U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

BJS

Special Report

FEBRUARY 2013 NCJ 239673

Between fiscal years 1995 and 2010, the number of 

defendants with cases disposed in federal district 

courts increased by 120%, from 45,635 in 1995 to 

100,622 in 2010 (figure 1). For this report, a defendant is a 

person with a case disposed in the federal courts, while a 

disposition involves the act of terminating the defendant’s 

case through guilty plea or trial conviction, dismissal, 

or acquittal (see Methodology). From 1995 to 2010, the 

percentage of federal defendants who were detained 

pretrial increased from 59% to 76%. 

Data for this report were provided to the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics’ (BJS) Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP)

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 the federal district courts, 

including the decision to release or detain a defendant 

and the behavior of defendants while on pretrial release. 

In addition, the data contain detailed information on 

defendants by most serious offense charged and criminal 

history (see Methodology). The PACTS data analyzed for this 

report include defendants whose cases were disposed by the 

federal courts between fiscal years 1995 and 2010.

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

HIGHLIGHTS

 The number of defendants with cases disposed in federal 

district courts more than doubled from 45,635 in 1995 to 

100,622 in 2010.

 The percentage of defendants detained prior to case 

disposition increased from 59% in 1995 to 76% in 2010.

 The number of defendants with cases disposed who were 

detained pretrial increased by 184%, from 27,004 in 1995 to 

76,589 in 2010.

 Growth in the number of pretrial detentions was driven 

primarily by immigration caseloads, which increased by 

664%, from 5,103 cases in 1995 to 39,001 in 2010.

 The percentage of immigration defendants in cases 

disposed who were detained pretrial increased from 86% in 

1995 to 98% in 2008, before declining to 88% in 2010.

 The percentage of drug defendants detained pretrial 

increased from 76% in 1995 to 84% in 2010.

 Weapons caseloads nearly tripled between 1995 and 2010, 

and the percentage of weapons defendants detained 

pretrial increased from 66% to 86% during the same period.

 For defendants released pretrial, the percentage 

committing pretrial misconduct peaked in 2006 at 22% and 

then declined to a percentage (17%) similar to that in 1995.

Pretrial Detention and Misconduct in 

Federal District Courts, 1995-2010

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

Number of defendants 

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Fiscal year

Number of

defendants

Percent detained pretrial

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent detained pretrial

Figure 1

Number of defendants with cases disposed in federal district 

courts and percent detained pretrial, FY 1995–2010 

Note: Detained defendants include defendants who were released after a period of 

detention and defendants who were never released. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on files 

provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 2

Federal defendants detained for the duration of a case 

increased from 42% in 1995 to 64% in 2010

A defendant could be detained for the duration of a case, 

released after a period of detention, or never be detained 

pretrial. Eighteen percent of defendants were released after 

a period of pretrial detention in 1995 (figure 2). During 

the same year, a similar percentage of defendants were 

never detained (41%) or were detained for the duration of 

a case (42%). Between 1995 and 2010, the percentage of 

defendants never detained declined from 41% to 24%, while 

the percentage detained for the entire duration of a case 

rose from 42% to 64%. During this period, the percentage of 

defendants released after a period of detention declined from 

18% to 12%. 

Pretrial release and detention in the federal criminal justice system

Traditionally, courts have used financial bond to ensure 

that an accused person makes all scheduled court 

appearances and does not become a flight risk. In a bond 

system, persons accused of criminal conduct can remain 

free pending case disposition by posting a security bond, 

usually property or money, as a guarantee that they will 

make all court appearances. In most situations, defendants 

post a bond with the court through a deposit bond 

program or through a bail bondsman. Before 1966, the 

federal courts relied almost exclusively on financial bond. 

The Bail Reform Act of 1966 reformed federal pretrial 

practices and deemphasized the use of financial bail. The 

act mandated that federal courts release any defendant 

charged with noncapital offenses on either his or her own 

recognizance or an unsecured appearance bond. For cases 

in which additional supervision was needed, 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. § 3141) further 

codified the pretrial release process in the federal courts. 

