EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL PRETRIAL STUDY PAUL C. FRIDAY, PH.D. JOSEPH B. KUHNS III, PH.D. With

Transcription

1 The University of North Carolina at Charlotte Department of Criminal Justice EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MECKLENBURG COUNTY JAIL PRETRIAL STUDY PAUL C. FRIDAY, PH.D. JOSEPH B. KUHNS III, PH.D. With Rachel Ketterhenry, Scott Sanford, John Parnell, Miriam Black, Tammatha Altizer, Anelia Miller April 2005

2 Mecklenburg County Jail Pretrial Study Executive Summary...4 Introduction...4 A.1 Pretrial Jail Population...4 A.2 Court System Process...6 Summary of Findings...8 Recommendations...9 B. Arrest Patterns and Use of Citations...9 Summary of Findings...9 Recommendations...10 C. Pretrial RELEASE Services (PRS)...11 Summary of Findings...12 Recommendations...12 D. Misdemeanor/Felony Court Set AnalysEs...13 Misdemeanor Fast Track Recommendations...13 Felony Fast Track Recommendations...14 E. Pretrial Best Practices...14 Recommendations...16 F. Court System Staffing Analysis...17 Recommendations...19 Summary of Recommendations...21 A.1 Pretrial Jail Population Profile...23 Pretrial Only Offender Profile...23 Average Length of Stay...24 Basic Statistics...24 Pretrial Mixed Population...26 A.2. Court System Process...28 Summary of Findings...31 Recommendations...32 B. Arrest And Citation Data - Analyses of Patterns/Trends...33 Juvenile Arrest Trends Adult Arrest Trends Citations Data - Analyses of Patterns/Trends...35 Summary Of Findings...39 Recommendations...40 C. Pretrial Services...41 Process...41 Outcomes...42 Ineligible Population...43 Conclusion...46 D. Misdemeanor and Felony Court Set Analysis...47 Misdemeanor Fast Track...47 Process...47 Outcome...48 Conclusion Misdemeanor Fast Track...51 Recommendations Misdemeanor Fast Track...52 Felony Fast Track...52 Process...52 Outcome...52 Conclusion Felony Fast Track

3 Recommendations Felony Fast Track...56 E. Pretrial Services Best Practices Assessment...57 National Standards...57 Mecklenburg County...57 Recommendations...63 Supplement -Pretrial Services Best Practices Assessment Detailed Expectations...65 F. Court Staffing Analysis...70 Court Processes/ Staffing Best Practices...72 Staffing/Court System Analysis Implications...74 Supplement: Court Processes/ Staffing Best Practices...76 Arrest/Citation Tables

4 Mecklenburg County Jail Pretrial Study Executive Summary Introduction In January 2005 a contract was issued to the Criminal Justice Department (UNCC) to review various aspects of the criminal justice system. Special focus was placed on examining the pretrial jail population, reviewing pretrial services, assessing the misdemeanor/felony courtset (Fast Track) for incarcerated defendants, analyzing use of citations by the Charlotte- Mecklenburg Police Department, and reviewing court staffing and case processing. A core base sample of incarcerated offenders was taken from the jail population on August 30, Additional samples that overlapped with the core sample were selected to include clients processed by the Misdemeanor/Felony Court Set and Pretrial Services. 1 A.1 Pretrial Jail Population The pretrial only population was identified by the Sheriff s Office data management department as those in jail on 8/30/04 with some court process pending. Of 2,023 arrestees, the pretrial only sub-sample included 922 individuals (or 46% of the population). An additional 479 offenders, who had some charges determined or holds placed on them yet still had matters pending, are identified in the report as mixed, a clientele that can be effectively served by Felony Fast Track. Pretrial Only Population Our pretrial only random sample was 50% of the pretrial only population (N=457). 27% of the pretrial only population was charged with misdemeanors only. o Over 50% of the misdemeanor charges included DWI (15%), assault on a female (11%), trespassing (11%), simple assault (10%) or larceny (8%). o The average number of charges per offender was % of the pretrial only population was charged with felony offenses only. o 36% of the felony charges were aggravated assault or drug sales o An additional 20% were robbery or murder. 1 It is important to note that extracting accurate and reliable data is a major problem. The court records system was not designed to provide aggregated or easily compiled statistics to facilitate management, shared department planning or programming, or accountability. The system is also not designed to provide efficient or reliable statistics for analytical purposes. 4

5 36% of the pretrial sample was charged with a mix of felonies and misdemeanors. The pretrial only population closely reflects the demographic characteristics of the jail population itself, although the pretrial population tends to be slightly younger. The pretrial only population was charged with comparable offenses, with the highest proportions among personal and violent crimes, followed by drug-related charges. o 75% of the pretrial population was charged with some person or drug charge. The most serious charges were aggravated assault, followed by drug sales. 21% of the pretrial population that was charged with drug possession or drug sales was also charged with traffic offenses (e.g., DWI, expired license or no registration). Based on the three most serious offenses listed, when the pretrial population was booked the offense categories were: Any Person % Any Drug % Any Property % Any DWI 33 7% Any Traffic not DWI 50 11% Any Resisting 43 9% Disorderly, ordinances, Prob. Viol 84 18% Overall, the average length of stay in jail was 76 days (median 43 days). As expected, misdemeanants stayed the shortest time and felons stayed the longest. o Misdemeanor only: 28 days average (median 15 days) o Felony offenses only: 126 days average (median 80 days) o Combinations (incl. traffic): 77 days average (median 51 days) Pretrial Mixed Population The pretrial mixed population did not vary significantly from the overall population in terms of demographics or charges. They are different, however, based on a longer average jail stay of 117 days (median 64). 40% of the pretrial only population stayed 30 days or less; 62% stayed 60 days or less. 29% of the mixed population stayed 30 days or less; 48% stayed 60 days or less. 15% of the mixed and 14% of the pretrial only population remained in jail on disposition or other pending matters as of February 1,

