|
Cryptome DVDs. Donate
$25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome collection of 47,000 files from June 1996
to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John
Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes
all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org,
eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and
23,100 (updated)
pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information
and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere
worldwide without extra cost. |
|
9 May 1998
Source:
http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap/contents.html
Thanks to DN and Anonymous
1997 WIRETAP REPORT
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director
3
Contents
Report of the Director
Reporting Requirements of the Statute
Regulations
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges
Authorized Length of Intercepts
Locations
Offenses
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials
Nature of Intercepts
Costs of Intercepts
Arrests and Convictions
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1987 Through 1997
Supplementary Reports
Text Tables
Table 1 - Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception of Wire,
Oral, or Electronic Communications
Table 2 - Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 1997
Table 3 - Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted
Table 4 - Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
Table 5 - Average Cost Per Order
Table 6 - Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions for
Intercepts Installed
Table 7 - Summary Report on Authorized Intercepts Granted Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 2519
Table 8 - Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts Terminated in Calendar
Years 1983 Through 1996
Table 9 - Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1987 Through 1997
4
Appendix Tables
Table A-1: United States District Courts Report by Judges
Table A-2: United States District Courts Supplementary Report by Prosecutors
Table B-1: State Courts Report by Judges
Table B-2: State Courts Supplementary Report by Prosecutors
5
Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts
on
Applications for Orders Authorizing or Approving
the Interception of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 requires the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) to report to Congress
the number and nature of federal and state applications for orders authorizing
or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications.
The statute requires that specific information be provided to the AO, including
the offense(s) under investigation, the location of the intercept, the cost
of the surveillance, and the number of arrests, trials, and convictions that
directly result from the surveillance. This report covers intercepts concluded
between January 1, 1997, and December 31, 1997, and provides supplementary
information on arrests and convictions resulting from intercepts concluded
in prior years.
From 1996 to 1997, the total number of intercepts authorized by federal and
state courts increased 3 percent to 1,186, primarily due to growth in
applications involving the surveillance of narcotics operations (up 6 percent).
Following a 9 percent increase in 1996, the number of applications for orders
by federal authorities declined slightly by 2 percent in 1997. The number
of applications by state prosecuting officials increased 9 percent over last
year. The number of federal intercept applications authorized has grown
substantially over the last 10 years, increasing 141 percent from 1987 to
1997. In contrast, state applications have increased 41 percent since 1987.
The number of intercepts employed in drug-related investigations also has
undergone significant growth. Drug offenders were targeted in 870 of the
interceptions concluded in 1997, compared to 379 in 1987, a 130% increase.
The appendix tables of this report list all intercepts reported by judges
and prosecuting officials for 1997. Appendix Table A-1 shows reports filed
by federal judges and federal prosecuting officials. Appendix Table B-1 presents
the same information for state judges and state prosecuting officials. Appendix
Tables A-2 and B-2 contain information from the supplementary reports submitted
by prosecuting officials about additional arrests and trials in 1997 arising
from intercepts initially reported in prior years.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2519(2) mandates the submission of wiretap reports
no later than January 31 of each year. This office, as is customary, sends
a letter to the appropriate officials every year reminding them of the statutory
mandate. Nevertheless, each year reports are received after the deadline
has passed. Although the number of missing state and local prosecutors’
reports was lower in 1997 compared to 1996, the number of reports that were
either late or not submitted for this year’s report remains higher than
usual. The AO is grateful for the cooperation and the prompt responses we
received from other officials around the nation.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham
Director
April 1998
6
Applications for Orders Authorizing
or Approving the Interception of Wire, Oral,
or Electronic Communications
Reporting Requirements of the Statute
Each federal and state judge is required to file a written report with the
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) on
each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral,
or electronic communication (18 U.S.C. 2519(1)). This report is to be furnished
within 30 days of the denial of the application or the expiration of the
court order (after all extensions have expired). The report must include
the name of the official who applied for the order, the offense under
investigation, the type of interception device, the general location of the
device, and the duration of the authorized intercept.
