Data Stories

History and Implementation

When I took office, the 1st Judicial District Attorney’s Office (1st JDA) adopted a rational, transparent, and binary hold/release bond model designed to prioritize community safety and eliminate release based on access to money. (See previous data story Community Safety Focused Bond Reform.) The policy was a shift from prior practices and includes the following:

• Trained, experienced Deputy District Attorneys (DDAs) develop recommendations and staff advisement hearings.
• Recommendations are limited to Personal Recognizance (release) or Cash Only (hold).
• Recommendations are structured based upon a decision-making matrix that considers the charge and actuarial pretrial risk assessment (“CPAT”) score.
• Data and research are reviewed regularly to inform and refine the policy.

The April 2021 change of practice and the judicial response was abrupt, as illustrated below.

Deputy DA (DDA) recommendations were primarily split between Personal Recognizance (PR) and Cash Only, while Cash/Surety requests – previously 75% of cases - were nearly eliminated.

Judicial orders were immediately responsive to our new policy, with judges increasing orders for PR and Cash Only, and decreasing Cash/Surety orders.

Four years of data demonstrate consistent and sustained adherence to bond policy by our office.

The 1st JDA recommends approximately half of cases to PR and half to Cash Only (cumulative 2021-2025, below left ).(1) Judges order approximately half of cases to PR, 33% to Cash/Surety, and 17% to Cash Only (cumulative 2021-2025, below right).

Recommendations from our office appear to influence judicial decision making.

High alignment (90+%) between our PR recommendations and court orders (below, left).

Partial alignment (36%) with Cash Only recommendations; most (53%) result in Cash/Surety order (below, right).

Generally, cases heard at advisement have high court appearance rates.

Most cases are ordered to Pretrial Services and have an overall appearance rate of 88%. Risk level is the strongest predictor, with appearance rates ranging from 95% for CPAT 1 defendants to 70% for CPAT 4 defendants. Generally, felony cases have higher appearance rates than misdemeanor cases. Assault (93%) and DUI (95%) cases show some of the highest court appearance rates, while drug possession (<70%) and theft (76%) cases have lower appearance rates.(2)

Cash Only bonds appear to have a greater impact on both court appearance rates and pretrial detention than Cash/Surety bonds.

Bond Type/Amount and Court Appearance. Generally, cases that post Cash/Surety bonds are more likely to result in a Failure to Appear (FTA) than cases that post a Cash Only bond.(3,4)

Additionally, the relationship between Cash Only bond amount and FTA appears strong: as the bond amount increases, the rate of FTA decreases consistently (below, light blue). In contrast, FTA appears less dependent on Cash/Surety bond amounts, particularly between $0 and $9,999. Cases with Cash/Surety bonds in the $5,000-$9,999 range have only slightly lower FTA rates than those with Cash/Surety bonds between $0-$499 (below, dark blue).

Bond Type/Amount and Pretrial Detention. The ordered bond type and amount also impact the likelihood of pretrial detention.(5)

For Cash Only bonds, pretrial detention becomes increasingly likely as the bond amount increases (below, light blue). In contrast, Cash/Surety bond amounts show little effect on pretrial detention until reaching $10,000, with a pronounced jump in detention for bonds $100,000 or more (below, dark blue).

Key Finding: A $10,000 out-of-pocket “tipping point” guides our bond recommendations.

Our regular review and analyses of data have revealed several key insights that now inform our office’s bond recommendation practices:

• Most individuals ordered to a secured monetary bond (Cash Only or Cash/Surety) are released pretrial.
• Secured monetary bonds primarily delay release: as the bond amount increases, the time to release from jail increases.

• The “tipping point” for majority detention is $10,000 out-of-pocket. Most defendants ordered to Cash Only bonds of $10,000 or more, or Cash/Surety bonds of $100,000 or higher (6), are not released.

Structured Decision Making decreases disparities at initial bond setting.

In addition to prioritizing community safety, our bond policy is part of the office’s broader strategy to promote equitable outcomes for both defendants and victims.

In 2022 (below, left), our office was more likely to recommend PR bonds for white defendants (53%) than for non-white defendants (49%). This difference was only partially explained by variations in charge type and assessed risk. Judicial orders showed a similar pattern (below, right).

By 2025, our recommendations for white and non-white defendants are nearly identical (below, left). Because our requests strongly influence judicial bond orders, judicial decision making has also shifted in a more equitable direction, although the gap has not closed completely (below, right).

