Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1997

October 1999, NCJ 176328

This report is one in a series.  More recent editions
may be available.  To view a list of all in the series
go to http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs/pubalp2.htm#cfjs

The data tables for this report are not presented here. 
Spreadsheets of the data tables are available at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cfjs97.htm

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics

Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D.
Director, BJS

This Bureau of Justice Statistics Report was prepared by
the Urban Institute under the supervision of Steven K.
Smith and John Scalia, Jr., of the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS). The project is supported by BJS grant number
98-BJ-CX-K015. Principal staff for the project at the Urban
Institute were William J. Sabol, Ph.D., William Adams,
David Kirk, Barbara Parthasarathy, Harvey Meyerson, Yan
Yuan, and Christine Arriola. Layout and design were by
David Williams. Tom Hester of BJS provided editorial
review.

This report is made possible through the cooperation of the
following Federal agencies and their staffs: The Administrative
Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), the Executive
Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA), the U.S. Bureau
of Prisons (BOP), the United States Sentencing Commission
(USSC), and the Federal Judicial Center (FJC).
The staff who provided expert advice about the source records
include: Steven Schlesinger, Catherine Whitaker,
and Pragati Patrick (AOUSC); Barbara Tone (EOUSA);
Gerald Gaes and Christopher Innes (BOP); Richard McNeil
(USSC); and David Rauma and George Cort (FJC).
The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect
the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or
the U.S. Department of Justice.

BJS authorizes any person to reproduce, publish, translate,
or otherwise use all or any part of the copyrighted material
in this publication; citation to source, however, is
appreciated.

An electronic version of this report and the data analyzed in
the report may be found on the Internet at the following address:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. Or visit the BJS-sponsored
Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center
(FJSRC) web site at: http://fjsrc.urban.org/, which provides
online access to the FJSP database for conducting
interactive tabulations of the FJSP data and downloading
datasets.

Highlights

During 1997 just over 110,000 suspects were investigated by U.S.
attorneys for possible violations of the U.S. code, and criminal charges
were filed in U.S. district courts against about 70,300 defendants, almost
a third of whom were prosecuted for drug offenses.

The majority (87%) of the 64,956 defendants whose cases were terminated
in U.S. district courts during 1997 were convicted.  Among those
convicted, 70% were sentenced to prison for an average of 58.9 months. 
At the end of 1997, the Federal Bureau of Prisons held more than 98,944
prisoners who had been convicted of a Federal offense, an increase of 7%
over 1996.  Sixty percent of those held by the Bureau of Prisons were
convicted and sentenced for drug offenses.

Prosecution

During 1997 U.S. attorneys initiated criminal investigations of 110,034
suspects, and they concluded their investigations of 99,459 suspects. 
Thirty-four percent of the suspects were investigated for public-order, 31%
for drug, 28% for property, and 7% for violent offenses.

Of the suspects in criminal matters concluded, U.S. attorneys prosecuted
60,383 in U.S. district courts (61% of all suspects in matters concluded)
and declined to prosecute 29,069 suspects (29%), while U.S. magistrates
disposed of another 10,007 suspects (10%).

Suspects in criminal matters involving drug or violent offenses were
slightly more likely to be prosecuted in a U.S. district court (76% and
63%, respectively) than were the suspects involved in public-order or
property offenses (54% and 51%, respectively).  Suspects involved in
property offenses (such as fraud) or regulatory public-order offenses were
more likely to be declined for prosecution (43% and 65%, respectively)
than were the suspects investigated for drug or violent offenses (18% and
31%, respectively).

Pretrial release

During 1997 about 51% of the 56,041 defendants who terminated pretrial
services were released at some time prior to their criminal trial. 
Defendants charged with property offenses such as embezzlement, fraud,
and larceny and those charged with regulatory public-order offenses or tax
law violations were more likely to be released prior to trial (between 72%
and 95% of these defendants were released) than were defendants charged
with violent offenses, drug trafficking, weapons, or immigration offenses
(between 11% and 48% of these defendants were released).

Defendants having a prior criminal history of serious or violent crimes
were less likely to be released than those without a prior criminal history;
defendants with more criminal history were less likely to be released than
those with less criminal history.  Twenty-six percent of the defendants
with a prior violent felony conviction were released before trial, while
61% of the defendants with no prior convictions were released.  Fifty-four
percent of defendants with one prior conviction were released, as
compared to 41% of defendants having two to four prior convictions and
29% of defendants having five or more prior convictions.

About 84% of the defendants released prior to trial completed their periods
of release without violating the conditions of their release.  About 16% of
defendants released violated the conditions of their release, and 6% of
defendants had their release revoked.  Defendants charged with drug and
violent offenses were more likely to commit at least one violation of their
conditions of release (26% and 18%, respectively) and to have their release
revoked (10% and 8%, respectively) than were other defendants.

Adjudication

Criminal charges were filed in U.S. district courts against 69,351
defendants during 1997, about 82% of whom were charged with felonies. 
Of the defendants charged with felonies, 41% were prosecuted for drug
trafficking offenses, 26% for public-order offenses, 24% for property
offenses, and 6% for violent offenses.

Criminal cases were concluded against 64,956 defendants during 1997,
82% of whom had been charged with felonies.  Eighty-seven percent (or
56,570) of all defendants were convicted; 84% of these were felony
convictions.

Ninety percent of defendants charged with felonies were convicted.  This
conviction rate was about the same for all major offense categories:  91%
of public-order offenders, 90% of violent and property offenders, and 89%
of drug offenders.  Most felony convictions were obtained by guilty plea
(93%).

Drug defendants comprised 42% of felony convictions; both property and
public-order defendants comprised 26% of the felony convictions, and
defendants charged with violent offenses comprised the remaining 6% of
felony convictions.

Sentencing

Of the 56,570 offenders sentenced during 1997, about 70% were
incarcerated, another 23% were placed on probation (either alone or with
some incarceration), and 6% were ordered to pay a fine.

About 92% of felony drug offenders and 91% of violent felony offenders
received prison sentences, as did 81% of felony public-order offenders and
59% of felony property offenders.

The 39,431 offenders sentenced to prison received, on average, 58.9
months of imprisonment, while the 12,801 offenders sentenced to
probation received, on average, 33.8 months of probation.  Offenders
sentenced for violent felony offenses and felony drug offenses received
longer average prison terms (85.7 and 80.6 months, respectively) than
those convicted of felony property and public-order offenses (24.4 and
47.5 months, respectively).
               
     Average length of sentences imposed, by offense,
	 October 1, 1996- September 30, 1997
         
     Most serious offense  Average
	 of conviction         sentence length
	   
     All offenses           58.9 mo   
     Felonies               61.2 
     Violent offenses       85.7 
     Property offenses      24.4 
     Drug offenses          80.6 
     Public-order offenses  47.5 
     Misdemeanors            9.9  
               

Appeals

During 1997 the U.S. Courts of Appeals received 10,521 criminal appeals. 
Forty-six percent of the appeals filed challenged both the conviction and
sentence imposed.  Only 4% of appeals were filed by the Government.  Of
the 10,466 appeals terminated during 1997, 78% (or 8,178) were
terminated on the merits.  In 86% of the appeals terminated on the merits,
the district court ruling was affirmed, at least in part.

Corrections

At the end of 1997, there were 90,751 offenders under supervision.  About
56% were serving terms of supervised release; another 36% were on
probation; and 8% were on parole.  Drug offenders comprised 52% of
offenders under terms of supervised release, 54% of offenders on parole,
and 11% of offenders on probation.  Property offenders comprised 39% of
offenders on probation, 28% of offenders serving terms of supervised
release, and 11% of offenders on parole.

A total of 16,748 offenders completed their terms of probation during
1997.  Most of these offenders (83%) completed their terms of probation
successfully.  Ten percent of probationers committed technical violations;
5% committed new crimes.

A total of 17,896 offenders completed terms of supervised release during
1997.  Of these offenders, 65% successfully completed their terms without
violating conditions of release; 21% committed technical violations; and
12% committed new crimes.

A total of 3,859 offenders completed terms of parole during 1997.  Of
these offenders, 60% successfully completed their terms without violating
conditions of release; 23% committed technical violations; and 13%
committed new crimes.

Regardless of the type of supervision, violent offenders were less likely
than others to successfully complete a term of supervision.

The Federal prison population increased by 6,565 offenders during 1997 to
reach 98,944 persons.  During 1997, 38,375 prisoners were received by the
Bureau of Prisons from U.S. district court commitments.  An additional
13,217 prisoners were returned to Federal prison for violating conditions
of probation, parole, or supervised release, or were admitted to Federal
prison from elsewhere than a U.S. district court.

During 1997, 31,894 prisoners were released for the first time from
Federal prison after commitment by a U.S. district court.  Of these, 29,080
were released by standard methods and 2,814 were released by
extraordinary means (death, treaty transfer, sentence commutation, or drug
treatment).  The standard "first releases" served, on average, 28.8 months
before their release, or about 91% of the sentence imposed.  Drug
offenders served an average of 42.5 months before first release, while
property offenders served an average of 15.3 months before first release.
               
     Average time to first release, standard releases, by offense,
	 October 1, 1995 - September 30, 1996
	      
     Most serious
	 original offense
	 of conviction         Mean time served
	    
     All offenses           28.8 mo   
     Violent offenses       53.8 
     Property offenses      15.3 
     Drug offenses          42.5 
     Public-order offenses  17.9 
               
An additional 13,133 prisoners were released from subsequent
commitments to Federal prison.

Drug offenders -- who comprised about 42% of persons admitted into
Federal prison -- comprised the largest percentage of persons in prison
(59%) at the end of 1997.

     Admissions to Federal Bureau of Prisons, releases, and prisoners at 
     yearend, by offense, October 1, 1995 - September 30, 1996 
	 
	Most serious offense         All           All        Population 
	of conviction                admissions    releases   at yearend 
	
	All offenses                      51,592    45,027      98,944 
	Violent offenses                    9.1%      9.6%      11.8% 
	Property offenses                  19.2      21.4        8.2 
	Drug offenses                      41.5      38.9       59.2 
	Public-order offenses              28.9      29.0       19.4 

Introduction    

This Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report presents an overview of case 
processing in the Federal criminal justice system.  The data presented are 
compiled from the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) database.  
The FJSP database includes data provided by the Administrative Office of 
the U.S. Courts, the Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys, the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons, and the U.S. Sentencing Commission.  The Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts, in addition to providing data describing defendants in
cases processed by the Federal judiciary, provides data describing
defendants processed by the Federal pretrial services agencies and the
Federal probation and supervision service.  The BJS Federal Justice
Statistics database is archived on CD-ROM, copies of which are available
from the BJS Clearinghouse.  The data can be downloaded from the Federal
Justice Statistics Resource Center located at http://fjsrc.urban.org.

Each agency reports on those defendants it processed during a given year
in an annual statistical report.  These agency reports are often
incomparable due to the varying methods the agencies use to report case
processing activities.  As reported by an interagency working group,
headed by BJS, the differences in the case processing statistics are
attributable, in part, to the differing needs and missions of the
agencies.  The working group found the following differences in reported
statistics:
* the universe of cases reported during a given period — some agencies
  report on those case processing events that occurred during a particular
  period, whereas others report on those events recorded during a
  particular period; and
* many of the commonly used case processing statistics -- suspect/defendant
  processed, offense committed, disposition, and sentence imposed -- are
  defined differently across agencies.

BJS, through FJSP, has recognized the incomparability of these annual
statistical reports and has attempted to reconcile many of the differences
identified by the working group.  For instance, by combining databases
from several years, BJS is able to report on those cases that actually
occurred during the reporting period.  Additionally, commonly used case
processing statistics are made comparable across stages by applying
uniform definitions to data obtained from each agency.  Because
definitions in the FJSP are consistent with those categories in BJS
programs describing State defendants convicted, sentenced, or imprisoned,
the comparison of Federal and State case processing statistics is
facilitated.

The 1997 Compendium, 12th in a series which includes 1984, 1985, 1986,
1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 describes defendants
processed at each stage of the Federal justice system -- investigation and
prosecution by the U.S. attorneys (chapter 1), pretrial release or
detention (chapter 2), adjudication in the U.S. district courts (chapter
3), sentencing (chapter 4), appeal of the conviction and/or sentence
imposed (chapter 5), and corrections (chapter 6) -- for the 12-month period
ending September 30, 1997 (the Federal fiscal year).  Prior to 1994, the
Compendium was reported on a calendar-year basis.

The tables presented report events that occurred during the Federal fiscal
year -- October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997.  Generally, the tables
include both individual and organizational defendants.  Organizational
defendants are not included in tables describing pretrial release and
detention or tables showing defendants sentenced to incarceration. 
Juvenile offenders are included in the reported statistics.  Felony and
misdemeanor distinctions are provided where possible (see "Offense
classifications" in Methodology).

