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

NOVEMBER 2012	

Special Report

NCJ 239243

Pretrial Release and Misconduct
in Federal District Courts, 2008-2010
Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

D

uring fiscal years 2008 through 2010, 36% of
the 283,358 defendants in cases disposed in
federal district courts were released prior to case
adjudication. The percentages of pretrial release ranged
from 12% for defendants brought into federal courts for
immigration violations to 71% for defendants charged with
property offenses (figure 1). Nineteen percent of released
defendants committed some form of pretrial misconduct,
and technical violations accounted for 90% of these pretrial
violations.
Data for the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) Federal
Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) were provided by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts’ (AOUSC) Office of
Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking
System (PACTS). The PACTS data cover various aspects
of pretrial release in federal district courts, including the
decision to release or detain a defendant, the different
mechanisms of release or detention, and the behavior
of defendants while on pretrial release. The PACTS data
analyzed for this report include defendants whose cases were
disposed by the federal courts for the combined fiscal years
of 2008 to 2010.

Figure 1
Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal
district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010
Most serious offense
36%

All offenses

71%

Property
65%

Public-order
38%

Drug
32%

Weapons

30%

Violent
12%

Immigration
0

20

40
Percent released

60

80

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

HIGHLIGHTS
„„

Thirty-six percent of defendants in cases disposed in federal
courts from 2008 to 2010 were released pretrial.

„„

„„

„„

„„

„„

Federal courts released 10% of noncitizen defendants
identified as illegal aliens, compared to 43% of legal aliens
and 55% of U.S. citizens.

Of defendants released pretrial, 79% were released with
conditions, including travel restrictions, substance abuse
treatment requirements, weapons restrictions, or promises
to remain employed or seek employment.

„„

Twenty-four percent of these defendants were released at
the time of their initial appearance, while another 12% were
detained and then released at subsequent court events,
including detention or bond hearings.

About half (51%) of defendants with no prior arrest history
were released pretrial, compared to 34% of defendants with
2 to 4 prior arrests and 21% of defendants with more than
10 prior arrests.

„„

Nineteen percent of defendants released pretrial committed
some form of pretrial misconduct.

„„

Technical violations were committed by 17% of defendants
released prior to case disposition, while 1% of released
defendants failed to make court appearances and 4% were
rearrested for new offenses.

Nonfinancial methods, including release on personal
recognizance or unsecured bond, accounted for 73% of
pretrial releases in federal courts.
Ninety-one percent of detained defendants were held on
either court-ordered detention or because they could not
meet certain conditions set by the court.

BJS

The PACTS data provide important information about
pretrial release and misconduct in the nation’s federal courts.
These data do not cover pretrial release in state courts. In
an effort to provide comprehensive information on pretrial
release, this report compares several aspects of the pretrial
process in federal and in state courts. While no statistical
series have national level estimates of pretrial release and

misconduct in state courts, BJS has sponsored the State Court
Processing Statistics (SCPS) project, which examines pretrial
release and misconduct for felony cases filed in the nation’s
75 most populous counties. Therefore, the SCPS data are
referenced in this report when comparing state and federal
pretrial statistics. (See Methodology for more information
about the SCPS.)

Pretrial release and detention in the federal criminal justice system
Before 1966, the federal courts relied almost exclusively
on financial bond. In a bond system, persons accused of
criminal conduct can remain free pending case disposition
by posting a bond, usually property or money, as a
guarantee that they will make all court appearances. In
most situations, defendants will post a percentage of the
bond set with a bail bondsman or with the court through
a deposit bond program. Congress enacted the Bail
Reform Act of 1966 to reform federal pretrial practices and
minimizing the use of financial bond. The act mandated
that any defendant charged with noncapital offenses in
federal courts be released on either their own recognizance
or an unsecured appearance bond (see Methodology).
In cases that required additional supervision, the court
could impose other conditions necessary to assure that a
defendant made all court appearances.

The Bail Reform Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. Section 3141)
further codified the pretrial release process. According
to the act, when defendants first appear before a judicial
officer they may be 1) released on personal recognizance
or unsecured bond, 2) released subject to conditions
imposed by the court, 3) temporarily detained to permit
deportation, exclusion, or the revocation of previously
granted conditional release, or 4) detained pending the
outcome of a detention hearing. At a detention hearing,
the government is required by the act to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that no condition of release
would reasonably ensure that the defendant would appear
for trial and not pose a risk to the community. The Bail
Reform Act of 1984 also expanded the scope of factors
that federal courts could consider when making pretrial
release decisions to include the degree of dangerousness a
defendant poses to the community.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

2

Defendants charged with property or public-order
offenses were more than 5 times more likely to be
released pretrial than immigration defendants
For the combined fiscal years of 2008 through 2010,
36% of defendants whose cases were disposed in federal
courts were released pretrial (table 1).The percentages of
defendants released pretrial varied across the major federal
offense categories. Seventy-one percent of property and
65% of public-order defendants were released prior to
case adjudication, while less than two-fifths of defendants
charged with drug offenses (38%) and about a third charged
with weapons (32%) or violent offenses (30%) received a
pretrial release. Of all the major federal offense categories,
immigration defendants had the lowest likelihood of being
released pretrial (12%). The low rate of pretrial release for
immigration defendants was due to 91% of these defendants
being illegal aliens, which the federal courts typically do not
release (not shown in table).
More than half of violent and drug defendants
released pretrial were initially detained and then
released at subsequent proceedings
The initial appearance represents the first time that a
defendant charged with a federal offense appears before a
federal judicial officer, typically a magistrate judge. During
the initial appearance, the defendant can either be released
pretrial or detained for additional hearings. For those
defendants not released at the initial appearance, pretrial
release can occur at subsequent events, including detention
or bond hearings, or the defendant can be held for the
duration of the entire case. For fiscal years 2008 through
2010, 24% of defendants were released at the time of their
initial appearance, while 12% were detained and then
released at subsequent hearings.
Defendants charged with violent and drug offenses were
more likely to be released after a period of detention
than released at their initial appearance. Among violent
defendants, 16% were released after a period of detention

Table 1
Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal
district courts, by offense type and stage of appearance,
FY 2008–2010
Most serious
offense charged
All offenses
Violent
Property
Fraudulent
Other
Drug
Trafficking
Other
Public-order
Regulatory
Other
Weapons
Immigration

Percent of defendants
released at—
Number of Percent Initial
Subsequent
defendants released appearancea hearingsb
283,358
36%
24%
12%
8,979
30%
13%
16%
44,305
71%
59%
12%
36,618
69
58
12
7,687
78
66
11
84,436
38%
18%
20%
71,904
37
17
20
12,532
42
24
17
23,014
65%
53%
13%
3,786
74
60
14
19,228
64
51
13
22,325
32%
17%
15%
97,635
12%
7%
5%