6 A.2 Court System Process This section highlights the case flow process for the incarcerated pretrial population. Data for this section were collected from court files. A 25% sample of the pretrial only and mixed jail populations were selected and all available information on court dates, events, and outcomes were recorded. This report focuses only on an in-custody pretrial population, and does not represent the operations or timeframes for the court system as a whole. The North Carolina court system functions differently than many other states. Some apparent structural impediments to efficient case disposition include: 1. State elected judges who rotate between counties, rather than a set of superior court judges assigned locally. This system impacts scheduled court times. 2. DA scheduling authority is used, rather than the courts maintaining their own calendars. This impacts court scheduling flexibility. 3. The use of both probable cause and grand jury processes for the same cases. 4. Limited scheduling flexibility for events such as Fast Track sessions, Administrative Court sessions, plea slots, etc. In other words, there are set time periods between events, thus causing delays in processing. 5. New discovery rules, set by the state, that increases the amount and types of evidence required to be collected by the police. 6. The time required to get and serve subpoenas. 7. The practice of scheduling cases around officer court dates, which can prolong case dispositions whenever continuances are requested. 8. Differential state expenditures for Indigent Defense and Public Defenders ($8 million) compared to the District Attorney s office ($3 million). The DA s Office must also respond to discovery and other issues with privately represented defendants. 9. Absence of a stand-by docket for scheduled trials (criminal or civil) that settle early. The 1998 Criminal Case Management System in Mecklenburg Superior Court is a major factor in increasing efficiency in a system laboring under serious resource deficits compared with other communities comparable in size and crime (see Section F). Without this structure, the delays we identified would probably be significantly greater. However, the schedule also specifically defines events and time frames which can impact flexibility. At the time of this research, 136 of the 384 cases (35%) under review were still pending or, technically, there was no disposition noted in the court records. 6

7 Overall Average time from arrest to disposition 221 days o Only 37% were disposed of within 180 days Average number of charges 3 (range: 1 to 10) Average number of continuances 3.6 Mecklenburg County Dispositions Compared to ABA and NC Standards American Bar Association Standards Misdemeanor Mecklenburg Pretrial Jail Population* Jail Pretrial Actually Disposed 90% within 30 days 7.6% 10.8% NC Supreme Court Standards* 13.9% 20.0% 75% within 60 days 100% within 90 days 24.2% 30.8% 90% within 90 days Felony 34.2% 41.5% 98% within 120 days 49.4% 61.0% 70.9% 87.7% 100% within one year 82.3% Over 1 year 100% 17.7% still pending Within 90 days 13.1% 21.9% 90 % within 120 days 19.3% 33.3% 50% within 120 of indictment 98 % within 180 days 33.41% 56.3% 75% within 180 days 100% within 1 year 49.8% 83.1% 90% within 365 days 60.0% 93.4% 100% within 545 days 40.0% still pending 100% Over 545 days * NC Felony Standards uses time from indictment rather than from arrest, which makes a difference of about two weeks. This difference would not drastically alter the pattern but it would improve the overall conclusions somewhat. These numbers reflect only the disposition times of incarcerated pretrial defendants and do not reflect the processing times for all cases. 7

8 Misdemeanors o Average number of continuances 2.5 o Continuances given in 80% of cases (range: 1-6); 29% had over 3 continuances o Failure to Appear (FTA) recorded for 77% of cases; 13% had more than one Felonies Average number of continuances 2.1 Continuances given in 84% of cases (range: 1 13); 18% had over 3 continuances Failure to Appear was recorded for 35% of cases; 8.5% had more than one FTA Characteristics for Case Dispositions Over 180 Days - Offense Profile Person Only 37% Drug Only 14% Property Only 9% Combination 39% Continuances 54% more than 3 (incl. 2201) 17% more than 3 (excl. 2201) Failure to Appear 38% (22% had more than one continuance) According to ABA Standards, there is a requirement for accelerated trial for detained defendants. In Mecklenburg County some preference is given to incarcerated offenders prior to the probable cause hearing and grand jury indictment, but there is no systematic mechanism to expedite case processing after those two critical points, potentially increasing pretrial incarceration. Summary of Findings Over a third of the in-custody pretrial population is charged with person crimes. Mecklenburg County time periods to disposition are significantly below ABA and NC Supreme Court standards. At times there has been a lack of sufficient court support staff. There appears to be a shortage of available clerks and/or court reporters. Drug sale, murder, and robbery cases dominate the cases lasting over 180 days. 29% of misdemeanor cases and 42% of felony cases have more than three continuances. However, the inclusion of defined movement from one setting to another may be noted as a continuance but does not technically qualify as one. Therefore, excluding 2201 continuances for felony cases, the figure drops to 18%. 8