Under 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 act required the government 

to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no 

conditions of release would reasonably ensure that the 

defendant would appear for trial and not pose a risk to the 

community. The act also expanded the scope of factors 

federal courts could consider when making pretrial release 

decisions to include the degree of dangerousness that a 

defendant posed to the community. 

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Detained for part of casec

Never detainedb

Detained for entire casea

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Fiscal year

Figure 2

Detention period of defendants for cases disposed in federal 

district courts, FY 1995–2010 

aIncludes defendants who were never released.

bIncludes defendants who remained on pretrial release for the entire period.

cIncludes defendants who were released after a period of detention.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on 

files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation 

and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 3

Between 1995 and 2010, the number of defendants 

detained pretrial increased by 184%

The number of federal defendants detained at any time in 

the pretrial process increased by 184%, from 27,004 in 1995 

to 76,589 in 2010 (figure 3). Both increases in the number 

of federal case dispositions and the pretrial detention rate 

contributed to the rise in defendants detained pretrial. 

The number of defendants with cases disposed by federal 

courts doubled from 45,635 in 1995 to 100,622 in 2010. The 

percentage of defendants detained prior to case disposition 

increased from 59% in 1995 to 76% in 2010, peaking at 82% 

in 2008. In comparison to pretrial detentions, the number of 

defendants released pretrial increased by 35% between 1995 

and 2010. 

Growth in the number of pretrial detentions were 

driven by immigration caseloads, which increased by 

664% between 1995 and 2010

The number of immigration defendants with cases disposed 

in federal courts increased by 664%, from 5,103 in 1995 

to 39,001 in 2010 (table 1). In 2009, immigration was the 

largest category of cases handled by the federal courts. The 

percentage of immigration defendants detained pretrial 

increased from 86% in 1995 to 98% in 2008, before declining 

to 88% in 2010. The combination of rising caseloads and, 

to a much lesser degree, the small increase in the pretrial 

Table 1

Defendants detained pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by most serious offense charged, FY 1995–2010

Violent Property Drug Public-order Weapons Immigration

Fiscal year

Number of 

defendants

Percent

detained

Number of 

defendants

Percent

detained

Number of 

defendants

Percent

detained

Number of 

defendants

Percent

detained

Number of 

defendants

Percent

detained

Number of 

defendants

Percent

detained

1995 2,706 78% 11,966 30% 17,893 76% 5,185 31% 2,591 66% 5,103 86%

1996 3,152 78 12,640 30 20,017 76 5,453 36 2,438 68 7,190 93

1997 3,639 76 13,761 31 21,740 78 5,997 37 2,312 69 8,397 95

1998 3,986 77 13,463 30 23,631 80 6,172 37 2,490 68 11,014 96

1999 3,453 81 13,850 31 26,291 81 7,181 40 2,687 71 11,859 97

2000 3,133 83 13,686 36 26,455 84 7,420 44 3,548 76 13,523 97

2001 3,225 80 13,170 38 26,802 84 7,275 41 4,214 76 13,405 97

2002 3,104 82 13,772 40 27,771 84 7,841 44 4,729 78 14,262 98

2003 3,210 81 13,696 43 27,763 85 7,768 47 6,094 78 17,643 98

2004 3,134 83 13,012 43 27,014 85 7,715 46 7,182 81 20,042 98

2005 3,104 83 12,604 45 26,046 86 7,451 43 7,534 83 22,275 98

2006 3,076 86 13,468 45 28,097 86 6,888 43 7,709 84 23,229 98

2007 2,861 88 14,528 48 26,854 87 6,924 46 7,663 84 22,401 98

2008 3,141 89 14,648 50 29,028 88 7,870 55 7,716 88 26,009 98

2009 2,861 89 14,400 45 27,853 85 7,484 52 7,433 86 32,625 95

2010 2,977 87 15,257 41 27,555 84 7,660 50 7,176 86 39,001 88

Percent change in

 federal dispositions

 from 1995 to 2010 10% 28% 54% 48% 177% 664%

Note: Detained defendants include defendants who were released after a period of detention and defendants who were never released. Numbers do not sum to totals in 

figure 1 because of missing information for offense type. Information on offense type was available for 98.4% to 99.9% of defendants during fiscal years 1995 to 2010.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and 

Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

Released defendants

Detained defendants

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Number

Fiscal year

Figure 3

Number of defendants detained and released pretrial for 

cases disposed in federal district courts, FY 1995–2010 

Note: Numbers do not sum to those in figure 1, as defendants released after 

a period of detention were counted both as detained and released (see 

Methodology).

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on 

files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation 

and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 4

detention rate for immigration defendants resulted in 

the number of immigration defendants detained pretrial 

increasing by 674%, from 4,411 in 1995 to 34,127 in 2010 

(figure 4). 

Between 1995 and 2010, the percentage of drug 

defendants detained pretrial rose from 76% to 84%

Between 1995 and 2008, dispositions involving drug cases 

constituted the largest offense category within the federal 

court system, but was surpassed by immigration cases in 

2009. The number of drug defendants with federal case 

dispositions increased by 54%, from 17,893 in 1995 to 27,555 

in 2010. The percentage of drug defendants detained prior 

to case disposition increased from 76% in 1995 to 88% in 

2008. In 2009 and 2010, the pretrial detention rate for drug 

defendants declined to 84%—a level last seen in 2002. As a 

result of an increase in case dispositions and an increase in 

the pretrial detention rate, the number of drug defendants 

detained pretrial increased by 72%, from 13,524 in 1995 to 

23,232 in 2010. 

Weapons caseloads nearly tripled from 1995 to 2010, 

while the percentage of these defendants detained 

pretrial increased from 66% to 86%

Both the percentage of weapons defendants detained pretrial 

and the number of weapons defendants increased between 

1995 and 2010. The number of defendants charged with 

weapons violations disposed by the federal courts increased 

by 177%, from 2,591 in 1995 to 7,176 in 2010. In 1995, 66% 

of weapons defendants were detained pretrial, while 86% of 

these defendants were detained before case disposition in 

2010. The growth in the number of defendants with weapons 

case dispositions, combined with an increase in the pretrial 

detention rate for defendants charged with weapons offenses, 

resulted in a 258% increase in the number of defendants 

detained pretrial on weapons charges, from 1,716 in 1995 to 

6,142 in 2010.

Number

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000 Immigration

Weapons

Public-order

Drug

Property

Violent

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Fiscal year

Figure 4

Number of defendants detained pretrial for cases disposed 

in federal district courts, by offense type, FY 1995–2010 

Note: Detained defendants include defendants who were released after a period 

of detention and defendants who were never released.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on 

files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation 

and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 5

Growth in immigration caseloads accounted for 60% of the increase in the number 

of federal pretrial detentions between 1995 and 2010 

Decomposition analysis can be used to assess the 

contribution of each offense category’s changing 

caseloads and pretrial detention rates to the 184% growth 

in federal pretrial detentions (see Methodology). This 

analysis shows that 84% of the growth in the number 

of defendants detained pretrial was due to increases in 

federal caseloads, while changes in the pretrial detention 

rate accounted for 16% of the growth (table 2). 

The growth in pretrial detentions can be further 

decomposed by the major federal offense categories. 

The rise in immigration cases contributed to 60% of the 

overall increase in the number of defendants detained 

pretrial in federal district courts between 1995 and 2010. 

In comparison, the change in the pretrial detention rate for 

immigration defendants accounted for 1% of the overall 

growth in the number of defendants detained pretrial. 

The growth in federal drug dispositions accounted for 

15% of the overall increase in pretrial detentions between 

1995 and 2010, while the increase in the pretrial detention 

rate for drug defendants contributed to 5% of the overall 

growth in the number of defendants detained pretrial. 