Note: Released defendants include defendants who were never detained and
those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period. Detail may not sum
to total due to missing information for offense type, which was available for
99.1% of defendants.
aIncludes the first hearing that an accused defendant receives in federal court.
bIncludes detention hearings, bond hearings, or releases that occurred at any
time after initial appearance.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

and 13% were released at initial appearance. Among
defendants charged with a drug offense, 20% were released
after being detained and 18% were released at initial
appearance. In comparison, defendants charged with
property or public-order offenses were at least four times
more likely to be released at the initial appearance than
they were to be detained and then subsequently released.
Of property defendants released pretrial, 59% were released
at the initial appearance, while 12% were first detained
and then released. A similar pattern held for public-order
defendants, with 53% being released at initial appearance
and 13% being released after a period of detention.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

3

58% of defendants were released pretrial in state courts in the 75 most populous
counties, compared to 36% in federal courts
State data on pretrial release differ in important ways from
federal data. Unlike federal data, which represents the
entire universe of cases disposed in federal courts, data on
pretrial release at the state level are derived from a sample of
defendants charged with a felony offense in May 2006 in 40 of
the nation’s 75 most populous counties. (See Methodology.)
In addition, cases filed in federal and state courts in large
counties differed in composition. Immigration constituted
a major offense category in the federal system, with 35% of
federal defendants charged with immigration violations
(table 2). Although illegal aliens can be brought into state
courts on other offense charges, only federal courts have the
authority to adjudicate offenses involving the enforcement of
the nation’s immigration laws. Therefore, immigration offenses
are not a case type reported at the state level.

Compared to federal courts, the percentage of defendants
charged with violent or property offenses was also higher
in state courts in large counties. Violent (23%) and property
offenses (29%) comprised about half of felony defendants in
the 75 most populous counties. In comparison, violent (3%) or
property (16%) offenses comprised slightly less than a fifth of
defendants in federal district courts.
Regardless of the differences between state and federal
courts, it is informative to compare federal and state data on
pretrial release. Federal courts released a higher percentage
of defendants charged with property offenses (71%) than
state courts in large counties (59%). Defendants charged with
public-order offenses had the same percentage of pretrial
release (65%) in both state and federal courts. However, a
higher percentage of state defendants in large counties were
released pretrial when charged with drugs (60%), weapons
(56%), and violent (52%) offenses, compared to federal pretrial
release percentages for drugs (38%), weapons (32%), and
violent (30%) offenses.

Table 2
Defendants released pretrial for cases in federal courts and in state courts in the 75 most populous counties, by most
serious offense charged
Most serious offense charged
All offenses
Violent
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapons
Immigration

Federal defendants, 2008–2010a
Number
Percent
280,694
100%
8,979
3%
44,305
16
84,436
30
23,014
8
22,325
8
97,635
35

State defendants, 2006b
Number
Percent
58,100
100%
13,295
23%
16,948
29
21,232
37
4,667
8
1,958
3
~
~

Percent of defendants
released pretrial
Federal
State
36%
58%
30%
52%
71
59
38
60
65
65
32
56
12
~

Note: Excludes 2,664 federal defendants with unknown offense charges.
aIncludes all felony and misdemeanor defendants with known offense types whose cases were disposed in federal district courts from fiscal years 2008 to 2010.
bIncludes a sample of defendants charged with a felony offense in 40 of the nation’s 75 most populous counties in May 2006.
~Not applicable for state court data.
Sources: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010; Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2006, NCJ 228944, May 2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

4

Nearly three-quarters of federal defendants released
pretrial paid no financial bond upon release
From 2008 to 2010, 27% of defendants released pretrial
for cases disposed in federal courts were required to pay a
financial bond in order to secure that release (table 3). All
other releases were through nonfinancial methods, including
unsecured bond (39%) or personal recognizance (32%).
The use of financial bond varied by offense type, with about
two-thirds of released immigration (66%) and over a quarter
(29%) of released drug defendants required to post a financial
bond to receive pretrial release. In comparison, less than 20%
of released defendants charged with property (18%), weapons
(17%), public-order (14%), or violent (12%) offenses were
required to pay a financial bond.
8% of all defendants released pretrial in federal courts
used bail bondsmen
The two most common forms of pretrial release in the
federal system were unsecured bond and release on personal
recognizance, which together accounted for 71% of defendants
released pretrial in the federal courts (figure 2). Defendants
requiring a financial bond accounted for 27% of all pretrial
releases, with 12% posting a deposit bond, 8% using a surety
bond (i.e., bail bondsman), and 7% using a collateral bond.
In comparison, more than half (55%) of defendants released
pretrial in the nation’s 75 most populous counties in 2006 were
required to post some form of financial bond as part of their
release conditions. Defendants released pretrial in these state
courts were about five times more likely than those in federal
courts to use the services of a commercial bond agent to secure
pretrial release (not shown in table). (For more information on
state-level data, see Methodology.)

Figure 2
Types of pretrial release for cases disposed in federal district
courts, FY 2008–2010
Type of pretrial release
39%

Unsecured bond
Personal
recognizance

32%
12%

Deposit bond
8%

Surety bond

7%

Collateral bond
Other release 2%
0

10
20
30
Percent of released defendants

40

Note: Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also
detained for part of the pretrial period.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Table 3
Types of pretrial release for cases disposed in federal district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010
Most serious offense charged
All offenses
Violent
Property
Fraudulent
Other
Drug
Trafficking
Other
Public-order
Regulatory
Other
Weapons
Immigration

Number of released defendantsa
101,608
2,668
31,329
25,375
5,954
31,881
26,677
5,204
15,057
2,818
12,239
7,127
11,935

Financial bondb
27%
12%
18%
21
7
29%
29
24
14%
19
12
17%
66%

Percent released on—
Unsecured bond
Personal recognizance
39%
32%
34%
53%
47%
34%
48
31
40
50
41%
30%
42
28
35
39
39%
45%
43
36
38
47
46%
36%
16%
10%

Other release
2%
2%
1%
1
3
1%
1
3
3%
1
3
1%
8%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type. Information on offense type available for 98.4% of released defendants. Excludes 14
defendants for whom type of release could not be determined.
aIncludes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.
bIncludes defendants released through deposit, collateral, or surety bond.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

5

About half of federal defendants released on financial
bond were detained at the initial appearance and then
subsequently released
Among federal defendants released through financial
bond from 2008 to 2010, 53% were released at the initial
appearance hearing, while 47% were detained and then
released at subsequent hearings (figure 3). In comparison,
72% of defendants released through nonfinancial methods,
including unsecured bond or personal recognizance, were
released at the initial appearance.
Figure 3
Defendants released at initial appearance and released after
period of detention for cases disposed in federal district
courts, by type of pretrial release, FY 2008–2010
Type of
pretrial release