9 FTA is an important factor in cases requiring more than 180 days to disposition. No priority is given to disposing of cases for defendants in custody, which increases pretrial incarceration time. The court records system is not designed to provide aggregated or easily compiled statistics to facilitate management, planning or accountability, nor does the system provide efficient or reliable statistics for analytical purposes. There is no simple mechanism to retrieve court management data on performance measures. There is no way to specifically identify Fast Track cases. In short, extracting accurate and reliable data is a major problem. Recommendations 1. Consider developing processes that will allow in-custody defendants to proceed through the system as quickly as possible (i.e. prioritize in-custody defendants). 2. Research the impact of continuances on the system. Excluding the established settings, continuances and therefore incarceration time, pretrial incarceration might be reduced by re-evaluating: A. The overall impact of a system dependent on the officer court date program. B. The extent to which the details of the Criminal Case Management System in Superior Court are being implemented. C. The extent to which Administrative Courts are fulfilling their expected functions without unnecessary continuances. D. The extent to which there is an informal expectation of continuances and/or a routine or normative number of days allowed and determine if these could be shortened. 3. Adequately respond to FTA cases to deter future FTAs. This may include punitive responses and/or increased or enhanced communications with the defendant. 4. Fully address the periodic problems with limited numbers of court clerks and reporters. B. Arrest Patterns and Use of Citations Summary of Findings Juvenile Arrests Overall juvenile arrest trends dropped over the past seven years. Juvenile larcenies (including shoplifting) drive overall juvenile crime trends. 9

10 Juvenile burglary trends are increasing significantly. Part II juvenile arrests are driven by non-aggravated assaults, stolen property, vandalism, drugs, and disorderly conduct. Adult Arrests Overall adult arrests dropped modestly over the past seven years. Adult property and violent arrests dropped during the past seven years. Part II adult arrests are driven by non-aggravated assaults, drug charges, and driving while alcohol/drug impaired. Citations By law, citations can be issued for misdemeanors or infractions in North Carolina. Citations are a cost-effective alternative to arrest and a useful option for reducing jail crowding if the court system can effectively handle case processing. Three citations are issued for every one arrest made by CMPD. Overall the number of citations issued increased 37% over the past seven years. Citations are most often issued for No Drivers License, Improper Tags, No Insurance, or No Registration, Driving While License is Revoked, Driving While Impaired, Simple Possession of Marijuana, Drug Paraphernalia, and Liquor Law Violations. The largest increases in issued citations were for No Drivers License, Improper Tags, No Insurance, or No Registration, Driving While License is Revoked, Simple Possession of Marijuana, Drug Paraphernalia and Liquor Law Violations. Less than 3% of all citations were issued to juveniles over the past seven years. Most citations are issued in the summer and at the beginning of a new year. Some inter-jurisdictional differences may exist in the number of issued citations, although we cannot draw any firm conclusions. Recommendations Juvenile Arrests Consider increasing issued citations for juvenile shoplifters. Consider a separate study to examine the increases in juvenile burglaries. 10

11 Consider alternatives to arrest, diversion programs, or citations for first-time offenders with drug, non-aggravated assault, and disorderly conduct charges. Adult Arrests Consider alternatives to arrest, diversion programs, or increased citations for first time offenders with DUI/DWI, drug, and non-aggravated assault charges. Citations Increase the numbers of citations issued to juveniles where possible. Continue to increase citations issued for non-violent, drug and liquor, and driving offenses (no license, tag problems, insurance issues, etc.). Ensure that the court system can effectively process increased citations so that court processing backlogs do not negatively impact the pretrial population. Pursue legislative changes that would allow more officer discretion in issuing citations (versus making arrests) for juveniles and first-time offenders. C. Pretrial RELEASE Services (PRS) Data for this section of the report came from the county database on arrestees processed by Pretrial Release Services (PRS) during the last two weeks of August A 50% sample (N=517) of 1,034 interviewed offenders was matched with booking records information from the population snapshot on August 30, 2004 and followed through the court database. Findings Only 17% (N=87) of interviewed arrestees were recommended for pretrial release. o 43% were not eligible under current county rules o 33% were not recommended for release o 7% were pending follow-up on 8/30/04 Of the 87 arrestees recommended for pretrial release, court records were located on 70 subjects. Of that group, 91% (N=65) met their court appearance obligations. Further: o 4.3% (N=3) had an order for arrest for FTA at First Appearance o 1.4% (N=1) OFA Non-Compliance (i.e. not following court orders) o 1.4% (N=1) OFA no appearance for trial o 1.4% (N=1) FTA declared a fugitive Rates of Appearance by PRS Decision: Pretrial Release clients 91% Ineligible offenders 92% Denied pretrial release 82% 11

