The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) emerged in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to concern... more Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) emerged in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to concern about substance use among youth in the juvenile justice system (JJS). Despite substantial research, findings on the JDTC effectiveness for reducing recidivism and substance use remain inconsistent, hampered by methodological problems. In 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published research-based JDTC Guidelines for best practices, and funded technical assistance for implementation and a multisite national outcomes study among JDTCs implementing the Guidelines. Ten sites were originally selected for this study, with a JDTC and Traditional Juvenile Court (TJC) participating. In two sites, moderate-to high-risk youth were randomized to
Supplemental material, supplemental_material for Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Youth: Finding... more Supplemental material, supplemental_material for Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Youth: Findings From JJ-TRIALS by Angela A. Robertson, Zhou Fang, Doris Weiland, George Joe, Sheena Gardner, Richard Dembo, Larkin Mcreynolds, Megan Dickson, Jennifer Pankow, Michael Dennis and Katherine Elkington in Criminal Justice and Behavior
INTRODUCTION Peer recovery specialist (PRS) support has been used to varying degrees in community... more INTRODUCTION Peer recovery specialist (PRS) support has been used to varying degrees in community substance use and mental health treatment for a number of years. Although there has been some evidence of positive PRS impacts on client outcomes, previous research has shown inconsistent findings and methodological shortcomings. Given the high prevalence of substance use disorders among people involved in the criminal justice system, and limited available treatment opportunities, PRS support could provide a cost-effective opportunity to promote positive client outcomes. Drug courts, with their focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment, are an ideal laboratory to test the impacts of PRS on substance use recurrence and recidivism. METHODS The present study is, to our knowledge, the first experimental test of the PRS model in a justice system setting. We implemented a pilot experiment in the Philadelphia Treatment Court, randomizing 76 drug court participants to be linked to a PRS or to services as usual, and analyzed client outcomes over a nine-month follow-up period. Most participants' drug of choice was marijuana. RESULTS The results showed a reduction in rearrests and improvement in drug court engagement, but no impact on substance use recurrence or treatment engagement. CONCLUSIONS The mixed findings suggest some promise for the PRS model in the drug court setting, but the need for further research with more diverse and higher-risk drug court populations.
Recidivism, and the factors related to it, remains a highly significant concern among juvenile ju... more Recidivism, and the factors related to it, remains a highly significant concern among juvenile justice researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. Recent studies highlight the need to examine multiple measures of recidivism as well as conduct multilevel analyses of this phenomenon. Using data collected in a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS) cooperative agreement, we examined individual- and site-level factors related to 1-year recidivism among probation youth in 20 sites in five states to answer research questions related to how recidivism rates differ across sites and the relationships between individual-level variables and a county-level concentrated disadvantage measure and recidivism. Our findings of large site differences in recidivism rates, and complex relationships between individual and county-level predictors of recidivism, highlight the need for more nu...
In its investigative stages, the guidelines research in the Maricopa County, Dade County, and Bos... more In its investigative stages, the guidelines research in the Maricopa County, Dade County, and Boston courts involved descriptive and analytic case studies. Its descriptive aspect involved a careful mapping of the progress of large samples of defendants through the criminal process in each location. We studied the decisions that produced the release or detention of defendants and that were responsible for the performance of defendants given pretrial release. The analytic aspect of the research was to interpret the descriptive findings with working groups of judges and to evaluate the quality of the decisionmaking performed by the courts. Through an iterative process of data examination, interpretation, and debate, we identified areas of decisionmaking that were troublesome—in their operation or effect—or that should be improved. Our question was whether the undesirable side effects of pretrial release decisionmaking, such as crises of jail overcrowding, crimes, and flight from court by released defendants, could be minimized by the development of the particular decisionmaking and policy resource potentially offered by pretrial release guidelines. Although the challenges faced by each of the courts differed in character and scope, they can be usefully understood from the perspective of several issues they shared: issues relating to the visibility, equity, rationality, and effectiveness of pretrial release decisionmaking. These themes, which have been described elsewhere1 can serve as a useful evaluative framework for comparing the separate sites.