Organization of the Compendium

Each chapter of the Compendium describes a major stage in the processing
of criminal suspects and defendants.  Each chapter contains Chapter notes
that describe the universes of data used in the tables and information
relevant to the interpretation of individual tables.  The Compendium
contains the following:

Chapter 1.  This chapter describes decisions made by Federal prosecutors
in screening criminal matters and the characteristics of defendants in
cases prosecuted or declined for prosecution.

Chapter 2.  This chapter describes the pretrial release and detention
practices of the Federal judiciary, including the characteristics of
defendants detained or released pending trial.

Chapter 3.  This chapter describes actions by the Federal judiciary in
adjudicating defendants in cases filed by the U.S. attorneys, including
the offense charged and characteristics of defendants convicted.

Chapter 4.  This chapter describes the sentences imposed by the Federal
judiciary on convicted defendants, including the characteristics of
defendants sentenced.

Chapter 5.  This chapter describes appeals of criminal convictions and
sentences imposed in the Federal courts, including the original offense
charged.

Chapter 6.  This chapter describes defendants under Federal correctional
supervision -- probation, parole, and supervised release -- including the
outcome of the supervision (successful completion or violations),
admissions to and releases from Federal prison, and time served by Federal
inmates.

Methodology.  This section describes the procedures followed in analyzing
data and developing tables.

Glossary.  This section contains definitions for terms used in the
Compendium.  Since many terms used in the text and tables have specialized
meanings (either because they refer to Federal law or because of reporting
procedures by the Federal agencies supplying the data), readers are
encouraged to check the glossary for exact definitions of tabulated data.

Comparing Case Processing Statistics.  This document, prepared by an
interagency working group tasked to reconcile differences in Federal
criminal case processing statistics, identifies and describes the major
differences in the way Federal criminal justice agencies collect,
tabulate, and report criminal case processing events.

Modifications to the 1997 Compendium

The corrections chapter (chapter 6) has been substantially reorganized, as
some tables were added, and one table was eliminated.  Appearing first are
two tables describing Federal offenders under supervision; the second of
these, displaying characteristics of the federally supervised population,
is a new addition.  The table showing characteristics of offenders
terminating post-incarceration supervision (parole or supervised release)
has been divided into two tables:  one showing characteristics of
offenders terminating supervised release and one showing characteristics
of offenders terminating parole.

The table showing supervision outcomes for offenders entering supervision
that appeared in previous compendia was deleted.  A table showing
demographic characteristics of the Federal prison population was added. 
The incarceration tables were reordered so that the table showing prisoner
stocks and flows appears first, followed by the aforementioned new table
showing characteristics of the Federal prison population.  For the balance
of the tables in chapter 6, the order from the previous Compendium is
retained.

Notes to reader

The tables in the Compendium were constructed to permit valid comparisons
within each table and to allow the reader to compare percentages (but not
raw totals) across tables.  It should be understood, however, that the
total number of subjects/defendants shown in a particular table may not 
equal the number of subjects/defendants involved in a particular stage of 
processing, since some records could not be linked and some data sources 
did not include information on particular data elements classified in a particular 
table. Data notes indicate the exact universe for individual tables.

The Compendium is a statistical presentation of Federal criminal justice
information with limited analyses of trends or explanatory factors
underlying the statistics.  Analyses of Federal justice statistics may be
found in special reports and other publications, some of which are cited
in the Compendium.  Assessment of changing patterns in the Compendium
tabulations may depend on detailed examination of subcategories not shown
in the tabulations or may require other sources of information, such as
knowledge of legislation or Federal agency procedures.

Chapter 1

Prosecution


Federal criminal cases may be brought by the U. S. Attorney s Office, by the
Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, or by other authorized
agencies.  The 93 U.S. attorneys serve as the chief Federal law enforcement
officers within their respective districts.

Investigations are most commonly referred to a U.S. attorney by a Federal
investigative agency (primarily the Drug Enforcement Administration; the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Postal Inspection Service; the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; and the Secret Service), by the Criminal
Division, or by a State or local investigative agency.  Investigations may also
be initiated -- and cases brought directly -- by U.S. attorneys or by the
Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.  This chapter reports only
on suspects that were at least partially investigated by U.S. attorneys.

U.S. attorneys' decisions

After criminal investigations are initiated and criminal suspects are referred to
them, U.S. attorneys may file charges against defendants in a U.S. district
court, or they may decline to file these charges for reasons such as weak or
insufficient evidence, minimal Federal interest, lack of resources, or lack of
criminal intent.  Matters that are declined may be referred to another authority
for prosecution or be settled through alternative resolution procedures.  U.S.
attorneys may also file cases before U.S. magistrates, who have the authority
to adjudicate misdemeanor offenses (18 U.S.C.3401).  U.S. attorneys
consider these cases to be criminal matters because of their relatively less
serious nature and because they are handled by magistrates.

The decision to prosecute a suspect in a criminal matter depends upon many
factors, including the Attorney General s priorities, U.S. attorney priorities and
resources, laws governing each type of offense, and the strength of evidence
in each case.

During 1997, 61% of suspects in all offense categories were prosecuted. 
Suspects were prosecuted at different rates depending on their offense. 
Suspects involved in violent and drug offenses were more likely to be
prosecuted before U.S. district court judges than were those involved in
property and public-order offenses (figure 1.1 Drug and violent suspects
were more likely to be prosecuted before a district court judge than property
and public-order suspects.  Source: Suspects in matters concluded:
Percentage of suspects that were prosecuted, declined, referred to other
authorities for disposition, or disposed by U.S. magistrate, October 1, 1996
- September 30, 1997)  Suspects involved in drug offenses were the most likely
(76%) to be prosecuted.  Suspects involved in property offenses were the least
likely to be prosecuted (51%).  However, suspects involved in property offenses
were more likely to have their matter declined and not referred to other authorities
for prosecution than were suspects involved in other types of criminal matters
(34%).  These cases were resolved by other means, including restitution,
civil/administrative procedures, and pretrial diversion.

Suspects in matters received (table 1.1)

During 1997 there were 110,034 suspects in new matters received for
investigation by U.S. attorneys.*** Footnote 1: See Chapter notes,
item 1, p. 20. The 1997 data are not directly comparable to the 1993
and prior compendia.***  Of these suspects, about 34% were
investigated for public-order offenses, 31% for drug offenses, and 28% for
property offenses.  Just under 7% of all suspects were investigated for violent
crimes.  Relative percentages of offenses reflect criminal activity as well as
Federal investigative, prosecutorial, and statutory priorities.  For example,
during 1997 priority areas for U.S. attorneys included international and
domestic terrorism, violent crimes (including firearms prosecutions and
violent street gangs), narcotics prosecutions, immigration, organized crime,
official corruption, labor management offenses, white collar crime,
government regulatory offenses, child support recovery, and civil rights
prosecutions (including the Church Arson Task Force).*** Footnote 2: Statistical
Report, United States Attorneys’ Offices, Fiscal Year 1997. U.S. Department
of Justice, Executive Office for United States Attorneys, Washington, DC.***

Suspects in matters concluded (tables 1.2-1.5)

Upon receiving a matter, a U.S. attorney will either immediately decline it for
prosecution or investigate further.  Upon conclusion of the investigation, a
matter may be filed as a criminal case in a U.S. district court, referred to a
U.S. magistrate, or declined for   prosecution.  Of the 99,459 suspects in
criminal matters concluded during 1997,  61% were prosecuted in U.S.
district court, 29% were declined for prosecution, and 10% were referred to
U.S. magistrates.***Footnote 3: The number of suspects in criminal matters
concluded is not comparable to the 1993 and prior compendia. See Chapter
notes, item 2, p. 20, for details.***

Suspects prosecuted (table 1.2) -- The likelihood of prosecution in U.S.
district court varied widely across offense categories.  Drug and violent
offenders were more likely to be prosecuted than those involved in property
and public-order offenses.  U.S. attorneys prosecuted approximately 76% of
suspects involved in drug offenses, 63% of those in violent offenses, 54% of
those in public-order offenses, and 51% of those in property offenses.
Differences in rates of prosecution within major categories were substantial. 
For example, among violent offenders, 80% of robbery suspects were
prosecuted, while 56% of murder, 52% of assault, and 40% of rape suspects
were prosecuted.  Among property offenders, suspects investigated for
counterfeiting were prosecuted at a higher rate than those involved in fraud
(70% compared with 49%), and among suspects involved in public-order
offenses, immigration (83%), weapons (69%), and tax law violators (67%)
were much more likely to be prosecuted than suspects in communications
(33%) and civil rights (7%) offenses.

Suspects in matters declined (tables 1.3-1.4)

Suspects in matters involving violent offenses were less likely to be
declined for prosecution (31%) than those involved in property offenses (43%)
but more likely than those in drug offenses (18%).  Suspects in public-order
offenses were slightly less likely to be declined for prosecution than those
involved in violent offenses (28% compared to 31%).

The decision to decline prosecution is based on a number of factors,
including the lack of prosecutable offense, alternative resolution, or case- and
suspect-related reasons (table 1.3).  Of the 29,069 declinations during 1997,
28% occurred because of case-related reasons, mostly due to weak
evidence (24%); 23% occurred because there was no crime or criminal intent
was lacking; and 18% occurred for other reasons, such as agency requests
(6%) and minimal Federal interest (4%).

Not all suspects whose matters were declined for prosecution avoided
prosecution.  Twenty-two percent of the suspects in matters declined were
referred to another authority for prosecution (table 1.4).  An additional 6%
were settled through alternative resolution procedures.  While suspects
involved in property offenses constituted the largest number of suspects who
were referred by U.S. attorneys to other authorities for prosecution or
resolution, suspects involved in drug offense were the most likely of suspects
whose matters were declined to be referred to other authorities for
prosecution or alternative resolution (figure 1.2 Of matters declined for
prosecution, suspects in drug offenses were more likely than others to be
referred to other authorities for prosecution or to have their case settled
through alternative resolution  Source:  Of suspects in matters declined,
percent referred or handled in other prosecutions, or settled through
alternative resolution, October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997)
Thirty-seven percent of the drug suspects whose matters were declined
prosecution by U.S. attorneys were referred for other prosecution or
resolution, as were 27% of the public-order, 27% of violent, and 26% of the
property offense suspects.

Within major offense categories, the likelihood that suspects in matters
declined for prosecution were referred to other authorities for prosecution or
alternative resolution varied among specific offenses.  Within property
offenses, referral occurred with 43% of persons involved in motor vehicle
theft, compared to 20% of suspects in arson and explosives cases.  Within
public-order offenses, referral occurred with 33% of weapons suspects were
referred to other authorities or had their case settled through alternative
procedures, compared to 8% of suspects in civil rights cases.

Defendants in cases concluded by U.S. magistrates (table 1.2)

Cases concluded by U.S. magistrates are, by statute, misdemeanors.*** Footnote 4:
At the time that U.S. attorneys receive them, matters may not be classifiable as
felonies or misdemeanors. If a U.S. magistrate disposes of a case — or what the
U.S. attorneys call a “matter” — its offense level has been determined, by statute,
to be a misdemeanor.   Overall, U.S. magistrates disposed of 10% of all criminal matters investigated by U.S.
attorneys.  For most offenses, the likelihood that a U.S. magistrate concluded
the matter was also relatively low.  The most notable exception was escape,
for which 58% of matters were concluded by U.S. magistrates.  The escape
offense category accounted for 17% of all cases concluded by U.S.
magistrates.
 
Most of the 2,933 escape violations were against defendants who absconded
to avoid prosecution in State courts, the so-called "unlawful flight to avoid
prosecution."  Upon apprehension of the fugitive, these cases are normally
dismissed by U.S. magistrates and turned over to the State for prosecution
on the original warrant.

Other types of offenses having comparably high rates of disposal by U.S.
magistrates included postal law violations (25%); conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, traffic, and jurisdictional offenses (61%); and other property
violations (44%).

Processing times (table 1.5)

For matters concluded during 1997, the average number of months from receipt
of a matter to its conclusion by a U.S. attorney as a case filing or declination
or its disposal by a U.S. magistrate was 9.2 months.  However, the time to
process matters varied with the outcome of the matter.  Matters concluded by
U.S. magistrates in which the suspect was convicted took the least amount of time
an average of 3.1 months, and at least 50% of these convictions occurred in about
40 days.  Similarly, 50% of the matters declined for prosecution were declined
within 12.5 months.

Overall, suspects in violent and drug offenses were processed more quickly
than suspects in other offenses.  For key decisions, such as whether to file a
case or decline a matter for prosecution, violent offenses were concluded
more quickly than drug offenses.  At an average of 15.2 months, fraudulent
property offenses took longer to conclude than other offenses.