Prosecuting officials who applied for interception orders are required to
submit reports to the AO no later than January 31 on all orders that were
terminated during the previous calendar year. These reports contain information
related to the cost of the intercept, the number of days the intercept device
was actually in operation, the total number of intercepts, and the number
of incriminating intercepts recorded. Results such as arrests, trials,
convictions, and the number of motions to suppress evidence related directly
to the use of intercepts are also noted.
Neither the judges’ reports nor the prosecuting officials’ reports
contain the names, addresses, or phone numbers of the parties investigated.
The AO is not authorized to collect this information.
This report tabulates the number of applications for interceptions that were
granted or denied, as reported by judges, as well as the number of authorizations
for which interception devices were installed, as reported by prosecuting
officials. No statistics are available on the number of devices installed
for each authorization.
No report to the AO is required when an order is issued with the consent
of one of the principal parties to the communication. Examples of such situations
include the use of a wire interception to investigate obscene phone calls;
the interception of a communication to which a police officer or police informant
is a party; the use of a body microphone; or the use of only a pen register
(a mechanical device attached to a telephone line to record on paper tape
all numbers dialed from that line).
Regulations
The Director of the AO is empowered to develop and revise the reporting
regulations and reporting forms for collecting information on intercepts.
Copies of the regulations, the reporting forms, and the federal wiretapping
statute may be obtained by writing to the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, Statistics Division, Washington, D.C. 20544.
The Attorney General of the United States, the Deputy Attorney General, the
Associate Attorney General, any Assistant Attorney General, any acting Assistant
Attorney General, or any specially designated Deputy Assistant Attorney General
in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice may authorize an
application to a federal judge for an order authorizing the interception
of wire, oral, or electronic communications. On the state level, applications
are made by a prosecuting attorney “if such attorney is authorized by
a statute of that State to make application to a State court judge of competent
jurisdiction. . . .”
Many wiretap orders are related to large-scale criminal investigations that
cross county and state boundaries. Consequently, arrests, trials, and convictions
resulting from these interceptions often do not occur within the same year
as the
7
installation of the intercept device. Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting
officials must file supplementary reports on additional court or police activity
that occurs as a result of intercepts reported in prior years. Appendix Tables
A-2 and B-2 describe the additional activity reported by prosecuting officials
in their supplementary reports.
Table 1 shows that 45 jurisdictions (the federal government, the District
of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and 42 states) currently have laws that
authorize courts to issue orders permitting wire, oral, or electronic
surveillance. During 1997, a total of 24 jurisdictions used at least one
of these three types of surveillance as an investigative tool.
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Judges
Data on applications for wiretaps terminated during calendar year 1997 appear
in Appendix Tables A-1 (federal) and B-1 (state). The reporting numbers used
in the appendix tables are reference numbers assigned by the AO; these numbers
do not correspond to the authorization or application numbers used by the
reporting jurisdictions. The same reference number is used for any supplemental
information reported for a communications intercept in future volumes of
the Wiretap Report.
A total of 1,186 applications were authorized in 1997, an increase of 3 percent
from 1996. Judges approved all applications. A total of 569 applications
were approved by federal judges in 1997, a decline of 2 percent over the
previous year. The 2 percent decrease in federal applications in 1997 follows
a 9 percent increase in 1996.
Approvals of applications by state judges increased 9 percent to 617. Wiretap
applications in New York (304 applications), New Jersey (70 applications),
and Florida (57 applications) accounted for 70 percent of all authorizations
approved by state judges.
Authorized Length of Intercepts
Table 2 presents the number of intercept orders issued in each jurisdiction
that provided reports, the number of amended intercept orders issued, the
number of extensions granted, the average length of the original authorizations
and Federal and State Wiretap Authorizations
![[Image]](wt971.gif)
8
![[Image]](wt972.gif)
their extensions, the total number of days the intercepts were actually in
operation, and the nature of the location where each interception of
communications occurred. Most state laws limit the period of surveillance
under an original order to 30 days. This period, however, can be lengthened
by one or more extensions if the authorizing judge determines that additional
time for surveillance is warranted.