The growth in weapons offenses contributed to 6% of 

the overall increase in pretrial detentions from 1995 to 

2010. In addition, the increasing pretrial detention rate for 

defendants charged with weapons offenses accounted 

for 3% of the growth in the total number of defendants 

detained pretrial. 

Table 2

Decomposition of the 184% increase in number of 

defendants detained pretrial for cases disposed in federal 

district courts, by offense type, FY 1995–2010

Contribution to increases in pretrial 

detentions by changes in federal—

Percent contribution to 

pretrial detention growth

Total 100%

Dispositions 84%

Immigration 60

Drug 15

Weapons 6

Property 2

Public-order 2

Violent --

Pretrial detention rates 16%

Immigration 1

Drug 5

Weapons 3

Property 3

Public-order 3

Violent --

Note: Decomposition techniques used to assess contribution of changes 

in federal dispositions and pretrial detention rates to the 184% increase in 

the number of defendants detained pretrial. Percentages may not sum to 

totals because of rounding error. See Methodology for more details about 

decomposition calculations.

 -- Less than 0.5%.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based 

on files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office 

of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 

1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 6

Defendants with serious or lengthy criminal histories 

had the highest percentages of pretrial detention

The 1984 Bail Reform Act requires judges and magistrates to 

consider a defendant’s criminal history when making pretrial 

detention decisions. Following the guidance of the act, 

defendants with more serious criminal histories should have 

a higher probability of pretrial detention compared to those 

with less substantial criminal backgrounds. This relationship 

between criminal history and pretrial detention is validated 

by the federal data which show that defendants with serious 

or lengthy criminal histories have a greater likelihood of 

pretrial detention than those with less severe criminal 

records. The percentage of defendants detained pretrial in 

1995 was 47% for defendants with no prior arrest history, 

63% for defendants with two to four prior arrests, and 79% 

for defendants with five or more prior arrests (table 3). In 

2010, 64% of defendants with no prior arrest history were 

detained pretrial, while 79% of defendants with two to four 

prior arrests and 85% of defendants with five or more prior 

arrests were detained prior to case disposition.

Table 3

Criminal history of defendants detained pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, FY 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010

1995 2000 2005 2010

Defendant criminal history

Number of 

defendants 

Percent 

detained

Number of 

defendants 

Percent 

detained

Number of 

defendants 

Percent 

detained

Number of 

defendants 

Percent 

detained

Number of prior arrests

None 17,749 47% 23,803 62% 22,504 64% 28,331 64%

1 6,329 51 9,270 64 10,433 73 12,218 73

2 to 4 9,745 63 14,587 74 17,542 81 22,549 79

5 or more 11,812 79 20,243 86 28,658 90 37,511 85

Number of prior convictions

None 23,049 49% 32,015 63% 31,232 67% 40,094 67%

1 7,212 58 10,991 71 13,030 79 15,787 78

2 to 4 9,252 71 14,639 81 19,158 86 24,561 82

5 or more 6,122 81 10,258 87 15,717 91 20,167 87

Nature of prior convictions

Misdemeanor conviction only 7,172 52% 10,572 65% 13,293 73% 18,727 75%

Felony conviction 15,414 78 25,316 86 34,612 91 41,788 85

Nonviolent 3,571 63 5,640 76 7,238 85 10,105 79

Drug 5,621 81 9,181 88 12,249 92 15,018 86

Violent 6,222 84 10,495 89 15,125 92 16,665 89

Court appearance history

None* 40,449 56% 58,662 70% 66,274 76% 85,573 75%

1 2,866 80 4,627 84 5,748 87 6,505 82

2 or more 2,318 83 4,614 87 7,115 90 8,531 86

Note: Detained defendants include defendants who were released after a period of detention and defendants who were never released. Information on number of prior 

arrests, number of prior convictions, nature of prior convictions, and failure to appear history was available for 99% to 100% of defendants for fiscal years 1995, 2000, 

2005, and 2010. 

*Includes defendants with no prior criminal history and defendants with prior arrest or conviction history with no previous missed court appearances. 