Released at
initial appearance

Released after
period of detention

All releases

66%

34%

Personal
recognizance

72%

28%

Unsecured
bond

72%

28%

Financial
Any financial
release

53%

47%

Surety bond

58%

42%

Deposit bond

56%

44%

Collateral bond

40%

60%

0

20

40

60

80

9% of detained defendants were held because they
could not meet the financial bond
Ninety-one percent of detained defendants in the federal
courts were held either by order of the court (57%) or for
other nonfinancial reasons (34%) (table 4). Court-ordered
detentions involve cases in which the court mandates that a
defendant be held for the entire duration of the case. Other
detentions typically involve instances in which the defendant
remains detained because the defendant was unable to meet
certain conditions set by the court. Defendants detained
because they could not meet the monetary bond set by
the court accounted for 9% of federal pretrial detentions.
In comparison, 86% of defendants detained pretrial in
the nation’s 75 most populous counties in 2006 were held
because they could not make the financial bond set by the
court (not shown in table).
Table 4
Type of pretrial detention for cases disposed in federal
district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010

100

Percent of released defendants
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Most serious
offense charged
All offenses
Violent
Property
Fraudulent
Other
Drug
Trafficking
Other
Public-order
Regulatory
Other
Weapons
Immigration

Number of
detained
defendantsa
180,309
6,258
12,582
11,061
1,521
52,302
45,085
7,217
7,667
925
6,742
15,115
85,453

Percent detained on—
Financial Court-ordered Other
bond
detention
detentionb
9%
57%
34%
2%
65%
33%
7%
60%
33%
8
60
32
2
62
36
4%
70%
26%
4
71
25
4
62
34
3%
60%
37%
6
57
37
2
60
37
2%
66%
32%
14%
47%
39%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type.
Information on offense type available for 99.5% of detained defendants. Excludes
1,427 defendants who were not released but whose type of detention could not
be determined.
aIncludes defendants who were detained for the entire pretrial period.
bIncludes defendants on temporary pretrial detention and defendants detained
because they were unable to meet certain nonfinancial conditions set by the
court.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

6

Approximately 8 out of 10 released defendants were
released with pretrial conditions
The Bail Reform Act of 1984 allows federal courts to impose
conditions of release on defendants released pretrial, which
are administered by a pretrial services agency (see text box
below). From 2008 to 2010, federal courts attached conditions
to 79% of defendants released prior to case disposition
(table 5). The federal courts mandated conditional release
for 90% or more of released violent, drug, and weapons
defendants and imposed conditions on about 80% of released
defendants charged with property or public-order offenses. Of
released defendants charged with immigration violations, 37%
received release conditions.

Table 5
Pretrial conditions imposed on defendants released for cases
disposed in federal district courts, by offense type,
FY 2008–2010
Most serious offense
charged
All offenses
Violent
Property
Fraudulent
Other
Drug
Trafficking
Other
Public-order
Regulatory
Other
Weapons
Immigration

Number of released Percent of defendants
defendants*
with conditional release
101,622
79%
2,668
90%
31,332
80%
25,378
82
5,954
76
31,887
91%
26,683
92
5,204
86
15,058
79%
2,818
78
12,240
79
7,127
95%
11,939
37%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type.
Information on offense type available for 98.4% of released defendants.
*Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also
detained for part of the pretrial period.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Administering Federal Pretrial Services
The Federal Pretrial Services Act of 1982 established
pretrial services programs for defendants prosecuted in
federal district courts (18 U.S.C. Section 3152-3155). As
of 2010, more than 22 of the 93 federal judicial districts
have separate pretrial service offices headed by a chief
pretrial services officer, while the remaining federal judicial
districts use federal probation officers to administer pretrial
services.
The primary duties of federal pretrial service officers
include conducting investigations of persons charged with
federal offenses and supervising defendants released into

their custody. Pretrial investigation involves examining
the defendant’s background to determine whether to
recommend that the court release or detain the defendant.
Defendants under pretrial supervision are typically
required to report to a pretrial service officer on a regular
basis or reside in a community treatment facility or halfway
house. Pretrial service officers can also be involved in
providing employment, medical, legal, or social services to
supervised defendants.
Source: Cadigan, T.P. (2007). Pretrial services in the federal system:
impact of the Pretrial Services Act of 1982, Federal Probation, 71(2),
pp 10–15.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

7

Among federal defendants released with pretrial conditions
from 2008 to 2010, 99% had a travel restriction, while 72%
were required to receive substance abuse treatment,
62% had a weapons restriction, and 49% promised to remain
employed or seek employment during the pretrial period
(table 6). The types of conditions imposed were often
related to a defendant’s arrest charges. For example, released
defendants charged with drug offenses were more likely to
receive mandated substance abuse treatment (89%) than
released defendants charged with public-order (59%) or
property (56%) offenses. A similar pattern held for weapons
defendants released with pretrial conditions. Eighty-seven
percent of these defendants had a weapons restriction.

Among all other offense types, the percentage with weapons
restrictions did not exceed 75%.
Among felony defendants released pretrial in the nation’s
75 most populous counties in 2006, 12% were released with
pretrial conditions, including participation in a pretrial
diversionary program or drug monitoring or treatment.
In some jurisdictions, defendants released through surety
bond also had pretrial conditions attached to the release.
An estimated 6% of felony defendants released through a
surety bond in large urban counties in 2006 had conditions
attached to the release, including pretrial monitoring (not
shown in table).

Table 6
Types of pretrial conditions imposed on defendants released for cases disposed in federal district courts, by type of offense,
FY 2008–2010
Number of defendants
Most serious offense charged with conditional release*
All offenses
80,302
Violent
2,402
Property
25,203
Fraudulent
20,680
Other
4,523
Drug
28,966
Trafficking
24,490
Other
4,476
Public-order
11,851
Regulatory
2,199
Other
9,652
Weapons
6,740
Immigration
4,384

Conditions imposed on defendants with conditional release
Travel
Substance abuse
Weapon
Employment Home detention/
No contact
restrictions testing or treatment restrictions restrictions electronic monitoring with victim
99%
72%
62%
49%
32%
29%
98%
78%
70%
46%
40%
53%
99%
56%
50%
44%
24%
24%
99
54
50
44
25
25
99
63
51
43
20
22
99%
89%
70%
54%
36%
31%
99
89
72
55
37
32
99
92
59
48
36
28
99%
59%
53%
39%
37%
26%
99
54
50
41
25
24
99
60
54
38
40
27
99%
88%
87%
54%
37%
25%
100%
61%
70%
66%
25%
37%

Note: Excludes released defendants without pretrial conditions. Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type.
*Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Length of pretrial detention
The U.S. Marshals Service’s Office of the Federal Detention
Trustee (OFDT) provides information on the average
amount of time a defendant is detained from arrest to
case adjudication or deportation from the U.S. According
to the OFDT, the average amount of time in detention for
defendants booked on federal charges increased from 112
days (3.7 months) in 2008 to 121 days (4.0 months) in 2010
(table 7).
In 2010, defendants booked on drugs, weapons, or violent
offenses spent on average more than 6 months in custody.
In comparison, defendants booked on immigration
offenses, or violations of probation, parole, or pretrial release
conditions, or those held as material witnesses remained
in custody for an average of 3 months or fewer. The OFDT
also reported that about 27% of defendants booked by U.S.
Marshals were ordered detained for 5 days or fewer in 2010
(not shown in table). (For more information about the OFDT,
see http://www.justice.gov/ofdt/index.html.)

