Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Clay, Duval and Nassau...

Florida International University

Besiki Luka KutateladzeAssociate Professor of Criminology and Criminal [email protected]

Rebecca RichardsonPost-Doctoral Research [email protected]

Ryan MeldrumAssociate Professor of Criminology and Criminal [email protected]

Loyola University Chicago

Don StemenAssociate Professor of Criminal Justice and [email protected]

David OlsonProfessor of Criminal Justice and [email protected]

Elizabeth WebsterAssistant Professor of Criminal Justice and [email protected]

Research Assistants

Maria ArndtDoctoral Student at Florida International University

Dylan MatthewsDoctoral Student at Florida International University

Sadhika SoorDoctoral Student at Florida International University

Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Clay, Duval and Nassau

Counties, Florida

Advancing Prosecutorial Effectiveness and Fairness Report SeriesAugust 2019

Introduction What the project is aboutWhat the report is aboutForeword by Melissa NelsonStudy methodology

Part 1: Case Filing Figure1: Simplepercentageofcasesfiled Table1:Likelihoodofcasefiling Table1a:Felonylikelihoodofcasefiling Table1b:Misdemeanorlikelihoodofcasefiling

Part 2: Changes in Charge Severity from Arrest to Filing Figure2: Simplepercentageofcaseswithchargechangesatfiling Table2:Likelihoodofchangesinchargeseverityfromarresttofiling Table2a:Felonylikelihoodofchangesinchargeseverityfromarresttofiling Table2b:Misdemeanorlikelihoodofchangesinchargeseverityfromarresttofiling

Part 3: Disposition Type Figure 3: Simple percentage of cases resulting in each major disposition type Table 3: Likelihood of disposition Table 3a: Felony likelihood of disposition Table 3b: Misdemeanor likelihood of disposition

Part 4: Changes in Charge Severity from Filing to Disposition Figure4:Simplepercentageofcaseswithchargechangesatdisposition Table4:Likelihoodofchangesinchargeseverityfromfilingtodisposition Table4a:Felonylikelihoodofchangesinchargeseverityfromfilingtodisposition Table4b:Misdemeanorlikelihoodofchangesinchargeseverityfromfilingtodisposition

Part 5: Sentencing Figure 5: Simple percentage of sentence type Table 5: Likelihood of sentence type Table 5a: Felony likelihood of sentence type Table 5b: Misdemeanor likelihood of sentence type AppendicesAppendix A - Racial and ethnic disparity dashboardsAppendix B - Descriptive statisticsAppendixC-Mostcommonperson,property,anddrugchargesbroughtforfiling

About the Authors

11235

789

1112

1314151718

1920212424

2526272930

3132333535

36364551

Back Cover

1

This project is a groundbreaking partnership between prosecutors and researchers to promote more effective, just, and transparent decision making in prosecution. It isa bipartisan effort to be smart on crime, to think about new ways to maximize public safety, to enhance fairness, and to createanewsystemofaccountabilitytothepublic.Itinvolvesfour forward-thinking prosecutors in Chicago, Jacksonville, Milwaukee, and Tampa working with researchers at Florida International University and Loyola University Chicago to take anewlookatprosecutorialperformanceanddecisionmaking.This partnership is supported by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Improving prosecutorial performance and decision making is impossible without data. Data takes center stage in theproject, because it tells prosecutors what problems are the biggest threats to community well-being, and it points to ways to tackle those problems. Data helps measure the overallimpact of prosecutors’ work, and it alerts them that a policy orpracticeneedstobecontinuedorchanged.Unfortunately,most prosecutors’ offices lack the ability to collect, analyze,andapplydatatotheseends.Manyofficesdonotrecordthedata theyneed.Othersaremissingthestaffandknowledgenecessary to analyze their data. Still other offices—probablymost—do not have the ability and commitment to use datatoguidetheirdecisionsandreforms.Thisprojectfocusesonhelpingourpartnerofficesandother interestedjurisdictionsovercomethesehurdles.

The project has four distinct objectives:

What The Project Is AboutWhile the project targets performance in our four partner jurisdictions, it also aims to use the knowledge generated from this experiment to advance the field of prosecutionnationally.Therearemorethan2,300localprosecutors’officesin the United States, but very few organizations specialize in prosecutorial research and technical assistance. Realistically,most prosecutors’ offices will not receive any directmeaningfulassistance.Bybuildingsustainabledatacollection,performance measurement, and communication practices for the fouroffices, thisprojectprovidesasetofblueprints thatofficesacrossthecountrycanusetomaketheirowninternalimprovements.Werealizethereisnoone-size-fits-allapproachto prosecutorial office management that will meet everyoffice’s needs.Writing a prescription for a patient we havenotexaminedishard.However,theprojectprovidesamodelthatotherofficescanusetostartthinkingaboutforminglocalpartnerships, improving data capacity, and producing metrics forassessingtheirownimpact.

The backdrop for this project is the Safety & Justice Challenge, the MacArthur Foundation initiative to reduce jail misuse and overuse as both a crucial component and a major driver of America’s over-reliance on incarceration. Unnecessary jailincarceration carries significant costs to individuals, families,communities, and society at large. These costs take theirgreatesttollonlow-incomepeopleandcommunitiesofcolor.The Safety & Justice Challenge supports local leaders who are dedicated to safely reducing jail populations, improving justice systems,andultimatelystrengtheningtheircommunities.

To expand offices’ data and analytical capacity byassessing case management systems, making better use of existing data, and exploring options for capturing new information without creating additional burdensforprosecutors.

To assist prosecutors with tracking their progress toward greater efficiency, effectiveness, and fairnessusing prosecutorial performance indicators at the office and unit levels (as opposed to the individualprosecutorlevel).

To identify possible racial and ethnic disparities at various stages of case processing across offense categories, and to work with stakeholders to develop specificsolutionstoreducethem.