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and 

Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 7

Criminal history profile of defendants processed by 

federal courts increased in severity between 1995 

and 2010

Another change that has occurred in the federal district 

courts involves the criminal backgrounds of federal 

defendants. Between 1995 and 2010, criminal histories 

of these defendants became more serious. The growth in 

the severity of defendant criminal history is displayed by 

examining changes in the arrest and conviction history 

of federal defendants from 1995 to 2010. In 1995, 39% of 

defendants had no prior arrests, while by 2010, 28% of 

defendants had no prior arrests (figure 5). In comparison, 

the percentage of defendants with five or more prior arrests 

increased from 26% in 1995 to 37% in 2010.

Between 1995 and 2010, prior felony and misdemeanor 

conviction trends among federal defendants mirrored prior 

arrest trends. The percentage of federal defendants with no 

conviction record declined from 51% in 1995 to 40% in 2010 

(figure 6). The percentage of defendants with five or more 

prior felony and misdemeanor convictions increased from 

13% in 1995 to 20% in 2010. 

Percent 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5 or more prior arrests

2 to 4 prior arrests

1 prior arrest

No prior arrests

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Fiscal year

Figure 5

Arrest history of defendants in cases disposed in federal 

district courts, FY 1995–2010

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on 

files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation 

and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.

Percent 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5 or more prior convictions

2 to 4 prior convictions

1 prior conviction

No prior convictions

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Fiscal year

Figure 6

Conviction history of defendants in cases disposed in federal 

district courts, FY 1995–2010

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on 

files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation 

and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 8

The nature of federal defendants’ criminal convictions also 

became more severe between 1995 and 2010. In 1995, 

34% of federal defendants had a prior felony conviction, 

which increased to 41% by 2010 (figure 7). Fourteen percent 

of defendants had a prior violent felony conviction in 1995, 

while 17% reported a prior violent felony conviction in 2010. 

In 2010, the percentage of released defendants 

committing pretrial misconduct had declined to levels 

last seen in the mid-1990s

For defendants released pretrial, the percentage who 

committed pretrial misconduct peaked in 2006 (22%) and 

then declined to 17% in 2010, returning to a level similar 

to the mid-1990s (table 4). The percentage of released 

defendants that committed technical violations increased 

from 12% in 1995 to 19% between 2005 and 2008, then 

declined to 15% in 2010. 

In comparison, the percentage of defendants released 

pretrial who failed to make court appearances or were 

rearrested for new offenses have remained relatively 

stable. Between 1995 and 2010, the percentage of released 

defendants who failed to make court appearances ranged 

from 1% to 3%, and the percentage rearrested for felony or 

misdemeanor offenses ranged from 1% to 2%.

Percent 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Violent felony

Drug felony

Nonviolent felony

No prior felony conviction

'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10

Fiscal year

Figure 7

Nature of prior felony convictions of defendants in cases 

disposed in federal district courts, FY 1995–2010

Note: The percentage of defendants with no prior felony convictions includes 

defendants with no conviction record and defendants with a misdemeanor only.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on 

files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation 

and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.

Table 4

Percent of defendants released pretrial who committed pretrial misconduct for cases disposed in federal district courts, 

FY 1995–2010

Percent of released defendants who had— 

Fiscal year

Number of released 

defendants

At least 

one violation

Technical violations 

of bail conditions

Failed to 

appear

Rearrested for—

Felony offense Misdemeanor offense

1995 26,380 16% 12% 3% 2% 2%

1996 26,801 16 13 2 2 2

1997 28,600 17 14 3 2 1

1998 26,246 16 15 2 2 2

1999 30,841 18 17 3 2 2

2000 31,040 18 17 3 2 2

2001 31,320 19 17 3 2 2

2002 32,140 20 18 2 2 2

2003 31,613 20 18 2 2 2

2004 30,952 20 18 2 2 2

2005 27,253 21 19 2 2 2

2006 30,289 22 19 / / /

2007 29,325 21 19 / / /

2008 32,936 21 19 2 2 2

2009 33,122 19 17 2 2 2

2010 35,564 17 15 1 2 2

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation.

