15

While crime rates thankfully continued their declineacross the State in 1998, criminal filings in the Statecourts continued their upward march, topping 1.25

million cases last year. The bulk of the increase was in the NewYork City Criminal Court,a misdemeanor courtheavily impacted by“quality of life” lawenforcement initiativesin New York City.Throughout 1998, theUnified Court Systemworked both to managethese caseloads and todevelop innovative crim-inal justice programs.

New York City Criminal Court CaseManagement ProgramsRecent criminal justice policies in the City of New York have

dramatically impacted the caseload of the New York City Crim-inal Court. Law enforcement initiatives targeting drug andquality of life offenses boosted 1998 filings in this misdemeanorcourt 11 percent over 1997’s record-breaking levels (and some67 percent over filings in 1994). Changes in the Police Depar t-ment’s policies regarding the issuance of Desk AppearanceTickets, moreover, also swelled the number of detained defen-dants brought to court and thus the number of cases subject to“arrest-to-arraignment” time restrictions. During 1998, the Crim-inal Court worked to find effective methods of dealing with anenormous number of low-level—but often socially significant—offenses.

Reducing Arre s t - t o - A r raignment Times

Despite record increases in the number of detained defen-dants brought to the Criminal Court over the past two years,the Court has actually reduced its arrest-to-arraignment timesin this same time period. As the accompanying graph illus-trates, in 1996 the Court handled 294,338 on-line arrests andthe average arrest-to-arraignment time was 28.3 hours. Whileon-line arrests rose 22 percent over 1996 levels in 1998, the

Total Criminal Filings 1994-1998( in thousands )

855967

1,053

1,183

1,266

CRIMINAL JUSTICE

16

average arrest-to-arraignment time fell22 percent to under21.9 hours. Thisremarkable achieve-ment was the prod-uct of collaborationwith partner agen-cies, deployment ofresources to meetthe daily demandsand expanded use oftechnology. TheCriminal Court nowoperates 108

arraignment parts per week, day and night, devoting approxi-mately 25 percent of its judicial staff to this task.

Monitoring Compliance with Alternative Sanctions

Quality of life offenses comprise over one-third of the Crim-inal Court’s arraignment caseload. In many of these cases,alternative sanctions—such as community service, drug treat-ment or other social service programs—can be an appropriateresponse, and certainly more meaningful than sentences of“time served.” Alternative sentences require accountable pro-grams and follow-up to ensure defendant compliance. In 1998,the Court began planning for a centralized system of referraland monitoring to improve current practice in this area. A firststep was a pilot post-disposition part in New York County totrack defendant compliance with court-ordered alternativesentences. Future plans include development of a customizedtechnology application that will provide a centralized directory ofavailable programs, individualized defendant criminal historydata and monitoring capability.

The Summons Automation Pro j e c t

In 1998, the Criminal Court looked to the power of technologyto help manage the nearly one-half million (489,000) summonscases it received. To replace the current labor-intensive systemthat calendars fewer than two-thirds of the summonses issued,the new computerized system will automatically calendar everysummons, allowing warrants to be promptly issued for non-

N ew Yo rk City Criminal CourtA r r e s t - t o - A r raignment T i m e

v. Case Vo l u m e

Cases Time

235

27.9

26.6

28.3

23

21.9236

294

324

359

17

appearing defendants. An interface to the CRIMS system willallow downloading of warrant information to law enforcementofficials. A new Citywide cashiering module—replacing nineseparate cashiering databases throughout the five boroughs—will expedite the processing of fines.

The automated system is now being implemented on a pilotbasis in New York County, with installation in the remainingboroughs to follow as necessary cabling and electrical work iscompleted.

Drug Treatment CourtsJust four years ago, New York State’s first Drug Treatment

Court opened in Rochester City Court. Modeled on thetreatment-based approach pioneered in Miami, Florida in thelate 1980s, the Rochester Treatment Court targeted a population

particularly prone torecycling through thecriminal justice sys-t e m : n o nviolent, dru g -addicted offenders.By requiring thatdefendants completean intensive drugtreatment programas an alternative tojail—and rigorouslymonitoring theirprogress—theRochester TreatmentCourt sought tobreak, not merelyinterrupt, the frus-trating cycle of drug-fueled criminalrecidivism.