12 With comparable appearance rates between offenders recommended for release and those deemed ineligible, any changes on the in-custody population should be directed at possible releases from the currently ineligible population. Effective July 1, 2001, the Mecklenburg County Commissioners approved a recommendation from the court to allow judges to waive exclusion for a number of offenses. 79% of those not eligible were ineligible because they were charged with offenses ruled by the county as inappropriate for pretrial release. Summary of Findings From a process perspective, Pretrial Services is well-positioned to interview arrestees since they already do so for classification purposes. The impact is reduced time devoted to pretrial assessment because of the time needed for classification. The program seems to be screening according to established criteria and FTA rates are less than 10%. Offenders who are denied pretrial release have higher FTA rates. The ineligible population tends to have low FTA rates, suggesting that while the court is able to provide waivers, some offenders might be given pretrial release earlier if that decision could be made by Pretrial Services. Drug offenders would be the likely target group that might be more often released under Pretrial Services supervision. Recommendations Increasing the number of arrestees released by PS would be contingent on rectifying some observed deficiencies in functioning relative to known best practices. Some suggestions: 1. The County should assess risk on an empirical risk basis rather than a public sentiment basis. 2. Increasing the number of persons on pretrial release would require increasing the range of supervision options available. Currently, pretrial release offenders are basically unsupervised and the active caseload is around 2, Change the process of supervision reporting from the automated PID telephone entry, which is hardly a fool-proof system of supervision. 12

13 D. Misdemeanor/Felony Court Set AnalysEs Misdemeanor Fast Track (MFT) MFT saved 855 jail days, a reduction of 43%, over the number of days from first appearance and the scheduled first court date. The average number of saved jail days was 21 per defendant. Approximately 1/3 of all pure pretrial misdemeanor defendants could be handled through MFT, saving an average of 21 incarcerated days per defendant. Process Following appointment of a Public Defender at First Appearance, the MFT Manager reviews those appointments after they are received in the Public Defender s Office and identifies eligible individuals. Cases may include misdemeanors with a hold from another county or state. These cases are reviewed by the Manager of the Fast Track Program, and referred to the MFT team for interview or return to other Public Defenders. The process takes about five days, but it can take longer if the arrest occurs on a weekend. MFT (1101C) follows arraignments in 1101B two days a week (Wednesdays and Fridays) in the afternoon. Previously, MFT operated three days a week (which included Thursdays). Misdemeanor Fast Track Recommendations 1. Increase the number of days MFT meets to process more defendants. This recommendation impacts the court and the PD s Office, which has staffing and process standards set by the State Indigent Defense Service. 2. Develop new protocols and queries within the jail s record management system that better facilitate identification of potential MFT clients. Felony Fast Track (FFT) Process Potential FFT defendants are interviewed in the jail following their District Court Felony Probable Cause Hearing or Grand Jury Indictment. A case comes to the FFT Team following discussions with the DA s Office and after recommendation by the Public Defender Outcomes 44 days - average time from booking to court disposition for FFT defendants. 83 days - average time from booking to court disposition for comparable felony defendants. 13

14 FFT clients charged with drug and person crimes spent half the number of days in jail than the comparison group. FFT clients charged with property crimes spent about 25% fewer days in jail than the comparison group. Time from booking to disposition is 2.2 times shorter for FFT clients than the comparison group for defendants charged with the same person crimes. Time from booking to disposition is 2.0 times shorter for FFT clients than the comparison group for defendants charged with the same drug crimes. Time from booking to disposition is 1.8 times shorter for FFT clients than the comparison group for defendants charged with the same property crimes. 14% of the daily jail population are potential FFT clients and could save an average of 44 incarcerated days each. Felony Fast Track Recommendations An internal process evaluation in the Public Defender s Office may develop a formal mechanism by which potential FFT clients can be identified and processed. This is especially relevant given the high proportion of eventual guilty pleas. A similar assessment and further coordination within the DA s office might increase the speed at which defendants, who will be given the opportunity to plead guilty, can do so quickly. E. Pretrial Best Practices There are two primary authorities on pretrial services best practices: The Pretrial Services Resource Center (PSRC) and the American Bar Association (ABA). These two organizations presented the results of nationwide assessments, most recently in The creation of pretrial services established two important functions in the effective administration of criminal justice: 1) the gathering and presentation of information about newly arrested defendants with recommendations for appropriate release options, and 2) the provision of supervision for persons released from custody that pose a calculated risk of FTA for court or continued offending. These two functions are highly effective at minimizing unnecessary detention, reducing jail crowding, and improving court appearance rates. There are six primary aspects of pretrial services: 1) Information Gathering, 2) Objective Risk Assessment, 3) Pretrial Supervision, 4) Inmate Status Reviews, 5) Court Notification, and 6) Failure to Appear (FTA) Follow-up. The following is how Mecklenburg County accomplishes the expected tasks: 1. Information Gathering - Interviews are conducted following magistrate review. The information is gathered after a classification interview which is voluntary. In August about 84% of the arrestees were interviewed, which included nearly all who had not bonded out. The combined interview, merely by virtue of time, limits the probing depth possible for the pretrial services interview and verification of information. 14