/ Not reported or determined to be unreliable.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Justice Statistics Program, based on files provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and 

Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, FY 1995–2010.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 9

Methodology

Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP)

Data used in this report are from the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics’ (BJS) Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP) 

database. The FJSP is 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 FJSP, see Federal Justice Statistics, 

2009, NCJ 234184, BJS website, December 2011.

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 defendants’ pretrial hearings, detentions, and 

releases from the time they were interviewed through the 

disposition of their cases in federal district courts. The data 

describe defendants processed by federal pretrial service 

agencies within each district. Defendants who received 

pretrial services through a local, nonfederal agency were 

excluded. Since the District of Columbia operates its pretrial 

services agency separately 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 include defendants who were under the jurisdiction 

of federal pretrial services during fiscal years 1995 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 federal 

courts. A disposition occurs through a guilty plea or trial 

conviction, dismissal, or acquittal. For this report, the totals 

include records for defendants whose offense or other 

attributes were missing or unknown.

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 the major charged offense as the one carrying the 

most severe penalty or, in the case of two or more charges 

carrying the same penalty, the one with the greatest offense 

severity. The offense severity 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 in both the Federal Justice Statistics series and this 

report.

Defining pretrial detention within the PACTS data

Defendants are identified as detained pretrial if they were 

detained at any time during the period between the initial 

appearance hearing and case disposition. A detained 

defendant may have been detained at the initial appearance 

hearing and released at the detention or bond hearing, or 

detained for the entire duration of a case. For this report, 

defendants detained at any time before case disposition, 

including those initially detained and then subsequently 

released, are counted as detained. Due to this method of 

counting detained defendants, it is not possible to obtain 

totals for defendants with federal court dispositions by 

summing the numbers of released and detained defendants. 

Figure 1 provides annual totals for the number of defendants 

with federal dispositions.

In addition, the percentage of detained defendants reported 

in BJS’s Federal Justice Statistics reports for fiscal years 

2008 and 2009 will 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 

detained pretrial only if they were detained during the 

initial appearance or detention hearing stages of a criminal 

case. Pretrial detentions did not cover defendants detained 

after these events. The 2008 and 2009 PACTS files analyzed 

for this report were adjusted so that defendants detained 

anytime during the course of a case were coded as detained 

pretrial. This method of identifying detained defendants 

encompasses a broader range of pretrial detentions 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.

Decomposing trends in the number of defendants 

detained pretrial

Changes to the number of defendants detained pretrial 

were decomposed between growth in the number of pretrial 

case depositions and increasing pretrial detention rates. 

The decomposition approach works by calculating the 

percentage change in the number of pretrial detentions 

from one fiscal year to the next as conditioned on changes 

in the number of federal dispositions and the percentages 

of pretrial detention for each offense category. The change 

in the number of pretrial detentions can be expressed as a 
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 10

conditional probability of changes in the number of violent, 

property, drug, public-order, weapons, and immigration 

dispositions between two points of time and changes in the 

pretrial detention rates for each of these offense categories 

between two time points. 

Changes in the number of defendants detained pretrial 

between any two time points can be expressed through the 

following equation:

∆PD=(V2Rv2–V1Rv1)+(P2Rp2–P1Rp1)+(D2Rd2-

D1Rd1)+(O2Ro2–O1Ro1)+(W2Rw2–W1Rw1)+(I2Ri2–I1Ri1)

Where:

∆PD = change in the number of defendants detained pretrial 

between time 2 and time 1.

V2 = Number of violent dispositions, time 2.

V1 = Number of violent dispositions, time 1.

P2 = Number of property dispositions, time 2.

P1 = Number of property dispositions, time 1.

D2 = Number of drug dispositions, time 2.

D1 = Number of drug dispositions, time 1.

O2 = Number of public-order dispositions, time 2.

O1 = Number of public-order dispositions, time 1.

W2 = Number of weapons dispositions, time 2. 