To establish a practice of using data to measure monthly or quarterly performance and engage with thecommunities.

1

2

3

4

Introduction

2

The fair and just treatment of racial and ethnic minorities at all stages of the criminal justice system is of significant importance to communitiesof color, practitioners, and scholars alike.Central tothis discourse is a recognition of the discretionary power that prosecutors wield in shaping the outcomesofcriminalcases.Thisincludes,amongotherthings,thedecisiontofileordropacase,amendtheseverityandnumberofcharges,anddisposeofcriminalcasesthroughpleabargaining.

This report focuses on the outcomes of prosecutorial decision making in Clay, Duval, and Nassau Counties,Florida.Specifically,itassessestheextenttowhichracialandethnicdisparitiesexistacrossthefollowingfivedecisionpointsincriminalcaseprocessing:(1)Casefiling;(2)Chargechangesfrom arrest to filing; (3)Disposition type; (4)Charge changes fromfiling todisposition; and (5)Sentencing.

We encourage the reader to interpret the results while recognizing that criminal case processing can triggerdisparateoutcomesforracialandethnicminoritiesforanumberofdifferentreasons.Someof these reasons, such as defense attorney role and judicial discretion, are beyond the immediate controlofprosecutors.Atthesametime,ourpartnersarekeenlyawarethatprosecutorscanandshould play a vital role in uncovering and addressing racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justicesystem,andthisreportstemsfromthatrecognition.

Theintentofthisreportistopromptdiscussionandraisequestions,ratherthanprovidedefinitiveanswers.Wealsowanttostressthatthefindingspresentedthroughoutthisreportcannotbeusedtosupportorrefutepossibleracialandethnicbiases.Ourmethodologysimplydoesnotpermitthat.Rather than serving as an end point, we view this report as a starting point from which to engage in meaningful discussions concerning policies and procedures that can ameliorate racial and ethnic disparities in case outcomes. Furthermore, given that prosecutorial decision making does notoperateinavacuum,certainfindingsdirectattentiontowaysstateattorney’soffices,thedefensebar, lawenforcement agencies, and the judiciary cangalvanize future reformefforts. Evenmoreimportantly, continued efforts to engage with minority communities will be critical for increasing publictrustinandcooperationwiththecriminaljusticesystem.

This report is part of a series of publications resulting from this partnership. The first report, Prosecutorial Attitudes, Perspectives, and Priorities: Insights from the Inside, was released in December, 2018. The second report, Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Hillsborough County, Florida, was released in July, 2019. The final report in the series, focused on prosecutorial performance indicators, will be released near the end of 2019.

Wealsowelcomeyourquestions.Ourcontactinformationisprovidedonthebackcover.

What The Report Is About

3

Introduction

Foreword fromMelissa Nelson

State AttorneyTheOfficeoftheStateAttorney

forthe4thJudicialCircuitJacksonville, FL

A Vision for Greater Impartiality and FairnessWe cannot achieve the important goal of improving public safety without an unwavering commitment to fairness and impartiality.Researchersandprosecutorsagreethatpublictrustandconfidenceinthejusticesystemisanecessityforcrime reporting andwitness cooperation.When a crimegoes unreported, the offender avoids accountability, and victims are deprived of the help they need. Whenthe government loses a case because a key witness refuses to cooperate, the offender escapes punishment, the deterrence function of the criminal justice system is undermined,andsocietyislessjustandlesssafeasaresult.Beyond the pragmatic goal of public safety, though, we know that treating all people equally—with dignity andrespect—is the right thing todo.This sentiment iswidelysharedacrossouroffice.Clearlyourdecisionsshouldbefree from intentional biases, but if we are truly committed to treating people equally, we must work hard to uncover and remove unconscious biases from our decision-making processtoo.Weshouldalldoourparttounderstandandreduceinequityofanykind.

SoonafterItookofficein2017,weengagedwithFloridaInternational University’s research team, which specializes in prosecutorial decision-making and racial justice. Wegave the researchers full access to all available data and personnel inouroffice,becausewewantedandneededa fully independent assessment of the office’s actualpractices and data, not just the latest unsubstantiated anecdotalassessments,whichtoooftendrivepolicy.

Thisreportisahelpfulconversationstarter.Weneedtokeepthinking about when, where and how race may play a role

inthedecisionswemake.Iamthankfultomyteamfortheircommitment to this important pursuit, to the researchers at Florida International University for producing this report, andtotheJohnD.andCatherineT.MacArthurFoundationforitssupportofthiswork.

What We LearnedBased on statistical analysis of data for 88,559 caseshandledbyourofficeinClay,Duval,andNassauCountiesin2017and2018,theresearchersfoundthat,overall,theinfluenceofraceorethnicitywasminimal.Racewasnotaninfluentialfactorfortheprosecutorialfilingdecisionorthedecisiontoreducecharges. Some areas worth noting follow:

The data shows that from 2017 to 2018, many of thedifferences by race and ethnicity shrank across the decision pointspectrum.

n We learned that black defendants were more likely to have their cases dismissed at the initial filing stage, andthe case dismissal rate was particularly high among felony offenses.Theprosecutorialdismissal(nolleprosequi)ratewas also higher for black defendants, particularly for felony person and property offenses where witness cooperation isoftenakeytosecuringconviction.

n We learned that black defendants were generally least likely to receivepre-filingaswell aspost-filingdiversion.

44

The difference was largest for drug offenses, and especially fordrugpossessioncases.Variationinoffenseseverityandprior record, which are diversion eligibility criteria, did not explainthesedifferences.Unfortunately,ourdatadoesnotpermit accounting for an individual’s decision to decline an offer of diversion, which might at least partially explain thisdifference.However,thisareaisonewecanexaminefurther, to determine the circumstances that may give rise tothesedissimilarities.

n We learned that white defendants were more likely to receive custodial sentences for felony person and property offenses, and black defendants were more likely to receive custodial sentences for felony drug cases. Given thatfelony drug cases are typically disposed of through guilty pleas, ourofficehas the ability to analyze thisdifferenceandhopefullyreducethisgap.

n Welearnedthatfordrugcases,Hispanicdefendantsweremost likely to receive a charge reduction from the original arrest charge to the actual charge filed; they were alsomost likely to have their cases dismissed by a prosecutor post-filing.