Criticisms of bail practices in the United States have been prevalent during most of this century... more Criticisms of bail practices in the United States have been prevalent during most of this century.1 A vast literature has documented the problems inherent in bail systems and attempts to institute reform.2 Despite two generations of “bail reform,” the first focusing on “community ties” and personal recognizance release and the second on public safety and preventive detention, pretrial release decisionmaking by the courts remains a central problem for criminal justice. In recent years, jail populations have grown to unprecedented levels, and jail overcrowding is now the rule, rather than the exception, in jurisdictions across the country. The numbers of persons confined before trial has outstripped any increase in crime, moving in lockstep with public-safety-oriented bail laws during the 1970s and 1980s that permit greater use detention. As the pressures mount to discover better approaches to managing the criminal caseload and the use of confinement at all stages of the criminal process, concern for the rights of individual defendants has waned. Serious problems of overcrowding in the nation’s jails and perceived threats to public safety resulting from poor pretrial release practices overshadow questions about the quality of justice available to individual defendants and the popular, if not technical, meaning of “presumption of innocence.”
As the use of guidelines has become more common—and the word itself overused—doubts have been exp... more As the use of guidelines has become more common—and the word itself overused—doubts have been expressed by some critics about guidelines’ ability to deliver on their original promise. Two broad sets of issues have been raised. The first involves the appropriateness of empirically based methods in guidelines development, and the second concerns the correctness of the statistical procedures employed in the construction of guidelines.
Although it is true that the general model of decision guidelines chosen by each of the judiciari... more Although it is true that the general model of decision guidelines chosen by each of the judiciaries for further development was essentially the same—a decision matrix defined by a charge-seriousness and defendant-risk dimension—the processes leading to these selections were independent and were shaped by the local concerns of each of the courts. In this section, we briefly describe the special rationales that shaped the choice of a decision guidelines format for pretrial release at each location.
The overriding purpose of the research presented in this book has been to discover the extent to ... more The overriding purpose of the research presented in this book has been to discover the extent to which a court-based self-help guidelines methodology first developed in connection with parole and sentencing decisions 1and, implemented successfully in one large urban court system for bail, 2 could find application in more diverse court settings. The three court systems we studied differed both in law and custom guiding their procedures, in decisionmakers, in support staffs, in goals, and in the adequacy of the information available at the first court-release-decision point. This latter point was perhaps most striking and of considerable consequence as our research progressed. In Boston, for example, in one out of five cases, the judge could not know from the information supplied to him or her what the prior criminal record of the arrestee was or even the current pretrial-release status. With respect to the structure of decisionmaking at our study sites, diversity was the hallmark. The structures ranged from a system in which a single judge made most of the decisions most of the time with the assistance of an organized pretrial staff working under the department of corrections (Dade County) to a system in which numerous judges rotated the assignment in the absence of a modern pretrial-serviceagency (Boston). Maricopa County, with its system of several commissioners (who doubled as city court pro tem judges) and a large and modern pretrial-services agency working as an arm of the court, represented yet another model.
Our work in Boston, which began by working with two separate judicial steering and policy committ... more Our work in Boston, which began by working with two separate judicial steering and policy committees (one in the Suffolk County Superior Court and one in the Boston Municipal Court), shifted its focus to concentrate centrally on bail-pretrial-release decisionmaking in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) as the work progressed into more advanced stages.1The working committee of BMC judges was often expanded into open meetings to include all judges of the court, schedules permitting. From the beginning, the discussions of research results and observation of bail practices in the Boston Municipal Court were marked by candor and skepticism. In the committee’s direction to the research staff concerning which problems to investigate and in the judges’ interpretations of the findings presented, consensus was not often achieved within the group. In agreeing on the importance of the guidelines research, many judges expressed the view that, although they recognized many problems in the bail system in their court, there was little else the judges themselves could do to improve matters.
During the period between November 1984 and December 1986, the leadership of the superior court o... more During the period between November 1984 and December 1986, the leadership of the superior court of Arizona in Maricopa County worked with the researchers to examine its pretrial release and detention practices and to devise pretrial release guidelines1 for use by pretrial services and commissioners at initial appearance. The initial version of the court’s pretrial release guidelines was put into use during January 1987. During the descriptive research which led to the design of decision guidelines, the court focused on a number of concerns related to the conduct of pretrial-release and detention decisionmaking in superior court. For the sake of brevity, these concerns can be divided into two groupings: those relating to the pretrial-release-decisionmaking process and those relating to the possible impact of the guidelines.