W1 = Number of weapons dispositions, time 1.

I2 = Number of immigration dispositions, time 2.

I1 = Number of immigration dispositions, time 1.

R2 = Pretrial detention rate per offense category (e.g., Rv2, 

Rp2, Rd2, Ro2, Rw2, Ri2), time 2.

R1 = Pretrial detention rate per offense category (e.g., Rv1, 

Rp1, Rd1, Ro1, Rw1, Ri1), time 1.

The equation can then be rearranged into the following: 

∆PD=[(V2–V1)(Rv1)+(V2)(Rv2–Rv1)]+[(P2–P1)(Rp1)+

(P2)(Rp2–Rp1)]+[(D2–D1)(Rd1)+(D2)(Rd2–Rd1)]+

[(O2–O1)(Ro1)+(O2)(Ro2–Ro1)]+[(W2–W1)(Rw1)+

(W2)(Rw2–Rw1)]+[(I2–I1)(Ri1)+I2(Ri2–Ri1)]

The first part of the equation [(V2–V1)(Rv1)+(V2)(Rv2–

Rv1)] measures the contribution of violent offenses to the 

overall change in the number of pretrial detentions between 

time 1 and time 2. The first term (V2–V1)(Rv1) calculates 

the contribution of the change in the number of violent 

dispositions between the two time points, while the term 

(V2)(Rv2–Rv1) calculates the contribution of the change in 

the pretrial detention rate for violent offenses between the 

two time points. The second part of the equation [(P2–P1)

(Rp1)+(P2)(Rp2–Rp1)] calculates the contribution of the 

property offense category to the changes in the pretrial 

detention numbers, and so on. 

Key terms

Detained defendant—Defendant is counted as detained if 

the courts detains him or her any time during the period 

from initial appearance hearing to case disposition. In some 

instances, a defendant will be detained and then released at 

a later time. Under this definition, that defendant is counted 

as detained.

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. 

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. 

Pretrial misconduct—Instances in which a released 

defendant violated their pretrial release conditions. 

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.
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 11

Definitions of major offense categories

Violent offenses—Threatening, attempting, or actually using 

physical force against a person. Includes murder, negligent 

manslaughter, assault, robbery, sexual abuse, kidnapping, 

and threats against the President.

Property offenses, fraudulent—Property offenses that 

involve elements of deceit or intentional misrepresentation. 

These offenses specifically include embezzlement, fraud 

(excluding tax fraud), forgery, and counterfeiting.

Property offenses, non-fraudulent—Violent offenses 

against property, including burglary, larceny, motor vehicle 

theft, arson, transportation of stolen property, and other 

property offenses, such as the destruction of property and 

trespassing. These offenses are termed non-fraudulent to 

distinguish them from the category of property offenses, 

fraudulent, within the glossary.

Property offenses, other—Offenses that involve the 

destruction of property moving in interstate or foreign 

commerce and in the possession of a common or contract 

carrier. Also includes the malicious destruction of government 

property, or injury to United States postal property such 

as to mailboxes or mailbags. Trespassing on timber and 

government lands is also included in this offense category.

Drug offenses—Offenses under federal or state laws 

prohibiting the manufacture, import, export, distribution, 

or dispensing of a controlled or counterfeit substance, or 

the possession of a controlled or counterfeit substance with 

the intent to manufacture, import, export, distribute, or 

dispense the substance. Drug offenses include using any 

communication facilities that cause or facilitate a felony 

under title 21, or furnishing fraudulent or false information 

concerning prescriptions, as well as any other unspecified 

drug-related offense. See also, distribution, possession, and 

drug trafficking.

Drug distribution—Delivery (other than by 

administering or dispensing) of a controlled substance. 

The term “controlled substance” means any drug or other 

substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule 

I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of subchapter I of Chapter 13 

(Drug Abuse, Prevention, and Control), Title 21 (Food 

and Drugs). The term does not include distilled spirits, 

wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are 

defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986.

Drug trafficking—Knowingly and intentionally 

importing or exporting any controlled substance in 

schedule I, II, III, IV, or V (as defined by 21 U.S.C. § 812). 

Drug trafficking includes manufacturing, distributing, 

dispensing, selling, or possessing with the intent to 

manufacture, distribute, or sell a controlled substance 

or a counterfeit substance. It also includes exporting any 

controlled substance in schedules I through V, and the 

manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance 

in schedule I or II, for the purposes of unlawful 

importation. Also includes the making or distributing of 

any punch, die, plate, stone, or any other thing designed 

to reproduce the label upon any drug or container, or 

removing or obliterating the label or symbol of any 

drug or container. Knowingly opening, maintaining, or 

managing any place for manufacturing, distributing, or 

using any controlled substance are also included in drug 

trafficking.

Drug possession—An offense involving the possession of 

a controlled substance, acquiring a controlled substance 

by misrepresentation or fraud, attempting or conspiring 

to possess, or simple possession of a controlled substance 

in schedules I through V, as defined by 21 U.S.C. § 812. 

Includes possession of a controlled substance in schedule 

I or II, or a narcotic drug in schedule III or IV onboard 

a United States vessel or vessels within custom waters 

of the United States, or by any United States citizen on 

board a vessel. In addition, possessing any punch, die, 

plate, stone, or any other thing designed to reproduce the 

label upon any drug or container is an offense under this 

category. Distributing a small amount of marijuana for 

no remuneration is treated as simple possession and is 

included in this offense category.

Public-order offenses, regulatory—Violations of regulatory 

laws and regulations in agriculture, antitrust, labor law, 

food and drug, motor carrier, and other regulatory offenses 

that are not specifically listed in the category public-order 

offenses, non-regulatory.

Public-order offenses, non-regulatory—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, and jurisdictional offenses; and other publicorder offenses. These offenses are termed non-regulatory to 

distinguish them from the category public-order offenses, 

regulatory within this glossary.

Public-order offenses, other—Violations of laws pertaining 

to bigamy, disorderly conduct on the United States Capitol 

grounds, civil disorder, and travel to incite to riot. Also 

included in public-order offenses, non-regulatory.

Weapons violation offenses—Violations of any provisions 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922 (unlawful acts) and 923 (licensing) 

with regard to the manufacturing, importing, possessing, 

receiving, and licensing of firearms and ammunition. 

Includes manufacturing, selling, possessing, or transporting 

any switchblade knife; or making, receiving, possessing, 

or transporting a firearm not registered in the National 

Firearms Registration Transfer Record within any territory 
PRETRIAL DETENTION AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 1995-2010 | FEBRUARY 2013 12

or possession of the United States, within Indian country, or 

within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the 

United States. Also, engaging in importing, manufacturing, 

or dealing in firearms if not registered with the secretary in 

the Internal Revenue Service District in which the business 

is conducted or not having paid a special occupational 

tax. In addition, this code covers cases wherein a crime of 

violence or drug trafficking enhanced punishment is handed 

down when the crime was committed with a deadly weapon.

Immigration offenses—Offenses involving illegal entry into 

the United States, illegally reentering the United States after 

deportation, willfully failing to deport when so ordered, 

willfully remaining beyond days allowed on conditional 

permit, or falsely representing oneself to be a United States 

citizen. Immigration offenses include violations relating 

to provisions for special agricultural workers and to 

provisions relating to limitations on immigrant status such 

as employment. Also includes bringing in or harboring any 

aliens not duly admitted by an immigration officer.
NCJ239673 NCJ239673

Office of Justice Programs

Innovation • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

The Bureau of Justice Statistics is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of 

Justice. William J. Sabol is the acting director.

This report was written by Thomas H. Cohen. Mark Motivans verified the report. 

Barbara Parthasarathy of the Urban Institute provided comments.

Brian Higgins of Lockheed Martin, Jill Thomas, and Morgan Young edited the 

report, and Barbara Quinn and Morgan Young produced the report under the 

supervision of Doris J. James.

February 2013, NCJ 239673