Table 7
Average length of stay in detention for persons booked by
the U.S. Marshals Service, by offense at booking,
FY 2008–2010
Offense at booking
All offensesa
Violent
Property
Drugs
Other
Weapons
Immigration
Supervisionb
Material witness
Not reported
Number of persons booked

Average length of stay in detention
2008
2009
2010
112 days
114 days
121 days
192
233
206
120
95
96
197
238
226
127
111
117
197
222
218
72
82
86
82
72
79
36
37
39
51
28
63
188,806
211,986
221,681

aIncludes persons for whom the offense at booking was not reported or was
unknown.
bIncludes parole, supervised release, and probation violations.
Sources: U.S. Marshals Service, Prisoner Tracking System, FY 2008–2010, and
http://www.justice.gov/oftd/detention.htm.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

8

Federal defendants released on financial bond
received pretrial conditions less frequently than
defendants released through nonfinancial means

Figure 4
Pretrial conditions imposed on released defendants for cases
disposed in federal district courts, by type of pretrial release,
FY 2008–2010

From 2008 to 2010, federal courts imposed conditions on
64% of defendants released through financial bond (not
shown in figure). Among the types of financial release,
40% of defendants with a surety bond release and 66% of
defendants with a deposit bond release received pretrial
conditions (figure 4). In comparison, 80% of defendants
released on personal recognizance and 93% of defendants
released on unsecured bond received pretrial conditions.

Type of pretrial release
79%

All releases

Percentages of pretrial release were lower for
defendants with serious or lengthy criminal histories
When making a determination regarding the eligibility of
a defendant for pretrial release, federal law requires that
the judicial officer (i.e., district court judge or magistrate)
consider the defendant’s criminal history, including record
of court appearances. The federal data show that the rate of
pretrial release declined with the severity of a defendant’s
criminal history. About half (51%) of defendants with no
prior arrest history were released pretrial, compared to 34%
of defendants with 2 to 4 prior arrests and 21% of defendants
with more than 10 prior arrests (table 8). The nature of a

Unsecured bond

93%

Collateral bond

92%

Personal
recognizance

80%
66%

Deposit bond
40%

Surety bond
0

20
40
60
80
Percent of defendants with pretrial conditions

100

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Table 8
Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by criminal history and most serious offense charged,
FY 2008–2010
Criminal history
All defendants
Number of prior arrests
None
1
2 to 4
5 to 10
11 or more
Number of prior convictions
None
1
2 to 4
5 to 10
11 or more
Nature of prior convictions
Misdemeanor conviction only
Felony conviction
Nonviolent
Drug
Violent
Prior failure to appear
None
1
2 or more

Total
283,358

All offenses
Percent released*
36%

Violent
30%

Percent released, by most serious offense charged
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapons
71%
38%
65%
32%

Immigration
12%

74,879
35,503
64,034
59,089
49,408

51%
42
34
27
21

52%
44
33
21
11

75%
77
74
64
46

38%
49
46
36
23

80%
70
61
47
36

51%
55
46
32
19

20%
12
10
10
11

109,294
44,737
69,785
43,278
15,819

48%
35
28
23
20

47%
36
24
15
9

75%
76
68
52
42

42%
47
38
26
20

77%
65
51
39
34

51%
47
34
24
17

18%
10
10
10
11

52,008
121,611
27,091
44,225
50,295

41%
23
28
23
19

42%
12
21
17
9

79%
55
61
56
47

54%
27
40
28
22

77%
35
50
40
25

53%
25
37
31
21

10%
10
12
9
9

237,169
20,073
25,671

37%
31
27

33%
23
16

73%
61
54

40%
34
28

69%
45
45

37%
25
20

12%
13
12

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for defendant criminal history. Information on the number of prior felony arrests or convictions, nature of
prior convictions, and failure to appear history available for 99.8% of released defendants.
*Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

9

defendant’s criminal history also influenced the probability
of pretrial release. Forty-one percent of defendants with
prior misdemeanor convictions were released pretrial,
while 23% of defendants with prior felony convictions
were released prior to case disposition. In addition, pretrial
misconduct history correlated with the pretrial release
decision. Thirty-seven percent of defendants with no history
of missed court appearances were released pretrial, while
27% of defendants with two or more prior failure-to-appear
events received a pretrial release.
Criminal history was also related to the stage in which a
defendant was released pretrial. Nearly 30% of defendants
with no prior convictions were released pretrial after a
period of detention. In comparison, 46% for defendants with
more than 10 prior convictions were released pretrial after
being detained (not shown in table).
Similar to the federal system, many state courts have
established specific criteria to consider when setting release
conditions, including the defendant’s criminal background.
Data examining felony defendants processed in the nation’s
75 most populous counties in 2006 illustrate how release
rates vary according to a defendant’s criminal history.
Among these state courts, nearly three-quarters (74%) of

defendants with no prior convictions were released pretrial,
while about two-fifths (39%) of defendants with five or more
prior convictions were released prior to case adjudication
(not shown in table).
Nearly two-thirds of whites, less than half of blacks,
and a fifth of Hispanics secured pretrial release
Among all racial and ethnic categories of defendants
released pretrial, higher percentages of Asian/Pacific
Islander (66%) and white non-Hispanic (65%) defendants
were released in the federal system from 2008 to 2010,
compared to American Indian/Alaska Native (54%), black
non-Hispanic (43%), or Hispanic (20%) defendants
(table 9). In general, Hispanic defendants had the lowest
rates of pretrial release and were less likely to be released
than white defendants for all major federal offense
categories. Black defendants were also less likely than white
defendants to be released pretrial for all major federal
offense categories. The differences in pretrial release rates
between black and white defendants were particularly large
for drug offenses, as white defendants (60%) were more than
one and a half times more likely to receive a pretrial release
than black defendants (36%).