These results are highly encouraging, suggesting that the initial bond settings are approaching equity. However, many Cash Only bonds are later converted to Cash/Surety at subsequent hearings. Our office plans to continue analyzing the impacts of evolving bond practices on community safety, racial equity, and case outcomes.

Acknowledgment: Some of our analyses of pretrial outcomes and detention were made possible through collaboration with the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office and Jefferson County Justice Services. We are grateful for their partnership.

Notes

1. The data include pre-policy advisements from early 2021. Since implementation, Cash/Surety requests are typically 2-3% of recommendations and usually represent warrant cases where a Cash/Surety bond was previously set and the DDA makes a passive request of not objecting to “keeping bond as set.”
2. Justice Services analysis (John Hilgendorf). These data are only for cases where the person is released pretrial and assigned to Pretrial Services; it does not include cases where the individual is still in custody.
3. Here, FTA is measured as “at least one FTA on the case” according to our data dashboard.
4. This may be consistent with the “skin in the game” argument about secured money bonds; individuals posting cash receive their money (skin) back whereas posting a cash/surety bond requires a non-refundable deposit.
5. Here, pretrial detention is defined as three days or more in jail pretrial, according to our data dashboard.
6. Surety bonds typically require a 10% non-refundable deposit.

The First Judicial District Attorney’s Office serves both Jefferson and Gilpin Counties. Within our office, we are the prosecutors dedicated specifically to Gilpin County: Senior Deputy District Attorney Bruce Brown primarily handles felony cases, while Deputy District Attorney Robert Vanneste focuses on misdemeanors.

Jefferson County is one of the most populous counties in Colorado, with over 576,000 residents. In contrast, Gilpin is the second-smallest county in the state by size, and has a population of just under 6,000. Despite representing only about 1% of the population we serve, Gilpin County accounts for 6% of our total caseload, a disproportionately high share. So, why is that?

Gilpin County may be small, but it is unique. In addition to beautiful mountain peaks, abundant wildlife, and plentiful recreation opportunities, it is home to the Central City-Black Hawk National Historic District, which honors Gilpin’s pivotal role in the mid-19th-century gold rush and the formation of Colorado as a territory, and later, a state. Before the gold rush, the land that is now Gilpin County was home to Indigenous peoples, including the Ute, Arapaho, and Cheyenne tribes, who lived, hunted, and traveled throughout the region for generations.

Today, Black Hawk and Central City, along with Cripple Creek in Teller County, are the three historic mountain towns where Colorado voters approved limited-stakes gambling in 1990, with casinos opening in 1991. Since then, subsequent ballot measures and legislation have expanded gaming by removing bet limits, adding new types of games, and allowing 24-hour casino operations. Black Hawk and Central City dominate Colorado’s gaming market, generating approximately 85% of statewide casino revenue among the three towns

Crime Trends Unique to Vice Tourism

On a typical day, more than 20,000 people visit Gilpin County. Unlike other high-country tourist destinations such as Summit, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties, where visitors primarily come for outdoor recreation, Gilpin County experiences a unique form of “vice tourism” centered around gaming. Combined with a small resident population, this steady influx of visitors drawn to gaming contributes to disproportionately high crime and case rates in the County. The majority (70%) of cases we file in Gilpin County are gaming-related, which means the crime occurred in a casino, after leaving a casino, or is otherwise related to gaming activity.

The case types that are most likely to be gaming-related are drug and property cases, which include charges like theft, forgery, and fraud. Approximately 80% of these are gaming-related.

For certain categories of property cases, the connection is even stronger: about 90% of theft charges, 89% of identity theft charges, and 88% of forgery charges are gaming-related, highlighting the central role gaming plays in driving these offenses.

Approximately one quarter of gaming-related theft cases are felony level, where the theft is typically more than $2,000.

Disproportionately High Crime and Case Rates

Criminal justice indicators are usually compared across different places as rates, which are crimes or cases per 100,000 population. In 2024, our deputy district attorneys handled 20,422 cases for Jefferson County and 997 for Gilpin County. When adjusted for county populations, Jefferson County had a criminal case rate of 3,537 per 100,000 residents, while Gilpin’s case rate was 16,841 - illustrating the outsized contribution that Gilpin County makes to our office’s caseload.

Again, some specific case rates really stand out. DUI case rates in Gilpin County are the highest in the state, and property crime (charges like theft, trespass, and criminal mischief) case rates are more than five times those in Jefferson County, likely reflecting the combined influence of gaming, alcohol use, and drug consumption.