What We Can DoThere are many takeaways from this groundbreaking work, andwewill continue to learn from these findings.Whileno finding is insignificant to my office—or me—we wantto prioritize several areas where we believe we can start movingtheneedletowardgreaterfairnessandimpartiality.

Reevaluate Diversion Offers and Expand Access to Diversion Programs

Our first line of inquiry will be with diversion programs.Experience tells us that diversion of low-level offenders often can be the difference between a life of crime and a life asaproductivecitizen.Fornonviolentoffenses,diversionhas become a viable alternative to traditional criminal case processing. These programs help prosecutors prioritizethosecaseswherepublicsafetyistrulyatstake.Theyalsohelp individuals in a number of ways: keeping them out of the criminal justice system, preventing a conviction record, providing access to counseling, and, perhaps most important, allowing them to maintain employment and pay restitution to victims, while also saving tax dollars used to fundourcriminaljusticeefforts.

We are committed to ensuring that diversion is offered and made accessible to all eligible defendants.We need tounderstand why some defendants reject offers of diversion programs and determine if there are opportunities for increasingacceptancerates.Wecanalsoimprovethewayswe document our offers of diversion, acceptance, and completionrates.

Identify Unprosecutable Cases as Earlyas Possible

Another area of immediate focus concerns the relationship between the cases we receive for filing and the casesthatarenotfiledordismissedata later stage. Havingacase dismissed may seem like a desirable outcome for defendants on the surface, but a closer look at the issue may provide a different perspective. It is important thatwe screen cases even more thoroughly, to eliminate unprosecutable cases at the filing stage. Dismissingcases at later stages does not improve public safety, the community’s confidence in the justice system, or crimeprevention. Late dismissals are especially problematicfor individuals who end up in pretrial detention, which damagestheiremploymentprospectsandfamilyties.

Foster Community Trust

Building trust in the justice system isnoeasy task.Whileaccurate and appropriate decision making facilitates trust, community prosecution strategies and working with diverse community stakeholders can also help us get there. Coupled with other innovative strategies, such asthe work of our Conviction Integrity Unit and the increasing diversityofouroffice,theseeffortscanleadtosignificantimprovements in crime reporting, witness cooperation, andpublictrustinourwork.

Record Plea Offers and Ensure Their Equitable Application

Plea offers and plea bargaining present additional opportunityforreform.Currently,wedonotsystematicallyrecordourpleaoffers.Withbetterrecordingpractices,wecan continue to monitor our data for differences in plea offers.Wewillworktowardbuildingourdatainfrastructuretocaptureoffersconveyedbyourofficetodefensecounsel.We will also train managers at all levels to become intelligent consumersofdata.Lastly,inearly2020,wewillbeginusingoffice-wide Prosecutorial Performance Indicators to trackprogressovertime,toincludeissuesofrace.

We realize all of these ventures will be a significantundertaking. But this office is committed to promotingfairnessandimpartialityinourcriminaljusticesystem.Ilookforward to working with my team, with law enforcement and other local government agencies, and with our community partnerstoexaminethesefindingsandimprovethesafetyandwell-beingofallresidentsinourjurisdiction.

Study Methodology

6

DataData for this report came from the Clay, Duval, and Nassau Counties’ State Attorney’s Office’s (SAO) case managementsystem. The dataset includes over 85,000 felonies andmisdemeanorsdisposedofbytheSAOin2017and2018.

Race and EthnicityWhile the SAO’s casemanagement system lists defendants’raceasrecordedbylawenforcement,Hispanicethnicitywasnot reported in the dataset. Therefore, we used a separatemethod to identify Hispanic defendants. Defendants weredesignatedas “Hispanic” if their surnamesmatched theU.S.CensusBureau’sHispanicSurnameList,meaningthatatleast75% of individuals in the United States with that surname self-identify as Hispanic. Though it is important to examinecase processing outcomes for Asian and Native American defendants, there were not enough cases to conduct robust disparity analyses for these groups. Appendix B, however,includes basic descriptive information for the cases involving AsianandNativeAmericandefendants.

Defining a Case This report offers a case-level as opposed to charge-level analysis, which means that many cases in the dataset have multiplechargesand/orcounts.The informationonmultiplecharges and counts is captured and accounted for when appropriate.Also,somedefendantshadmorethanonecasedisposedofwithinthe24-monthperiodanalyzed.

Decision PointsThis report presents results for the following five decisionspoints: (1) Case filing; (2) Charge changes from arrest tofiling; (3)Dispositiontype; (4)Chargechangesfromfilingtodisposition;and(5)Sentencing.Adescriptionofeachdecisionpointisprovidedatthebeginningofeachsection.

Accounting for Legal and Non-Legal FactorsThe results account for differences in case, defendant, defense attorney,andprosecutorcharacteristicsamongracialgroups.However,theresultsdonottakeintoaccountcaseevidence,pretrial detention, diversion eligibility, plea bargaining details, anddefendants’socioeconomiccharacteristics.

Offense CategoriesResults are provided for all offenses together, and then broken down into person, property, and drug offenses separately.Public order and traffic offenses, which are the largest butmost diverse category, are not analyzed as their own offense type.Giventhe increased interest in theprocessingofdrug,particularly marijuana, possession cases, results for these cases are also described for each decision point. Excludedfromthisanalysisare“drivingundertheinfluence”casesandcases flagged by the SAO as “domestic violence,” becausethese two types of cases tend to have unique trends which wouldhaveundulyinfluencedtheoverallresults.