The first pretrial-release-decision guidelines—then referred to as bail guidelines—were introduce... more The first pretrial-release-decision guidelines—then referred to as bail guidelines—were introduced experimentally in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court in 1981. This book has described the experiences of three “second-generation” jurisdictions that tested the pretrial release guidelines approach. It is fair to say that the pretrial release concept has not transformed bail and release practices in the United States. It is also fair to say that the need to focus on judicial responsibility in pretrial-release and detention determinations has also not gone away.
It is possible to construct guidelines to address pretrial release decisionmaking in a variety of... more It is possible to construct guidelines to address pretrial release decisionmaking in a variety of ways.1Depending on the particular philosophy of guidelines construction that one adopts, there will be implications for the kinds of data to be collected (if, indeed, data are to be collected at all), the types of cases to be represented, and the decisionmakers to be included. It is essential, therefore, that we note assumptions that shaped the guidelines technique used in this study, as well as the data collection and empirical analyses undertaken in each of the jurisdictions.
In each court, descriptive research and group discussions led to the next, more difficult step of... more In each court, descriptive research and group discussions led to the next, more difficult step of trying to devise decision guidelines helpful in establishing an overall policy and as a day-to-day decisionmaking tool. Defining the task in general terms was straightforward: The goal was to devise a decisionmaking aid that would incorporate the particular court’s policy aims, that would bring together key pieces of information relating to defendants and to their cases, and that would point to preferred decisions for usual kinds of cases. Arriving at a specific product for each of the three court systems, however, meant addressing a number of important policy and practical questions.
To begin our research, it was necessary to select three sites that not only had the willingness t... more To begin our research, it was necessary to select three sites that not only had the willingness to participate in the self-study process but that also exhibited features likely to prove challenging for the method and to provide useful examples for other court systems. Selection of the sites was guided by three general principles: (1) they had to vary from Philadelphia and one another in legal and organizational structure; (2) they had to have concerns about aspects of bail and pretrial detention practices they would like to address; and (3) they had to have overcrowded jails.
In earlier chapters, we described the issues surrounding pretrial release decisionmaking in the U... more In earlier chapters, we described the issues surrounding pretrial release decisionmaking in the United States and our research in three urban court systems leading to the development of decision guidelines. In this chapter, we consider the implementation of the guidelines, as the courts considered the practical questions involved in moving from developmental stages to adopting a new approach.
The research described in subsequent chapters was predicated on the experience of our earlier wor... more The research described in subsequent chapters was predicated on the experience of our earlier work in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.1 Perhaps the most fundamental question underlying the Philadelphia research was whether it would be possible to review and change the exercise of judicial discretion at the bail stage through this voluntary approach. Could the highly discretionary pretrial release decision be made more visible and therefore more accountable to acknowledged policy aims and governing criteria? Could the equity of bail decisions be improved so that similarly situated defendants would be treated more “similarly”? Could bail decisions be made more effective?
Initially, the Judicial Steering Committee in Dade County directed the research staff to examine ... more Initially, the Judicial Steering Committee in Dade County directed the research staff to examine bail and pretrial release practices for both misdemeanor and felony defendants. After discussion of the preliminary results at the first few meetings, the committee requested that we focus our attention on cases being processed as potentially bondable felonies.1The path taken by felony cases was quite different from the one followed by misdemeanors. Dade County felony arrestees were booked at the central pretrial-detention facility to await a bond hearing. The bond hearing, presided over by a county court judge during the week and a circuit court judge on weekends, could be held very shortly after arrest or as much as 12 hours later, depending on the timing of the arrest and the next scheduled court session. Theoretically, all bondable defendants were interviewed by pretrial services staff before the bond hearing; however, felony defendants had the opportunity to pay their bond as specified by a bond schedule, or to have the money posted by a friend, a relative, or a bondsman.
