Data - Part of the Prosecutor's Toolkit
Most of our data stories describe how the 1st Judicial District Attorney’s office uses data to understand the “big picture” of our work, monitor case trends, and develop effective and equitable policies that align with our mission. However, having data available at our fingertips also gives our attorneys a valuable resource in their everyday toolkits.
In a recent example, I used the power of data to prepare a sentencing recommendation on a difficult case with unique circumstances. The case involved the sexual assaults of two intellectually and developmentally disabled (IDD) adults at a care facility. The defendant, who was a volunteer caregiver at the facility, was convicted of Sexual Assault on an At-Risk Adult (C.R.S. 18-6.5-103(7)(a); 18-3-402(1)(b)), which carries a wide range of potential penalties, from probation to a sentence of 24 years to life in prison.
Importantly, the defendant had no criminal history, was elderly, and had health issues by the time he was convicted – factors that could have supported a community-based sentence. This presented an uphill battle for sentencing, as our office, together with the victims and their families, felt strongly that based on the actions of the defendant, and the betrayal, shattering of trust, and agony the victims experienced, a lengthy Department of Corrections sentence was warranted in this case.
In order to offer as much information as possible to support our sentencing position, I worked with Sue Ferrere, our Data Analytics and Research Architect, to complete a comprehensive review of the sentencing data available in the 1st Judicial District. To our surprise, the case was unique not only for its facts but also its charge. Few defendants are charged under this particular subsection, so we offered the Court a litany of comparable cases and defendants. All of that information indicated that to sentence a defendant consistent with other similarly situated defendants, a fair sentence would involve a lengthy term in the Department of Corrections.
The following analysis was included in the sentencing recommendation to the Court:
Since 2017, there were only four cases with an identical charge; however, those individuals were ultimately convicted of a different charge.
F2 Convictions Generally: Since 2017, most (95%) convictions for a Felony 2 received a sentence to the Department of Corrections (DOC).
Similar F2s: Since 2017, the 1st Judicial District prosecuted 41 cases in which an adult defendant was convicted of other Felony 2 assaults. The following table shows the specific statutes of conviction for the 41 cases (some cases were convicted of more than one F2 assault charge). All of the 41 cases received a sentence to DOC.
Sentence Length: Of the 41 cases, 34 cases received a DOC sentence in years. Seven received an indeterminate or life sentence to DOC. An indeterminate sentence typically has a minimum term but a release date that is open and dependent upon a person’s progress towards rehabilitation (e.g., as reviewed by a parole board).
The most common DOC sentence length was 48 years (9 cases) and the following chart shows the minimum, maximum, and average length for the cases that did not receive a life/indeterminate sentence. The median sentence length was 30 years.
Two cases were convicted on charges very similar to the subject case:
Plea to sex assault – at risk person 18-6.5-103(7)(a);18-3-402(1)(a)
Trial conviction for sex assault on a child by one in a position of trust – at risk juvenile 18-6.5-103(7)(e);18-3-405.3(1),(2)(a)
Both individuals were given indeterminate to life sentences in the Department of Corrections.
I used these data to develop a compelling argument for a Department of Corrections sentence. Aside from the aggravation based on the facts, the data showed that to sentence the defendant to probation would be unfair to the other defendants in similar circumstances. The judge indicated his interest in the data comparison and noted that he had never seen the data laid out this way. At the hearing, the victims and their families shared their statements detailing the impact of the defendant’s actions on their lives. After consideration of all the evidence and the compelling data presented, the judge imposed a sentence of 8 years to life in the Department of Corrections.
In conclusion, the utilization of data proved essential in addressing the complexities of the case, reinforcing that the defendant's age and lack of criminal history should not overshadow the pursuit of a fair and just sentence. The power of data is immense, and we are thankful to have it readily available to us.