How Long Does It Take To Resolve a Criminal Case?

Felony Cases

According to the Texas Office of Court Administration, the Bell County district courts handled 2,283 felony criminal cases during the year 2009. Of those cases, just 10% were cases which were resolved within the first 60 days after the case was filed. Only 7% were completed between 60 and 90 days, and another 6% were completed between 90 and 120 days. The majority of all felony criminal cases, some 77% (almost 8 out of every 10 cases filed), required more than 120 days to resolve.

Statewide, there were a total of 282,897 felony criminal cases resolved in 2009. Overall, almost one out of every three felony criminal cases (or 32%) were resolved within the first 60 days after being filed. There were an additional 9% of cases which were resolved within 60 and 90 days, and another 8% from 90 to 120 days. The remaining 51% of cases took more than 120 days to complete from date of filing to final resolution.

Misdemeanor Cases

According to the Texas Office of Court Administration, the Bell County misdemeanor courts handled 9,010 cases during 2009. Of those, 15% of all misdemeanor cases were resolved within the first 30 days after being filed. However, only 6% were completed between 31 and 60 days, and another 6% between 61 and 90 days. The majority of all misdemeanor criminal cases, some 73% (roughly 8 out of every 10 cases filed), took more than 90 days to resolve.

Statewide, there were 611,694 misdemeanor cases resolved during 2009. Of those, roughly one out of every four misdemeanor criminal cases (or 23%) were resolved within the first 30 days. Next, there were an additional 11% of cases which were resolved within 31 and 60 days, and then another 9% from 61 to 90 days. The remaining 57% took more than 90 days to complete.

Ruby’s iPhone App Reviewed

For those of you who enjoyed my last posting about my receptionist, Ruby (Ruby Receptionists: Reception Specialization), you’ll be interested to know that Ruby has now gone high-tech—she now has a free iPhone app!

You can easily download the app from the iTunes store (or just click here).  Once you install the app, just enter your email address and password which you use to access Ruby already, and voila! You now have easy access to your phone call data and a really quick and easy way to update your status.

The photo above on the right shows you the main screen which opens once the app is started.  It also shows the date and time of the last update.  In this example, it shows that Ruby is following my default call routing instructions.  If you click the button labeled “Special”, you can change those default rules.

This photo on the left shows the screen which then comes up.  From here, you can select the amount of time which the temporary routing instructions should be followed (either “For the Rest of Today”, “Until Further Notice” or until a specific date and time).  Then, you can choose to route the calls during this period of time to any of the phones setup in your plan, or you can select “Message Only”, “Voice Mail or Message”, or “Other.”  If you choose other, you can then explain what that means in the Special Instructions box at the bottom of the form at left.

When you click on the Special Instructions option, a blank white page opens up.  Just touch anywhere on the screen and the keyboard will appear.  If you do not select that option, then no special instructions will be sent.  If your status changes, all of you have to do is go back to the “Whereabouts” screen and look for the button at the top-right which will say “Clear.”  Press that button, and as easy as that, your default call routing rules will be back in use.

The “Activity” button at the bottom of the screen will take you to a report showing all of your activity for a given amount of time.  These are the same reports which are available on the callruby.com website.  This feature is great when you have already deleted an email message, but you need the message again while out-and-about.  Or, it’s also handy for finding that phone number for that great new client who called you last Friday right as you walked in the door and you need to call them right away before you can back to the office.

The “Account” button is where you can change your account information to access Ruby.  Finally, the “Ruby” button will take you to the “About Ruby” screen.  That screen also has a link to a help file to explain the use of the app in more detail.  That page is actually a webpage on Ruby’s website, and you can access it here, if you’re curious.

So, how does it work?  Flawlessly.  I have experimented with the program now for a few weeks and from what I can tell, the program is merely an interface which creates a custom email, which is then sent to the staff at Ruby.  The “Clear” button also simply sends Ruby an email with the subject line “Clear W/A for…” and then it adds your name and account number.