During 1997, the average length of an original authorization was 28 days,
the same as the average length for an extension. A total of 1,028 extensions
were requested and authorized in 1997, up 16 percent from last year. The
wiretapping of a digital display pager to investigate a narcotics operation
in Arizona led to the longest federal intercept. The original 30-day order
was extended 14 times to complete the 430-day investigation. The longest
state intercept occurred in Queens, New York, where a 540-day larceny
investigation required a 30-day order to be extended 17 times. In contrast,
43 state intercepts were each in operation for less than a week.
Location
The most common location for the placement of wiretaps in 1997 was a
“single-family dwelling,” a type of location that includes houses,
rowhouses, townhouses, and duplexes. Table 2 shows that in 1997 a total of
23 percent (273 wiretaps) of all intercept devices were authorized for
single-family dwellings; 9 percent (108 wire-taps) were authorized for
apartments; and 7 percent (78 wiretaps) were authorized for business
establishments such as restaurants and hotels.
Since the enactment of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986,
a specific location need not be cited in a federal application if the application
contains a statement explaining why such specification is not practical or
shows that the person under investigation is purposely thwarting an investigation
by changing locations (see 18 U.S.C. 2518 (11)). In these cases, prosecutors
use “roving” wiretaps to target a specific person rather than a
specific telephone or location. For the 1997 report, federal authorities
reported that they employed “roving” wiretaps for one extortion
operation in the District of Massachusetts and for three narcotics investigations
located in the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New
York, and the Eastern District of Virginia. On the state level, eight roving
wiretaps were used: one in New Jersey for a gambling investigation, and two
in Illinois, four in New York, and one in Wisconsin for narcotics operations.
Forty-five percent of intercept applications (529 applications) specified
“other” locations. Applications specifying other locations, which
include mobile telephones, electronic pagers, and cellular telephones, have
been increasing in recent years with the proliferation of
9
these types of communication devices. During the 1990s, the percentage of
applications designating other locations for the placement of intercepts
has grown twofold, and over the last 10 years has shown a fivefold increase.
Combinations of locations were cited in 16 percent of federal and state
applications (185 applications) in 1997.
Offenses
Violations of narcotics laws remain the most prevalent types of offenses
investigated through communications intercepts. Table 3 indicates that 73
percent of all applications for intercepts (870 cases) authorized in 1997
cited “narcotics” as the most serious offense under investigation.
Many applications for court orders indicated several criminal offenses under
investigation, but Table 3 includes only the most serious criminal offense
named in an application. The use of federal intercepts to conduct drug
investigations was most common in the Central District of California (59
applications). On the state level, the New York City Special Narcotics Bureau
conducted the most drug investigations in 1997, with the number of authorizations
obtained for drug-related intercepts more than doubling from 78 in 1996 to
161 in 1997. Nationwide, gambling (98 applications) and racketeering (93
applications), which were the next most frequently cited offenses after
narcotics, were each cited in 8 percent of intercept applications as the
most serious offenses under investigation in 1997.
Summary and Analysis of Reports by Prosecuting Officials
In accordance with 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must submit reports
to the AO no later than January 31 of each year for intercepts terminated
during the previous calendar year. Appendix Tables A-1 and B-1 contain
information from all prosecutors’ reports submitted for 1997. Judges
submitted 73 reports for which the AO received no corresponding reports from
prosecuting officials. For these authorizations, the phrase “No
Prosecutor’s Report” appears in the appendix tables. Some of the
prosecutors’ reports may have been received too late to include in this
report, and some prosecutors delayed filing reports to avoid jeopardizing
ongoing investigations. Information received after the reporting
![[Image]](wt973.gif)
10
deadline will be included in next year’s Wiretap Report.