Table 9
Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by demographic characteristics, citizenship status,
and most serious offense charged, FY 2008–2010
Demographic characteristic
and citizenship status
All defendants
Sex
Male
Female
Age
17 or younger
18–19
20–29
30–39
40 or older
Race/ethnicity
Whiteb
Black/African Americanb
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian/Alaska Nativeb
Asian/Pacific Islanderb
Citizenship status
U.S. citizen
Legal alien
Illegal alien

All offenses
Percent
Total
releaseda
283,358
36%

Violent
30%

Percent released, by most serious offense charged
Property
Drug
Public-order
Weapons
71%
38%
65%
32%

Immigration
12%

243,863
39,121

31%
65

26%
62

66%
80

34%
62

63%
80

30%
71

11%
34

339
6,513
97,829
95,175
83,118

50%
37
31
31
47

67%
43
32
23
31

74%
57
62
65
80

28%
43
37
35
42

^
66%
62
59
71

^
36%
27
30
44

28%
17
11
11
15

60,427
54,346
155,036
4,049
5,569

65%
43
20
54
66

30%
22
23
42
42

82%
76
48
78
78

60%
36
26
62
59

73%
57
49
58
76

46%
27
24
35
41

41%
34
11
53
52

148,348
15,100
116,321

55%
43
10

31%
35
5

82%
71
28

47%
30
5

69%
60
21

34%
39
5

59%
46
8

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for demographic characteristics and citizenship status. Race/ethnicity excludes defendants classified as
other race. Information on race and ethnicity was available for 99.0% of defendants, sex was available for 99.9%, age was available for 99.9%, and citizenship status was
available for 98.7%.
^Too few cases to provide a reliable rate.
aIncludes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

10

State-level data on pretrial release across racial and ethnic
categories varied less than federal data. In the nation’s 75
most populous counties through the combined years from
1990 through 2004, black defendants (62%) were released at
statistically similar percentages as white defendants (68%),
while Hispanics had a lower likelihood of pretrial release
(55%) (not shown in table).
A greater percentage of females were released pretrial
than males
Female defendants (65%) were released more frequently
than males (31%) in the federal courts from 2008 to 2010.
This remained consistent across all major federal offense
categories. At the state level, females (74%) were more likely
to be released than males (60%) in the nation’s most populous
counties from 1990 to 2004 (not shown in table).
Defendants ages 18 to 39 were less likely to be
released than those age 17 or younger or age 40 or
older
The likelihood of pretrial release and defendant age had a
curved relationship, as a greater percentage of younger and
older defendants were released pretrial than defendants in
the middle age ranges. For example, 50% of defendants age
17 or younger were released pretrial, compared to 31% of
defendants ages 20 to 39 (figure 5). Defendants age 40 or
older were released at higher rates (47%) than defendants
ages 18 to 39.
The curved pattern of pretrial release (i.e., declining for
defendants in the middle age ranges and then rising for
those age 41 or older) did not hold for defendants charged
with violent or immigration offenses. For the violent offense
category, defendants ages 17 or younger were two times
more likely to be released (67%), compared to defendants
age 40 or older (31%). The percentage of immigration
defendants released pretrial was relatively low regardless of
the defendant’s age.

Figure 5
Percent of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in
federal district courts, by age of defendant, FY 2008–2010
Age of defendant
40 or older

47%

30–39

31%

20–29

31%

18–19

37%

17 or younger

50%
0

10

20
30
Percent released pretrial

40

50

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial
Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

U.S. citizen defendants were more than 5 times more
likely than noncitizen illegal alien defendants to be
released pretrial
Overall, the federal courts released 10% of noncitizen
defendants identified as illegal aliens. In comparison, 43%
of legal aliens and 55% of U.S. citizens received a pretrial
release prior to case disposition. Percentages of pretrial
release for illegal alien defendants exceeded 20% for some
offense categories, including property (28%) and publicorder (21%) offenses. For the remaining offense categories,
however, less than 10% of defendants identified as illegal
aliens were released prior to case disposition.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

11

Among all defendants, black and American Indian/
Alaska Native defendants had more serious criminal
histories than white defendants

About three-quarters of all Hispanic defendants were
non-U.S. citizen illegal aliens
A defendant’s citizenship status constitutes another
important factor that federal courts consider when making
pretrial release decisions. Ninety percent of noncitizen illegal
alien defendants were detained pretrial (not shown in table).
Almost three-quarters of Hispanic defendants in the federal
courts were non-U.S. citizen illegal aliens, while a fifth of
Hispanic defendants in federal courts had U.S. citizenship. In
comparison to Hispanic defendants, 95% or more of white,
American Indian/Alaska Native, and black defendants were
U.S. citizens. Asian/Pacific Islander defendants were the only
other race category in which sizable minorities of defendants
were either noncitizen legal aliens (26%) or illegal aliens
(13%).

Factors courts were required by the 1984 Bail Reform Act to
consider for pretrial release, including criminal history and
citizenship status, varied across racial and ethnic categories
For example, black and American Indian/Alaska Native
defendants generally had more extensive criminal histories
than white defendants. During the combined period from
2008 through 2010, 61% of black and 43% of American
Indian/Alaska Native defendants had five or more prior
arrests, compared to 36% of whites (table 10). Moreover,
a higher percentage of black (46%) and American Indian/
Alaska Native (33%) defendants had a prior violent felony
conviction compared to white (27%) defendants.
Hispanics and whites had relatively similar criminal
backgrounds. For instance, a similar percentage of whites
(43%) and Hispanics (41%) had no history of prior
convictions when they were brought into the federal courts.

Table 10
Race and ethnicity of defendants for cases disposed in federal district courts, by criminal history and citizenship status, FY
2008–2010
Criminal history and citizenship status
Number of prior arrests
None
1
2 to 4
5 to 10
11 or more
Number of prior convictions
None
1
2 to 4
5 to 10
11 or more
Nature of prior convictionsb
Misdemeanor conviction only
Felony conviction
Nonviolent
Drug
Violent
Citizenship status
U.S. citizen
Legal alien
Illegal alien
Number of defendants

White*

Black/African
Americana

Hispanic/Latino

American Indian/
Alaska Nativea

Asian/Pacific Islandera

32%
13
20
18
18

15%
7
18
26
35

28%
14
26
21
12

24%
11
23
21
22

50%
17
16
10
7

43%
14
20
15
7

24%
12
27
25
13

41%
18
26
12
3

32%
15
24
18
11

66%
14
13
6
2

35%
65
16
22
27

18%
82
9
27
46

33%
67
19
27
22

46%
54
11
10
33

42%
58
18
17
23

95%
3
3
60,427

95%
3
3
54,346

20%
7
73
155,036

98%
1
1
4,049

61%
26
13
5,569

Note: Excludes defendants classified as other race. Information on race and ethnicity was available for 99.0% of defendants, citizenship status was available for 98.7%,
and information on criminal history was available for 99.8% of defendants. Felony conviction percentages may not sum to total due to rounding.
aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
bIncludes only defendants with a prior conviction record.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

12

17% of federal defendants released prior to case
disposition committed technical violations
Technical violations (such as violations of pretrial
conditions, including drug test failure or failure to maintain
electronic reporting requirements) were committed by 17%
of defendants released prior to case disposition from 2008
to 2010 (table 11). Defendants released on weapons (30%),
drug (25%), and violent (24%) offenses had the highest
rates of technical violations, while immigration defendants
released pretrial had the lowest rates of violating their
pretrial conditions (6%). The relatively low rate of technical
violations for immigration defendants may be due to federal
courts typically not attaching pretrial conditions to these
defendants when released prior to disposition.
From 2008 to 2010, relatively few released defendants either
failed to make court appearances (1%) or were rearrested
for new offenses (4%). The percentage of defendants with
missed court appearances did not exceed 2% across the
major offense types. Rearrest percentages ranged from 1%
for immigration defendants to 8% for weapons defendants.

