excludes 7

cases)


N=352

CriminalConvictions

N % N % N % N %

No PriorConvictions

135 61.9 715 63.1 0 - 352 100.0

MisdemeanorOnly

51 23.4 245 21.6 106 10.5 0 0.0

Felony Only 12 5.5 56 4.9 64 6.4 0 0.0

Both 20 9.2 118 10.4 837 83.1 0 0.0

Screened cases have arrests from throughout Manhattans precincts. In addition,because all Special Narcotics Office cases are prosecuted in New York County,there are some screened cases with arrests outside of Manhattan.

The greatest numbers and percentages of screened cases have arrests in the 14th

(Midtown South), 25th

(primarily East Harlem), 13th

(lower Midtown Manhattan), 18th

(Midtown North) and 9th (East Village) precincts, although the percentages varyamong eligibility categories.

The greatest number and percentage of program participants were arrested inthe 14

th precinct (11.0%), with a tie between the 9

th and 25

th precincts for the

second largest numbers.

Among eligible but rejected cases the greatest percentage came from arrests inthe 14th precinct (8.8%) with the second largest group being arrests in the 18 thprecinct.

Among those with excessive criminal records, the greatest numbers andpercentages of arrests also were in the 14 th precinct (12.4%), with the secondlargest group coming from the 25thprecinct.


23/29

19

In the recommended for ROR with no criminal record category the greatestnumber and percentage of arrests originated in the 18 th precinct (11.6%), with14thprecinct arrests constituting the second largest group.

PRECINCT

OFARREST

PARTICIPANT

ELIGIBLE BUT

REJECTED

NOTCRIMINAL

HISTORYELIGIBLE

RECOMMENDEDFOR ROR- NO

CRIMINALHISTORY

TOTAL

N % N % N % N % N %

1 5 2.3 34 3.0 22 2.2 14 4.0 75 2.8

5 11 5.0 85 7.5 30 3.0 31 8.8 157 5.8

6 7 3.2 46 4.1 46 4.6 6 1.7 105 3.9

7 8 3.7 47 4.1 52 5.2 11 3.1 118 4.4

9 18 8.3 70 6.2 72 7.1 17 4.8 177 6.5

10 2 0.9 47 4.1 37 3.7 13 3.7 99 3.7

13 9 4.1 81 7.1 72 7.1 32 9.1 194 7.214 24 11.0 100 8.8 125 12.4 37 10.5 286 10.5

17 6 2.8 28 2.5 17 1.7 5 1.4 56 2.1

18 16 7.3 87 7.7 42 4.2 41 11.6 186 6.9

19 11 5.0 62 5.5 31 3.1 25 7.1 129 4.8

20 4 1.8 17 1.5 17 1.7 13 3.7 51 1.9

22 0 0.0 3 0.3 2 0.2 0 0.0 5 0.2

23 10 4.6 24 2.1 32 3.2 8 2.3 74 2.7

24 6 2.8 32 2.8 26 2.6 10 2.8 74 2.7

25 18 8.3 79 7.0 103 10.2 7 2.0 207 7.626 2 0.9 21 1.9 19 1.9 6 1.7 48 1.8

28 12 5.5 35 3.1 84 8.3 4 1.1 135 5.0

30 3 1.4 32 2.8 42 4.2 5 1.4 82 3.0

32 7 3.2 34 3.0 35 3.5 16 4.5 92 3.4

33 9 4.1 53 4.7 46 4.6 14 4.0 122 4.5

34 15 6.9 53 4.7 29 2.9 17 4.8 114 4.2

BKLYN 10 4.6 32 2.8 12 1.2 11 3.1 65 2.4

QUEENS 2 0.9 8 0.7 2 0.2 4 1.1 16 0.6

SI 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.0

BRONX 3 1.4 24 2.1 12 1.2 4 1.1 43 1.6

Total 218 100.0 1134 100.0 1007 100.0 352 100.0 2711 100.0


24/29

20

The volume and composition of arrests differ across neighborhoods and theirpolice precincts, and this is reflected in screened arrests. For example, precinctswith large numbers of retail stores have a comparatively higher proportion of

property arrests than will be found in more residential Manhattan neighborhoods.(Data not shown)

The greatest numbers and percentages of arrests in the drug category occurred inthe 25thprecinct, covering the East Harlem neighborhood.

Property crime arrests proportionately were greatest in the 14th and 18th precinctscovering areas of Midtown Manhattan with busy commercial areas.

The greatest proportions of fraud/theft category arrests occurred in the 18th, 19

th,

14thand 5thprecincts.