Nature of Intercepts
Of the 1,186 communication interceptions authorized in 1997, a total of 1,094
intercept devices actually were installed. Table 4 presents information on
the average number of intercepts per order, the number of persons whose
conversations were intercepted, the total number of communications intercepted,
and the number of incriminating intercepts. Wiretaps varied extensively with
respect to the above characteristics.
The average number of interceptions per day in 1997 ranged from 0 to nearly
400. The most active federal intercept occurred in the Southern District
of New York, where a 47-day narcotics investigation resulted in an average
of 422 interceptions per day. For state authorizations, the most active
investigation was a 20-day gambling operation by the New York Organized Crime
Task Force that produced an average of 396 intercepts per day. Nationwide,
in 1997 the average number of persons whose conversations were intercepted
per order in which intercepts were installed was 197. The average number
of conversations intercepted was 2,081 per wiretap, 20 percent of which produced
incriminating evidence (418 intercepts).
Table 6 presents the type of surveillance device used for each intercept
installed. The most common method of surveillance was the telephone wiretap,
which accounted for 69 percent (756 cases) of intercepts installed in 1997.
Electronic devices such as digital display pagers, voice pagers, cellular
phones, and electronic mail constituted 19 percent (206 cases) of intercept
devices installed; microphones were used in 3 percent of intercepts. A
combination of devices was involved in 9 percent of intercepts (97 cases).
Costs of Intercepts
The average cost of intercept devices remained stable relative to last year;
the average cost of an intercept order in 1997 was $61,176. Table 5, which
provides a summary of expenses related to intercept orders in 1997, reflects
the cost of installing intercept devices and monitoring communications for
the 1,029 authorizations for which reports included cost data. For federal
wiretaps for which expenses were reported in 1997, the average cost increased
1 percent to $82,107. The average cost of a state wiretap rose 3 percent
to $37,137 in 1997. For additional information, see Appendix Tables A-1 (federal)
& B-1 (state).
Arrests and Convictions
Federal and state prosecutors often note the importance of electronic
surveillance in obtaining arrests and convictions. For example, a federal
wiretap in the District of Columbia led to the conviction of all 15 persons
arrested. Prosecutors commented that the intercepts in this narcotics
investigation were “instrumental in providing direct evidence to convince
defendants to enter plea agreements and cooperate with the government.”
A federal wiretap in the Southern District of California resulted in the
seizure of 1,874 kilograms of cocaine and $1,343,000 in cash, and led to
the conviction of 9 of the 16 persons arrested. On the state level, the District
Attorney’s Office in Bronx County, New York, noted that “the
interceptions led to the arrest and indictment of numerous individuals who
would otherwise have evaded arrest and prosecution.” Of the 28 persons
arrested in this 110-day narcotics operation, 21 persons were convicted.
A state intercept in Mesa County, Colorado, led to the conviction of 10 of
the 14 persons arrested. Prosecutors reported that “without the
interceptions there would not have been sufficient information to prosecute
the main targets for the racketeering charges which in-cluded the full scope
of their operation.”
Table 6 presents the numbers of persons arrested and convicted as a result
of interceptions terminated in 1997. As of December 31, 1997, a total of
3,086 persons were arrested based on electronic surveillance activity, 25
percent more than in 1996. A total of 542 persons were convicted in 1997,
representing a conviction rate of 18 percent, slightly lower than the 1996
conviction rate of 20 percent. Federal wiretaps were responsible for the
majority of convictions in 1997 (54 percent). A two-week wiretap of an apartment
in the District of Columbia produced the most convictions of any single federal
intercept in 1997. This narcotics investigation resulted in the conviction
of all 15 persons arrested. The most effective state intercept in terms of
the number of convictions occurred in Queens County, New York, where the
State Attorney’s Office
11
![[Image]](wt974.gif)
reported that a single intercept led to the conviction of 25 of the 41 persons
arrested in this narcotics investigation. Because criminal cases involving
the use of electronic surveillance may still be under active investigation,
the results of many of the intercepts concluded in 1997 may not have been
reported. Prosecutors will report the costs, arrests, trials, motions to
suppress evidence, and convictions related directly to these intercepts in
future supplementary reports, which will be noted in Appendix Tables A-2
or B-2 of subsequent volumes of the Wiretap Report.