Fifty-six percent of defendants who committed misconduct
had their release revoked by the federal courts (not shown
in table). Twenty-one percent of released weapons and
more than 15% of violent (18%) and drug (16%) defendants
had their release revoked, while less than 10% of released
property (7%), public-order (6%), and immigration
defendants (4%) had a pretrial release revocation.
In comparison, a third of released defendants in the nation’s
75 most populous counties committed some form of pretrial
misconduct during 2006. Half of pretrial misconduct events
involved bench warrants that were issued due to missed
court appearances, while a similar percentage of defendants
with pretrial misconduct were rearrested for new offenses
committed during the pretrial release period (not shown in
table). In 2006, the percentage of defendants charged with
pretrial misconduct was highest for drug defendants (37%)
and lowest for those released after being charged with a
violent offense (26%) (not shown in table).

Table 11
Behavior of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010
Most serious
offense charged
All defendants
Violent
Property
Fraudulent
Other
Drug
Trafficking
Other
Public-order
Regulatory
Other
Weapons
Immigration

Number of released
defendants
101,622
2,668
31,332
25,378
5,954
31,887
26,683
5,204
15,058
2,818
12,240
7,127
11,939

At least one violation
19%
26%
15%
14
16
28%
29
24
12%
10
12
33%
7%

Percent of released defendants who had—
Technical violations of A rearrest for
Failed to appear bond conditions
new offense*
1%
17%
4%
1%
24%
4%
1%
13%
3%
1
12
3
1
14
3
2%
25%
5%
2
26
6
2
23
4
1%
11%
2%
1
9
2
1
11
2
2%
30%
8%
1%
6%
1%

Release revoked
11%
18%
7%
7
9
16%
17
12
6%
5
6
21%
4%

Note: Detail will not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Information on offense type available for 98.4% of released
defendants.
*Includes felony and misdemeanor offenses.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

13

Prior criminal activity correlated with higher rates of
pretrial misconduct in the federal courts
Released defendants with substantial criminal histories
engaged in pretrial misconduct more frequently than
defendants with less serious criminal backgrounds. From
2008 to 2010, released defendants with more than 10 prior
arrests committed technical violations (29%) at a higher
rate than defendants with two to four prior arrests (20%)
or defendants with no arrest history (9%) (table 12).
Defendants with more than 10 prior arrests also had a higher
likelihood of being rearrested for new offenses (8%) than
defendants who had never been arrested prior to the current
case (2%).

In addition, federal courts were more likely to revoke the
releases of defendants with more serious criminal histories.
More than 20% of released defendants with more than 10
prior arrests or convictions received a release revocation,
compared to less than 10% of defendants with no history of
prior arrests or convictions.
Prior criminal activity was also associated with higher rates
of pretrial misconduct in state courts. For pretrial release
and misconduct in the nation’s 75 most populous counties
from 1990 to 2004, defendants with at least one prior felony
conviction (43%) had a higher rate of pretrial misconduct
than defendants with misdemeanor convictions only (34%)
or no prior convictions (27%) (not shown in table). (See
Methodology.)

Table 12
Misconduct of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by criminal history, FY 2008–2010
Criminal history
All defendants
Number of prior arrests
None
1
2 to 4
5 to 10
11 or more
Number of prior convictions
None
1
2 to 4
5 to 10
11 or more
Nature of prior convictions
Misdemeanor conviction only
Felony conviction
Nonviolent
Drug
Violent
Prior failure to appear
None
1
2 or more

Percent of released defendants who had—
Failed to
Technical violations
A rearrest for
appear
of bond conditions
new offense*
1%
17%
4%

Number of released
defendants
101,622

At least one
violation
19%

Release
revoked
11%

38,009
14,902
21,909
16,044
10,547

10%
16
22
28
33

1%
2
2
2
2

9%
14
20
26
29

2%
3
4
6
8

5%
8
12
17
21

52,790
15,842
19,785
9,771
3,223

13%
20
25
31
35

1%
2
2
2
2

12%
18
23
27
31

2%
4
5
7
9

6%
11
15
19
24

21,214
27,407
7,672
10,065
9,670

24%
27
20
28
31

2%
2
2
2
2

21%
24
17
25
28

5%
6
5
6
8

14%
16
12
17
19

88,262
6,204
6,945

17%
29
37

1%
2
2

15%
27
33

3%
6
8

9%
17
22

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Not all violations resulted in revocation. Information on number of
prior felony arrests or convictions, nature of prior convictions, and failure to appear history available for 99.8% of released defendants.
*Includes felony and misdemeanor offenses.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

14

The percentage of males (20%) committing pretrial
misconduct was slightly higher than females (17%). As with
pretrial release, there was a curved relationship between
age and pretrial misconduct, with younger and older
defendants charged with pretrial misconduct less frequently
than defendants in the mid-age range. Seventeen percent
of defendants age 17 or younger committed some form of
pretrial misconduct, compared to 24% of defendants ages
20 to 29 and 14% of defendants age 40 or older.

Black and American Indian/Alaska Native defendants
were charged with pretrial misconduct more
frequently than white and Hispanic defendants
In the federal courts, 29% of released American Indian/
Alaska Native and 27% of released black defendants had at
least one violation of their pretrial conditions, while 18% of
released white, 16% of released Asian/Pacific Islander, and
14% of released Hispanic defendants engaged in some form
of pretrial misconduct from 2008 to 2010 (table 13). Black
and American Indian/Alaska Native defendants were also
charged with technical violations of their release conditions,
rearrested for new offenses, and had their pretrial release
statuses revoked at higher rates than white, Asian/Pacific
Islander, or Hispanic defendants.