Presentation of ResultsBar graphs Figures 1-5Graphsshowsimplepercentagesforeachdecisionoutcomethatdonottakeintoaccountracialdifferencesin case, defendant, defense attorney, and prosecutor characteristics. Percentages are provided for alldefendants,thenforWhite,Black,andHispanicdefendantsseparately.

Tables Tables 1-5, 1a-5a & 1b-5b Tablesdisplayexpectedratesper1,000casesforWhite,BlackandHispanicdefendantsofeachdecisionoutcomeafteraccountingforcase,defendant,defenseattorney,andprosecutorcharacteristics.Theratesarepredictedprobabilitiescalculatedfollowingmultinomiallogisticregressions.Tables1-5presentratesforfelonies and misdemeanors combined, while Tables 1a-5a present rates for felonies only and Tables 1b-5b presentratesformisdemeanorsonly.

Dashboards Appendix ADashboardsprovideavisualoverviewofracialandethnicdisparitiesforallfivedecisionpointsincludedinthis report,brokendownbyoffense type.Thesedashboardsalsodisplaychanges indisparitiesbetween2017and2018.Pleaseseepage36fordetailedinformationabouthowtointerpretthesecharts.

7

When a criminal case is referred for prosecution to the SAO by the police or a citizen, a filing prosecutor reviews the available evidence and decides whether to accept the case and bring charges against the defendant (“file”), to divert the case to one of several intervention programs prior to filing (“pre-filing diversion”), or to decline to prosecute (“not file”). Not all defendants are eligible for pre-filing diversion programming, and diversion requires consent from the defendant and victim.

8

Figure1:SimplePercentageofCaseFilingOutcomesbyDefendantRace

Thesebargraphs represent simplepercentagesof case filingoutcomes for all defendants together,followedbyWhite,Black,andHispanicdefendantsseparately.Thegraphsdonottakeintoaccountracialdifferencesincase,defendant,anddefenseattorneycharacteristics.

9

Table 1: Likelihood of Case Filing by Defendant Race

Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, andHispanicdefendantsaftertakingintoaccounttheinfluenceof:(1)offenseseverity,(2)offensetype,(3)chargecounts,(4)whetherthecaseoriginatedwithanarrest,(5)priorconvictions,(6)priorprisonsentences,(7)priorbenchwarrants,(8)criminalhistorydesignationssuchashabitualoffender,(9)yearofdisposition,(10)defendantgender,and(11)defendantage.Resultsforpersonoffensesalsotakeintoaccount(12)numberofvictims,(13)victimrace,(14)victimgender,(15)victimage,and(16)whethera business or government agencywas involved as a victim. Results for drug offenses also take intoaccount(17)drugtype,(18)whethertheoffenseinvolvedpossessionorsale/trafficking/manufacturing,and(19)thepresenceofdrugparaphernalia.Pleaseseethetextprovidedafterthistableforadditionaldescriptionoftheserates.

10

Most influential factors Filing: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision. Charges were more likely to be filed when: the defendant was older the case involved more arrest charges thecaseoriginatedwithanon-trafficarrest thetoparrestchargewasamisdemeanor(especiallya2nddegreemisdemeanor) Pre-Filing Diversion: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision. Cases were more likely to be diverted when: the defendant was younger the defendant had fewer prior convictions the top arrest charge was a drug offense thecasedidnotoriginatewithanon-trafficarrest thedefendanthadfewerpriorincarcerationsentences.

For all cases,HispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiledandWhitesweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion,afteraccountingforlegalandextralegalcharacteristics.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Hispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiled(824outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(795outof1,000cases)andBlacks(772outof1,000cases).Whitesweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion(51outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(42outof1,000cases),andthenBlacks(41outof1,000cases).

For personoffenses,HispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiledandWhitesweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion,afteraccountingforlegalandextralegalcharacteristics.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Hispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiled(725outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(710outof1,000cases)andBlacks(687outof1,000cases).Whitesweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion(60outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(49outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(45outof1,000cases).

For propertyoffenses,WhitesweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiledandHispanicsweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion,afteraccountingforlegalandextralegalcharacteristics.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Whitesweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiled(790outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(778outof1,000cases)andBlacks(751outof1,000cases).Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion(85outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(81outof1,000cases),andthenBlacks(68outof1,000cases).

For drugoffenses,WhitesweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiledandHispanicsweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion,afteraccountingforlegalandextralegalcharacteristics.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Whitesweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiled(795outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(786outof1,000cases)andHispanics(758outof1,000cases).Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion(97outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(92outof1,000cases),andthenBlacks(64outof1,000cases).

Alldrugpossessioncases(10,394cases):Blacksweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiled(772outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(765outof1,000cases)andthenHispanics(738outof1,000cases).Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion(123outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(116outof1,000cases)andthenBlacks(82outof1,000cases).

Marijuanapossessioncases(5,540cases):Consistentwiththepatternforalldrugpossession cases,Blacksweremostlikelytohavetheircasesfiled(789outof1,000cases),followed byWhites(775outof1,000cases)andthenHispanics(736outof1,000cases).Hispanics weremostlikelytoreceivepre-filingdiversion(170outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites (152outof1,000cases)andthenBlacks(118outof1,000cases).

11

Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, andHispanicdefendantsaftertakingintoaccountthesamefactorsdetailedinthenoteinTable1.

Table 1a: Felony Likelihood of Case Filing by Defendant Race

12

Table 1b: Misdemeanor Likelihood of Case Filing by Defendant Race


14

Figure2:SimplePercentageofCaseswithChargeChangesatFiling by Defendant Race

These bar graphs represent simple percentages of charge change outcomes for all defendants together, followedbyWhite,Black,andHispanicdefendantsseparately.Thegraphsdonottakeintoaccountracialdifferencesincase,defendant,anddefenseattorneycharacteristics.

