Emergency Bond Hearings Transcript Review Insights

Slide Note

Analysis of emergency bond hearings transcripts from various dates revealed insights such as objection rates, agreement rates, and no-position rates, showing trends in case outcomes. Comparison with Appleseed's data provided further context on objection, agreement, and no-position rates. The timeline and overview highlighted the start of emergency bond reviews, the number of cases reviewed, and outstanding questions related to court calls during specific periods.

mattyw Follow

Uploaded on Oct 02, 2024 | 0 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

Emergency Bond Hearings Transcript Review Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Transcript Review Summary A transcript review of 11 emergency bond hearings showed that we agreed to 42% of the cases, took no position on 32% of the cases, and objected to 26% The combined not agreed rate is 58% The combined not agreed rate from March 23-April 8 among this sample size is 63%, but the objection rate is substantially lower at 28% This analysis included 3 court calls where we didn't object to a single case from 3/19 to 3/23 If we look at data after 3/23, we agreed to 24% of the cases, took no position on 35% of the cases, and actively objected to 34% of the cases Overall, data from this review shows that we agreed to adjusting bond in 130 cases, took no position in 97 cases, and objected in 79 cases

Transcript Review Summary 305 Cases Representing 232 Individuals Motions withdrawn by the defense or on call in error were not included For cases reviewed by our office we found the following rates in outcomes 26% Objection Rate Objections on 79 Cases 42.6% Agreed Agreed, No-Objection on 130 Cases 31.8% No Position No Position on 97 Cases

In Relation to Appleseeds Data Appleseed looked at 2,366 cases between March 23 and April 22 We reviewed transcripts for 279 cases during that time 12% of Appleseed s Data The objection rate from our transcript review during that time is 28% Compared to an overall objection rate of 26% The agreement rate is 37.3% Compared to an overall agreement rate of 42.6% The no position rate is 34.7% Compared to an overall no position rate of 31.8%

Timeline & Overview Emergency Bond Reviews began on Thursday, March 19 We obtained transcripts for 3 calls during the first week of emergency hearings All of these calls were considered agreed There were a total of 75 cases which make up 24.6% of total cases reviewed by our office Calls ranged in size from 6 cases to 49 cases Outstanding Questions: How many court calls took place between March 19 and March 23? How many of these calls were considered agreed? How many cases were on each of these calls?

Timeline & Overview From Tuesday, March 24 to Friday, March 27 there were 32 court calls at 26thSt We obtained transcripts for 7 of those calls which make up 75.4% of cases reviewed by our office Emergency Hearings continued without regulation until April 15, at which point calls were limited to 30 cases We have one additional court call for this time period, April 8th Emergency Hearings have continued processing ~60 cases per day for 42 days (6/15/2020) More than 2,500 bond review hearings with a jail population increasing from 4,322 to 4,515 (4.5% population increase)

Further Analysis

Agreed Calls Not Captured by PD or Appleseed March 19th Judge Gaughan 6 Cases Representing 6 Individuals All by Agreement March 20th Judge Gaughan 20 Cases Representing 20 Individuals All By Agreement March 23rd Judge Hooks 49 Cases Representing 35 Individuals All By Agreement 13 with additional pending cases (per the prescreen sheet, would need to cross reference with Odyssey)

March 24th Judges Chiampas and Wilson 34 Cases Representing 30 Individuals By Case 14 Objections 4 Agreements 16 No Positions 41.2% 11.8% 47% By Individual 11 Objections 4 Agreements 15 No Positions 36.7% 13.3% 50% March 25th Judges Atcherson & Maldonado 57 Cases Representing 45 Individuals By Case 12 Objections 15 Agreements 30 No Positions 21% 26.3% 52.6% By Individual 10 Objections 13 Agreements 22 No Positions 22.2% 28.9% 48.9%

March 26th Judge Chiampas 47 Cases Representing 38 Individuals By Case 5 Objections 8 Agreements 35 No Positions 10.6% 17% 74.5% By Individual 4 Objections 7 Agreements 28 No Positions 10.5% 18.4% 73.7% March 27th Judges Hooks & Kuriakos Ciesel 84 Cases Representing 58 Individuals By Case 43 Objections 25 Agreements 16 No Positions 51.2% 29.8% 19% By Individual 31 Objections 17 Agreements 10 No Positions 53.4% 29.3% 17.2%