15 2) Objective Risk Assessment - A risk assessment is conducted using a series of questions on past criminal activity, substance use, and ties to the community. Mecklenburg County does not use available standardized objective scoring measures. 3) Provide Court Information - The PS employees developed a systematic method of keeping the court informed and of monitoring clients through the court process. PS employees are generally available in the courtroom, and when they are not available they are easily accessible or available on premises. 4) Pretrial Supervision - Pretrial supervision is limited to low risk releases who are primarily monitored through automated dial-ins and mail processes. The program lacks a range of more restrictive options (e.g., intensive supervision and electronic house arrest monitoring). 5) Inmate Status Reviews - Inmate status reviews, while encouraged, are limited as a result of time and resources. Lists are maintained but continuous review is limited. 6) Court Notification - The program has developed an effective and efficient mechanism to monitor court dates and appearances. Defendants are routinely sent reminders. 7) Failure to Appear Follow-Up - Follow-up activities included letters, phone contacts, or home visits. Following up on FTA cases reduces the burden on law enforcement to execute warrants and lowers the number of warrants issued. The following is a summary of best practices which also identifies areas in need of attention: Standard General Principles The use of citations or summons Addresses Criteria 15 Partially Addresses Criteria Needs to Address Criteria Diversion and alternative adjudication options 3 options * Eligibility for release reviewed throughout the adjudication process Detained defendants given priority in scheduling for trial First Appearance before judicial officer within 24 hours Pretrial Services Tasks 1) Information gathering and verification Interview before first appearance Interview all except those excluded by statute Interview format standardized to assess community ties Longer weekends Time-limited due to other tasks Interview all persons All who are willing Private, secure area to conduct interviews 2) Objective risk assessment scale used No scored

16 Verification of criminal history instrument Verification of contact/other information Varies Additional information in domestic violence cases 3) Information delivered to the court Submits written information to the court Personnel present at first court appearance Available 4) Pretrial supervision Maintain basic contact information Range of options (e.g., electronic monitoring) Levels of supervision Monitor for drug tests, participate in treatment, etc Monitors restrictions of movement, restraining orders, curfews, house arrest 5) Court Notification Standard Inform of upcoming court dates for the defendants 6) Inmate status reviews Monitors in-custody pretrial population for status changes 7) Follow-up after any failure to appear (FTA). Check/record defendant s appearance record for schedule court dates Notifies court of violations Addresses Criteria Partially Addresses Criteria Needs to Address Criteria Recommendations 1. Restrict PS employees to pretrial service tasks and reconsider the decision to have PS perform three distinct functions: jail classification interviews, pretrial services interviews, and misdemeanor structure sentence form compiler. These changes would increase available time for in-depth interviews and validation of contact/character information. This study did not conduct an assessment of pretrial process workload or efficiency. Such an assessment would be advisable before major functions are changed. 2. Consider reducing the number of ineligible offenses to allow pretrial release of more defendants. An effort should be made to validate the eligibility criteria given the low FTA rate for the ineligible population. This approach is not viable unless there are a wider range of supervision options available and adequate staff to properly monitor those who are released. 16

17 3. Increased monitoring would be necessary to reduce FTAs and OFAs and to protect the community. Improved monitoring tools, such as electronic monitoring, drug testing, and home confinement, should be utilized. The monitoring function options need to be available and implemented at three levels: A) Minimum - weekly phone contact to case manager B) Medium - weekly in-person contact with case manager C) Maximum - defendant is routinely monitored The supervision level should be set by PS to avoid the possibility of court orders for maximum monitoring when, based on risk criteria, a lower level of monitoring would be effective. 4. Use an objective pretrial assessment instrument to enhance the decision-making process. An objective pretrial instrument will greatly improve bond recommendations and help standardize release conditions. Several model instruments exist, such as those used in Virginia and Kentucky. These instruments can be easily adapted by Mecklenburg County. 5. From a public safety point of view, a pre-magistrate rather than a post-magistrate interview might be implemented to give magistrates more pre-release information to consider alternative methods of release besides pretrial services. Such a process helps magistrates make better informed decisions. Because of state rules regarding timelines, DWI cases would need magistrate review first. 6. Evaluate the Magistrates Office or its functions (which was not part of this evaluation) to determine if the pretrial population could be reduced by decisions made within that office. F. Court System Staffing Analysis There are no absolute standards regarding court staffing. At best, one can compare communities of similar crime rates and populations, but each state and municipality has different court rules and regulations. Austin (TX) and Portland (OR) are comparable in many respects to Charlotte in terms of size and crimes. Therefore the three cities were compared on staffing, case activity, and age of disposition. There is a serious deficit in the court staffing within Mecklenburg County. Charlotte employs the smallest number of staff compared with Portland and Austin. The number of 2003 violent crimes (which take longer to process through the court systems) in Charlotte was 62% higher than Portland; 128% higher than Austin. Support staff is over three times higher in the comparison cities. Mecklenburg County has 43% fewer DAs than Portland; 35% fewer than Austin. The number of judges is lower in the Charlotte region than in Portland, which also has more judicial assistants. The number of judges is higher here than in Austin. 17

18 Charlotte is the most efficient in reducing the number of pending felony and misdemeanor cases at the end of a fiscal year. Table 1 Staff & Disposition Time Comparisons Charlotte (NC), Portland (OR), and Austin (TX) Charlotte Portland Austin Total Population (2003 Est.) 668, , ,319 Part I Crimes/100,000 (2003) + 7,744 8,505 6,657 Number of Violent Crimes 7,194 4,436 3,153 Assistant District Attorneys 36 State * 76* DA support Staff** Judges Special Judicial Assistants Public Defenders *** Felony Cases Misdemeanor Cases Disposed 8,802 6,287 End Pending 5,610 7,423 Disposed Dist. Ct. 49,340 Disposed- Superior Ct. 3,707 22,730 End Pending - both 20,275 24,705 % reduction in pending -16.2% -2.8% felonies % reduction in pending -4.9% +8.8% misdemeanors (Both DC/SC) Disposition Time (Felony and Misdemeanor) Combined Disposed: 27,942 Pending: 78,288 Combined: +1.5% 0 90 days 25.7% 68% (M) 32% days 37.2% 61% (F) 87.3% days 56.4% 80.3% 98.3% % 96.5% 96.5% 1-2 years 96.3% 100% 100% 100% 2 or more years 100% + * Austin DAs are felony DAs only ** Does not include investigators; Portland includes management personnel ++ Source: Judicial District of NC Fiscal Year Annual Report, Tables 7, 11, 20,