Chapter Notes 

1) Tables 1.1-1.5 were created from the Central System data files of the
EOUSA.  For table 1.1, only records which showed a matter received during
1997 were selected.  For tables 1.2-1.5, only records which show a matter
terminated by reason of declination, disposition by a U.S. magistrate, or filed
as a case in U.S. district court from October 1, 1996, through September 30,
1997, were selected.  In all of these tables, matters  declined immediately -- 
those cases in which the U.S. attorney spent less than 1 hour investigating  
were excluded.

2) The number of suspects in matters investigated in table 1.1, and the
number of suspects in matters concluded in tables 1.2 and 1.5 are not
directly comparable to counts in the 1993 and prior compendia.  In those
years, these statistics included appellants in appeals filed or appeals
terminated.  In table 1.1 of this Compendium and the 1994 and subsequent
compendia, the number of suspects in matters received is limited to
suspects in criminal matters that were filed as cases in U.S. district courts,
handled by U.S. magistrates, or declined for prosecution.  In the 1993 and
prior compendia, the number of suspects in criminal matters received
included criminal appeals.  To obtain a number of suspects comparable to
the statistic reported in the 1993 and prior compendia, add to the data in
table 1.1 of this Compendium, the number of appellants in appeals that
were handled by U.S. attorneys.  The table below shows these data for
major offense categories.

                       Number of
Nature of the          appellants in appeals
underlying offense     filed and handled by
                       U.S. attorneys

All offenses          11,698
Violent offenses       1,045
Property offenses      2,206
Fraudulent property    1,839
Other property           367
Drug offenses          5,517
Public-order offenses  2,930
   Regulatory
    public order         200
   Other public order  2,730
Unknown or
indeterminable
offenses                 118

In tables 1.2 and 1.5 of this Compendium and in the 1994 and subsequent
compendia, the number of suspects in matters concluded also is limited to
those suspects whose matters were concluded by a case filing in a U.S.
district court, by declination, or by disposition by a U.S. magistrate.  In the
1993 and prior compendia, this number included appellants in criminal
appeals terminated.

To obtain a number that is comparable to the number reported in the 1993
and prior compendia, the number of appellants in appeals terminated and
handled by U.S. attorneys needs to be added to the totals in table 1.2.  The
table below shows the number of appellants in appeals cases terminated
during fiscal 1997.


Nature of the          Number of appellants
underlying offense     in appeals concluded
                       by U.S. attorneys

All offenses             9,209
Violent offenses           719
Property offenses        1,807
Fraudulent property      1,543
Other property             264
Drug offenses            4,408
Public-order offenses    2,275
   Regulatory
   public order            132
   Other public order    2,143
Unknown or
indeterminable
offenses                    92


3) Offenses in the Central System data files are classified by the title and
section of the United States Code for the most serious offense
investigated, as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for
the matter.  For tables in this Compendium, these citations were translated
into the corresponding four-digit offense codes used by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC).  These four-digit codes were
then aggregated into the categories shown in the tables.
U.S. Code citations often do not permit detailed classification of drug
offenses by the type of criminal activity involved.  A person charged with
conspiracy is classified under the substantive offense alleged (for
example, conspiracy to defraud is classified as fraud) unless type of
conspiracy cannot be determined from the U.S. Code citation. 
Unclassified conspiracies are included among  conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, traffic, and jurisdictional offenses  in tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5.
The most serious offense investigated is based on the criminal lead
charge as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the
criminal matter.

4) In the tables in this chapter, the  all offenses  row or  total declinations 
row (in table 1.3) includes records whose offense category (basis for
declination) is missing or indeterminable.  The percentage distributions in
these tables, however, are based on the number of observations with
nonmissing offenses (basis for declination) values.  The number of
missing values are reported either on a separate line or in a footnote.

Chapter 2

Pretrial

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. & 3141) sets the terms for
release and detention of defendants facing charges in Federal
courts.  At the time defendants first appear before a judicial officer,
they may be (1) released on personal recognizance or unsecured
bond; (2) released subject to conditions imposed by the court,
possibly including traditional bail; (3) temporarily detained without
bail (limited to 10 working days) to permit deportation, exclusion,
or the revocation of previously granted conditional release; or (4)
detained pending the outcome of a detention hearing.*(*18 U.S.C. & 3142(e) (1984))

According to the statute, a defendant must be brought before a judicial
officer without "unnecessary delay" upon arrest.  The judicial officer, who
may be a judge but is generally a U.S. magistrate, determines whether
the defendant will be released or detained prior to trial.  If a hearing is
required, the release decision may be delayed no longer than 3 days (or
5 days if requested by the defendant).

At the initial appearance a recommendation to detain the defendant is
made by the U.S. attorney and/or the pretrial services officer.  If the court
concurs with the recommendation to detain the defendant, a pretrial
detention hearing is scheduled -- typically within 1 week of the initial
appearance.  At the pretrial detention hearing evidence is presented to
show cause why the defendant should be detained pending adjudication
of the charges.

Recommendations to detain a defendant are limited to those instances
where the defendant was charged with (1) a crime of violence, (2) an
offense with a statutory maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death,
(3) a drug offense with a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years or
more imprisonment, or (4) any felony offense if the defendant had been
convicted on two or more occasions of an offense described above or a
similar State-level offense.  Additionally, a detention recommendation
may be made if there is a serious risk that the defendant would flee in an
attempt to avoid prosecution or would obstruct justice or intimidate
witnesses or jurors.

Types of pretrial release

Defendants may be released without financial conditions according to the
following:
Personal recognizance -- defendant is released subject to no financial
or other conditions.
Unsecured bond -- no money is required to be posted before release,
but defendant is liable for full bail amount if he or she fails to appear.
Conditional release -- any combination of restrictions that are deemed
necessary to guarantee the defendant's appearance at trial or the safety
of the community.  Non-financial conditions commonly place restrictions
on the defendant's movements, associations, and/or actions.  They may
also involve employment or treatment for medical, psychological, or
substance abuse conditions.

Defendants may also be released on financial conditions.  Financial
conditions include (1) deposit bond (the defendant is required to post a
percentage of the total bail amount, usually 10%), (2) surety bond (the
defendant is released subject to guarantees by a third person that the full
amount will be paid), or (3) collateral bond (collateral equal to the full bail
amount required to be posted by the defendant before release). Financial
conditions may occur in combination with nonfinancial conditions.

Factors relating to release or detention

In deciding whether to release a defendant and in setting release
conditions, the court is directed to consider the nature and circumstances
of the offense charges, the weight of evidence against the defendant, the
defendant's character, physical and mental condition, family ties,
employment, financial resources, length of residence in the community,
community ties, past conduct, history relating to drug or alcohol abuse,
criminal history, and record concerning appearance at court proceedings.
During 1997, 28,600 defendants were released for some period of time
prior to trial (table 2.1).  Those defendants released made up nearly 51%
of the 56,041 defendants who terminated pretrial services during 1997. 
Of the defendants released, 84% completed pretrial services without
violating the conditions of their release (table 2.8). 

In 1997, 35,989 defendants were detained for some period of time prior
to the disposition of their case (table 2.3).  Those defendants detained
comprised about 64% of all defendants who terminated pretrial services
during 1997.  Included are those who were detained prior to having a
preliminary hearing with the magistrate, at which point they could have
been either released or ordered to have a detention hearing.  Of the
defendants detained, 53% were ordered detained by the court until case
disposition.

Pretrial detention hearings were held for 26,152 defendants.  Of these,
18,940, or 72%, were ordered detained (table 2.5).

Of the 28,600 defendants released prior to trial, 17% violated a condition
of their release (table 2.7).  The majority (87%) of these violations were
technical violations of the bail conditions.  Defendants released on
corporate surety were more likely (22%) than other defendants to incur
some violation of the conditions of their release (table 2.8).  Conversely,
defendants given conditional release violated their release at the lowest
rates (7%).  Slightly more than 6% of all released defendants had their
release revoked.

Pretrial outcomes by offense categories

Releases (table 2.1) -- Defendants charged with public-order and violent
offenses were less likely than other defendants to be released prior to
criminal trial; in 1997, 38% of the 16,706 public-order offenders and 39%
of 3,639 violent offenders were released (figure 2.1: Defendants charged
with public-order and violent offenses were less likely than other
defendants to be released prior to trial. Source:  Percent of defendants
released prior to case disposition,by offense category, October 1, 1996 -
September 30, 1997).  However, the percent released varied greatly
among these defendants.  Among  violent offenders, 23% of those
charged with robbery were released compared to 66% of those charged
with assault and 65% of those charged with rape.  Among public order
offenders, 11% of those charged with immigration offenses were
released compared to 95% of those charged with tax law violations and
48% of those with weapons offenses.

Property defendants made up the largest part of those defendants who
were released, while drug defendants made up the largest part of those
defendants who were detained (figure 2.2 Property defendants made up
the largest percentage of those released, while drug defendants made up
the largest percentage of those detained Source: Percent of defendants
released or detained, by offense category, October 1, 1996 - September
30, 1997).  Violent defendants composed the smallest part of defendants
in both groups.

About 44% of all drug defendants were released.  Drug trafficking
defendants were less likely to be released than those charged with
nontrafficking offenses (43% compared to 56%), but defendants charged
with trafficking offenses outnumbered those charged with nontrafficking
offenses by 9 to 1.

The release types for those defendants who were released prior to trial
varied among offense categories (table 2.1).  Within each major offense
category, the highest percentage of defendants released was on
unsecured bond, except for violent defendants.  Of the 39% of violent
defendants released, 40% were released on unsecured bond and 44%
on personal recognizance compared to 79% of all property defendants
released, of whom 56% were released on unsecured bond and 31% on
personal recognizance.

Detentions (tables 2.3 and 2.5) -- Among the major offense categories,
defendants charged with drug offenses were the most likely (78%) to be
detained for some period of time (table 2.3).  Seventy-six percent of
defendants charged with violent offenses were detained for some period
of time.  But violent defendants were more likely (63% versus 55%) to be
detained by the court following a detention hearing than those detained
for drug offenses (not shown in a table).  Property and public-order
defendants were less likely to be detained than drug and violent
defendants.  During 1997, 71% of public-order --  defendants were
detained.  Of public-order defendants, those charged with immigration
offenses were the most likely to be detained (95%).  In 1997, 31% of
defendants charged with property offenses were detained.  Of those
defendants detained, 52% of public-order and 39% of property
defendants were detained following a detention hearing (not shown in a
table).

For 64% of defendants charged with violent offenses, it was decided at
the preliminary hearing that a detention hearing was warranted (table 2.5,
figure 2.3 Violent and drug defendants were more likely to have a
detention hearing than those charged with public-order and property
offenses.  Source: Detention hearings held, by offense category, October 1, 1996 -
September 30, 1997).  This rate varied by offense category:  62% of
those charged with drug-related offenses, 46% of those charged
with public-order offenses, and 20% of those charged with
property offenses were ordered to have a detention hearing.  Of
those charged with violent offenses, the most likely to have a
pretrial detention hearing were those charged with robbery,
kidnaping, murder, or threats against the President.  The least likely
were those charged with sex offenses other than rape and those
charged with assault.

Once a defendant was ordered to have a detention hearing, the chances
of being detained were less variable across offense categories (table
2.5).  The highest rate of defendants ordered detained were those
charged with public-order offenses (80%) -- primarily immigration (87%)
and weapons offenders (71%).  Of the 64% of defendants charged with
violent offenses and given a pretrial detention hearing, 74% were ordered
detained.  In 1997, 70% of those charged with drug offenses and 62% of
those charged with property offenses were ordered detained following a
pretrial hearing.

Violations (table 2.7) -- Of defendants released prior to trial and
terminating pretrial services during 1997, those charged with drug
offenses were more likely (26%) than other defendants to incur at least
one violation during the release period.  Among major offense categories,
those charged with property offenses were less likely (11%) than others
to violate conditions of their release.  Those charged with drug offenses
were more likely to have their release revoked (10% of all released drug
defendants, 38% of drug defendants incurring a violation), and public-order
defendants were slightly less likely than property defendants to
have their release revoked (3.6% versus 4.1%).

Pretrial outcomes across demographic groups

Releases (table 2.2) -- Females were more likely (76%) than males
(46%) to be released during 1997 (figure 2.4 Males, Hispanics,
unemployed defendants, and defendants with a history of drug abuse
were less likely to be released. Source: Pretrial release rates, by
defendant characteristics, October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997).
Males had nearly twice the chance of having a financial condition imposed
on them as females (20% versus 12%).  Sixty-six percent of all defendants
identified as non-Hispanic werereleased during 1997 compared to 25% of Hispanics.
Non-Hispanic releasees had more than twice the chance of being released on personal
recognizance.

The higher the education level of the defendant, the greater the
probability of release.  Less than half (44%) of defendants with less than
a high school education were released in 1997, while 80% of those who
had completed college were released.  Releasees with a college degree
were slightly less likely to receive financial conditions (16%) and more
likely to be released on personal recognizance (28%) than those who had
less education.