Summary of Reports for Years Ending December 31, 1987 Through 1997
Table 7 provides a historical summary of information on intercepts reported
from 1987 to 1997. The table specifies the number of intercept applications
requested, denied, authorized, and installed, and the number of extensions
granted; the average length of original orders and exten-sions; the locations
of intercepts; the major offenses investigated; average costs; and the average
number of persons intercepted, communications intercepted, and incriminating
intercepts. From 1987 to 1997, the number of intercept applications authorized
increased 76 percent (up 513 applications). The majority of wiretaps involved
drug-related investigations, ranging from 56 percent of all applications
authorized in 1987 to 73 percent in 1997. The average number of incriminating
intercepts remained relatively stable, increasing slightly from 36 percent
of intercepts installed in 1987 to 38 percent in 1997.
Supplementary Reports
Under 18 U.S.C. 2519(2), prosecuting officials must file supplementary reports
on additional court or police activity occurring as a result of intercepts
reported in prior years. Because many wiretap orders are related to large-scale
criminal investigations that cross county and state boundaries, supplementary
reports are necessary to fulfill reporting requirements. Arrests, trials,
and convictions resulting from these interceptions often do not occur within
the same year in which the intercept was first reported. Appendix Tables
A-2 and B-2 provide detailed data from all supplementary reports submitted.
During 1997, a total of 1,762 arrests, 2,352 convictions, and additional
costs of $2,421,992 resulted from wiretaps completed in previous years. Table
8 summarizes additional prosecution activity by jurisdiction for intercepts
terminated in the years noted. Most of the additional activity reported in
1997 involved wiretaps terminated in
12
1996. Intercepts concluded in 1996 led to 61 percent of arrests, 47 percent
of convictions, and 93 percent of expenditures reported in 1997 for wiretaps
terminated in prior years. Table 9 reflects the total number of arrests and
convictions resulting from intercepts terminated in calendar years 1987 through
1997.
Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap/table1.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1
Jurisdictions With Statutes Authorizing the Interception
of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications
Effective During the Period January 1 Through December 31,1997*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported Number of
Use of Orders
Wiretap Authorized
Jurisdiction Statutory Citation** in 1997 in 1997
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal 18:2510 - 2520 Yes 569
Alaska 12. 37 No -
Arizona 13-3007-13-3011 Yes 6
California 629 - 629.48 Yes 28
Colorado 16-15-102 Yes 4
Connecticut 54-41a - 54-41t Yes 8
Delaware 11 Del.C.Sect.1336 No -
District of Columbia 23:541 - 23:556 No -
Florida 934.01- 934.10 Yes 57
Georgia 16-11-64 Yes 18
Hawaii 803-41- 803-48 No -
Idaho 18-6701-18-6710 No -
Illinois 38:108B-1 Yes 17
Indiana 35-33.5-3-1 No -
lowa 808B.1- 808B.9 No -
Kansas 22-2514 - 22-2516 No -
Louisiana Act No. 121 3B No.233 15:1308(A)(2) Yes 2
Maryland 10-401 -10-41 1 Yes 27
Massachusetts 272:99 Yes 2
Minnesota 626A.01 - 626A.21 No -
Mississippi 41-29-501 Yes 4
Missouri 33-542.400 - 542.424 No -
Nebraska 86-701 - 86-707 Yes 4
Nevada 179.410 -179.515, NRS 200.620 Yes 10
New Hampshire 570-A:1 - A:11 Yes 4
New Jersey 2A:156A-1 -156A-26 Yes 70
New Mexico 30-12-2 - 30-12-11 Yes 1
NewYork 813-J-813-M; 814-825 Yes 304
North Carolina 16.1 5A No -
North Dakota 29-29.2 No -
Ohio 2933.51- 2933.66 Yes 2
Oklahoma 13:176.7 No -
Oregon 1 33.723 -1 33.739 Yes 1
Pennsylvania 18:5701 Yes 42
Rhode Island 12-5.1-1 -12-5.1-16 Yes 2
South Dakota 23A- 35A No -
Tennessee 40-6-302 No -
Texas 18.20 No -
Utah 77-23a- 1 - 77-23a- 11 No -
Virgin Islands 5:4701 - 4707 No -
Virginia 19.2-61 Yes 1
Washington 9.73 No -
West Virginia 62-10-1 No -
Wisconsin 968.27- 968.33 Yes 3
Wyoming 7-3-601 - 7-3-611 No -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pursuant to provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,