19 Court Processes/ Staffing There are no established ratios for court staffing, but the American Bar Association recommends time frames for disposition of felony and misdemeanor cases. For all cases processed (these data are not specific to the in-custody pretrial sample): The proportion of cases disposed of in Mecklenburg County within the 90 and 180 day expectations are below both the ABA and NC Supreme Court guidelines. The standards are: American Bar Association Standards Misdemeanor 90% within 30 days Mecklenburg County* NC Supreme Court Standards Misdemeanor 75% within 60 days 100% within 90 days 90% within 90 days 98% within 120 days 180 days 100% within one year Felony Felony & Misdemeanor Felony 25.7% within 90 days 90 % within 120 days 37.2% within 120 days 50% within 120 of indictment 98 % within 180 days 56.4% within 180 days 75% within 180 days 100% within 1 year 81.0% within a year 90% within 365 days 96.3% within 2 years 100% within 545 days 100% more than 2 years The official court data reported above indicate that for both felony and misdemeanor cases, Charlotte disposed of 26% of the cases within 90 days, 37% within 120 days, and only about half (56%) by the end of 180 days. Recommendations Court Staffing within the Mecklenburg County Court System needs serious review, with consideration for increasing all levels of personnel including support staff (e.g., court reporters and clerks) to handle more Superior Court sessions. 19

20 Increase the allotted time for DA Specialized Teams and other special teams such as Fast Track. Court personnel (all parties) need to review how Mecklenburg County can better meet case disposition expectations set by the NC Supreme Court. A careful review should be conducted for continuance and Failure to Appear rates. Technology should be evaluated/updated within the court system (See Section A.2). The new Jail and Justice Director (Jail Population Manager) should facilitate and monitor information on potential releases. This person could also assist in the implementation of many of the recommendations in this report. 20

21 Summary of Recommendations No Cost Contingent Costs Costs Continuances Scheduling by officer court days Clerk/reporter staffing Central review/approval for continuances after the third DA costs to meet discovery requests Review pre-set times between court events/settings Review FTA rate/reasons Court Process Priority for defendants in custody Clerk/reporter staffing Citations Increasing issued citations for juvenile shoplifters Increase citations for non-violent offenses, drug and liquor offenses, and driving offenses Develop a county-wide arrest policy Pretrial Release Alternatives to arrest, diversion programs, or increased citations for first time adult DUI/DWI offenders, drug offenders, and non-aggravated assault offenders. 21 Increased options other than jail for juvenile offenders. Expand list of eligible defendants Needs increased supervision options Staffing for increased continuous review Assess feasibility/efficiencies in PTR duties Staff additions may/may not be needed Use standardized scoring assessment Evaluate the functions, options by magistrates Fast Track Daily jail monitoring for eligible releases (for PTR also) Increase number of 1101C days PD to interview Better focus on potential FFT defendants Staffing

22 Police Current Offense Arrest Police Orders for Arrest Mecklenburg County Case Flow Citations Arrest Processing R Released No PC Magistrate Pretrial Services Interview Bond Pretrial Release DC Bond Hearing 1101B Within 5 days Jail Detained Federal Parole Violators No bond High bond Fast-Track Eligible Misdemeanor after 10 days Felony: Jail Sentenced Time served DC - First Appearance 1101 B Guilty Plea Misdemeanor Fast Track 1101C DA PD Interview Felony Fast Track 2201 DC Felony PC Hearing 15 days 1101A Grand Jury 1st Setting 2201 ******************* Jail - Prison Transfer Plea Slot 2 nd Setting 2201 Misdemeanor Trial 2202DV, 2203, 2207, 2209 Felony Trial 3301, 3302, 3305 Plea Conference Not Guilty Community Penalty Not Guilty 22

23 A.1 Pretrial Jail Population Profile This research is based on data gathered from jail and court records. In order to allow sufficient time for cases to flow through the system, a snapshot date of August 30, 2004 was selected. On that day there were a total of 2023 persons incarcerated. On the basis of classification by the Sheriff s Office the population reflected: 922 (45.6%) pretrial only arrestees 479 (23.7%) mixed with pending pretrial court actions 459 (22.7%) Federal Offenders 152 (7.5%) Other sentenced 11 (0.5%) Holds 2,023 The pretrial only population was defined by the Sheriff s Office data management department to reflect those in jail who, on 8/30/04, had some court process pending. An approximate 50% random sample was selected from the pretrial and mixed populations providing a sample base of 690 offenders 2. Our pretrial only sample is 457 or approximately 50% of the pretrial population. Pretrial Only Offender Profile The pretrial population closely reflects the demographic characteristics of the jail population itself. They tend to be slightly younger with 30% of the pretrial population under 23 while 23% of the overall jail population is under 23. They are charged with the same types of offenses with the highest proportion being personal and violent crimes followed by drug related charges. In fact, 75% are charged with some person or some drug charge. The most serious charge is aggravated assault followed by charges for drug sales. 37.2% of the pretrial only population is charged with felony offenses only. 36% of these charges are either aggravated assault or drug sales and an additional 20% are robbery or murder. 27% of the pretrial only population is charged with misdemeanor offenses only. Over 50% of the misdemeanor charges are either DWI (15.3%), assault on a female (11.3%) trespass (10.5%), simple assault (9.7%) or larceny (8.1%). The average number of charges is 3. The remaining pretrial only population (35.7%) is charged with a mixture of felonies and misdemeanors. These charges reflect the same person and drug charges as the felony only population. 21.1% of the pretrial population charged with either drug possession or drug sales was also charged with a traffic offense such as DWI, driving while license expired or no registration. 2 This gives a confidence level of 95% that the findings are within ±3%. 23

