U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Awaiting Trial Population in Virginia

NCJ Number
122914
Date Published
1989
Length
125 pages
Annotation
This report focuses on the Virginia pretrial population as part of the larger effort on the part of the Governor's Commission on Prison and Jail Overcrowding to examine the short- and long-term demand for prison and jail space. Because nearly half of all jail beds in Virginia are occupied by pretrial defendants, authorities must consider alternative dispositions for those persons posing less public risk or having special treatment or program needs.
Abstract
Samples of a typical jail population were taken at five Virginia jails, selected to mirror urban, high-volume jurisdictions as well as smaller, moderately urbanized locations. A total sample of 185 pretrial defendants were tracked for over seven months, during which period 165 of the cases reached final disposition. Of the 185 cases, 66.5 percent reached a guilty verdict, one percent were found not guilty, nine percent were dismissed, and 13 percent were "nolle prossed." Over 14 percent of the defendants were charged with violent crimes and the remainder for nonviolent offenses including burglary, drunkenness, obstructing justice, and traffic offenses. The cases were tracked through three levels of jail release activity -- magistrate, arraignment, and bond reduction -- in order to identify release mechanisms and calculate bond amounts. Data from the survey was analyzed further to study specific characteristics of offenders who may constitute a sizeable divertable population, including some defendants charged with intoxication, felonies, and misdemeanant/ordinance violations. The release/bonding process was examined in terms of race and type of offense, but no differences by race were apparent. Other findings indicate that bonding was generally not unaffordably excessive, that it did not show disproportionality among defendants, that felony cases had less mortality and incurred greater amounts of bonding, and that bonding varied predictably from magistrate to bond reduction levels. 10 appendixes.