Defendants in almost all screened cases with a known residence zip code reportan address within the Citys five boroughs.

Manhattan zip codes are the most numerous and comprise somewhat under half

(45.4%) of the defendants in screened cases, followed by Bronx and Brooklyn zipcodes.

The greatest percentage of defendants with Manhattan zip codes is found amongcases rejected due to excessive criminal records (53.1%) followed by programparticipants (46.8%); the smallest percentage is found among cases in theexcluded category of Recommended for ROR with no criminal record (39.5%).

Among non-Manhattan City residents, defendants with Brooklyn zip codes arethe most likely to be found among program participants (23.8%) and thoseexcluded as Recommended for ROR with no criminal record (22.9%). Incomparison to Brooklyn, there are smaller percentages in these two categories

among cases of defendants with Bronx zip codes, and larger percentages ofdefendants with Bronx zip codes among those rejected due to excessive criminalrecords.

Zip Code ofResidence

Participants

N=218


N=1,134


N=1,007(Excludes 7

cases)


N=352

Total

Location N % N % N % N % N %

Brooklyn 52 23.8 175 17.5 136 16.1 79 22.9 442 18.3

Manhattan 102 46.8 407 40.7 451 53.2 135 39.1 1095 45.4

Queens 15 6.9 83 8.3 40 4.7 40 11.6 178 7.4

Staten Island 3 1.4 6 0.6 7 0.8 4 1.2 20 0.8

Bronx 39 17.9 181 18.1 191 22.6 60 17.4 471 19.5

SubtotalNew YorkCity

211 96.8 852 85.2 825 97.4 318 92.2 2206 91.5


25/29

21

Westchester 4 1.8 15 1.5 4 0.5 3 0.9 26 1.1

Long Island 2 0.9 19 1.9 9 1.1 11 3.2 41 1.7

New Jersey 1 0.5 62 6.2 4 0.5 6 1.7 73 3.0

Connecticut 0 8 0.8 0 1 0.3 9 0.4

Everywhere

Else 0 44 4.4 5 0.6 6 1.7 55 2.3

Total,known zipcode

218 100.0 1000 100.0 847 100.0 345 100.0 2410 100.0

Unknown zipcode orhomeless

0 - 134 - 160 - 7 - 301 -

Total 218 - 1134 - 1007 - 352 - 2711 -

Among the screened cases with Manhattan residents, the only strong relationshipbetween zip codes and arrest precincts appears among cases in the drug

category.

There is a high concentration of program screened drug cases from precincts innorthern Manhattan neighborhoods (e.g. Harlem, Washington Heights) and in lowerManhattan areas covering the Lower Eastside and East Village, with majorities ofManhattan arrestees for drug crimes also having zip codes that correspond withthese neighborhoods.


26/29

22

SUMMARY

CJA created a supervised release program, designed to provide judges at Criminal

Court arraignment an alternative to money bail and pretrial detention, after extensive

consultation with City criminal justice policy makers and other stakeholders. The

program was first implemented on an experimental basis in the Queens County CriminalCourt in August 2009. Based on the demonstrated success of this initial program, a

similar three-year demonstration project was implemented in Manhattan in April 2013.

There are many restrictions placed on the characteristics of eligible felony cases

and defendants which require intensive screening by program court staff. A

consequence of these requirements is that the program option only will be made

available in a limited subset of all screened cases.

There are several key screening segments. At the outset, once charge-eligible

cases are identified, the CJA recommendation and criminal conviction histories of

defendants are reviewed. The program excludes defendants Recommended for RORwithout criminal histories because they have the lowest FTA rates and also are the most

likely to receive ROR. At the other end of the spectrum are the cases of defendants

with multiple criminal convictions or a felony conviction for a VFO crime within the past

ten years. Defendants in this category are the most at risk for pretrial misconduct for

both FTA and re-arrest.

For the cases that remain eligible for further screening the next segment is court

staff examination of other criminal history factors that could preclude program

participation, and strength and verifiability of community ties needed for community

supervision. Within this segment the program requires the consent of both defense

counsel and defendants for a face-to-face interview.

For defendants who pass all of the screening criteria the final step is presenting

the program option on the record during the Criminal Court arraignment process.

Because the program is designed to offer the Court community supervision as an

alternative to money bail, the expectation is that the program option only will be raised

in cases in which the District Attorneys Office is requesting bail.

How all of these elements operate in an actual courtroom setting can be seen in

following the screening of the case and defendant selection process during the first six

months of the implementation of the Manhattan Supervised Release (MSR) program.However, because the data reported cover only a start-up period, some changes may

occur over time as the program becomes more familiar to all the stakeholders and more

routinely integrated into the arraignment process.