24 Average Length of Stay The average jail stay for the pretrial only population is 76 days and the Median is 43 days. If the defendants are charged only with misdemeanors, then the average stay is 28 days with a Median of 15 days. If charged with felonies, the average length of stay is 126 days with a Median of 80. Those with combined charges, which also include traffic offenses stay, on the average 77 days with a Median of 51. DWI cases averaged 32 days. Basic Statistics Demographics Age Pretrial Jail* % 2% % 21% % 24% % 17% % 15% % 13% 48 or older 7% 9% Gender Male 88% 86% Female 12% 14% Race Caucasian/Hispanic 38% 39% African American 61% 59% Other 1% 2% * Preliminary profile of entire jail population February 13-19, 2005 Class of Offense(s) All Misdemeanors % All Felonies % Combination % Profile (Based on the three most serious offenses) Any Person % Any Drug % Any Property % Any DWI % Any Traffic not DWI % Any Resisting % Disorderly, ordinances, Prob. Viol % 24

25 Person Only % Drug Only % Property Only % DWI Only 7 1.5% Person-drug % Person-Property % Property-Drug % Combinations % Average Length of Stay Days Misdemeanors Only 39 Felonies Only 181 Combinations 114 Most Serious Charges - Overall The 10 most frequent serious charges. Offense N Aggravated Assault % Drugs-Sale % Robbery % B&E % Murder % DWI % Larceny % Rape % Simple Assault % Drug Possession % Most Serious Felony Charges Felony Only (n=333) Aggravated Assault % Drugs-Sale % Robbery % Murder % B&E % % Most Serious Misdemeanor Only Charges (n=124) DWI % Assault on Female % Trespass % Simple Assault % Larceny % % The average and Median number of charges for the Pure Pretrial population is 3. o Misdemeanor only - 2; felony only 3; combination 3.5. o Combinations (Incl. traffic) 77 days average; 51 Median 25

26 Average Number of Jail Days Offense Type Misdemeanor Only Felony Only Combination Person Only Drug Only Property Only Person Drug Person-Property Drug- Property 37 No cases 48 Mixed DWI cases averaged 32 days Pretrial Mixed Population The pretrial mixed population did not vary significantly in terms of demographic or even charge factors. The can be distinguished, however, by a longer average length of stay 117 days with a Median number of days of % of the pretrial only population had jail stays of 30 days or less and 61.8% had stays of 60 days or less. Only 28.7% of the mixed population had stays of 30 days or less and 48.2% were in jail 60 days or less. The following tables compare the length of stay for those considered a mixed population and those considered to be pretrial only. Table 2 Comparison Pure Pretrial and Pretrial Mixed by Jail Days Pretrial Mixed Pure Pretrial Characteristic N Percent N Percent Days in Jail/Disposition Average Length of Stay Median days in jail Not Released One Day Over 1 year

27 Table 3 Comparison of Charges All Pretrial and Pure Pretrial All Pure Pretrial on 8/30/04 Offense Number Percent Offense Number Percent Aggravated Assault Aggravated Assault Drugs-Sale Drugs-Sale Robbery Robbery B&E B&E Murder Murder DWI DWI Drug Possession Larceny Larceny Rape Simple Assault Simple Assault Rape Drug Possession Weapons Traffic Related-not DWI Unauthorized Use MV Assault on Female Traffic Related-not DWI Trespass Assault on Female Unauthorized Use MV Trespass Habitual Habitual Weapons Kidnapping Prostitution Fraud Fleeing Prostitution Viol. Protection Order Fleeing Fraud Viol. Protection Order Child Neglect Child Abuse Obstruction/resisting Child Neglect Arson Obstruction/resisting Property Damage Prob. Viol Kidnapping Threats Public Intoxication Public Intoxication Child Abuse Arson Embezzlement Property Damage Forgery Stolen Property Disorderly Conduct Embezzlement Sex Offense-Not Rape Sex Offense-Not Rape Prob. Violation Forgery Total Ordinances Disorderly Conduct Total