15

Table2:LikelihoodofChangesinChargeSeverity from Arrest to Filing by Defendant Race

Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, andHispanicdefendantsaftertakingintoaccounttheinfluenceof:(1)offenseseverity,(2)offensetype,(3)chargecounts, (4)whether thecaseoriginatedwithanarrest, (5)priorconvictions, (6)priorprisonsentences,(7)priorbenchwarrants,(8)criminalhistorydesignationssuchashabitualoffender,(9)attorneytype(privateattorney,publicdefender,orprose),(10)yearofdisposition,(11)defendantgender,and(12)defendantage.Resultsforpersonoffensesalsotakeintoaccount(13)numberofvictims,(14)victimrace,(15)victimgender,(16)victimage,and(17)whetherabusinessorgovernmentagencywasinvolvedas a victim. Results fordrugoffenses also take into account (18)drug type, (19)whether theoffenseinvolved possession or sale/trafficking/manufacturing, and (20) the presence of drug paraphernalia.Pleaseseethetextprovidedafterthistableforadditionaldescriptionoftheserates.

16

Most influential factors

Reduction in charges: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision. Charges were more likely to be reduced when: the top arrest charge was a felony thetoparrestchargewasapublicorder/trafficoffense thecaseoriginatedwithanon-trafficarrest the defendant represented him/herself thedefendantwasnotajuvenileatthetimeofarrest. Increase in charges: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision. Charges were more likely to be increased when: the defendant was represented by a public defender thetoparrestchargewasa2nddegreemisdemeanor the top arrest charge was not a drug offense thecaseinvolvedmorearrestcharges.

For all cases, Whites were least likely to have their charges reduced and most likely to have their chargesincreased.

Among similarly situated defendants, Blacks were most likely to have their charges reduced (131outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(130outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(118outof1,000cases).Whitesweremostlikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(28outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(21outof1,000cases)andthenHispanics(20outof1,000cases).

For personoffenses,Hispanicswereleastlikelytohavetheirchargesreduced,whereasBlacksweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesincreased.

Among similarly situated defendants, Whites were most likely to have their charges reduced (241outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(227outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(208outof1,000cases).Blacksweremostlikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(48outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(45outof1,000cases)andHispanics(44outof1,000cases).

For propertyoffenses,Whiteswereleast likelytohavetheirchargesreduced,andHispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesincreased. Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Hispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesreduced(123outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(119outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(111outof1,000cases).Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(49outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(39outof1,000cases)andBlacks(28outof1,000cases).

For drugoffenses,Whiteswereleastlikelytohavetheirchargesreduced,andHispanicsandWhitesweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesincreased.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Hispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesreduced(187outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(178outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(146outof1,000cases).HispanicsandWhitesweremorelikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(12outof1,000cases)thanBlacks(10outof1,000cases).

Alldrugpossessioncases(7,943cases):Consistentwiththeoverallpatternfordrugoffenses,Whiteswereleastlikelytohavetheirchargesreduced,andWhitesandHispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesincreased.Blacksweremostlikelytoreceiveachargereduction(167outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(164outof1,000cases)andWhites(144outof1,000cases).HispanicsandWhitesweremorelikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(10outof1,000cases)thanBlacks(6outof1,000cases).

Marijuanapossessioncases(4,296cases):Whiteswereleastlikelytohavetheircharges reducedandwerealsothemostlikelytohavetheirchargesincreased.Blacksweremost likelytoreceiveachargereduction(80outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(70out of1,000cases)andWhites(68outof1,000cases).Whitesweremostlikelytoreceivea chargeincrease(12outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(11outof1,000cases)and Blacks(6outof1,000cases).

17

Part 2: Chicago Interview and Survey Findings

Table2a:FelonyLikelihoodofChangesinChargeSeverity from Arrest to Filing by Defendant Race


18

*Cannotestimateduetotheinfrequencyofchargereductionsandincreases.

Table2b:MisdemeanorLikelihoodofChangesinChargeSeverity from Arrest to Filing by Defendant RaceNumbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, andHispanicdefendantsaftertakingintoaccountthesamefactorsdetailedinthenoteinTable2.

20

Figure 3: Simple Percentage of Cases Resulting in Each Major Disposition Type by Race

These bar graphs represent simple percentages of disposition types for all defendants together, followedbyWhite,Black,andHispanicdefendantsseparately.Thegraphsdonottakeintoaccountracialdifferencesincase,defendant,anddefenseattorneycharacteristics.

21

Table 3: Likelihood of Disposition by Defendant Race

Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, and Hispanicdefendantsaftertakingintoaccounttheinfluenceof:(1)offenseseverity,(2)offensetype,(3)chargecounts,(4)chargechangesfromarresttofiling,(5)whetherthecaseoriginatedwithanarrest,(6)whetherthedefendantfailedtoappearinthecurrentcase,(7)priorconvictions,(8)priorprisonsentences,(9)priorbenchwarrants,(10)criminalhistorydesignationssuchashabitualoffender,(11)attorneytype(privateattorney,publicdefender,orprose),(12)yearofdisposition,(13)defendantgender,and(14)defendantage.Resultsforpersonoffensesalsotakeintoaccount(15)numberofvictims,(16)victimrace,(17)victimgender,(18)victimage,and(19)whetherabusinessorgovernmentagencywasinvolvedasavictim.Resultsfordrugoffensesalsotakeintoaccount(20)drugtype,(21)whethertheoffenseinvolvedpossessionorsale/trafficking/manufacturing,and(22) thepresenceofdrugparaphernalia.Pleaseseethetextprovidedafterthistableforadditionaldescriptionoftheserates.