27/29

23

As expected, the programs court staff was the primary source of

exclusion/rejections as they reviewed defendant characteristics in charge-eligible cases.

During the Manhattan start-up period the program screened 2,718 cases of which 2,500

were excluded or rejected. The program was the rejection source in 81.4% of cases.

Approximately two-thirds of these program rejections were made based on the

initial screening criteria, half of which were excluded due to defendants with criminal

conviction histories falling outside of the programs parameters while only about 17%were rejected at this stage due to defendants without criminal histories being

Recommended for ROR (data not shown). This stage of the screening process is

intended to preclude substituting community supervision for recognizance release for

those at lowest risk of FTA, and to exclude those at highest risk of pretrial misconduct.

In Manhattan, the actual ROR rate was over 80% when the program rejected

defendants without criminal records recommended by CJA for ROR. In sharp contrast,

bail was set in approximately 90% of the cases of defendants excluded due to

excessive criminal conviction histories or because of a prior VFO conviction.

There are a number of different reasons why the program will reject defendants in

the cases that receive additional screening. In Manhattan during its start-up phase

these frequently involved finding problematic elements within criminal histories after

defendants met the initial criminal history requirements, such as the number or types of

warrants or open cases, or defendants with insufficient local-area community ties or ties

that could not be verified. However, it appears that some program rejections at this

stage may have been made out of caution or uncertainty when operating in this new

Program81.4%

DefenseAttorney

10.5%

Defendant

0.8%

Judge

5.5%

NotRaisedonthe

Record

1.8%

Excluded/RejectedBy

N = 2,500


28/29

24

environment. A closer examination of the defendant and case composition between

criminal history eligible but rejected versus program clients and cases is a subject for

future research.

The preliminary evidence suggests that the program is being well received by the

defense bar. Defense attorneys serve as gatekeepers to defendant access when theprogram seeks to meet with defendants. In the overwhelming majority of cases when

defense attorneys refused access there was an expectation of ROR which proved to be

correct in about 90% of the cases. Defendants themselves rarely refused to meet with

program court staff.

Judges accounted for approximately 6% of all rejections during the programs first

six months. The data do not provide much insight into why the program option was

rejected because judges infrequently provide an explanation. What can be determined

is that in approximately three-fourths of these cases the Court set bail, with defendants

in most of the remaining cases receiving ROR. Of note, however, is the number of

times judges requested a program review.

Out of the 2,718 cases screened in this six-month start-up period, defendants in

218 ultimately became program clients. In almost every one of these cases the

program was raised on the record in cases in which the District Attorneys Office was

requesting bail. Who initially raised the program option on the record is shown in the

next illustration.

ProgramWilling&

RaisedbyDefense

65.6%Independently

Raised

by

Defense5.5%

RaisedbyADA

0.5%

RaisedbyJudge

28.4%

RaisedontheRecord:ProgramCases

N = 218


29/29

25

Approximately two-thirds of the program cases were ones in which the defense

was informed in advance of arraignment that the program was willing to accept the

defendant if the court agreed. Among the 218 program cases also were 62 in which

judges themselves raised the program as a bail alternative. Most of these were cases

that program staff had rejected late in the screening process but once provided the

opportunity were successfully able to revisit and resolve potential impediments to

participation. In a small percentage the program was raised by the defense in cases in

which the program had not been able to complete the screening process in advance of

arraignment but subsequently was willing to accept the defendant as a program client.

In only a very small percentage was the program option not presented on the

record to the court once the defendants case received a positive screening. This

subset of cases are ones where program staff indicated to the defense a willingness to

accept the defendant, but in the overwhelming majority of these cases a judicial ROR

decision was made obviating the need to raise the program option.

This report is part of a larger, ongoing research agenda into CJAs supervised

release programs.4 It is intended to introduce stakeholders and interested others to the

programs criteria and decision-making model and to show how the model works in an

applied setting, using the start-up period of the program in Manhattan as illustration.

Some of the data presented in this report raise questions for additional research. For

example, is there or will there be greater opportunity for the program to proactively

pursue more of the criminal history eligible but rejected cases? This report also may

make a contribution to the current conversation among criminal justice policy makers in

New York and elsewhere about community supervision as an alternative to money bail

and costly pretrial detention based on financial resources rather than risk of flight.

4 See for example Freda F. Solomon, CJAS QUEENS COUNTY SUPERVISED RELEASEPROGRAM: IMPACT ON COURT PROCESSING AND OUTCOMES, (New York: New YorkCity Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., June 2013), available at www.nycja.org/library.php

supervised release 14

Documents