From that one p r o-gram in Rochester, anetwork of fifteenDrug Treatment

Courts has grown across the State, with six additional court sscheduled to come on line this ye a r. S t a t ew i d e, close to 1,000defendants have now graduated from these demanding court

Jodi Calkins, who graduated fro mR o ch e s t e r ’s Drug Treatment Court lastFe b ru a ry, had hit ro ck bottom whenshe arri ved there fo l l owing her arre s tfor drug possession. P regnant at thet i m e , Jodi had alre a dy gi ven up herother two ch i l d ren to dru g s . She say s ,“I don’t know if I’d be around today ifnot for the court ,w h i ch motivated meto stay clean and take responsibility fo rmy life . I had a healthy baby, o b t a i n e djoint custody of my middle son,resumed my relationship with myeldest child and became re a c q u a i n t e dwith my mom.” Jodi re c e n t ly discov-e red she enjoys wo rking with herhands and is now learning constru c-tion skills. She is also active in thec o u rt ’s alumni gro u p ,w h i ch assistsrelapsing participants and has been agreat support netwo rk for her. “ N o teve ry day is easy, but life is go o d ,” s h ea d d s .

programs, and 1,500 others are currently in treatment undercourt supervision.

Stand-out programs include the Buffalo City TreatmentCourt—recently selected a “mentor court” by the NationalAssociation of Drug Court Professionals and the United StatesDepartment of Justice—and the Brooklyn Treatment Court—also a mentor court and the busiest drug court in the nation. Acustom-built computer system that helps the judge keep closetabs on defendants has been piloted in Brooklyn and will soonbe available for use by treatment courts across the State.

To provide court planners with comprehensive informationabout the number and characteristics of defendants enrolling indrug court programs, the extent of their participation, the typesof treatment delivered and the frequency of subsequent arrests,a Statewide Drug Court Evaluation Project will be launched thisyear. The database to be assembled will provide a valuable toolfor assessing drug court performance and planning futureexpansion of these programs.

This past Fall, personnel involved in the operation of or plan-ning for drug courts came together for the first annual Confer-ence of the New York Association of Drug Treatment CourtProfessionals. During two days of workshops, participantsshared lessons and strategies for successful court interventionsthat get defendants off drugs and out of the criminal justicesystem.

Combating Domestic ViolenceIn recent ye a r s, both the public and gove rnment officials have

come to recognize that domestic violence is a major socialp r o blem that affects the health and safety of thousands of adultsand children in this State. In 1998, New York’s courts com-menced new initiatives and expanded ongoing programs toaddress the special challenges that domestic violence matterspresent to the criminal justice system.

The Brooklyn Fe l o ny Domestic Violence Court

The court system opened the State’s first specialized courtdedicated to domestic violence felonies in Brooklyn SupremeCourt in June 1996. A collaborative effort between the courts,the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, the defense bar,Victim Services and the Center for Court Innovation, theBrooklyn Felony Domestic Violence Court seeks to improve the

18

handling of domestic violencecases by stressing offenderaccountability and victim safety.To better ensure defendantcompliance with court orders,the Brooklyn DV Court featuresenhanced monitoring—bothbefore and after casedisposition—through frequentcourt appearances and dedi-cated intensive probationsupervision. To better ensurevictim safety, the Court empha-sizes enhanced services,including assignment of avictim counselor in every case.

This past year, the BrooklynDV Court expanded its opera-tions to two court parts. Theexpanded Court continues tofeature the enhanced staffing,intensive monitoring andconcentration of services thath ave played such a key role in the Brooklyn DV Court’s successto date. The Court is developing a new staff position—Coordinator for Children of Domestic V i o l e n c e —to improve thedelivery of services to the children of families involved in theCourt. It is also making plans for a new Defend a n tAssessment/Case Management Unit to improve the Court ’sability to assess, monitor and supervise mentally ill and substance-abusing defendants.

N ew York City Criminal Court Domestic Violence Pa r t s

The New York City Criminal Court arraigns every domesticviolence arrest in New York City and retains jurisdiction over thevast majority of these cases. In 1998, Criminal Court judgesarraigned over 25,000 domestic violence matters and disposedof over 30,000 such cases. This enormous volume creates aparticular challenge for the court to ensure that every domesticviolence matter is treated fairly and consistently, with adequateattention to victim safety and offender accountability. As a firststep to expand the amount of information available to arraign-ment judges, an inquiry is made to the court system’s Domestic

19

Ovita Wi l l i a m s , a socialwo rker who helps domesticviolence victims fro mB ro o k ly n ’s Domestic Vi o l e n c eC o u rt get back on their fe e t ,talks about her wo rk :

“My clients are peoplew h o ’ve been battered andabused for mu ch of theirl i ve s . I’m there to make themu n d e rstand that they haveo p t i o n s . As one of the court ’svictim advo c a t e s , I prov i d ec o u n s e l i n g ,s a fety planningand compre h e n s i ve re fe rra ls e rvices to help victims ofdomestic violence gain safe t yand break away from theab u s i ve re l a t i o n s h i p .I t ’s sof u l filling whenever a cl i e n tm oves on to a safe and betterl i fe .”