22

Prosecutorial Dismissal FindingsMost influential factors

Race/ethnicity was one of the most influential factors for this decision. Prosecutorial dismissals were most likely when: the defendant had a private attorney thetopfiledchargewasaviolentoffense thetopfiledchargewasmoreseverethana2nddegreemisdemeanor the defendant was a juvenile at the time of arrest the defendant was Black

For all cases,Blacksweremostlikely(45outof1,000cases)andHispanicswereleastlikely(32outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasedismissedbyaprosecutor.ThecorrespondingnumberforWhitesis35.

For personoffenses,Blacksweremostlikely(96outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasesdismissedbyaprosecutor,followedbyWhites(81outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(77outof1,000cases).

For propertyoffenses,Blacksweremostlikely(50outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasesdismissedbyaprosecutor,followedbyHispanics(49outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(38outof1,000cases).

For drugoffenses,Hispanicsweremostlikely(40outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasesdismissedbyaprosecutor,followedbyBlacks(36outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(31outof1,000cases).

Alldrugpossessioncases(7,372cases):Hispanicsweremostlikely(42outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasesdismissedbyaprosecutor,followedbyBlacks(37outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(33outof1,000cases). Marijuanapossessioncases(3,970cases):Whitesweremorelikely(31outof1,000casesto havetheircasesdismissedbyaprosecutorthanBlacksandHispanics(30outof1,000cases).

Judicial Dismissal FindingsMost influential factors

Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision. Judicial dismissals were most likely when: the defendant had fewer prior convictions the defendant failed to appear during the current case thetopfiledchargewasaviolentoffense the defendant was a juvenile at the time of arrest the defendant was younger

For all cases,Whitesweremost likely (7outof1,000cases) tohavetheircasedismissedbya judge,followedbyBlacks(5outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(3outof1,000cases).

For personoffenses,Hispanicsweremostlikely(15outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasedismissedbyajudge,followedbyWhites(13outof1,000cases),andthenBlacks(9outof1,000cases).

For propertyoffenses,WhitesandBlacksweremorelikely(5outof1,000casesforeach)tohavetheircasedismissedbyajudgethanHispanics(2outof1,000cases).

For drugoffenses,Whites and Blacks were more likely (2 out of 1,000 cases) to have their casedismissedbyajudgethanHispanics(0outof1,000cases).

Alldrugpossessioncases(7,372cases):Whitesweremorelikely(3outof1,000cases)thanBlacks(2outof1,000cases)orHispanics(0outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasedismissedbyajudge. Marijuanapossessioncases(3,970cases):Whitesweremostlikely(3outof1,000cases)to havetheircasedismissedbyajudge,followedbyBlacks(1outof1,000cases),andthen Hispanics(0outof1,000cases).

Diversion Findings

23

Diversion FindingsMost influential factors

Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision. Diversion was most likely when: thetopfiledchargewasadrugoffense thetopfiledchargewasa3rddegreefelony the defendant was younger the defendant had fewer prior convictions the defendant did not represent him/herself

For all cases,Whitesweremostlikely(44outof1,000cases)andHispanicswereleastlikely(36outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasediverted.ThecorrespondingnumberforBlackswas41. For personoffenses,Hispanicsweremostlikely(34outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasedivertedandBlackswereleastlikely(28outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasediverted.ThecorrespondingnumberforWhiteswas31.

For propertyoffenses,Hispanicsweremostlikely(81outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasediverted,followedbyBlacks(78outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(70outof1,000cases).

For drugoffenses,Whitesweremostlikely(99outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasediverted,followedbyHispanics(94outof1,000cases),andthenBlacks(78outof1,000cases).

Alldrugpossessioncases(7,372cases):Consistentwithalldrugoffenses,Whitesweremostlikely(129outof1,000cases)tohavetheircasediverted,followedbyHispanics(123outof1,000cases),andthenBlacks(104outof1,000cases).

Marijuanapossessioncases(3,970cases):Whitesweremorelikely(82outof1,000cases each)thanBlacks(77outof1,000cases)andHispanics(72outof1,000cases)tohavetheir casediverted.

24

Table 3a: Felony Likelihood of Disposition by Defendant Race

Table 3b: Misdemeanor Likelihood of Disposition by Defendant Race



26

Figure4:SimplePercentageofCaseswithChargeChangesatDispositionby Defendant Race

These bar graphs represent simple percentages of charge changes for all defendants together, followed by White, Black, and Hispanic defendants separately. The graphs do not take into account racialdifferencesincase,defendant,anddefenseattorneycharacteristics.

27

Table4:LikelihoodofChangesinChargeSeverity from Filing to Disposition by Defendant Race

Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, and Hispanic defendants after taking into account the influence of: (1) offense severity, (2) offensetype, (3) chargecounts, (4) chargechanges fromarrest tofiling, (5)disposition type, (6)whether thecaseoriginatedwithanarrest,(7)whetherthedefendantfailedtoappearinthecurrentcase,(8)priorconvictions, (9) prior prison sentences, (10) prior bench warrants, (11) criminal history designationssuchashabitualoffender,(12)attorneytype(privateattorney,publicdefender,orprose),(13)yearofdisposition,(14)defendantgender,and(15)defendantage.Resultsforpersonoffensesalsotakeintoaccount(16)numberofvictims,(17)victimrace,(18)victimgender,(19)victimage,and(20)whetherabusinessorgovernmentagencywasinvolvedasavictim.Pleaseseethetextprovidedafterthistableforadditionaldescriptionoftheserates.