Defendants with a known history of drug abuse were released less
frequently than those defendants with no known drug history.  However,
among all released defendants, drug abuse history does not appear to
have had a major effect on the form of pretrial release.
Detentions (tables 2.4 and 2.6) -- Males were more likely (69% versus
41%) than females to be detained (table 2.4).  Of all detainees, 54% of
the men and 41% of the women were detained following a detention
hearing.  Hispanics had a substantially higher probability of being
detained (nearly 9 out of 10) as compared with non-Hispanics (5 out of
10).  However, among those detained, Hispanics and non-Hispanics had
nearly equal chances of being detained following a detention hearing
(about 53%).

Younger defendants were more likely than older ones to be detained, with
the percentage peaking at defendants in their twenties.  Seventy percent
of defendants between the ages of 21 and 30 years were detained
compared to 68% of defendants between 16 and 18 years and 47% of
those over 40.  However, among all defendants detained, the chances of
being detained following a detention hearing were similar across all age
groups.  These patterns were more dramatic with education levels. 
Those defendants with lower levels of education were more likely to be
detained.  Seventy-five percent of those who did not graduate from high
school were detained versus 33% of college graduates.  Of those
detained, 55% of defendants without a high school diploma were
detained following a detention hearing compared to 46% of college
graduates.

Not only were male defendants nearly twice as likely as female
defendants to have a detention hearing (50% versus 28%), they were
also more likely to be ordered detained as a result of the hearing (table
2.6).  Blacks had a higher chance of having a detention hearing (51%)
than those of other races (45% for whites, 47% for other).  However,
once a detention hearing was held, there were only slight differences
amongst racial groups in the probability of being ordered detained.
The likelihood of having a detention hearing increased with the number of
prior convictions, severity of the defendant's criminal history, and current
sentence of supervision.  Further, 53% of those with a history of drug
abuse had detention hearings as compared to 41% of those without such
a past.  Those with a known history of drug abuse were slightly more
likely to be detained.

Violations (table 2.9) -- Released males were more likely than females
to incur a violation during the pretrial release period (18% versus 13%)
and were more likely to have their release revoked.  Defendants with no
prior criminal history were less likely to have a pretrial release violation
than those with a prior conviction.  Released defendants with a known
drug history had more than 3 times the likelihood of incurring a violation
than those with no known drug history.  Also, those with a history of drug
use were substantially more likely to have their release revoked.

Length of pretrial detention (table 2.10) 

Among defendants detained for any time prior to case disposition, those
charged with violent offenses were detained the longest (an average of
77.3 days) compared to drug defendants (59.3 days), public-order
defendants (47.8 days), and property defendants (31.3 days).
Of defendants released, those released on conditional means spent the
greatest average number of days detained (57.6 days) compared to
those released on personal recognizance (31.5 days), financial conditions
(27.1 days), and unsecured bond (25.6 days).  However, with the
exception of drug offenders, this trend varied across all major offense
categories.  For violent, property, and public-order defendants, more time
was spent in detention for offenders released on unsecured bond than by
those released on financial conditions.  For example, for violent
offenders, those released on unsecured bond spent a greater average
number of days detained (35.9 days) compared to those released on
financial conditions (30.0 days).

Of defendants not released, those detained following a detention hearing
were detained longer, on average, than those held on financial conditions
(107.9 days compared with 51.2 days).


Chapter notes

  1) All tables in chapter 2 were created from data in the Pretrial Services
 Information Act System data base, which is maintained by the Pretrial
 Services Agency (PSA) within the AOUSC.  The data describe 56,041
 defendants who terminated pretrial services during October 1, 1996,
 through September 30, 1997, and whose cases were filed by
 complaint, indictment, or information.  In these tables, the totals (e.g.,
 "all offenses") included records whose offense or other attributes were
 missing or indeterminable.  The percentage distributions were based
 on nonmissing values, and missing values were reported in a separate
 row or in a footnote.
 
 Offenses in the PSA are based on the most serious charged offense,
 as determined by the probation officer responsible for the interview
 with the defendant.  The probation officer classifies the major offense
 charged into AOUSC four-digit offense codes.  For defendants
 charged with more than one offense on an indictment, the probation
 officer chooses as the most major charged offense the one carrying
 the most severe penalty or, in the case of two or more charges
 carrying the same penalty, the one with the highest offense severity. 
 The offense severity level is determined by the AOUSC, which ranks
 offenses according to the maximum sentence, type of crime, and
 maximum fine amount.  These four-digit codes are then aggregated
 into the same offense categories as those used in chapter 1.
 
For drug offenses, the type of drug activity  trafficking or posses- sion 
is obtained by the probation officers from their reading of the indictment
or other charging documents.  The AOUSC citation manual provides
probation officers with detailed instructions on how to code drug crimes.
 
2) In tables 2.1 2.4, the percentages showing the methods of release or
methods of detention were based on the number of defendants released
or the number of defendants detained.  In tables 2.5 and 2.6, the
percentages were based on the number of defendants who had hearings
and were ordered detained.  This method departs from the 1993 and
prior compendia, in which the percentages were based on the number of
defendants terminating pretrial services.

Chapter 3

Adjudication

Federal criminal cases may result in conviction of the defendant following
plea or trial, acquittal of the defendants after trial, or dismissal of the
case.***Footnote 1 Unless otherwise noted, data describe felony and misdemeanor
cases in U.S. district courts and include Class A misdemeanors handled
by U.S. magistrates.  The data also include Class B misdemeanors that
are handled by U.S. district court judges, which occur infrequently.

Defendants in cases filed (table 3.1)

During 1997, 69,351 defendants had criminal charges filed against them
in U.S. district courts, and 57,022 (82%) of those defendants were
charged with felonies.  The 24,693 drug felony defendants comprised
over a third of all criminal defendants in cases filed and 43% of all felony
defendants.  Felony property and public-order defendants comprised
20% and 21%, respectively, of all defendants in cases filed. The 12,267
misdemeanor defendants constituted 18% of all defendants in cases
filed, with 40% of those misdemeanor defendants charged with traffic
violations.

Defendants in cases terminated (table 3.2)

Cases were terminated against 64,956 defendants during 1997, 53,097
(82%) of whom were felony defendants.  During 1997 the 22,374
drug-related felony defendants comprised nearly 35% of all defendants in
cases terminated and 42% of all felony defendants.

Over 87% of all defendants were convicted; 90% of all felony defendants
and 75% of misdemeanor defendants.  For major felony offense
categories, conviction rates ranged from 89% for drug offenses to 91%
for public-order offenses.  Within major offense categories, however, the
conviction rates varied more widely.  For example, within the violent
offense category, the conviction rates ranged from 83% for those found
guilty of rape to 93% for sex offenses other than rape.  Within the
public-order category, the conviction rate ranged from 71% for national defense
violations to 96% for communications and immigration offenses.
Most defendants who were convicted pleaded guilty (figure 3.1: Most
defendants were convicted. Of convicted defendants, most pled
guilty. Of the defendants who were not convicted, most were
dismissed Source  Disposition of cases terminating during October 1,
1996 - September 30, 1997).  Overall, 93% of those convicted pleaded
guilty, while 7% were convicted at trial.  For felony offenses, 93% pleaded
guilty to their charges.  For major felony offenses, guilty pleas were
registered for 90% of violent offenders, 92% of drug offenders, and 94%
each for public-order and property offenders.

During 1997, 4,756 defendants exercised their right to a trial.  A higher
percentage of violent offenders went to trial than drug, property, and
public-order offenders. Twelve percent of violent offenders went to trial
as compared with 9% of both drug and public-order offenders, and 8% of property
offenders.

Of defendants who exercised their right to a trial, 3,781 (79%) were
convicted either by a jury or a bench trial.  The felony trial conviction rate
was 83%, while the misdemeanor conviction rate was 59%.  Among
felony offenses, trial conviction rates ranged from 79% for violent and
property defendants to 87% for drug defendants.  Public-order offenders
fell in between, as 82% of them were convicted at trial.

Case processing times (table 3.3)

The data in table 3.3 cover the interval from the time a case is filed in
U.S. district court through sentencing for those convicted as well as the
interval from case filing through disposition for those not convicted, or
those whose cases are dismissed.  Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974,
as amended, sets time requirements for processing criminal cases in
Federal courts.  Except for certain exclusions, indictment must occur
within 30 days of arrest; defendants are guaranteed at least 30 days to
prepare for trial; and the Government must be ready for trial within 70
days.  The Speedy Trial Act does not specify a time interval from trial to
sentencing, ***Footnote 2 The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 specifies minimum
intervals for the disclosure and objections to the presentence report.  See
Rule 31, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.*** and the time limits set by
the act exclude several enumerated periods of pretrial procedure such as time
spent awaiting rulings on motions. ***Footnote 3 18 U.S.C. & 3161 et. seq.***

Additionally, defendants may waive their rights within the Speedy Trial Act.  As a
result, the actual processing time for most defendants can be longer than the
statutory limits without violating the provisions of the act.
Overall, the average time for processing defendants was 8.9 months
(figure 3.2: Cases of defendants convicted at trial took longer than those
convicted by plea. Source: Average time from filing to disposition of
cases terminating during October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997, by
offense).  For felony defendants, the overall processing time average was
10 months; for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes, the average
processing time was 3.6 months.  Defendants who pleaded guilty were
processed faster (8.2 months) on average, than defendants who went to
trial (11.7 months).  Defendants whose cases were ultimately dismissed
took longest to process (12 months), on average.  Among major felony
offense categories, case processing times were similar to the overall
pattern, with two exceptions.  For those convicted of violent offenses,
those whose cases went to trial took longest to process.

Convictions by U.S. magistrates (table 3.4)

During 1997 U.S. magistrates disposed of 11,045 misdemeanor criminal
defendants, over 75% of whom were convicted.  Traffic violators
comprised 41% of the defendants disposed by U.S. magistrates, with
property offenders comprising another 33%.  Drug offenses comprised
almost 10% of U.S. magistrates' cases.

Characteristics of convicted defendants (table 3.5)

Among defendants convicted there were over 5 times as many men as
women (85% versus 15%); over twice as many whites as blacks (66%
versus 29%); and almost twice as many non-Hispanics as Hispanics
(66% versus 34%).  Most were U.S. citizens (70%), had graduated high
school or completed some higher education (58%), and had some
criminal history (52%).  Persons over age 30 represented 57% of
defendants

Chapter notes

    1)     Tables 3.1-3.4 were derived from the Administrative Office of U.S.
 Courts (AOUSC) criminal master data files.  Only records with cases
 filed in U.S. district court (table 3.1) or cases that terminated in U.S.
 district court during October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997,
 were selected.  Offenses were classified according to the most serious
 offense charged.  In the case of multiple offenses, the offense carrying
 the most severe potential penalty was selected.
 In this Compendium, carjacking offenses are classified as robberies,
 based on title and section of the U.S. Code.  In prior compendia, they
 were classified as motor vehicle thefts, based on the AOUSC offense
 classifications.  In the forthcoming Federal Criminal Statistics: 
 Reconciled Data, which shows trends from 1994 through the present,
 carjackings are classified as robberies.
 
    2) Table 3.5 was created by matching the AOUSC master data files with
the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) monitoring system files and the
Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) data files.  These latter two data files
contain information on the characteristics of defendants.  The USSC
monitoring system files are limited to records of defendants sentenced
under the Federal sentencing guidelines only.  These include defendants
convicted of felonies or Class A misdemeanors.  Excluded from the
USSC data were defendants convicted only of Class B or C
misdemeanors or infractions, defendants whose offenses were
committed before November 1, 1987, and juvenile offenders.  Juveniles
are not subject to guidelines, and they were not included in table 3.5. 
Some of the defendants excluded from the USSC data files were
included in the PSA data.  (See Chapter 2 Chapter notes for more
information on the PSA data.)  Table 3.5 indicates the number of records
for which relevant data were available.  Percentage distributions were
based on records with known values of defendant characteristics and
offenses.

    3)  A criminal record, as reported in table 3.5, is limited to prior adult
 convictions.  For some defendants in this table, it is further limited to
 the portion that is relevant for calculating sentences under the Federal
 sentencing guidelines.  In general, this is limited to sentences imposed
 within a 15-year period prior to the current offense and offenses
 committed within the United States.  For most defendants, the criminal
 history used to calculate sentencing guideline ranges includes their
 entire adult criminal history.
 
Chapter 4

Sentencing

Depending upon the type and severity of the offense, convicted offenders
may be sentenced to incarceration, probation, a fine, or a combination of
sanctions such as a split or mixed sentence (imprisonment as well as a
period of probation supervision).*** Footnote 1 For a definition of mixed
sentences, see Glossary, p. 99.*** The Federal sentencing guidelines require
a term of supervised release following service of any prison sentence of more
than 1 year.  In addition, courts have the discretion to impose supervised
release in any other case. Except where otherwise indicated, tables in this
chapter are based on the most serious offense of conviction.  They are not
directly comparable with tables in earlier chapters that are based on the
most serious offense investigated or most serious offense charged (see "Offense
classifications" in Methodology, p. 95).

Offenders convicted and sentences imposed (table 4.1)

Of the 56,570 offenders sentenced during 1997, 39,431 (70%) were
sentenced to prison; 12,801 (23%) were sentenced to probation; and
3,184 (6%) were ordered to pay only a fine. *** footnote 2 Offenders given an
intermediate sanction such as intermittent confinement or community
confinement that also included probation supervision are counted among
offenders given probation.*** Of the 39,431 offenders sentenced to prison,
37,747 (96%) were convicted of felonies.  Over 80% of convicted felons were
sentenced to prison.  Drug and violent offenders were more likely to receive
prison sentences (92% and 91%, respectively) than were either public-order
(81%) or property (59%) offenders (figure 4.1: Defendants convicted of
drug and violent felonies had the highest rates of imprisonment, while
those convicted of property and public-order offenses had the highest
rates of probation. Source: Rates of incarceration and probation for
offenders convicted and sentenced in cases that terminated during
October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997).

Among public-order offenders, persons convicted of weapons (93%),
escape (89%), and immigration offenses (87%) were about as likely as
violent and drug offenders to receive prison sentences.
Among property offenders, persons convicted of arson or the use of
explosives (85%) were also almost as likely as violent and drug offenders
to receive prison sentences.

Overall, almost 23% of convicted offenders were sentenced to probation.
The percentage of misdemeanants sentenced to probation (49%) was
almost thrice more than that of convicted felons (17%).  Among felons,
persons convicted of postal law violations (86%), communication
violations (85%), and food and drug violations (71%) were the most likely
to be given probation.

While less than 1% of all convicted felons were ordered to only pay a
fine, 70% of the felons convicted of antitrust violations were so ordered.
Fines generally were reserved for misdemeanor offenders, 30% of whom
received fines.

Average prison sentences imposed (table 4.2)

For all offenders given prison terms, the average term of imprisonment
imposed was 58.9 months (figure 4.2: Violent and drug felons received
the longest sentences. Source: Incarceration and probation sentence
lengths (in months) of offenders convicted and sentenced in cases
that terminated during October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997). 
Persons convicted of felonies received an average prison term of 61.2
months.

The average length of prison sentence imposed varied among major
offense categories.  Property offenders received the shortest sentence,
on average, while violent offenders received the longest (24.4 months
compared to 85.7 months).  Drug offenders received 80.6 months, on
average, and public-order offenders received 47.5 months.  The average
prison term for public-order offenders was primarily attributable to
sentences imposed for weapons offenders.  The 2,663 weapons
offenders sentenced to prison comprised over 25% of the 10,381 public-order
offenders sent to prison.  Weapons offenders received an average
prison term of 101.8 months, and public-order offenders other than
weapons offenders received an average prison term of 28.8 months (not
shown in a table).

Relationship between sentence imposed and mode of conviction
(table 4.3)

Offenders convicted by plea were less likely to receive prison sentences
than those convicted at trial.  Sixty-nine percent of the offenders
convicted by guilty plea received some prison time, while 86% of the
offenders convicted at trial received prison sentences.

For drug offenders, 92% of those convicted by plea went to prison, as did
99% of those convicted at trial.  For violent offenders, 91% of those
convicted by plea received prison sentences, as did 94% of those
convicted at trial.  For fraudulent property offenders, 57% of those
convicted by plea received prison sentences, compared to 88% of those
convicted at trial.  And, for regulatory public-order offenders, 48% of
those convicted by plea went to prison, as did 77% of those convicted at
trial.

The average prison term imposed on defendants convicted at trial was
longer than the term imposed on defendants convicted by plea. 
Defendants convicted at trial received 146.6 months, on average, while
those convicted by plea received an average of 51.6 months (figure 4.3:
Defendants convicted at trial received longer sentences, on average,
than those convicted by guilty plea. Source: Average sentences imposed on
defendants convicted at trial and defendants convicted by guilty plea, October 1,
1996 - September 30, 1997).  Drug offenders convicted at trial received an
average of 196.2 months as compared to the 71.0 months for drug
offenders convicted by a guilty plea.  Violent offenders who went to trial
received an average sentence of 160.2 months as compared to the 78.5
months for violent offenders convicted by guilty plea.

Characteristics of offenders sentenced to prison (tables 4.4-4.6)

The majority of persons sentenced to prison during 1997 were male
(89%), white (66%), non-Hispanic (63%), and U.S. citizens (68%).  The
percentage sentenced to prison was not uniform across all categories of
age, race, sex, education, and ethnicity.  Similarly, the average sentences
imposed were not uniform across these categories (table 4.5).  However,
conclusions about the effect that characteristics may have had on
sentencing cannot be drawn from the aggregate patterns in the data. 
Such an assessment would require detailed information for each
category showing the presence or absence of factors that are legally
intended to affect sentencing, such as offense severity, weapon use, role
in the offense, victim injury, dollar loss, and so forth.

One such study of the factors affecting sentencing found that "nearly all
of the aggregate differences among sentences for whites, blacks, and
Hispanics during 1989 90 can be attributed to characteristics of offenses
and offenders that current law and sentencing guidelines establish as
legitimate considerations in sentencing decisions."*** Footnote 3 Douglas C.
McDonald and Kenneth E. Carlson, Sentencing in the Federal Courts:  Does
Race Matter?, Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, December 1993 (NCJ-145328).***

Average sentences imposed were longest for males (62.4 months),
blacks (87.8 months), non-Hispanics (67.8 months), and U.S. citizens
(68.7 months).  These longer terms are due in large part because these
categories of offenders (males, blacks, non-Hispanics, and U.S. citizens)
are more highly concentrated in the offense types (table 4.4) that also are
associated with longer average sentences (table 4.2).  For example,
incarceration rates for blacks exceed those of whites in the violent, drug,
and nonregulatory public-order offense categories.  These offenses are
associated with longer average sentences (table 4.2, figure 4.2) than are
property offenses or misdemeanors -- the categories in which whites'
incarceration rates exceed those of blacks.

In general, within categories of offender characteristics, average prison
terms were longer for violent and drug offenses than for property and
regulatory public-order offenses.  These two offense categories generally
are considered to be more serious under the Federal sentencing
guidelines than are property and regulatory public-order offenses.  As a
result, for aggregate tables like the ones presented in this chapter,
persons with a certain characteristic may appear to receive more severe
sentences on average.  The primary reason for the longer averages is
the larger number of serious offenses that made up the average
sentences.

Chapter notes
 --  1)  Tables 4.1-4.3 were derived from the AOUSC criminal master data
files.  Only records of defendants sentenced during October 1, 1996,
through September 30, 1997, were selected.  Offenses shown in these
tables -- offenses of conviction -- are based on the longest actual
sentence imposed.

 2) Tables 4.4-4.6 were created from AOUSC
criminal master data files, supplemented with linked
data on offender characteristics from two sources: 
the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC)
monitoring system files (which are limited to records
of defendants sentenced under the Federal
sentencing guidelines); and the Pretrial Services
Information Act System database, maintained by the
Pretrial Services Agency (PSA).  These two
supplemental data files contain information on the
characteristics of defendants.  Table 4.4 indicates
the number of records for which relevant data were
available.  Percentage distributions were based on
records with known values of defendant
characteristics and offenses.  Means and medians
in tables 4.5 and 4.6 were based on the number of
records shown in table 4.4.

3)  Criminal record, as reported in tables 4.4-4.6, is
limited to prior adult convictions.  For some
defendants in these tables, it is further limited to the
portion of their criminal record that is relevant for
calculating sentences under the Federal sentencing
guidelines.  In general, this is limited to sentences
imposed within a 15-year period prior to the current
offense and offenses committed within the United
States.  For most defendants, the criminal history
used to calculate sentencing guideline ranges is
tantamount to their entire adult criminal history.

Chapter 5

Appeals

Prior to implementation of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, only
criminal convictions could be appealed.  However, the Sentencing
Reform Act provided for the appellate review of sentences imposed given
that the sentence was (1) imposed in violation of the law; (2) imposed as
the result of an incorrect sentencing guideline application; (3) outside the
recommended guideline sentencing range; or (4) imposed for an offense
for which no sentencing guideline exists and is plainly unreasonable. 
Both the defendant and the Government have the right to appeal an
imposed sentence (18 U.S.C. & 3742).

Appeals filed (tables 5.1 and 5.2)

During 1997 the U.S. Court of Appeals received 10,521 criminal appeals. 
Of all appeals, 4% were filed by the Government (not shown in a table).
Forty-six percent of appeals filed in 1997 challenged both the conviction
and the sentence imposed.  Nearly twice as many appeals challenged
only the sentence imposed as those that challenged only the conviction
(25% versus 13%).  Fourteen percent of appeals filed were appeals of
convictions for crimes committed before 1987, when the sentencing
guidelines took effect (figure 5.1: Nearly half of all appeals filed
challenged both the conviction and the sentence imposed. Types of
criminal appeal cases during October 1, 1996 - September 30,
1997). The distribution of appeals by type of appeal filed (sentence,
conviction, or both) was relatively constant across the major offense
categories underlying the appeal.  However, 32% of appeals filed for
immigration offenses appealed only the sentence, compared to 23% for
public-order offenses and 25% for all criminal categories.  Thirty-four
percent of appeals filed for robbery convictions were appealing only the
sentence.

Nearly half of all appeals filed (for which the offense is known) were for
drug convictions (47%).  Appeals for public-order convictions comprised
26% of all appeals filed, property offenses comprised 20%, and the
remaining 7% of appeals filed were for violent offenses (figure 5.2: Nearly
half of all appeals filed were for drug convictions. Source: Appeals
cases filed, by type of offense during October 1, 1996 - September
30, 1997).  

Appeals terminated (tables 5.3-5.5)

A total of 10,466 appeals terminated during 1997.  Of these, 46% were
appeals of both the sentence and conviction, 25% were appeals of the
sentence only, and 12% were appeals of the conviction only.  Fourteen
percent were appeals of convictions for offenses sentenced under laws in
effect prior to the sentencing guidelines.

In nearly half of all appeals terminated in 1997 (for which the offense is
known), drug offense convictions underlie the appeal (49%); for 25%, the
underlying offense was a public-order offense; for 19%, the underlying
offense was a property offense; and 7% were appeals for violent offense
convictions.  For 46% of public-order appeals, the underlying offense of
conviction was for weapons.  Robbery offenses composed 43% and
murder composed 20% of the underlying offenses for appeals of a violent
conviction.

Of the 10,466 appeals terminated during 1997, 78% were terminated on
the merits, while the remainder were terminated on procedural grounds
(figure 5.3: Most appeals were terminated on the merits. Of appeals
terminated on the merits, most lower court decisions were affirmed. 
Source: Disposition of criminal appeals terminating during
October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997).  For appeals based on a
conviction of a violent offense or a public-order offense, 80% were
terminated on the merits.  Also terminated on the merits were 79% of
appeals based on a drug conviction and 76% of appeals based on a
property conviction.  Within these major offense categories, the appeals
having the highest rates of termination on the merits were based on a
conviction for a custom law violation (94%), a rape conviction (92%), and
a conviction for escaping from a Federal prison (91%).

In 80% of appeals terminated on the merits, the district court ruling was
affirmed.  In another 6% it was partially affirmed.  Eighty-three percent of
all drug offense appeals were affirmed, as were 79% of violent offense
appeals and public-order appeals.  Seventy-seven percent of property
offense appeals were affirmed.

District court decisions were reversed or remanded back to the court in
8% of the cases.  Public-order offenses had the highest rate of reversal
or being remanded back to the court (11%).  Nine percent of property
offense appeals were reversed or remanded, as were 8% of violent and
7% of drug offense appeals. 

Overall, appeals were dismissed in 5% of cases.  Across major offense
categories, this dismissal rate remained relatively constant.

Chapter notes

Tables in chapter 5 were created from the AOUSC appeals database.
Records of appeals filed or terminated during October 1, 1996, through
September 30, 1997, were selected.  Data include records of 10,521
criminal appeals filed during fiscal year 1997 and 10,466 appeals
terminated during the same period.

The unit of analysis in the appeals data is a single case.  Most records in
the appeals data report on a single appellant.  Appeals were classified
into the offense categories that represent the underlying offense of
conviction.  Offenses represent the statutory offense charged against a
defendant in a criminal appeal.  Offenses were classified by the AOUSC
into their four digit offense codes.  These were then aggregated into the
offense categories shown in the tables.

Chapter 6

Corrections

Supervision

During 1997, 38,503 offenders terminated active supervision of
probation, parole or mandatory release, or a term of supervised release.
Active supervision can terminate upon one of two events:  (1) a
temporary removal or (2) a permanent closure.  A temporary removal to
inactive status can occur because of a violation (usually absconding, a
warrant for arrest, or failure to appear for a hearing) or for some other
reason, such as long-term hospitalization.  A permanent closure of
supervision occurs in one of three ways:  (1) the offender successfully
completes the supervision term without violating conditions; (2) the
offender is returned to prison following a violation of conditions or
conviction for a new crime; or (3) the offender's supervision is closed for
administrative reasons.  The tables in this chapter classify termination of
active supervision as "no violation" (a successful completion or a removal
without violations), as technical violations or new crimes (removals with
violations or returns to prison), or as administrative case closures.
Violation of the conditions of supervision or arrest for a new offense can
result in imposition of additional restrictions or in removal from active
supervision.  Removal from active supervision may entail incarceration of
a probationer or reincarceration of an offender who was under parole or
supervised release.  Offenders who are removed from active supervision
with violations, but who are not incarcerated, may have some other action
taken against them, such as deportation, issuance of an arrest warrant,
assignment to community corrections, or supervision by some other State
or local authority.

Federal offenders under supervision (table 6.1)

As of the end of the fiscal year 1997,  there were 90,751 offenders under
active Federal supervision, of which 88% had been convicted of a felony. 
Almost two-thirds were serving a term of post-incarceration supervision:
supervised release (51,140) or parole (6,872).  The remainder (32,739)
were on probation.  Most of those on probation had been convicted of
either a felony property offense (39%) or a misdemeanor (32%).  More
than half of offenders under supervised release (52%) and parolees
(54%) had been convicted of a drug offense.

Outcomes of offenders completing supervision (tables 6.3, 6.5, and
6.7)

Probation (table 6.3) -- During 1997, 16,748 offenders completed one
or more terms of active probation.  Overall, 83% of offenders successfully
completed their term of probation, another 15% violated the conditions of
supervision, and 2% had their supervision administratively terminated.  Of
offenders terminating probation, 5% committed a new crime (figure 6.1:
Offenders terminating parole or supervised release violated their terms of
supervision at higher rates than offenders terminating probation. Source:
Violation rates of offenders terminating probation, supervised release, or
parole, by type of violation, October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997). 
Most committed technical violations, including drug use (3%) and
absconding (2%).

Offenders convicted of violent offenses were less likely than others to
successfully complete a term of probation without a violation (figure 6.2:
Offenders convicted of violent offenses were less likely than others to
successfully complete a term of supervision. Source: Violation rates of
offenders completing probation, supervised re-lease, or parole, by
category of offense, October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997 ).  During
1997, 34% of probationers convicted of violent offenses violated their
conditions of probation, as did 14% of drug, 13% of property, and 9% of
public-order offenders.  Violent offenders were also more likely to commit
new crimes (11%) than were drug (6%), property (5%), and public-order
(4%) offenders.

Supervised release (table 6.5) --  During 1997, 17,896 offenders
completed terms of supervised release.  Overall, 65% of these offenders
successfully completed their term of supervised release; 21% committed
technical violations, such as drug use (8%) and absconding (4%); and
12% committed a new crime (figure 6.1).  The remaining 3% had their
supervision administratively terminated.

Offenders convicted of violent offenses were less likely than others to
complete a term of supervised release without a violation (figure 6.2). 
Fifty-five percent of violent offenders violated conditions of supervised
release, while 33% of drug, 32% of public-order, and 27% of property
offenders violated supervised release.  Violent offenders were also more
likely to commit new crimes (17%) than were public-order (13%), drug
(12%), or property (10%) offenders.

Parole (table 6.7) -- During 1997, 3,859 offenders completed terms of
parole.  Overall, 60% of these offenders successfully completed their
term of parole; 23% committed technical violations, such as drug use
(11%) and absconding (4%); and 13% committed a new crime.  The
remaining 5% had their supervision administratively terminated.
Offenders convicted of violent offenses were less likely than others to
complete a term of parole without a violation (figure 6.2).  Fifty-eight
percent of violent offenders violated conditions of parole, while 29% of
public-order, and 28% of both property and drug offenders violated
parole.  Violent offenders were also more likely to commit new crimes
(21%) than offenders convicted of public-order (15%), property (10%), or
drug (10%) offenses.

Characteristics of offenders completing supervision (tables 6.4, 6.6,
and 6.8)

Probation (table 6.4) -- Among offenders who completed a term of
probation, 74% were male; 69% were white; 90% were of non-Hispanic
origin; 31% were less than age 31 (compared to 40% over age 40); 26%
had less than a high school diploma (compared to 38% who had a high
school diploma and 37% who had at least some college education); and
81% had no known drug history.

Younger offenders, those with a history of drug abuse, and those with a
lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the
conditions of probation.  Offenders ages 16 to 20 were more likely (33%)
to violate probation conditions than probationers in other age groups  
22% of those ages 21 to 30 and 12% of those over age 30.

Probationers with a history of drug abuse were almost 7 times more likely
to violate probation for drug use than offenders who were not drug
abusers.  Probationers with a history of drug abuse were also more likely
to violate supervision for other reasons (fugitive status and new crimes)
than were other probationers.

Probationers with lower levels of education were more likely to violate the
conditions of probation than those with higher levels of education (figure
6.3: Those having lower levels of education were more likely to violate
conditions of supervision. Source: Rates of violation of conditions of
supervision, by level of education, October 1, 1996 - September 30,
1997).  Those who did not graduate high school had a 22% violation rate,
those who were high school graduates had a 16% violation rate, those
with some college had a 12% violation rate, and those with a college
degree had a 6% violation rate.

Supervised release (table 6.6) -- Among those who completed a term
of supervised release, 85% were male; 67% were white; 84% were of
non-Hispanic origin; 26% were less than age 31 (38% were over age 40);
38% had only some high school (35% had a high school diploma and
27% had at least some college); and 56% had no known drug history.
Younger offenders, those with a history of drug abuse, and those with a
lower educational background had higher probabilities of violating the
conditions of supervised release.  Offenders ages 16 to 20 were more
likely to violate conditions of their supervision than offenders in other age
groups -- 69% of those ages 16 to 20 violated a condition of their
supervision compared to 46% of those ages 21 to 30 and 27% of those
over age 30.

Releasees with a history of drug a- buse were almost 5 times more likely
to terminate their supervision for technical violations of drug use than
were releasees who were not drug abusers.  Releasees with a history of
drug abuse were also more likely to violate supervision because of
fugitive status or new crimes.

Similarly, releasees with lower levels of education were more likely to
violate conditions of supervised release than those with higher levels of
education (figure 6.3).  Those who did not graduate from high school had
a 41% violation rate, those who were high school graduates had a 32%
violation rate, those with some college had a 23% violation rate, and
those with a college degree had a 12% violation rate.

Parole (table 6.8) -- Among those who completed a term of parole, 96%
were male; 66% were white; 86% were of non-Hispanic origin; 72% were
over age 40; 44% had only some high school (33% had a high school
diploma and 22% had at least some college); and 48% had no known
drug history.

Offenders with a history of drug abuse and those with a lower educational
background had higher probabilities of violating the conditions of parole. 
Releasees with a history of drug abuse were almost 5 times more likely to
terminate their supervision for technical violations of drug use as were
releasees who were not drug abusers.  Releasees with a history of drug
abuse were also more likely to violate supervision because of fugitive
status or new crimes.

Similarly, releasees with lower levels of education were more likely to
violate conditions of supervised release than those with higher levels of
education (figure 6.3).  Those who did not graduate from high school had
a 41% violation rate, those who were high school graduates had a 35%
violation rate, those with some college had a 31% violation rate, and
those with a college degree had a 10% violation rate.

Admissions, releases, and standing population of Federal prisoners
(table 6.9)

The Federal prison population grew by 6,565 persons during fiscal year
1997, increasing from 92,379 sentenced prisoners to 98,944.  The
greatest growth was among drug and public-order offenders, particularly
immigration offenders.  The number of drug offenders in prison grew by
3,868 in 1997.  The number of immigration offenders increased by 945. 
In contrast, the number of weapons offenders grew at a slower rate,
increasing by 317.

Federal prisoners: First releases and time served (tables 6.11-6.14)
During 1997, 31,894 prisoners were released from Federal prison for the
first time after serving a sentence imposed by a U.S. district court. 
***Footnote 1 Tables 6.11-6.13 include only prisoners first released 
by the BOP during 1997.***  Of these, 29,080 were released by standard means.  
These standard releases served an average of 28.8 months (table 6.12) in
prison -- 91% of the sentence imposed, on average (table 6.14). *** Footnote 2
Average time to first release is the number of months in Bureau of
Prisons facilities minus credits for time spent in jail prior to final
disposition or sentencing.  Percent of sentence served is the average
percentage of each individual prisoner's percent of total sentence
obligation served until first release.***

The remaining 2,814 first releases were released by extraordinary
means:  1,689 were released early due to participation in a drug
treatment program; 291 had their sentences commuted; 338 were
deported; 212 died; and 284 were released for other reasons including
escape and an intensive confinement program (table 6.11).  Drug
offenders made up the vast majority of those released by extraordinary
means (79%).

Time served until first release varied by offense:  Violent offenders
served an average of 53.8 months; drug offenders served an average of
42.5 months; public-order offenders served an average of 17.9 months;
and property offenders served an average of fewer than 15.3 months
(figure 6.4: Violent and drug offenders were released from longer prison
terms and served more time than property and public-order offenders. 
Source: Mean time to first release (months), by offense, October 1, 1996
-September 30, 1997).  During 1997 the average time to first release for
public-order offenders was influenced heavily by the relatively short time
served by immigration offenders.  Immigration offenders composed 59%
of all public-order offenders and, on average, served 10.9 months until
first release.  This was slightly more than half of the average time served
for all public-order offenders (17.9).  Exclusive of immigration offenders,
public-order offenders served an average of 28.1 months until first
release (not shown in a table).

While violent and drug offenders served more time before first release,
property and public-order offenders served more of their sentences than
violent and drug offenders (figure 6.4).

Old law offenders - those who committed crimes before the
implementation of Federal Sentencing Guidelines in November 1987  
that were released in 1997 are not separately shown in any tables.  Only
3%, or 956, released offenders were old law offenders.  New law
offenders released during 1997 served, on average, 26.7 months in
prison (92% of the sentence imposed).  Since the Guidelines became
effective as of November 1987, new law offenders sentenced to terms of
imprisonment greater than 139 months could not have been released by
standard means as of the end of 1997. *** Footnote 3 The Federal Sentencing
Guidelines allow a prisoner up to 54 days per year for good behavior, so a
prisoner sentenced to 139 months in prison in November 1987 could have
served 118 months of his or her sentence and been released in 1997.***
They could have been released for extraordinary reasons such as death,
commutation, or treaty transfer. *** Footnote 4 Prisoners released for 
extraordinary reasons have been excluded from all time served and percent 
of sentence served calculations.***

Characteristics of Federal prisoners (tables 6.10, 6.15, and 6.16)

Standing population (table 6.10) -- Of prisoners in Federal prison at
the end of 1997, 93% were male, 58% were white, 39% were black, 27%
were Hispanic, and 76% were U.S. citizens.  Fifty-eight percent of the
yearend population were 31 years of age or older.  This portrait of the
Federal prison population was similar across offenses and for new law
offenders, except for the ethnicity and citizenship of violent and property
offenders.  More than 90% of these offenders were non-Hispanic and
U.S. citizens.

Prisoners released (table 6.15) -- Of prisoners released during 1997,
89% were male, 73% were white, 24% were black, 38% were Hispanic,
and 63% were U.S. citizens.  Fifty-six percent were 31 years of age or
older.  These patterns were similar across offenses and for new law
offenders, except with nonregulatory public-order offenses.  Of released
offenders convicted of those offenses, 61% were Hispanic and 64% were
not U.S. citizens.

Time served to first release (table 6.16) -- Of prisoners released by
standard methods, males served more time than females, blacks served
more time than whites, non-Hispanics served more time than Hispanics,
older persons served more time than younger (until over age 40), and
U.S. citizens served more time than noncitizens (figure 6.5: Males,
blacks, non-Hispanics, older persons, and U.S. citizens served more time
before first release. Source: Characteristics of first releasees, October 1,
1996 - September 30, 1997).  However, among the offenses, the overall
pattern does not always hold, except for males and females.  For
example, blacks served more time on average than whites, but among
property offenders released from prison, whites served more time than
blacks.

Chapter notes

 1) Offenders were classified according to their most serious offense at
 conviction.  In cases involving multiple offenses, the AOUSC offense
 severity hierarchy was applied.  The most serious offense was the one
 with the most severe penalty imposed.  If equal prison terms were
 imposed, or there was no imprisonment, the offense with the highest
 severity code, as determined by the U.S. Title and Code Criminal
 Offense Citations Manual, was selected.
 