28 A.2. Court System Process The North Carolina court system functions differently than many other states. It has three distinct features: The process of state elected judges who must then rotate though the various counties rather than having only county residents as superior court judges, scheduling authority as a District Attorney responsibility, and the use of both probable cause and grand jury processes in the same cases. Court process is also impacted by a variety of other factors including the allotted time slots for team based prosecution, drug courts, Administrative Court sessions, and plea slots etc. It is also influenced by the rules and regulations set forth by the state regarding discovery that increase the amount and types of evidence required to be collected by the police, the time required to get and serve subpoenas for cases and by the scheduling based around officer court dates, which can all prolong case dispositions when continuances are requested. To compensate for the many potential pitfalls in this structure, in 1998 Mecklenburg County established the Criminal Case Management System in Superior Court. This system attempts to reduce court delays by clearly identifying the process of court events and the expectations to be achieved at each event. It sets schedules that can best utilize the limited number of judges, DAs and Public Defenders. For a county as large as Mecklenburg and with a crime rate as high as Charlotte, the deficiency in staff compared with comparable districts (See section F) could cause more serious delays than this research reveals. The objective of this section of the report is to highlight the flow of cases and the issues/factors that may delay a timely disposition. Data for this section were collected from court files. A 25% sample of the pretrial only and mixed jail population was selected to record all information on court dates, events, and outcomes. This report focuses on an incustody pretrial population and is not a sample of the overall operations or timeframes for the court as a whole 3. At the time of this research, 136 of the 384 cases under review (35.4%) had no dispositions noted in the court files and are considered still pending. Looking at only those actually disposed: Average time from arrest to disposition 221 days o Only 36.7% were disposed of within 180 days Average number of charges 3 Range 1 to 10 Average number of continuances These figures will be inconsistent with overall court figures because of the nature of the population studied but they can be generalized to the in-custody population. 28

29 Table 4Days From Arrest to Disposition One Day Over 1 yr Pending Total Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Misdemeanor Only Cases o Average time from arrest to disposition (Of disposed) 55 days o 7.6% within 30 days o 13.9% within 60 days o 24.2% within 90 days o 34.2% within 120 days o 49.4% within 180 days o 70.9% within one year o 82.3% Over 1 year o 17.7% still pending o Average number of Continuances 2.5 Continuances granted in 79.7% of cases 29.0% had more than 3 continuances o Failure to Appears were recorded for 77.2% of cases 12.7% had more than 1 FTA Felony and Mixed Cases Average time from booking* to disposition (Of Disposed) 142 days o o o o o o 13.1% within 90 days 19.3% within 120 days 33.41% within 180 days 49.8% within one year 60.0% over one year 40.0% still pending 29

30 *NOTE: Booking time may not be directly related to arrest since some felony offenders were in and out of jail since the original charge. These data reflect the in-custody time as of 8/30/04 and this is not a reflection of the time it takes from arrest to actual case disposition (See Section F) Average number of Continuances 2.1 o Continuances were granted in 83.7% of cases Range % had more than three continuances Failure to Appears were recorded for 35.4% of cases Only 8.5% had more than 1 FTA Characteristics Case Disposition Over 180 Days (Of those disposed) Offense Profile Person Only 36.9% Drug Only 14.3% Property Only 9.4% Combination 39.4% Continuances 54.2% more than 3 (incl. 2201) 17.2% more than 3 (excl. 2201) Failure to Appear 37.9% - 22% more than 1 75% of the cases involve the following types of cases o Drug Sale/Trafficking 21.7% o Murder 15.8% o Robbery 13.8% o Aggravated Assault 10.8% o Rape 6.4% o Breaking & Entering 6.4% 74.9% According to the American Bar Association Standard there is a requirement for accelerated trial for detained defendants. Every jurisdiction should establish, by statute or court rule, accelerated time limitations within which detained defendants should be tried consistent with the sound administration of justice. These accelerated time limitations should be shorter than current speedy trial time limitations applicable to defendants on pretrial release. The failure to try a detained defendant within such accelerated time 30

31 limitations should result in the defendant's immediate release from detention under reasonable conditions that best minimize the risk of flight and danger to the community pending trial, unless the delay is attributable to or agreed to by the defendant In Mecklenburg County some preference is given to incarcerated offenders prior to the probable cause hearing and grand jury indictment, but there is no systematic mechanism to expedite case processing after those points potentially increasing jail time in pretrial status. Records and Data The court records system is not designed as a system to provide aggregated or easily compiled statistics to facilitate management, planning or accountability. The system does not provide efficient or even reliable statistics for analytical purposes. Information is missing or not entered, specific and definable court phases such as bond hearings, Probable Cause Hearings, indictments etc. are not identified per se in the events sections. There is no identification of fast track defendants to monitor their case flow. There is no easy mechanism to get court management data on performance measures. In short, extracting accurate and reliable data is a major problem. Summary of Findings Over a third of the in-custody pretrial population are charged with person crimes. Time periods to disposition are significantly below ABA and NC Supreme Court recommendations AT times there has been a lack of sufficient court support staff. There appears to be a shortage in the number of available clerks and/or court reporters which is a factor in continuances. Drug sale, murder and robbery cases dominate the cases lasting more than 180 days 29% of misdemeanor cases 42.2% of felony cases have more than 3 continuances. However, the inclusion of defined movement from one setting to another may be noted as a continuance but does not technically qualify as one. Therefore, excluding 2201 continuances for felony cases the percent is reduced to 18.3%. Failure to Appear is a factor in the proportion of cases taking more than 180 to dispose. There is no priority given to disposing of cases where defendants are in custody increasing the number of jail days pretrial. The court records system is not designed as a system to provide aggregated or easily compiled statistics to facilitate management, planning or accountability. The system does not provide efficient or even reliable statistics for analytical purposes. There is no easy mechanism to get court management data on performance measures. In short, extracting accurate and reliable data is a major problem. There is no way to specifically identify Fast Track cases. 31