Violence Registry on every domestic violence case to deter-mine if the defendant is the subject of any prior or open ordersof protection. In 1998, Criminal Court staff made over 52,000such inquiries.

In addition, the Court has developed a Domestic ViolenceIntervention Plan that provides for three types of dedicatedparts in each county: Domestic Violence All-Purpose Parts tohandle all post-arraignment proceedings, Domestic ViolenceTrial Parts to expedite the hearing of trial-ready cases, andDomestic Violence Compliance Parts to monitor defendants’compliance with court-ordered conditions of sentence. In 1998,all three types of parts became operational in the Bronx CountyCriminal Court and an integrated domestic violence model pro-gram was created, with dedicated staff to coordinate servicesfor victims and monitor defendants. In addition, dedicated All-Purpose Parts have been established in Queens, Kings (twoparts) and Richmond (one day per week) and a dedicated TrialPart is in place in New York County. Dedicated ComplianceParts, with judicial hearing officers presiding, have also beeninstituted in Kings, New York and Queens Counties.

The Domestic Violence Technology Application

The Center for Court Innovation is working with the UnifiedCourt System to develop a customized Domestic ViolenceCourt Technology Application that will enhance the courtsystem’s ability to address domestic violence crimes. Withfunding from the United States Department of Justice, the NewYork State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the StateJustice Institute, the technology application will create elec-tronic links between courts and their criminal justice and socials e rvice part n e r s. The application will thus promote cost-effe c t i vereal-time reporting from batterers’ intervention programs, sub-stance abuse programs, the Department of Probation and vic-tims’ services agencies. It will also, in turn, allow these officesto receive continuously updated information on the status of thecase and orders from the court.

The application will be piloted in the Brooklyn Felony Dom-estic Violence Court and the Bronx Criminal Court’s DomesticViolence Parts in the first half of 1999.

20

Expanding the Domestic Violence Court Model

Building on the success of these pioneering model court pro-grams, the Unified Court System is making plans to adaptthese models to other settings throughout the State. Projectscurrently underway include:

• Bronx Felony Domestic Violence Court

Replicating the Brooklyn DV Court in Bronx County,this court will have an adapted version of theDomestic Violence Technology Application that willfeature a linkage to the Bronx Criminal CourtDomestic Violence Parts.

• Buffalo Domestic Violence Court

In the Winter of 1999, the Buffalo City Court will opena misdemeanor domestic violence court modeled onthe Bronx Criminal Court program.

• Westchester Domestic Violence Court

Later this year, a Domestic Violence Court will openin Westchester County Supreme Court to handledomestic violence fe l o n i e s. C o u rt planners are alsoex p l o ring the possibility of including misdemeanormatters in the caseload to maximize court and socialservice resources.

Now that a critical mass of judges and court administratorsinvolved in domestic violence courts is emerging, the courtsystem is planning a series of Domestic Violence CourtRoundtables so that those involved in the planning or operationof such courts can share the lessons being learned as ourexperience in this area grows.

Brooklyn Supreme Court VideoCourtroom and Conference CenterIn April 1998, the court system officially opened the Kings

County Supreme Court’s Video Courtroom and ConferenceC e n t e r, a video-linked courtroom that allows defendants housedat Riker’s Island to make routine court appearances withoutleaving the detention facility. The Video Courtroom was estab-lished by the courts in conjunction with the New York CityDepartment of Correction, the Department of InformationTechnology and the Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinatorto save transportation costs and reduce waiting times for court

21

22

appearances.The Courtroom is only used for defendants whovoluntarily waive their rights to personally appear in court.

In an electronic court appearance, the defendant can beheard and seen simultaneously along with the judge and allother participants through the use of state-of-the-art split screenmonitors. A dedicated phone line allows for private conversa-tions between the defendant and counsel or family members.The technology, which is projected to save the City millions ofdollars over time, is also used by attorneys and drug-treatmentprogram caseworkers to conduct confidential interviews withdetained clients. Over 2,000 court appearances and confer-ences were held in the Brooklyn facility last year. Additionalvideo-linked courtrooms are expected to be up and running inBroome, Westchester and Onondaga Counties by the end ofthis year.