Table 13
Misconduct of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by demographic characteristics and
citizenship status, FY 2008–2010
Demographic characteristic
and citizenship status
All defendants
Sex
Male
Female
Age
17 or younger
18–19
20–29
30–39
40 or older
Race/ethnicity
Whiteb
Black/African Americanb
Hispanic/Latino
American Indian/Alaska Nativeb
Asian/Pacific Islanderb
Citizenship status
U.S. citizen
Legal alien
Illegal alien

Percent of released defendants who had—
Failed to
Technical violations A rearrest for
appear
of bond conditions new offensea
1%
17%
4%

Number of released
defendants
101,622

At least one
violation
19%

Release
revoked
11%

75,991
25,438

20%
17

2%
1

18%
15

4%
3

11%
9

169
2,387
30,630
29,039
39,202

17%
22
24
20
14

2%
1
2
2
1

15%
21
22
18
13

2%
4
5
4
2

10%
14
14
11
7

39,534
23,570
30,542
2,172
3,663

18%
27
14
29
16

1%
2
2
2
1

16%
24
13
27
14

3%
6
2
5
2

10%
15
9
22
6

81,902
6,481
11,793

22%
17
2

1%
5
1

20%
14
2

4%
3
--

12%
10
1

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Excludes defendants classified as other race. Information on race
and ethnicity available for 98.5% of released defendants. Information on sex available for 99.8% of released defendants, age available for 99.8%, and citizenship status
available for 98.6%.
--Less than 0.5%
aIncludes felony and misdemeanor offenses.
bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

15

Defendants released on financial bond had fewer
technical violations than defendants released through
nonfinancial methods
From 2008 to 2010, the percentage of released defendants
committing technical violations of their pretrial conditions
was lower for defendants released on deposit (14%) or surety
(7%) bond, compared to defendants released on unsecured

bond (19%) or personal recognizance (19%) (table 14). This
variation is due in part to the relatively lower rates in which
courts attach pretrial conditions to those released through
financial bond. In comparison to technical violations, the
differences between financial and nonfinancial release in
terms of missed court appearances or rearrests for new
offenses were fairly similar across the various types of
pretrial release.

Table 14
Misconduct of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by type of pretrial release,
FY 2008–2010
Type of release
All releases
Financial release
Collateral bond
Deposit bond
Surety bond
Unsecured bond
Personal recognizance

Number of released
defendants
101,622
27,271
6,577
12,359
8,335
39,734
32,292

At least one
violation
19%
15%
20
17
8
21%
21%

Percent of released defendants who had—
Failed to
Technical violations
Rearrested for
appear
of bond conditions
new offense*
1%
17%
4%
2%
13%
3%
2
18
5
2
14
3
1
7
1
2%
19%
4%
1%
19%
4%

Release
revoked
11%
8%
10
10
5
11%
12%

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Excludes financial and nonfinancial release types for 2,325
defendants with a release classified as other or whose release types could not be determined.
*Includes felony and misdemeanor offenses.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

16

Methodology
Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP)
Data used for this report are from the Bureau of Justice
Statistics’ (BJS) Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP)
database. The FJSP is presently constructed from source
files provided by the U.S. Marshals Service, Executive Office
for U.S. Attorneys, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(AOUSC), United States Sentencing Commission, and
Federal Bureau of Prisons. In addition to providing data
describing defendants in cases processed by the federal
judiciary, the AOUSC provides data describing defendants
processed by the federal pretrial services agencies and
the federal probation and supervision service. For more
information about the methodology used for the FJSP, see
the BJS website.
Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated
Case Tracking System (PACTS)
For this report, all tables were created from data in the
AOUSC’s Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated
Case Tracking System (PACTS), which were subsequently
processed for the FJSP. The PACTS data contain information
on defendants interviewed, investigated, or supervised by
federal pretrial services. The information covers defendant
pretrial hearings, detentions, and releases from the time they
are interviewed through the disposition of their cases in
federal district courts. The data describe defendants processed
by federal pretrial service agencies within each of the 93
federal judicial districts. Defendants who received pretrial
services through a local, nonfederal agency were excluded.
Since the District of Columbia operates its pretrial services
agency separate from the AOUSC, data describing defendants
prosecuted in the U.S. district court for the District of Columbia
but processed by the D.C. pretrial services agency were
excluded in this analysis.
The data describe 283,358 defendants who were under
the jurisdiction of federal pretrial services from
October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010 (i.e., fiscal
years 2008 through 2010), and whose cases were filed by
complaint, indictment, or information. Federal pretrial
service agencies have jurisdiction over both released and
detained defendants from the time of arrest until their case is
disposed by the federal courts. A disposition occurs through
a guilty plea or trial conviction, dismissal, or acquittal.
In these tables, the totals include records for defendants whose
offense or other attributes were missing or unknown. The
percentage distributions are based on nonmissing values, and
missing values are reported in the table footnotes.
Offenses in the PACTS are based on the most serious
charged offense, as determined by the probation officer
responsible for interviewing the defendant. The probation
officer classifies the major offense charged into AOUSC four-

digit offense codes. For defendants charged with more than
one offense on an indictment, the probation officer chooses
as the major charged offense the one carrying the most
severe penalty or, in the case of two or more charges carrying
the same penalty, the one with the highest offense severity.
The offense severity level is determined by the AOUSC,
which ranks offenses according to the maximum sentence,
type of crime, and maximum fine amount. These four-digit
codes are then aggregated into the primary offense charges
used for this report.
Defining pretrial release within the PACTS data
Defendants are identified as released pretrial if they were
released anytime during the period between the initial
appearance hearing and case adjudication. At the initial
appearance, the defendant could either be released pretrial
or detained for additional hearings. For those defendants not
released at initial appearance, pretrial release could occur at
subsequent events, including detention or bond hearings, or
the defendant could be held for the entire duration of a case.
For this report, the total pretrial release rate includes those
defendants released at initial appearance, as well as those
released after a period of detention.
In addition, the number of released defendants reported in the
BJS Federal Justice Statistics reports for fiscal years 2008 and
2009 differ from those in this report due to recent adjustments
with the PACTS data. For the 2008 and 2009 reports,
defendants were identified as being released pretrial only if
they were released during the initial appearance or detention
hearing stages of a criminal case. Pretrial releases did not
cover defendants released after these events and showed
release rates of 29% in fiscal year 2008 and 31% in fiscal year
2009. The 2008 and 2009 PACTS files analyzed for this report
were adjusted so that defendants released anytime during
the course of a case were coded as released pretrial. These
adjustments resulted in pretrial release rates of 35% for both
fiscal years 2008 and 2009. This method of identifying released
defendants encompasses a broader range of releases and is
similar to those used in BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics reports
that were published prior to 2008. For more information, see
Federal Justice Statistics, 2008 –Statistical Tables, NCJ 231822,
BJS website, November 2008, and Federal Justice Statistics,
2009, NCJ 234184, BJS website, December 2011.
The forms of pretrial release and detention shown in the
report are reported as mutually exclusive categories. However,
a single defendant may have multiple forms of pretrial release
and detention. For example, the court may have initially
released a defendant on their own recognizance, and then
the defendant may have been brought back to court on a
technical violation with a financial bond set. The PACTS data
only cover the initial and not subsequent release methods. In
addition, pretrial release conditions, such as drug monitoring
or treatment, are counted separately from the release types
because federal courts typically attach such conditions
regardless of how a defendant was released.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