28


Reduction in charges: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision. Charges were more likely to be reduced when: thetopfilingchargewasnota2nddegreemisdemeanor thetopfilingchargewasapublicorder/trafficoffense the case was disposed via a guilty plea or trial the defendant represented him/herself Increase in charges: Race/ethnicity was not an influential factor for this decision. Charges were more likely to be increased when: the defendant did not represent him/herself thetopfilingchargewasa2nddegreemisdemeanor the defendant was older thetopfilingchargewasaviolentoffense therewasareductionintheseverityofthetopchargefromarresttofiling

For all cases, Whites were least likely to have their charges reduced and Blacks and Whites were most likelytohavetheirchargesincreased.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Blacksweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesreduced(25outof1,000cases),followedbyHispanics(21outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(19outof1,000cases).BlacksandWhitesweremorelikelytohavetheirchargesincreased(2outof1,000cases)thanHispanics(1outof1,000casesforeach).

For person offenses, Blacks were least likely to have their charges reduced and also most likely to havetheirchargesincreased.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,HispanicsandWhitesweremorelikelytohavetheirchargesreduced(76outof1,000cases)thanBlacks(63outof1,000cases).Blacksweremostlikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(13outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(7outof1,000cases)andHispanics(3outof1,000cases).

For propertyoffenses,therewerenodifferencesinchargereductions.Hispanicsweremostlikelytohavetheirchargesincreased. Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Whites,Blacks,andHispanicswereequallylikelytoreceiveachargereduction(2outof1,000casesforeach).Hispanicsweremorelikelytoreceiveachargeincrease(4outof1,000cases)thanWhites(2outof1,000cases)andBlacks(1outof1,000cases).

For drug offenses, differences could not be examined due to the infrequency of charge reductions (62)andincreases(7).

29

Table4a:FelonyLikelihoodofChangesinChargeSeverityfromFilingtoDisposition by Defendant Race



30


Table4b:MisdemeanorLikelihoodofChangesinChargeSeverityfromFiling to Disposition by Defendant Race


32

Figure 5: Simple Percentage of Sentence Type by Defendant Race

These bar graphs represent simple percentages of sentence types for all defendants together, followed by White, Black, and Hispanic defendants separately. The graphs do not take into account racialdifferencesincase,defendant,anddefenseattorneycharacteristics.

33

Table 5: Likelihood of Sentence Type by Defendant Race

Numbers in this table represent the expected rates of each outcome per 1,000 cases for White, Black, andHispanicdefendantsaftertakingintoaccounttheinfluenceof:(1)offenseseverity,(2)offensetype,(3)chargecounts,(4)chargechangesfromarresttofiling,(5)whetherthecasewasdisposedviapleaor trial (6) charge changes from filing to disposition, (7) whether the case originatedwith an arrest,(8)whether thedefendant failed toappear in thecurrentcase, (9)priorconvictions, (10)priorprisonsentences,(11)priorbenchwarrants,(12)criminalhistorydesignationssuchashabitualoffender,(13)whetheraminimummandatorysentencewasapplied,(14)whethera10-20-Lifesentencewasapplied,(15)attorneytype(privateattorney,publicdefender,orprose),(16)yearofdisposition,(17)defendantgender, and (18) defendant age. Results for personoffenses also take into account (19) numberofvictims,(20)victimrace,(21)victimgender,(22)victimage,and(23)whetherabusinessorgovernmentagencywas involvedasavictim.Results fordrugoffensesalso take intoaccount (24)drugtype, (25)whether the offense involved possession or sale/trafficking/manufacturing, and (26) the presence ofdrugparaphernalia.Pleaseseethetextprovidedafterthistableforadditionaldescriptionoftheserates.

34


Time Served: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision. Cases were more likely to result in time served when: the defendant was not a juvenile thecaseoriginatedwithanon-trafficarrest the top disposition charge was a felony the defendant was represented by a public defender thetopdispositionchargewasapropertyoffense. Custodial sentence: Race/ethnicity was not one of the most influential factors for this decision. Cases were more likely to result in a custodial sentence when: the defendant was not a juvenile the top disposition charge was a felony the defendant had more prior convictions the top disposition charge was a property or person offense thecaseoriginatedwithanon-trafficarrest.

For all cases, Blacks were most likely to receive a sentence of time served and Whites were most likely toreceiveacustodialsentence.

Among similarly situated defendants, Blacks were most likely to receive a sentence of time served (296outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(278outof1,000cases)andHispanics(270outof1,000cases).Whitesweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence(232outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(218outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(208outof1,000cases).

For personoffenses,BlacksweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeservedandHispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence.

Among similarly situated defendants, Blacks were most likely to receive a sentence of time served (303outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(273outof1,000cases)andHispanics(252outof1,000cases).Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence(459outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(445outof1,000cases),andthenWhites(444outof1,000cases).

For propertyoffenses,HispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeservedandWhitesweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeserved(374outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(370outof1,000cases)andWhites(333outof1,000cases).Whitesweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence(392outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(372outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(336outof1,000cases).

For drugoffenses,HispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeservedandBlacksweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence.

Amongsimilarlysituateddefendants,Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeserved(352outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(342outof1,000cases)andWhites(314outof1,000cases).Blacksweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence(308outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(296outof1,000cases),andthenHispanics(280outof1,000cases). Alldrugpossessioncases(5,665cases):Consistentwiththepatternforalldrugoffenses,Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeserved(365outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(341outof1,000cases)andWhites(317outof1,000cases).Blacksweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence(229outof1,000cases),followedbyWhites(205outof1,000cases)andHispanics(179outof1,000cases).

Marijuanapossessioncases(3,494cases):Consistentwiththepatternforalldrugand drugpossessionoffenses,Hispanicsweremostlikelytoreceiveasentenceoftimeserved (307outof1,000cases),followedbyBlacks(276outof1,000cases)andWhites(266outof 1,000cases).Blacksweremostlikelytoreceiveacustodialsentence(74outof1,000cases), followedbyWhites(51outof1,000cases)andHispanics(33outof1,000cases).