The easiest way to update your status with Ruby prior to this app was to send a quick email with all of your temporary routing rules explained.  What the iPhone app does is that it creates that customized email for you.  It is quick to touch and click a few times and there it is—all of your special call routing instructions sent to Ruby as easy as can be.  It is especially simple to clear those custom routing rules and go back to the default instructions with this iPhone app.

Over the past week I have timed the response times using both traditional email notification and the new iPhone app.  In my test, the average response was about one minute.  The longest response time was three minutes, but that happened only once, and it happened one time for each system.  Therefore, it would appear that the app is just as efficient as a regular email would be at updating your status.  Plus, this iPhone app makes you look super cool when you lean over and explain what you’re doing to the other lawyers in the courtroom!

Overall, it’s a great app and the price is right—free.  If you use Ruby (and I know more and more of you are, because I hear from you all of the time), you need this app.  Also, if you haven’t broken down and bought an iPhone yet—this is the perfect excuse to get one now.  Explain to the significant other that you HAD to get the iPhone so you can use the Ruby app.  If you already have an iPhone, then use this as your excuse to get the new iPad in a few months.  That’s my excuse for getting one!

Bring in the judges

The 2009 Annual Report for the Texas Judiciary has been released and along with the usual interesting statistics, there is one thing that stands out to me this year.

The numbers from Bell and Lampasas Counties suggest that we need “9.5” district court judicial officers, while we supposedly only have “6.5” (here, page 46).  The explanation for this, according to the report, is that we are among the top twenty or so counties who have the highest average populations served per district court.

The most obvious question, then, is – who is our “.5” judicial officer that we already have?

The next most obvious question is – where are we going to put the three new judges?  The district courthouse is done, and the county is almost finished.  I understand that there will be a couple of extra county courtrooms available.  I don’t suppose there would be any problem with putting a district court on the “county court side” of the new courthouse. 

Or, maybe we could get two more county judges and just give them jurisdiction over all family law cases.  That would certainly free up the district courts!

Federal Pleas and Jury Trials in the Western District

Looking at the latest numbers available (Statistical Information Packet, 2008), it is interesting to note that in 2008 there 76,427 total convictions in the federal system.  Of those, 96.3% of defendants pled guilty and only 3.7% took their case to trial.

Even more interesting is that in the Western District of Texas, there were a total of 7,232 convictions.  Of those, 98.7% pled guilty and a mere 1.3% went to trial.

By comparison, in Texas state court 97.3% of felony convictions were the result of a guilty plea and 2.7% of convictions resulted from a trial. 

So why aren’t more federal defendants in this part of Texas going to trial? 

It can’t be because the prosecutors are recommending lower sentences, because they aren’t.  In fact, given that in almost all cases the judges of the Western District sentenced lower than the national average, maybe losing that “acceptance of responsibility” reduction isn’t that big of a deal!

The Department of Justice vs. The Western District of Texas Judiciary

Even for someone who loves numbers and statistics as much as I do, I am continually amazed at how much data the United States government collects. 

For example, the United States Sentencing Commission publishes quarterly and annual reports on federal sentencing averages.  This is useful information for someone who might be wondering what the average sentence for a federal drug trafficking offense might be (83.2 months nationally, while only 46.5 months in the Western District).

And that leads to an interesting observation:  a defendant in the Western District of Texas is likely to find more mercy from the judge than from the Department of Justice.

In almost every category of offense, the Western District of Texas gives lower average sentences than the rest of the nation (here, page 10).  The four notable exceptions are the offense categories of Embezzlement, Forgery, Bribery, and Tax.

However, where the Western District lags behind the rest of the nation is in government sponsored below range sentences.  Nationally, US Attorneys ask for below range sentences in 25.6% of all cases (that’s one out of four!).  In the Western District, though, the government only seeks reduced sentences in 9.5% of all cases (that’s one out of ten!) (here, page 11).

Nationally, federal judges sentence above the guideline range in 1.5% of all cases, and Western District judges sentence above the guideline range in 1.8% of all cases.

So, for the average defendant in the Western District of Texas, that defendant probably shouldn’t fear the judge – but rather, the prosecutor.