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) emerged in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to concern... more Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts (JDTC) emerged in the mid-1990s as a potential solution to concern about substance use among youth in the juvenile justice system (JJS). Despite substantial research, findings on the JDTC effectiveness for reducing recidivism and substance use remain inconsistent, hampered by methodological problems. In 2016, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention published research-based JDTC Guidelines for best practices, and funded technical assistance for implementation and a multisite national outcomes study among JDTCs implementing the Guidelines. Ten sites were originally selected for this study, with a JDTC and Traditional Juvenile Court (TJC) participating. In two sites, moderate-to high-risk youth were randomized to
Supplemental material, supplemental_material for Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Youth: Finding... more Supplemental material, supplemental_material for Recidivism Among Justice-Involved Youth: Findings From JJ-TRIALS by Angela A. Robertson, Zhou Fang, Doris Weiland, George Joe, Sheena Gardner, Richard Dembo, Larkin Mcreynolds, Megan Dickson, Jennifer Pankow, Michael Dennis and Katherine Elkington in Criminal Justice and Behavior
INTRODUCTION Peer recovery specialist (PRS) support has been used to varying degrees in community... more INTRODUCTION Peer recovery specialist (PRS) support has been used to varying degrees in community substance use and mental health treatment for a number of years. Although there has been some evidence of positive PRS impacts on client outcomes, previous research has shown inconsistent findings and methodological shortcomings. Given the high prevalence of substance use disorders among people involved in the criminal justice system, and limited available treatment opportunities, PRS support could provide a cost-effective opportunity to promote positive client outcomes. Drug courts, with their focus on treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment, are an ideal laboratory to test the impacts of PRS on substance use recurrence and recidivism. METHODS The present study is, to our knowledge, the first experimental test of the PRS model in a justice system setting. We implemented a pilot experiment in the Philadelphia Treatment Court, randomizing 76 drug court participants to be linked to a PRS or to services as usual, and analyzed client outcomes over a nine-month follow-up period. Most participants' drug of choice was marijuana. RESULTS The results showed a reduction in rearrests and improvement in drug court engagement, but no impact on substance use recurrence or treatment engagement. CONCLUSIONS The mixed findings suggest some promise for the PRS model in the drug court setting, but the need for further research with more diverse and higher-risk drug court populations.
Recidivism, and the factors related to it, remains a highly significant concern among juvenile ju... more Recidivism, and the factors related to it, remains a highly significant concern among juvenile justice researchers, practitioners, and policy makers. Recent studies highlight the need to examine multiple measures of recidivism as well as conduct multilevel analyses of this phenomenon. Using data collected in a National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)-funded Juvenile Justice-Translational Research on Interventions for Adolescents in the Legal System (JJ-TRIALS) cooperative agreement, we examined individual- and site-level factors related to 1-year recidivism among probation youth in 20 sites in five states to answer research questions related to how recidivism rates differ across sites and the relationships between individual-level variables and a county-level concentrated disadvantage measure and recidivism. Our findings of large site differences in recidivism rates, and complex relationships between individual and county-level predictors of recidivism, highlight the need for more nu...
In its investigative stages, the guidelines research in the Maricopa County, Dade County, and Bos... more In its investigative stages, the guidelines research in the Maricopa County, Dade County, and Boston courts involved descriptive and analytic case studies. Its descriptive aspect involved a careful mapping of the progress of large samples of defendants through the criminal process in each location. We studied the decisions that produced the release or detention of defendants and that were responsible for the performance of defendants given pretrial release. The analytic aspect of the research was to interpret the descriptive findings with working groups of judges and to evaluate the quality of the decisionmaking performed by the courts. Through an iterative process of data examination, interpretation, and debate, we identified areas of decisionmaking that were troublesome—in their operation or effect—or that should be improved. Our question was whether the undesirable side effects of pretrial release decisionmaking, such as crises of jail overcrowding, crimes, and flight from court by released defendants, could be minimized by the development of the particular decisionmaking and policy resource potentially offered by pretrial release guidelines. Although the challenges faced by each of the courts differed in character and scope, they can be usefully understood from the perspective of several issues they shared: issues relating to the visibility, equity, rationality, and effectiveness of pretrial release decisionmaking. These themes, which have been described elsewhere1 can serve as a useful evaluative framework for comparing the separate sites.