 2) Table 6.1 was created using the probation, parole, and supervision
 data files of the Federal Probations Supervision Information System
 (FPSIS), which is maintained by the AOUSC.  Year end pending cases
 (that is, records with offenders who were under active supervision as
 of the end of the fiscal year, September 30, 1997) were selected.
 Corporate defendants were excluded from table 6.1.
 
 3) Tables 6.3-6.8 were created using the FPSIS data files as well.  Only
 records with one or more terminations of active supervision during
 October 1, 1996, through September 30, 1997, were selected.  Each
 termination was counted separately.  Technical violations and
 terminations for new crimes are shown only if supervision terminated
 with incarceration or removal from active supervision for reasons of a
 violation.
 
 Corporate defendants were excluded from tables 6.3-6.8.
 
 4)  Table 6.9-6.16 were created from the Federal Bureau of Prisons
 (BOP) data files.
 
 Tables  6.9 and 6.10 show sentenced prisoners in the custody of the
 BOP at the end of fiscal year 1997.  Tables  6.11-6.16 include only
 prisoners committed by U.S. district courts or released by the BOP
 during fiscal year 1997. In these tables, a single person may be
 counted more than once if that person was committed into, or released
 from, the BOP more than one time during fiscal year 1997, or if that
 person appears in more than one column in a table, e.g., commitment
 and population.Offense categories in these tables were based on
 combinations of offense designations used by the BOP.  They are
 similar, but may not be directly comparable, to the categories used in
 other tables of this Compendium.  Offenses for some prisoners
 admitted or released were not able to be classified; these offenders
 were included in the totals and are shown as "other prisoners" on the
 last line of tables. In these tables, offenses were classified according
 to the offense associated with the longest single sentence actually
 imposed.  Classifications in other tables may have been based on the
 longest potential sentence allowed by law.
 
 5)  Tables 6.9-6.16 distinguish between prisoners committed by U.S.
 district courts for violations of the U.S. Code and other prisoners. 
 Prisoners released after commitment from U.S. district court are called
 "first releases."  The other admissions and releases include offenders
 who returned to prison after their first release (such as probation,
 parole, or supervised release violators), offenders convicted in other
 courts (such as military or District of Columbia courts), and persons
 admitted to prison as material witnesses or for purposes of treatment,
 examination, or transfer to another authority.  Offenders who entered
 or left a prison temporarily -- such as for transit to another location, for
 health care, or to serve a weekend sentence -- were not counted as
 admitted or released.  Persons who were detained for deportation by
 the Immigration and Naturalization Service and who were not criminal
 offenders were also not included in the tables.
 
 Table 6.11 distinguishes between standard and extraordinary methods
 of release from prison.  "Standard" releases include the usual methods
 of exiting from prison, such as full-term sentence expirations,
 expirations with good time, mandatory releases, and releases to
 parole.  Extraordinary releases are unusual exits from prison, such as
 death, commutation, and transfer to another facility.
 
 6)  Tables 6.11-6.16 include only prisoners committed by U.S. district
 courts and released by the BOP during fiscal year 1997.  Prisoners
 committed by U.S. district court --  but not for a violation of the U.S.
 Code, or whose offense could not be classified -- were included in the
 total but are not shown separately.  Table 6.9, however, shows these
 prisoners separately.  Other prisoners -- such as probation and parole
 violators and prisoners committed by other courts, such as courts
 martial or District of Columbia Superior Court,  were excluded from
 tables 6.11-6.16, as were other persons admitted to Federal prison but
 not committed from a U.S. district court.
 
 7)  In tables 6.11-6.16, time served was calculated for prisoner's arrival
 into jurisdiction of the BOP until first release from prison, plus any jail
 time served and credited.  The calculation is the same as that currently
 used by the BOP.  Prisoners serving consecutive sentences may have
 total imposed sentences exceeding the longest single sentence length. 
 Accordingly, time actually served may exceed the longest single
 imposed sentence.  The percent of sentenced served (in tables 6.12
 and 6.14) is the average of each individual prisoner's percent of
 sentence served.  Because other publications may include different
 groups of prisoners, calculate time served differently, or use a different
 offense classification, data in tables in this Compendium may differ
 from estimates of time served in previous publications by the BOP or
 in publications based on other data sources.
 
 Time served, as reported in tables 6.11-6.16 in this Compendium, may
 not be directly comparable to the calculation of time served in the 1993
 and prior compendia.  The methodology in this report uses additional
 information to identify prison commitment dates and account for jail
 credit.  In previous reports, jail credits were overestimated in some
 cases.  In addition, time served estimates reported in tables 6.12-6.14
 and 6.16 include only prisoners released by standard methods
 (expirations, mandatory releases, and releases to parole).  Prisoners
 released by extraordinary means (death, commutation, transfer, etc.)
 are excluded from the time served calculations in these tables.
 
 8)  Table 6.9 shows all persons admitted to, or released from, the
 jurisdiction of the BOP during fiscal year 1997.  Prisoners counted in
 this column are the same as prisoners included in tables 6.11, 6.12,
 and 6.13.  Table 6.9 shows in separate columns, as well as in the total,
 prisoners committed by a U.S. district court -- but not for a violation of
 the U.S. code, or whose offense could not be classified.  Other
 columns in table 6.9 include prisoners who were committed by other
 courts, returned to prison for violation of the conditions of supervision,
 or were received for examination, treatment, or transfer to another
 jurisdiction.  Offenders who returned to prison for a violation of the
 conditions of supervision without a new court commitment, were
 classified according to the offense with the longest single sentence
 originally imposed at conviction.
 
 Methodology

The Federal justice database

Source of data

The source of data for all tables in this Compendium is the Bureau of
Justice Statistics (BJS) Federal justice database.  The database is
presently constructed from source files provided by the Executive Office
for U.S. Attorneys, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the
United States Sentencing Commission, and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. 
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts also maintains the data
collected by the Pretrial Services Agency, the U.S. Court of Appeals, and
the U.S. Probation Service.  Federal law prohibits the use of these files
for any purposes other than research or statistics.  A description of the
source agency data files is provided in the table at the end of this section.
Some records in the Federal justice database are matched according to
a statistically weighted combination of names, other personal identifiers,
dates of court appearances, types of offenses, and other relevant
information contained in the files.  Using the matched data files, it is
possible to combine information about two or more stages of the
processing of a criminal matter or case, for example from adjudication to
probation or parole supervision.

Reporting period

Wherever possible, matters or cases have been selected according to
some event which occurred during fiscal year 1997 (October 1, 1996,
through September 30, 1997).  Some data files provided by source
agencies are organized according to a calendar year time frame; these
have been combined and divided into fiscal years for purposes of the
Compendium.  Files which are organized by their source agencies
according to fiscal year nonetheless include some pertinent records in
later years' files.  For example, tabulations of suspects in matters
concluded during fiscal year 1997 in this Compendium have been
assembled from source files containing records of 1997 matters
concluded which were entered into the data system during fiscal years
1997 or 1998.

Availability of data items

The availability of particular items of information is affected by the data
source.  For example, data on prosecutors' decisions prior to court filing
are provided for cases investigated by U.S. attorneys but not for those
handled by other litigating divisions of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Criminal Division cases enter the data base once they are filed in U.S.
district court, however.
 
Many items of social and demographic information come from
presentence investigation records, supervision records, or sentencing
records, and are available only for arrested defendants who were
convicted and/or began serving a sentence involving supervised release. 
This particularly affects sex, race, ethnicity, and prior record information.

Table construction and interpretation

The tables presented report events that occurred during the Federal
fiscal year -- October 1, 1995 - September 30, 1996.  Generally, the
tables include both individual and organizational defendants. 
Organizational defendants are not included in tables describing pretrial
release and detention or tables showing defendants sentenced to
incarceration.  Juvenile offenders are included in the reported statistics.
Unit of analysis

The unit of analysis in chapters 1 through 5 is a combination of a person
(or corporation) and a matter or case.  For example, if a single person is
involved in three different criminal cases during the time period specified
in the table, he or she is counted three times in the tabulation.  Similarly,
if a single criminal case involves a corporate defendant and four
individual defendants, it counts five times in the tabulation.  In chapter 6,
the unit of analysis for incarceration, probation, parole, or other
supervised release is a person entering custody or supervision, or a
person leaving custody or supervision.  For example, a person convicted
in two concurrent cases and committed once to the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons in the indicated time period is counted as one
admission to a term of incarceration.  A person who terminates probation
twice in the indicated time period, such as with a violation and again after
reinstatement, is counted as two terminations of probation.

Interpretation

The tables in the Compendium are constructed to permit the user to
make valid comparisons of numbers within each table and to compare
percentage rates across tables.  The total numbers of subjects in
Compendium tables that are based on records linked between two files
are generally less than the total number of records in either source file. 
Accordingly, comparisons of absolute numbers across two or more tables
in this volume and other data sources are not necessarily valid.
Offense classifications

Procedure

The offense classification procedure used in this Compendium is based
on the classification system followed by the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts.  Specific offenses combined to form the BJS categories
shown in the Compendium tables.* (These categories correspond to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics crime definitions and, to the extent possible,
are organized and presented consistent with BJS publications on State
criminal justice systems.)

For data from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, which include
United States Code citations but do not include the Administrative Office
offense classifications, United States Code titles and sections are
translated into the Administrative Office classification system and then
aggregated into the offense categories used in the tables.  Offense
categories for prisoners in chapter 6 are based on combinations of
offense designations used by the Bureau of Prisons.  They are similar to
the categories in other chapters and other tables in chapter 6, but may
not be directly comparable.

Felony/misdemeanor distinctions

Felony and misdemeanor distinctions are provided where possible. 
Felony offenses are those with a maximum penalty of  more than 1 year
in prison.  Misdemeanor offenses are those with a maximum penalty of 1
year or less.  Felonies and misdemeanors are further classified using the
maximum term of imprisonment authorized.  Section 3559, U.S. Code,
Title 18 classifies offenses according to the following schedule:

Felonies
Class A felony --  life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death.
Class B felony --  25 years or more.
Class C felony --  less than 25 years but more than 10 years.
Class D felony --  less than 10 years but more than 5 years.
Class E felony --  less than 5 years but more than 1 year.

Misdemeanors
Class A misdemeanor -- 1 year or less but more than 1 month.
Class B misdemeanor -- 6 months or less but more than 30 days.
Class C misdemeanor -- 30 days or less but more than 5 days.
Infraction --  --  --  --  5 days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized.

In this Compendium, felony and misdemeanor distinctions are provided
where the data permit these distinctions.  Chapter 1 does not use this
distinction because many suspects cannot be so classified at the
investigation stage in the criminal justice process.  Chapter 2 no longer
reports this distinction because the Pretrial Services Agency no longer
gathers this information. Chapters 3 and 4 distinguish between felony and
misdemeanor offenses, as do tables 6.1 6.6.  Tables 6.7 6.11 follow the
convention of other BJS publications by separately tabulating offenders
whose actual imposed sentences are less than or equal to 1 year and
those whose actual sentences are greater than 1 year.

Most serious offense selection

Where more than one offense is charged or adjudicated, the most
serious offense (the one that may or did result in the most severe
sentence) is used to classify offenses. The offense description may
change as the criminal justice process proceeds.  Tables indicate
whether investigated, charged or adjudicated offenses are used.  In
chapter 1, the most serious offense is based on the criminal lead charge
as determined by the assistant U.S. attorney responsible for the criminal
proceeding.  In chapter 2, the major charged offense is based upon the
Administrative Office's offense severity classification system, as
determined by the pretrial officer responsible for the case.  To select this
offense, the officer ranks offenses according to severity based on
maximum imprisonment, type of crime, and maximum fines.  In chapter
3, the most serious offense charged is the one that has the most severe
potential sentence.  For chapter 4, conviction offenses are based on
statutory maximum penalties.  In chapter 5, offenses are classified by the
offense of conviction.  In tables 6.1 6.6, the most serious offense of
conviction is either the one having the longest sentence imposed or, if
equal sentences were imposed or there was no imprisonment, it was the
offense carrying the highest severity code as determined by the
Administrative Office's offense severity code ranking.  In tables 6.7 6.13,
prisoners are classified according to the offense which bears the longest
single incarceration sentence. 

Offense categories

For offense categories in all text tables, the following conditions apply:
"Murder" includes nonnegligent manslaughter.
"Other sex offenses" may include some nonviolent offenses.
"Fraud" excludes tax fraud.
"Larceny" excludes transportation of stolen property.
"Other property felonies" excludes fraudulent property offenses, and
includes destruction of property and trespass.
"Tax law violations" includes tax fraud.
"Obscene material" denotes the mail or transport thereof.
"All other felonies" includes felonies with unknown or unclassifiable
offense type.
"Misdemeanors" includes misdemeanors, petty offenses, and unknown
offense levels.
"Drug possession" also includes other drug misdemeanors.

Figure S.2.

Figure S.2. uses data from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys to
provide an overview of case processing in the Federal criminal justice
system.  The figure uses data from two separate cohorts of persons
involved in criminal proceedings.  The data on suspects in criminal
matters concluded and defendants prosecuted come from the cohort of
suspects in matters concluded during October 1, 1996, through
September 30, 1997.  (The filing of charges in a criminal case is one
conclusion of a matter; the other is the declination of the matter for
prosecution.)  For the other three outcomes in figure S.2.  offenders
convicted, sentenced to prison, or given a term of probation -- the data
come from the cohort of defendants in cases terminating during fiscal
year 1997 in U.S. district courts (by either a judge or a magistrate).
A total of 99,459 suspects were investigated in matters concluded by
U.S. attorneys during 1997 (table 1.2).  Sixty-seven percent of these
suspects were prosecuted in U.S. district court, either before U.S. district
court judges (60,383/99,459 = 60.7%) or before U.S. magistrates
(10,007/99,459 = 10.1%).  The conviction data in figureS.2. refer to
defendants in cases terminated in U.S. district court during 1997, whether
before U.S. district court judges or U.S. magistrates.  Fifty-seven percent
(56,570/99,459) of the defendants in cases terminating during 1997 were
convicted (table 3.2).

Of the defendants investigated, 40% (39,431/99,459) were reported as
sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and 13% (12,801/99,459) were
sentenced to a term of probation without imprisonment (table 4.2). 
These figures are based on all charges, whether they eventually were
felony or misdemeanor offenses.

Glossary

Acquittal -- legal judgment that a criminal defendant has not been
proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the charges against him.
Affirmed -- in the appellate courts, the decree or order is declared valid
and will stand as rendered in the lower court.
Agriculture violations -- violations of the Federal statutes on agriculture
and conservation:  for example, violations of the Agricultural Acts,
Insecticide Act, and the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921; also
violations of laws concerning plant quarantine and the handling of
animals pertaining to research (7 U.S.C., except sections on food stamps
(fraud); also 16 U.S.C. sections relating generally to violations in
operating public parks, such as trespassing for hunting, shooting, and
fishing). 
Antitrust violations -- offenses relating to Federal antitrust
statutes, which aim to protect trade and commerce from unlawful
restraints, price fixing, monopolies (for example, 15 U.S.C.  && 1, 3,
8, 20, and 70(i)), and discrimination in pricing or in furnishing
services or facilities (15 U.S.C.  && 13(c) and 13(e)). 
Appeal -- a review by a higher court of a judgment or decision of
a lower court.
Appeals, U.S. Court of -- an intermediate Federal court, inferior to the
U.S. Supreme Court, but higher than the U.S. district court.  The function
of the U.S. court of appeals is to review the final decisions of the district
courts, if challenged.  There are 13 courts of appeal in the Federal
system representing the 12 judicial circuits and the Federal circuit (28
U.S.C.  & 41).
Appellant -- the party which takes an appeal from 1 court or jurisdiction
to another; opposite of appellee.
Appellee -- the party against whom the appeal is taken; opposite of
appellant.
Arson -- willfully or maliciously setting, or attempting to set, fire to any
property within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the
United States as defined in 18 U.S.C.  & 7 (18 U.S.C.  & 81; and 49A
U.S.C.  && 1804 and 1809).  (See also, "Explosives.")
Assault -- intentionally inflicting or attempting or threatening to inflict
bodily injury to another person.  Applies to anyone within the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States as defined in 18
U.S.C.  & 7, or to any Government official, foreign official, official guest,
internationally protected person, or any officer or employee of the United
States designated in 18 U.S.C.  & 1114 (for example, 16 U.S.C.  &&
1857(e) and 1859; 18 U.S.C.  && 111(a), 112(b), 113(c)(e), 114, 115(c),
351(d)(e), 372, 373, 1502, 1751(c), 1959, 2118(c), and 2231(a); 21
U.S.C.  && 461(c), 675(b), and 1041(c); 26 U.S.C.  && 7212(a)(b); 29
U.S.C.  & 1141; 46 U.S.C.  & 701; and 49A U.S.C.  & 1472(k)); also certain
violations of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.  && 3610 and 3631).
Bail -- the sum of money promised as a condition of release, to be paid
if a released defendant defaults (18 U.S.C.  & 3142(c)).
Bribery -- offering or promising anything of value with intent to unlawfully
influence a public official in the discharge of official duties.  Applies
generally to bank employees, officers or employees of the U.S.
Government, witnesses, or any common carrier.  Includes soliciting or
receiving anything of value in consideration of aiding a person to obtain
employment in the U.S. Government.  Also, receiving or soliciting any
remuneration, directly or indirectly, in cash or any kind in return for
purchasing, ordering, leasing, or recommending to purchase any good,
service, or facility (18 U.S.C.  && 201(a), 203(a)(b), 204, 207(a)(c), 208,
210, 211, 213, 215, and 663; 21 U.S.C.  & 622; 46 U.S.C.  & 239(i); and 49
U.S.C.  && 104, 917(b), and 11904(b)). 
Burglary -- breaking and entering into another's property with intent to
steal within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, as defined in 18 U.S.C.  & 7.  Includes breaking and entering into
any official bank, credit union, savings and loan institution, post office,
vessel or steamboat assigned to the use of mail service, or personal
property of the United States; or breaking the seal or lock of any carrier
facility containing interstate or foreign shipments of freight or express (18
U.S.C.  && 2111, 2113(a), and 2115-17).
Career offender -- defendants are counted as career offenders if they
are at least 18 years old at the time of the instant offense, if the instant
offense of conviction is a felony -- that is either a crime of violence or a
drug crime; and if they have at least two prior felony convictions of either
a crime of violence or a drug crime. 
Case -- in this Compendium, a judicial proceeding for the determination
of a controversy between parties wherein rights are enforced or
protected, or wrongs are prevented or redressed; any proceeding judicial
in its nature.
Civil rights -- violations of civil liberties such as the personal, natural
rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.  Includes the Civil
Rights Acts, such as those enacted after the Civil War, and more recently
in 1957 and 1964.
Collateral bond -- an agreement made by a defendant as a condition of
his or her pretrial release that requires the defendant to post property
valued at the full bail amount as an assurance of his or her intention to
appear at trial.
Communication -- violations covering areas of communication such as
the Communications Act of 1934 (including wire tapping and wire
interception).  A communication is ordinarily considered to be a deliberate
interchange of thoughts or opinions between two or more persons.
Community confinement -- a form of commitment either as a
substitute for Federal imprisonment or as a condition of probation in a
community treatment center, halfway house, restitution center, mental
health facility, alcohol or drug rehabilitation center, or other community
facility; and participation in gainful employment, employment search
efforts, community service, vocational training, treatment, educational
programs, or similar facility-approved programs during non-residential
hours.  Under the Federal sentencing guidelines, community confinement
may be a substitute for imprisonment on a day-to-day basis for
defendants with a guideline maximum of less than 16 months of
imprisonment (see also, U.S.S.G.  & 5C1.1(e)). 
Complaint -- a written statement of the essential facts constituting the
offense charged, with an offer to prove the fact, so that a prosecution
may be instituted.  The complaint can be "taken out" by the victim, the
police officer, the district attorney, or other interested party. 
Concurrent sentence -- a sentence imposed which is to be served at
the same time as another sentence imposed earlier or during the same
proceeding (18 U.S.C.  & 3584).  (See also, "Consecutive sentence.") 
Conditional release -- in this Compendium, at the pretrial stage, a
conditional release is release from detention contingent on any
combination of restrictions that are deemed necessary to guarantee the
defendant's appearance at trial or the safety of the community (see text in
Chapter 2 of this Compendium.)
Consecutive sentence -- a sentence imposed that will follow another
sentence imposed earlier or during the same proceeding; opposite of
concurrent sentence.
Conspiracy -- an agreement by two or more persons to commit or to
effect the commission of an unlawful act or to use unlawful means to
accomplish an act that is not in itself unlawful; also any overt act in
furtherance of the agreement.  A person charged with conspiracy is
classified under the substantive offense alleged.
Continuing criminal enterprise --  a felony committed as part of a
continuing series of violations, which is undertaken by a person in concert
with five or more other persons with respect to whom such person
occupies a position of organizer, a supervisory position, or any other
position of management, and from which such person obtains substantial
income or resources (21 U.S.C.  & 848(c)).
Conviction -- the result of a criminal trial which ends in a judgment that
the defendant is guilty.  The final judgment on a verdict or finding of
guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere, but does not include
a final judgment which has been expunged by pardon, reversed, set
aside, or otherwise rendered invalid.
Corporate surety -- in this Compendium, a surety; one who has entered
into a bond to give surety for another; for example, bail bondsman.  As a
condition of his or her release, the defendant enters into an agreement
that requires a third party such as a bail bondsman to promise to pay the
full bail amount in the event that the defendant fails to appear.  (See also,
"Surety bond.")
Counterfeiting -- falsely making, forging, or altering obligations with a
view to deceive or defraud, by passing the copy or thing forged for that
which is original or genuine.  Applies to obligation or security of the
United States, foreign obligation or security, coin or bar stamped at any
mint in the United States, money order issued by the Postal Service,
domestic or foreign stamp, or seal of any department or agency of the
United States.  Includes passing, selling, attempting to pass or sell, or
bringing into the United States any of the above falsely made articles. 
Also, making, selling, or possessing any plates or stones (or any other
thing or instrument) used for printing counterfeit obligations or securities
of the United States, foreign obligations or securities, Government
transportation requests, or postal stamp; or knowingly and intentionally
trafficking in falsified labels affixed to phonorecords, motion pictures, or
audio visual works (for example, 18 U.S.C.  && 471, 473, 477, 479, 481,
485, 487, 501, 507, 509, 513(b), 2318, and 2320).
Courts -- See "Appeals, U.S. Court of" and "District court, U.S." 
Pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, judicial power is vested in the
following Federal Courts:  The U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. district court for the
District of Columbia.
Criminal career -- the longitudinal sequence of crimes committed by an
individual offender. 
Criminal history category -- under the Federal sentencing guidelines, a
quantification of the defendant's prior criminal record and the defendant's
propensity to recidivate.  Guideline criminal history categories range from
Category I (primarily first-time offenders) to Category VI (career
criminals).
Custom laws -- violations regarding taxes which are payable upon
goods and merchandise imported or exported.  Includes the duties, toll,
tribute, or tariff payable upon merchandise exported or imported.
Deadly or dangerous weapon -- an instrument capable of inflicting
death or serious bodily injury. 
Declination -- the decision by a prosecutor not to file a case in a matter
received for investigation.  In this Compendium, immediate declinations
(i.e., where less than 1 hour of time is spent on a case) are excluded.
Defendant -- the party against whom relief or recovery is sought in an
action or suit, or the accused in a criminal case.
Departure -- under the Federal sentencing guidelines, the term used to
describe a sentence imposed outside the applicable guideline sentencing
range.  A court may depart when it finds an aggravating or mitigating
circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into
consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the
guidelines that should result in a sentence different from that described
(18 U.S.C.  & 3553(b); U.S.S.G.  & 5K2.0).  (See also, "Substantial
assistance.") 
Deposit bond -- an agreement made by a defendant as a condition of
his or her release that requires the defendant to post a fraction of the bail
before he or she is released.
Detention -- the legally authorized confinement of persons after arrest,
whether before or during prosecution.  Only those persons held 2 or more
days are classified as detained in this Compendium.
Dismissal -- termination of a case before trial or other final judgment
(including nolle prosequi and deferred prosecution).
Disposition -- the decision made on a case brought before a criminal
court.
Distribution -- delivery (other than by administering or dispensing) of a
controlled substance (21 U.S.C.  & 802(6)).  The term "controlled
substance" means any drug or other substance, or immediate precursor,
included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of subchapter I of Chapter
13 (title 21).  The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt
beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
District court, U.S. -- trial courts with general Federal jurisdiction over
cases involving Federal laws or offenses and actions between citizens of
different States.
District of Columbia -- the jurisdiction of the U.S. district court for the
District of Columbia.  This Compendium includes Federal offenses
prosecuted in U.S. district courts, and except for tables based on data
from the Bureau of Prisons, excludes violations of the District of
Columbia Code and cases prosecuted in the District of Columbia
Superior Court.  
Drug offenses -- offenses under a Federal or State laws prohibiting the
manufacture, import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled
substance (or counterfeit substance), or the possession of a controlled
substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent to manufacture, import,
export, distribute, or dispense.  Also using any communication facilities
which causes or facilitates a felony under title 21, or furnishing of
fraudulent or false information concerning prescriptions as well as any
other unspecified drug-related offense.  (See also, "Distribution,"
"Possession," and "Trafficking.")
Embezzlement -- the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to
whom such property has been lawfully entrusted.  Includes offenses
committed by bank officers or employees; officers or employees of the
Postal Service; officers of lending, credit, or insurance institutions; any
officer or employee of a corporation or as