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


Pretrial Release and Misconduct in Federal District Courts, 2008-2010 

Thomas H. Cohen, Ph.D., BJS Statistician

November 2012,  NCJ 239243 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This file is text without graphics and many of the tables. 
A Zip archive of the tables in this report in Comma-delimited 
format (CSV) and the full report including tables and 
graphs in PDF format are available at:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4535
---------------------------------------------------------------------
During 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.

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.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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.

* 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 than10 prior arrests.

* Nineteen percent of defendants released pretrial committe 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.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.)

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.
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).

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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).

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.)

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

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. 

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 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%).

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.

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 public-order (21%) offenses. For the remaining offense 
categories, however, less than 10% of defendants identified as illegal aliens 
were released prior to case disposition.

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

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. 

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%).

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).

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.)

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. 

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.

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.

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.

State level data on 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.) 

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. 

Types of pretrial release 

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

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. 

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.

PMF  11/12/12