Criticisms of bail practices in the United States have been prevalent during most of this century... more Criticisms of bail practices in the United States have been prevalent during most of this century.1 A vast literature has documented the problems inherent in bail systems and attempts to institute reform.2 Despite two generations of “bail reform,” the first focusing on “community ties” and personal recognizance release and the second on public safety and preventive detention, pretrial release decisionmaking by the courts remains a central problem for criminal justice. In recent years, jail populations have grown to unprecedented levels, and jail overcrowding is now the rule, rather than the exception, in jurisdictions across the country. The numbers of persons confined before trial has outstripped any increase in crime, moving in lockstep with public-safety-oriented bail laws during the 1970s and 1980s that permit greater use detention. As the pressures mount to discover better approaches to managing the criminal caseload and the use of confinement at all stages of the criminal process, concern for the rights of individual defendants has waned. Serious problems of overcrowding in the nation’s jails and perceived threats to public safety resulting from poor pretrial release practices overshadow questions about the quality of justice available to individual defendants and the popular, if not technical, meaning of “presumption of innocence.”
As the use of guidelines has become more common—and the word itself overused—doubts have been exp... more As the use of guidelines has become more common—and the word itself overused—doubts have been expressed by some critics about guidelines’ ability to deliver on their original promise. Two broad sets of issues have been raised. The first involves the appropriateness of empirically based methods in guidelines development, and the second concerns the correctness of the statistical procedures employed in the construction of guidelines.
Although it is true that the general model of decision guidelines chosen by each of the judiciari... more Although it is true that the general model of decision guidelines chosen by each of the judiciaries for further development was essentially the same—a decision matrix defined by a charge-seriousness and defendant-risk dimension—the processes leading to these selections were independent and were shaped by the local concerns of each of the courts. In this section, we briefly describe the special rationales that shaped the choice of a decision guidelines format for pretrial release at each location.
The overriding purpose of the research presented in this book has been to discover the extent to ... more The overriding purpose of the research presented in this book has been to discover the extent to which a court-based self-help guidelines methodology first developed in connection with parole and sentencing decisions 1and, implemented successfully in one large urban court system for bail, 2 could find application in more diverse court settings. The three court systems we studied differed both in law and custom guiding their procedures, in decisionmakers, in support staffs, in goals, and in the adequacy of the information available at the first court-release-decision point. This latter point was perhaps most striking and of considerable consequence as our research progressed. In Boston, for example, in one out of five cases, the judge could not know from the information supplied to him or her what the prior criminal record of the arrestee was or even the current pretrial-release status. With respect to the structure of decisionmaking at our study sites, diversity was the hallmark. The structures ranged from a system in which a single judge made most of the decisions most of the time with the assistance of an organized pretrial staff working under the department of corrections (Dade County) to a system in which numerous judges rotated the assignment in the absence of a modern pretrial-serviceagency (Boston). Maricopa County, with its system of several commissioners (who doubled as city court pro tem judges) and a large and modern pretrial-services agency working as an arm of the court, represented yet another model.
Our work in Boston, which began by working with two separate judicial steering and policy committ... more Our work in Boston, which began by working with two separate judicial steering and policy committees (one in the Suffolk County Superior Court and one in the Boston Municipal Court), shifted its focus to concentrate centrally on bail-pretrial-release decisionmaking in the Boston Municipal Court (BMC) as the work progressed into more advanced stages.1The working committee of BMC judges was often expanded into open meetings to include all judges of the court, schedules permitting. From the beginning, the discussions of research results and observation of bail practices in the Boston Municipal Court were marked by candor and skepticism. In the committee’s direction to the research staff concerning which problems to investigate and in the judges’ interpretations of the findings presented, consensus was not often achieved within the group. In agreeing on the importance of the guidelines research, many judges expressed the view that, although they recognized many problems in the bail system in their court, there was little else the judges themselves could do to improve matters.
During the period between November 1984 and December 1986, the leadership of the superior court o... more During the period between November 1984 and December 1986, the leadership of the superior court of Arizona in Maricopa County worked with the researchers to examine its pretrial release and detention practices and to devise pretrial release guidelines1 for use by pretrial services and commissioners at initial appearance. The initial version of the court’s pretrial release guidelines was put into use during January 1987. During the descriptive research which led to the design of decision guidelines, the court focused on a number of concerns related to the conduct of pretrial-release and detention decisionmaking in superior court. For the sake of brevity, these concerns can be divided into two groupings: those relating to the pretrial-release-decisionmaking process and those relating to the possible impact of the guidelines.
The first pretrial-release-decision guidelines—then referred to as bail guidelines—were introduce... more The first pretrial-release-decision guidelines—then referred to as bail guidelines—were introduced experimentally in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court in 1981. This book has described the experiences of three “second-generation” jurisdictions that tested the pretrial release guidelines approach. It is fair to say that the pretrial release concept has not transformed bail and release practices in the United States. It is also fair to say that the need to focus on judicial responsibility in pretrial-release and detention determinations has also not gone away.
It is possible to construct guidelines to address pretrial release decisionmaking in a variety of... more It is possible to construct guidelines to address pretrial release decisionmaking in a variety of ways.1Depending on the particular philosophy of guidelines construction that one adopts, there will be implications for the kinds of data to be collected (if, indeed, data are to be collected at all), the types of cases to be represented, and the decisionmakers to be included. It is essential, therefore, that we note assumptions that shaped the guidelines technique used in this study, as well as the data collection and empirical analyses undertaken in each of the jurisdictions.
In each court, descriptive research and group discussions led to the next, more difficult step of... more In each court, descriptive research and group discussions led to the next, more difficult step of trying to devise decision guidelines helpful in establishing an overall policy and as a day-to-day decisionmaking tool. Defining the task in general terms was straightforward: The goal was to devise a decisionmaking aid that would incorporate the particular court’s policy aims, that would bring together key pieces of information relating to defendants and to their cases, and that would point to preferred decisions for usual kinds of cases. Arriving at a specific product for each of the three court systems, however, meant addressing a number of important policy and practical questions.
To begin our research, it was necessary to select three sites that not only had the willingness t... more To begin our research, it was necessary to select three sites that not only had the willingness to participate in the self-study process but that also exhibited features likely to prove challenging for the method and to provide useful examples for other court systems. Selection of the sites was guided by three general principles: (1) they had to vary from Philadelphia and one another in legal and organizational structure; (2) they had to have concerns about aspects of bail and pretrial detention practices they would like to address; and (3) they had to have overcrowded jails.
In earlier chapters, we described the issues surrounding pretrial release decisionmaking in the U... more In earlier chapters, we described the issues surrounding pretrial release decisionmaking in the United States and our research in three urban court systems leading to the development of decision guidelines. In this chapter, we consider the implementation of the guidelines, as the courts considered the practical questions involved in moving from developmental stages to adopting a new approach.
The research described in subsequent chapters was predicated on the experience of our earlier wor... more The research described in subsequent chapters was predicated on the experience of our earlier work in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.1 Perhaps the most fundamental question underlying the Philadelphia research was whether it would be possible to review and change the exercise of judicial discretion at the bail stage through this voluntary approach. Could the highly discretionary pretrial release decision be made more visible and therefore more accountable to acknowledged policy aims and governing criteria? Could the equity of bail decisions be improved so that similarly situated defendants would be treated more “similarly”? Could bail decisions be made more effective?
Initially, the Judicial Steering Committee in Dade County directed the research staff to examine ... more Initially, the Judicial Steering Committee in Dade County directed the research staff to examine bail and pretrial release practices for both misdemeanor and felony defendants. After discussion of the preliminary results at the first few meetings, the committee requested that we focus our attention on cases being processed as potentially bondable felonies.1The path taken by felony cases was quite different from the one followed by misdemeanors. Dade County felony arrestees were booked at the central pretrial-detention facility to await a bond hearing. The bond hearing, presided over by a county court judge during the week and a circuit court judge on weekends, could be held very shortly after arrest or as much as 12 hours later, depending on the timing of the arrest and the next scheduled court session. Theoretically, all bondable defendants were interviewed by pretrial services staff before the bond hearing; however, felony defendants had the opportunity to pay their bond as specified by a bond schedule, or to have the money posted by a friend, a relative, or a bondsman.
Uploads
Papers by Doris Weiland