18 U.S.C. 2519.
** Includes only those jurisdictions that enacted legislation during or before
calendar year 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Following tables offsite, PDF format]
Table 2 - Intercept Orders Issued by Judges During Calendar Year 1997 (18K)
Table 3 - Major Offenses for Which Court-Authorized Intercepts Were Granted (16K)
Table 4 - Summary of Interceptions of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications (13K)
Table 5 - Average Cost per Order (12K)
Table 6 - Types of Surveillance Used, Arrests, and Convictions (13K)
Table 7 - Summary Report on Authorized Intercepts Granted (8)
Table 8 - Summary of Supplementary Reports for Intercepts Terminated in Calendar Years
1983 Through 1996 (18K)
Source: http://www.uscourts.gov/wiretap/table9.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9
Arrests and Convictions Resulting From Intercepts Installed in
Calendar Years 1987 Through 1997
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Year Reported | Total All Years
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------
Year of | |
Intercepts | 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 | Number Percent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Intercepts
Authorized
and
Installed 634 678 720 812 802 846 938 1,100 1,024 1,035 1,094
1987
Arrests 2,226 716 186 54 5 38 19 15 15 1 - 3,275 100.0
Convictions 506 936 341 141 23 9 16 11 12 1 - 1,996 60.9
1988
Arrests - 2,486 969 251 106 18 29 - 6 2 - 3,867 100.0
Convictions - 543 1,192 400 203 66 57 8 6 11 - 2,486 64.3
1989
Arrests - - 2,804 986 289 120 23 8 8 7 - 4,245 100.0
Convictions - - 706 823 490 186 111 52 7 1 2 2,378 56.0
1990
Arrests - - - 2,057 897 213 83 67 26 2 - 3,345 100.0
Convictions - - - 420 550 357 142 111 81 2 62 1,725 51.6
1991
Arrests - - - - 2,364 801 270 155 111 30 35 3,766 100.0
Convictions - - - - 605 827 210 169 148 40 64 2,063 54.8
1992
Arrests - - - - - 2,685 983 326 67 40 22 4,123 100.0
Convictions - - - - - 607 895 450 164 50 1 2,167 s2.6
1993
Arrests - - - - - - 2,428 981 390 130 109 4,038 100.0
Convictions - - - - - - 413 912 538 233 179 2,275 56.3
1994
Arrests - - - - - - - 2,852 1,165 209 79 4,305 100.0
Convictions - - - - - - - 772 965 403 191 2,351 54.6
1995
Arrests - - - - - - - - 2,577 1,246 448 4,271 100.0
Convictions - - - - - - - - 494 1,112 740 2,346 54.9
1996
Arrests - - - - - - - - - 2,464 1,069 3,533 100.0
Convictions - - - - - - - - - 502 1,110 1,612 45.6
1997
Arrests - - - - - - - - - - 3,086 3,086 100.0
Convictions - - - - - - - - - - 542 542 17.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appendix Tables
[Offsite; PDF format]
Table A-1: United States District Courts Report by Judges (190K)
Table A-2: United States District Courts Supplementary Report by Prosecutors (58K)
Table B-1: State Courts Report by Judges (321K)
Table B-2: State Courts Supplementary Report by Prosecutors (58K)