Although not every reported crime results in a filed criminal case, these elevated case rates are the result of some of the highest crime rates in Colorado. In addition to the highest DUI case rate, Gilpin reported the second-highest property crime rate in the state. The high property crime rate is primarily driven by larceny theft (3,547 per 100,000 population). Larceny theft is an FBI-defined category that includes thefts from persons, motor vehicles, buildings, and coin-operated devices or machines. The offense counts are reported by local law enforcement agencies to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The visualization below illustrates Gilpin’s larceny theft rates compared to those of Jefferson County and the statewide average.

Prosecuting a Tourist-Driven Caseload

Another result of gaming tourism is that overwhelmingly, individuals charged with a crime in Gilpin County are visitors from outside the area. While about half of Jefferson County defendants reside outside of Jefferson County, 90% of our Gilpin County cases involve a defendant who does not live in Gilpin County.

Transportation to Gilpin County Courts is challenging and can be burdensome for victims, witnesses, and defendants alike. Casino shuttles run between metro Denver and Gilpin County, but the courthouse is still a three-mile uphill walk from the bus stop. Although Gilpin County judges have allowed more virtual appearances and greater scheduling flexibility, transportation challenges likely still contribute to Gilpin’s higher failure to appear (FTA) rate - 12.6% compared to 8.1% in Jefferson County over the past 18 months. The text reminder program also appears to have less impact on Gilpin cases. These factors may help explain why Gilpin cases are overrepresented in active warrants: they make up 8% of warrants despite accounting for only 6% of our overall caseload.

A recent felony case illustrates the challenges of our Gilpin caseload. A couple from the Denver area drove to a casino where they spent the evening consuming alcohol and gambling. Early the next morning, an argument escalated, and the defendant physically assaulted his wife, causing serious bodily injury. As she fled, he reportedly threatened to kill her. He was later arrested by a Black Hawk Police officer after returning to the casino.

To ensure victims in Gilpin County receive the necessary support, our office has a dedicated Victim/Witness Specialist, Linda Smith, assigned to all Gilpin felony cases. Linda plays a critical role in guiding victims through the criminal justice process, providing trauma-informed emotional support, connecting them with vital services, and serving as a steady point of contact throughout each stage of the case. Many Gilpin victims, like in this case, live outside the area, making it more difficult to meet with them in person and provide the same level of support offered to victims in Jefferson County. Victims are also less likely to attend court hearings in person. Virtual technology helps bridge this gap, but can hinder the relationship-building and trust that often come from face-to-face interactions.

These are just some of the challenges resulting from the intersection of alcohol, gambling, and domestic violence that we often encounter in Gilpin County, and the resulting complexities of prosecuting these cases and effectively serving the victims.

Gaming Impact Grants

The Gilpin County Board of County Commissioners and County Accountant secured Limited Gaming Impact Grant funding through the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to support victims and ensure accountability for offenders. This grant program reflects the legislature’s acknowledgement of the financial and social impacts gaming imposes on local communities. While the funding helps mitigate the disproportionate burden placed on our office by gaming-related prosecutions, it covers less than half of the actual cost of handling these cases.

Summary

From the gold rush of 1859 to today, Gilpin County has remained Colorado’s destination for those in search of riches. With legalized gambling as its central economic engine, Gilpin sees a steady influx of visitors engaging in high-risk environments that involve cash, alcohol, and sometimes drugs. Data shows these environments create conditions ripe for crimes like theft, forgery, identity fraud, DUIs, drugs, and domestic violence. Even though Gilpin’s population is small, the volume and nature of its tourism-driven crime create a disproportionately large impact on our caseload and the criminal justice system in the First Judicial District.

In December 2022, we reviewed the impact of motor vehicle thefts on our community. At that time, the motor vehicle theft (MVT) offense rate throughout Colorado was peaking after a steady increase that began in 2020, and was nearly three times the national rate.

Two years later, after an equally dramatic decline, Colorado’s motor vehicle theft offense rate in 2024 (487) was 60% of what it was in 2022 (790).[1]

Nationally, motor vehicle theft offense rates lagged Colorado’s trends, increasing most dramatically in cities between 2021 and 2023. 2024 MVT offense rates remained elevated nationally.[2]

Some attribute the national increase in car theft to a 2022 “viral” TikTok video that exposed a security vulnerability of Kias and Hyundais[3], which represented 6 of the 10 most stolen models in 2023 nationally and statewide.[4] The car companies responded initially by providing steering wheel locks for owners, and then anti-theft software upgrades.

Motor Vehicle Theft Offenses and Arrests in the 1st Judicial District

In Jefferson County, trends mirror the post-2022 downward trends for the state: the MVT offense rate in 2024 (414 per 100,000) was 52% of what it was in 2022 (802 per 100,000). Other property crimes trended down also, but none as dramatically as motor vehicle theft.[5]

Raw numbers of reported motor vehicle thefts in both Jefferson and Gilpin Counties represent a dramatic decrease in the impact of motor vehicle theft on our community since 2022 – from 4,223 motor vehicle thefts in 2022 to 2,401 in 2024, a 43% decrease in two years.

 

Jefferson County's arrest rates for motor vehicle theft closely followed statewide trends from 2009 to 2019, including a near doubling of arrests between 2014 and 2019, when MVT offenses in Colorado first began to diverge up from national patterns. However, arrest rates did not keep up with the significant spike in MVT offenses corresponding to the Covid-19 pandemic. While MVT offenses surged between 2020 and 2022, arrest rates declined during that period before rising again in 2023.

Cases Filed by the 1st Judicial District Attorney

Consistent with local increases in reported MVT offenses, the 1st Judicial District experienced a dramatic increase in case filings beginning in 2020.  Case filings jumped approximately 50% between 2019 and 2020 and peaked in 2022, when there were nearly twice the case filings than in 2019. Like MVT offense rates, MVT case filings have steadily declined since the 2022 peak and now resemble pre-2020 case volumes.

Assessing the Impact of Colorado Senate Bill 23-097

Colorado Senate Bill 23-097 was implemented in mid-2023 and designed to increase the severity of punishment for motor vehicle theft. The new law removed the “aggravated” designation, made all MVT offenses felonies, eliminated the car value-based classification[6], and created a new misdemeanor offense, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, an M1.

MVT Charging

Looking at all MVT charges since 2021 (including cases where MVT is not the top charge), the following graphic illustrates that our office charged MVT as a misdemeanor about 22% of the time and a felony about 78% of the time, with no apparent impact from the statutory change. However, after 2022, there is a clear trend toward charging MVT as higher level felonies. In 2021-2022, the most common felony charge was F6, making up ~35% of cases. By 2024, F6 charges dropped to less than 10%, while F5 charges rose to 34%, F4 to 23% (up from around 6%), and F3 charges to 12% (also up from 6%).

MVT Case Resolutions

Trends in case resolutions were generally consistent year to year. The vast majority of defendants pled guilty (~85%), a rate higher than felony cases overall (~70%). Dismissal rates were ~5% per year, approximately half the rate of felony dismissals overall (~10%). Deferrals make up a small portion of case dispositions and decreased between 2023 (~4%) and 2024 (~1%) after showing a consistent increase between 2021 and 2023.

MVT Sentences

Given the movement towards higher level felonies discussed in MVT Charging, we should expect to see higher sentence penalties. In most years, approximately half of convicted MVT cases receive a probation sentence and approximately 20% receive a sentence to the Department of Corrections (DOC). These proportions have remained fairly stable every year, but there has been an increase in the average length of prison sentence on MVT charges. In 2021, the average DOC sentence on a MVT charge was 2.8 years; by 2024, it was 5.0 years. Other sentence category lengths were either stable year-to-year or showed only slight increases. These data are consistent with the trends in charging since implementation of SB23-097.

Summary

Our community was significantly impacted by a surge in motor vehicle thefts that began in 2020, peaked in 2022, and recently abated. Offense rates doubled over a three year period corresponding to the Covid-19 pandemic but have returned to pre-pandemic rates. Implemented after the 2022 peak, Senate Bill 23-097 did not impact the distribution of misdemeanor versus felony MVT charging, nor did it impact the distribution of sentences. However, felony MVT was more likely to be charged as an F3, F4 or F5 and less likely to be charged as an F6 after implementation of the new statutory framework. Consistent with the higher penalties carried by, e.g., an F3 conviction versus an F6 conviction, the average prison sentence length on an MVT conviction increased between 2021 and 2024.

---

[1] https://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/Docs/Briefs/2024-09_QuartCrimeTrendsRpt-Y19Q2-Y24Q2.pdf. See also Colorado Auto Theft Annual Report 2024

[2] https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2023-update/ (a nationally representative sample of 34 American cities)

[3] https://www.npr.org/2024/02/04/1227928003/rising-car-thefts-st-paul-minnesota-fallen-hyundai-kia

[4] https://lockdownyourcar.colorado.gov/facts and https://www.nicb.org/news/news-releases/new-report-imports-top-list-americas-most-stolen-vehicles

[5] https://coloradocrimestats.state.co.us/public

[6] Previously, theft of a higher valued car was a more serious offense and carried greater penalties than theft of a car of lower value.