35

Table 5a: Felony Likelihood of Sentence Type by Defendant Race

Table 5b: Misdemeanor Likelihood of Sentence Type by Defendant Race



36

Appendix ARacial and Ethnic Disparity DashboardsThese dashboards provide the reader with a visual overview of how outcomes for different racialandethnicgroupscompareacrossthefivedecisionpointsdetailedinthisreport.

Dashboardsarebrokendownbyoffensetype:(1)allcases,(2)person,(3)property,and(4)drug.Theyarealsoseparatedbyyear,2017and2018.

Differences between Black and White defendants, and between Hispanic and Whitedefendants, are presented as rates per 1,000 cases. These rates take into account theinfluenceoflegal(e.g.offenseseverity,priorrecord)andnon-legal(defendantage,defensecounseltype)factorsdescribedinthetablesthroughoutthereport.

Each bar in the dashboards has three components:

Outcomepreferencesaredefinedbywhetherdefendantswouldratherreceiveeachoutcomeover its immediate alternative, regardless of what happened earlier in case processing.Althoughearlieroutcomesmayinfluencedifferencesobservedinlateroutcomes,preferencesaredeterminedonlybythealternativesavailablewithinthesamedecisionpoint.Anexampleinterpretationisprovidedforonebarineachchart.

Color - Lighter bars show differences in rates for Black defendants compared toWhitedefendants,whiledarkerbarsshowdifferencesinratesforHispanicdefendantscomparedtoWhitedefendants.

Number - The number at the end of each bar shows the difference in rates for eachoutcome.PositivenumbersindicatethatBlackorHispanicdefendantshave a higher rate of the outcome than White defendants, while negative numbers indicate Black or Hispanic defendants have a lower rate of theoutcomethanWhitedefendants.

Direction –Thedirectionof thebarreflectswhetherthedifference inratesbenefitsBlackorHispanicdefendants.Barstotherightofthe0axisrepresentdifferencesthatpotentiallybenefitBlackorHispanicdefendants.Barstotheleft of the0 axis representdifferences that are unlikely tobenefitBlackorHispanicdefendants.

Example: We have categorized prosecutorial dismissals as a possible preferred outcome for defendants. If we look at the overall picture,a higher dismissal rate may suggest unfavorable treatment at case filing;ahigherrateofprosecutorialdismissalsforminoritydefendantscouldindicatethatsomeofthesecasesshouldhaveneverbeenfiled.However,forcasesthathavebeenfiled,defendantswouldlikelyprefertoreceiveadismissalratherthanpleadguiltyorgototrial.

Outcomes that defendants are likely to prefer include: pre-filingdiversionascomparedtocasefiling chargereductionatfilingasopposedtonochargechangeatfiling dismissalbyprosecutor(nolleprosequi)asopposedtoguiltyplea/trial dismissal by a judge as opposed to guilty plea/trial post-filingdiversionasopposedtoguiltyplea/trial charge reduction at disposition as opposed to no charge change at disposition

Outcomes that defendants are likely not to prefer include: casefilingasopposedtocaserejectionatfiling chargeincreaseatfilingasopposedtonochargechangeatfiling charge increase at disposition as opposed to no charge change at disposition time served sentence as opposed to non-custodial sentence custodial sentence as opposed to non-custodial sentence

37

30 more cases per 1,000 cases are filedforHispanicsthan for similarly situated Whites

38

34fewercasesper 1,000 cases arefiledforBlacks than for similarly situated Whites

39 24morecasesper 1,000 cases are dismissed by a prosecutor for Blacks than for similarly situated Whites

40

33 fewer cases per 1,000 cases receive a charge reductionatfilingforHispanicsthan for similarly situated Whites

41

82fewercasesper 1,000 cases receive custodial sentences for Hispanicsthanfor similarly situated Whites

42

21morecasesper 1,000 cases receive time served sentences for Blacks than for similarly situated Whites

43

58morecasesper 1,000 cases receive a charge reductionatfilingforHispanicsthan for similarly situated Whites

44

24fewercasesper 1,000 cases are diverted pre-filingforBlacks than for similarly situated Whites

45

Appendix BDescriptive Statistics

Florida International University

Besiki Luka KutateladzeAssociate Professor of Criminology and Criminal [email protected]

Rebecca RichardsonAssistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal [email protected]

Ryan MeldrumAssociate Professor of Criminology and Criminal [email protected]

Loyola University Chicago

Don StemenAssociate Professor of Criminal Justice and [email protected]

David OlsonProfessor of Criminal Justice and [email protected]

Elizabeth WebsterAssistant Professor of Criminal Justice and [email protected]

Research Assistants

Maria ArndtDoctoral Student at Florida International University

Dylan MatthewsDoctoral Student at Florida International University

Sadhika SoorDoctoral Student at Florida International University

About the Authors

About Florida International University

Florida International University is classified by Carnegie as a R1:Doctoral Universities - Highest Research Activity and recognizedasaCarnegieengageduniversity.Itisapublicresearchuniversitywithcollegesandschoolsthatoffers196bachelor’s,master’sanddoctoralprogramsinfieldssuchasengineering,computerscience,internationalrelations,architecture,lawandmedicine.Thisprojectis housed in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice and the Center for the Administration of Justice, which are part of theStevenJ.GreenSchoolofInternationalandPublicAffairs.

About Loyola University Chicago

LoyolaUniversityChicago,aprivateuniversityfoundedin1870asSt. IgnatiusCollege, is one of the nation’s largest Jesuit, CatholicUniversities and the only one located in Chicago. RecognizingLoyola’s excellence in education, U.S. News and World Report has ranked Loyola consistently among the top “national universities”in its annual publications. Loyola is among a select group ofuniversities recognized for community service and engagement by prestigious national organizations like the Carnegie Foundation and theCorporationforNationalandCommunityService.

Designedby:pinnaclegraphics.design

Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Clay, Duval and Nassau...

Documents

Transcript of Race, Ethnicity and Prosecution in Clay, Duval and Nassau...