17

State level data on pretrial release

Types of pretrial release

In this report, the federal pretrial data were compared with
state-level data when possible. Information on pretrial release
and misconduct in state courts was obtained from reports
that used data from the State Court Processing Statistics
(SCPS) data collection program (most recent data are for
2006). SCPS provides data on the criminal justice processing
of felony defendants in a sample of 40 of the nation’s 75 most
populous counties. The program prospectively tracks felony
defendants from charging by the prosecutor during the month
of May of an even number year until disposition of their case
or for a maximum of 12 months. The SCPS project obtains
data on a variety of felony case processing characteristics in
addition to information about pretrial release and misconduct
in state courts. Some of the core data elements collected in
SCPS included demographic characteristics, arrest offenses,
criminal justice status at the time of arrest, prior arrests and
convictions, bond and pretrial release, court appearance
record, rearrests while on pretrial release, adjudication
outcomes including whether and how the defendant was
convicted, and type and length of sentence. (For more
information, see Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties,
2006, NCJ 228944, BJS website, May 2010, and Pretrial Release
of Felony Defendants in State Courts, 1990-2004, NCJ 214994,
BJS website, November 2007.)

Defendants may be released without financial conditions
according to the following methods:

Key terms
Initial appearance—The first time that a defendant charged
with a federal offense appears before a federal judicial officer,
typically a magistrate judge. At the initial appearance stage,
the defendant can either be released pretrial or detained for
additional hearings. For those defendants not released at
initial appearance, pretrial release can occur at subsequent
events including detention or bond hearings, or the
defendant can be held for the duration of the entire case.
Federal court disposition—The act of terminating a case
proceeding through a guilty plea or trial conviction,
dismissal, or acquittal. The defendant is no longer under
supervision of the federal pretrial authority after disposition.
Defendant (unit of analysis)—In the Federal Justice Statistics
Program, the unit of analysis is a combination of a person
and a case. For example, if the same person is involved in
three different criminal cases during the period specified in
this report, then these cases are counted as three defendants,
or three cases disposed. Similarly, a single criminal case
involving four defendants is counted as four cases disposed.
Released defendant—Defendant is released pretrial prior to
case disposition. A release can occur anytime from initial
appearance to case disposition. Under this definition,
defendants are considered released even if they had been
initially detained by the court.

Personal recognizance—The defendant is released subject to
no financial or other conditions.
Unsecured bond—No money is required to be posted before
release, but the defendant is liable for full bond amount if the
defendant fails to appear.
Conditional release—Any combination of restrictions
that are deemed necessary to guarantee the defendant’s
appearance at trial or the safety of the community. These
conditions commonly place restrictions on the defendant’s
movements, associations, or actions. They may also involve
employment or treatment for medical, psychological,
or substance abuse conditions. Pretrial conditions are
typically attached to defendants released without financial
bond; however, courts can impose pretrial conditions on
defendants receiving a financial release.
Defendants may also be released on financial conditions.
Financial conditions include the following methods:
Deposit bond—The defendant is required to post a
percentage of the total bond amount with the federal court,
(usually 10%).
Surety bond—The defendant is released subject to guarantees
by a third person, usually a bail bondsman, that the full
amount will be paid.
Collateral bond—Money or property equal to the full bond
amount required to be posted by the defendant before
release.
Financial conditions may occur in combination with
nonfinancial conditions.
Types of pretrial detention
According to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, preventive
detention is applicable in instances in which the defendant
was charged with—
1) a crime of violence
2) an offense with a statutory maximum sentence of life
imprisonment or death
3) a drug offense with a statutory maximum sentence of
10 years or more imprisonment
4) any felony offense if the defendant had been convicted on
two or more occasions of an offense described above or a
similar state-level offense.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

18

A defendant on preventive detention is typically detained
during the entire period from initial appearance through
case adjudication. Other forms of pretrial detention include
detention because defendants could not meet the financial
bond set by the court or because they were unable to meet
specified pretrial conditions.
Pretrial misconduct—Instances in which a released
defendant violated their pretrial release conditions.
Types of pretrial misconduct
The following types of events are included under pretrial
misconduct:
Technical violation—Events in which the defendant failed
to comply with their pretrial release conditions, including
failing a drug test, failing to maintain or seek employment,
refusing to maintain contact with a pretrial supervision
officer, or violating weapons prohibitions.
Failure to appear—Occurs when a defendant misses a
scheduled court appearance.
Rearrest for new offenses—Occurs when a defendant is
rearrested for felony or misdemeanor offenses committed
while out on pretrial release.
Definitions of major offense categories
Violent—Includes murder, non-negligent or negligent
manslaughter, aggravated or simple assault, robbery, rape or
sexual abuse, kidnapping, and threats against the President.
Property—Includes fraudulent and other types of property
offenses.
Fraudulent property—Includes embezzlement, fraud
(including tax fraud), forgery, and counterfeiting.

Other property—Includes burglary, larceny, motor vehicle
theft, arson, transportation of stolen property, and other
property offenses, such as destruction of property and
trespassing.
Drug—Includes offenses prohibiting the manufacture,
import, export, distribution, or dispensing of a controlled
substance (or counterfeit substance), or the possession of a
controlled substance (or a counterfeit substance) with intent
to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or dispense.
Public-order—Includes regulatory and other types of
offenses.
Regulatory public-order—Includes violation of regulatory
laws and regulation in agriculture, antitrust, labor law, food
and drug, motor carrier, and other regulatory offenses.
Other public-order—Includes nonregulatory offenses
concerning tax law violations (tax fraud), bribery, perjury,
national defense, escape, racketeering and extortion,
gambling, liquor, mailing or transporting of obscene
materials, traffic, migratory birds, conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, jurisdictional offenses, and other public-order
offenses.
Weapons—Includes violations of any of the provision of 18
U.S.C. 922–923 concerning the manufacturing, importing,
possessing, receiving, and licensing of firearms and
ammunition.
Immigration—Includes offenses involving illegal entrance
into the United States, illegally reentering after being
deported, willfully failing to deport when so ordered, or
bringing in or harboring any aliens not duly admitted by an
immigration officer.

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012

19

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of
Justice. James P. Lynch is the director.
This Special Report was written by Thomas H. Cohen. Mark Motivans verified the
report.
Jill Thomas and Morgan Young edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced
the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. Barbara Parthasarathy of Urban
Institute provided comments.
November 2012, NCJ 239243

Office of Justice Programs
Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov