NOVEMBER 2012 NCJ 239243

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Special Report

BJS

Pretrial Release and Misconduct 

in Federal District Courts, 2008-2010

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

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.

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 than 

10 prior arrests.

 Nineteen percent of defendants released pretrial committed 

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. 

Figure 1

Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal 

district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010

0 20 40 60 80

Percent released

Immigration

Violent

Weapons

Drug

Public-order

Property

All oenses

Most serious oense

36%

71%

65%

38%

32%

30%

12%

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 2

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.)

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. 
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 3

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. 

Table 1

Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal 

district courts, by offense type and stage of appearance, 

FY 2008–2010

Percent of defendants 

released at—

Most serious 

offense charged

Number of 

defendants

Percent 

released

Initial 

appearancea Subsequent hearingsb

All offenses 283,358 36% 24% 12%

Violent 8,979 30% 13% 16%

Property 44,305 71% 59% 12%

Fraudulent 36,618 69 58 12

Other 7,687 78 66 11

Drug 84,436 38% 18% 20%

Trafficking 71,904 37 17 20

Other 12,532 42 24 17

Public-order 23,014 65% 53% 13%

Regulatory 3,786 74 60 14

Other 19,228 64 51 13

Weapons 22,325 32% 17% 15%

Immigration 97,635 12% 7% 5%

Note: Released defendants include defendants who were never detained and 

those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period. Detail may not sum 

to total due to missing information for offense type, which was available for 

99.1% of defendants. 

aIncludes the first hearing that an accused defendant receives in federal court.

bIncludes detention hearings, bond hearings, or releases that occurred at any 

time after initial appearance.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 4

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.

Table 2

Defendants released pretrial for cases in federal courts and in state courts in the 75 most populous counties, by most 

serious offense charged 

Federal defendants, 2008–2010a State defendants, 2006b

Percent of defendants 

released pretrial

Most serious offense charged Number Percent Number Percent Federal State

All offenses 280,694 100% 58,100 100% 36% 58%

Violent 8,979 3% 13,295 23% 30% 52%

Property 44,305 16 16,948 29 71 59

Drug 84,436 30 21,232 37 38 60

Public-order 23,014 8 4,667 8 65 65

Weapons 22,325 8 1,958 3 32 56

Immigration 97,635 35 ~ ~ 12 ~

Note: Excludes 2,664 federal defendants with unknown offense charges.

aIncludes all felony and misdemeanor defendants with known offense types whose cases were disposed in federal district courts from fiscal years 2008 to 2010. 

bIncludes a sample of defendants charged with a felony offense in 40 of the nation’s 75 most populous counties in May 2006. 

~Not applicable for state court data.

Sources: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2006, NCJ 228944, May 2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 5

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.)

Table 3

Types of pretrial release for cases disposed in federal district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010

Most serious offense charged Number of released defendantsa

Percent released on—

Financial bondb Unsecured bond Personal recognizance Other release

All offenses 101,608 27% 39% 32% 2%

Violent 2,668 12% 34% 53% 2%

Property 31,329 18% 47% 34% 1%

Fraudulent 25,375 21 48 31 1

Other 5,954 7 40 50 3

Drug 31,881 29% 41% 30% 1%

Trafficking 26,677 29 42 28 1

Other 5,204 24 35 39 3

Public-order 15,057 14% 39% 45% 3%

Regulatory 2,818 19 43 36 1

Other 12,239 12 38 47 3

Weapons 7,127 17% 46% 36% 1%

Immigration 11,935 66% 16% 10% 8%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type. Information on offense type available for 98.4% of released defendants. Excludes 14 

defendants for whom type of release could not be determined.

aIncludes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.

bIncludes defendants released through deposit, collateral, or surety bond.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Figure 2

Types of pretrial release for cases disposed in federal district 

courts, FY 2008–2010

0 10 20 30 40

 Percent of released defendants

Other release

Collateral bond

Surety bond

Deposit bond

Personal

 recognizance

Unsecured bond

Type of pretrial release

39%

32%

12%

8%

7%

2%

Note: Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also 

detained for part of the pretrial period. 

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 6

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). 

Table 4

Type of pretrial detention for cases disposed in federal 

district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010

Most serious 

offense charged

Number of 

detained

defendantsa

Percent detained on—

Financial 

bond

Court-ordered 

detention

Other 

detentionb

All offenses 180,309 9% 57% 34%

Violent 6,258 2% 65% 33%

Property 12,582 7% 60% 33%

Fraudulent 11,061 8 60 32

Other 1,521 2 62 36

Drug 52,302 4% 70% 26%

Trafficking 45,085 4 71 25

Other 7,217 4 62 34

Public-order 7,667 3% 60% 37%

Regulatory 925 6 57 37

Other 6,742 2 60 37

Weapons 15,115 2% 66% 32%

Immigration 85,453 14% 47% 39%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type. 

Information on offense type available for 99.5% of detained defendants. Excludes 

1,427 defendants who were not released but whose type of detention could not 

be determined.

aIncludes defendants who were detained for the entire pretrial period.

bIncludes defendants on temporary pretrial detention and defendants detained 

because they were unable to meet certain nonfinancial conditions set by the 

court.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

Figure 3

Defendants released at initial appearance and released after 

period of detention for cases disposed in federal district 

courts, by type of pretrial release, FY 2008–2010

0 20 40 60 80 100

Released after 

period of detention

Released at 

initial appearance

Collateral bond

Deposit bond

Surety bond

Any nancial release

Unsecured

 bond

Personal

 recognizance

All releases 66% 34%

72% 28%

72% 28%

53% 47%

58% 42%

56% 44%

40% 60%

Financial

Type of

 pretrial release

Percent of released defendants

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 7

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. 

Table 5

Pretrial conditions imposed on defendants released for cases 

disposed in federal district courts, by offense type, 

FY 2008–2010

Most serious offense 

charged

Number of released 

defendants*

Percent of defendants 

with conditional release

All offenses 101,622 79%

Violent 2,668 90%

Property 31,332 80%

Fraudulent 25,378 82

Other 5,954 76

Drug 31,887 91%

Trafficking 26,683 92

Other 5,204 86

Public-order 15,058 79%

Regulatory 2,818 78

Other 12,240 79

Weapons 7,127 95%

Immigration 11,939 37%

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type. 

Information on offense type available for 98.4% of released defendants. 

*Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also 

detained for part of the pretrial period.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

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.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 8

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).

Table 6

Types of pretrial conditions imposed on defendants released for cases disposed in federal district courts, by type of offense, 

FY 2008–2010

Conditions imposed on defendants with conditional release

Most serious offense charged

Number of defendants 

with conditional release*

Travel 

restrictions

Substance abuse 

testing or treatment

Weapon 

restrictions

Employment 

restrictions

Home detention/

electronic monitoring

No contact 

with victim

All offenses 80,302 99% 72% 62% 49% 32% 29%

Violent 2,402 98% 78% 70% 46% 40% 53%

Property 25,203 99% 56% 50% 44% 24% 24%

Fraudulent 20,680 99 54 50 44 25 25

Other 4,523 99 63 51 43 20 22

Drug 28,966 99% 89% 70% 54% 36% 31%

Trafficking 24,490 99 89 72 55 37 32

Other 4,476 99 92 59 48 36 28

Public-order 11,851 99% 59% 53% 39% 37% 26%

Regulatory 2,199 99 54 50 41 25 24

Other 9,652 99 60 54 38 40 27

Weapons 6,740 99% 88% 87% 54% 37% 25%

Immigration 4,384 100% 61% 70% 66% 25% 37%

Note: Excludes released defendants without pretrial conditions. Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for offense type. 

*Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

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.)

Table 7

Average length of stay in detention for persons booked by 

the U.S. Marshals Service, by offense at booking, 

FY 2008–2010

Average length of stay in detention

Offense at booking 2008 2009 2010

All offensesa 112 days 114 days 121 days

Violent 192 233 206

Property 120 95 96

Drugs 197 238 226

Other 127 111 117

Weapons 197 222 218

Immigration 72 82 86

Supervisionb 82 72 79

Material witness 36 37 39

Not reported 51 28 63

Number of persons booked 188,806 211,986 221,681 aIncludes persons for whom the offense at booking was not reported or was 

unknown.

bIncludes parole, supervised release, and probation violations.

Sources: U.S. Marshals Service, Prisoner Tracking System, FY 2008–2010, and 

http://www.justice.gov/oftd/detention.htm.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 9

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 

Figure 4

Pretrial conditions imposed on released defendants for cases 

disposed in federal district courts, by type of pretrial release, 

FY 2008–2010

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Surety bond

Deposit bond

Personal 

recognizance

Collateral bond

Unsecured bond

All releases 79%

93%

92%

80%

66%

40%

Percent of defendants with pretrial conditions

Type of pretrial release

Table 8

Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by criminal history and most serious offense charged, 

FY 2008–2010

All offenses Percent released, by most serious offense charged

Criminal history Total Percent released* Violent Property Drug Public-order Weapons Immigration

All defendants 283,358 36% 30% 71% 38% 65% 32% 12%

Number of prior arrests

None 74,879 51% 52% 75% 38% 80% 51% 20%

1 35,503 42 44 77 49 70 55 12

2 to 4 64,034 34 33 74 46 61 46 10

5 to 10 59,089 27 21 64 36 47 32 10

11 or more 49,408 21 11 46 23 36 19 11

Number of prior convictions

None 109,294 48% 47% 75% 42% 77% 51% 18%

1 44,737 35 36 76 47 65 47 10

2 to 4 69,785 28 24 68 38 51 34 10

5 to 10 43,278 23 15 52 26 39 24 10

11 or more 15,819 20 9 42 20 34 17 11

Nature of prior convictions

Misdemeanor conviction only 52,008 41% 42% 79% 54% 77% 53% 10%

Felony conviction 121,611 23 12 55 27 35 25 10

Nonviolent 27,091 28 21 61 40 50 37 12

Drug 44,225 23 17 56 28 40 31 9

Violent 50,295 19 9 47 22 25 21 9

Prior failure to appear

None 237,169 37% 33% 73% 40% 69% 37% 12%

1 20,073 31 23 61 34 45 25 13

2 or more 25,671 27 16 54 28 45 20 12

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for defendant criminal history. Information on the number of prior felony arrests or convictions, nature of 

prior convictions, and failure to appear history available for 99.8% of released defendants.

*Includes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 10

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%).

Table 9

Defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by demographic characteristics, citizenship status, 

and most serious offense charged, FY 2008–2010

All offenses

Demographic characteristic 

and citizenship status Total

Percent 

releaseda

Percent released, by most serious offense charged

Violent Property Drug Public-order Weapons Immigration

All defendants 283,358 36% 30% 71% 38% 65% 32% 12%

Sex

Male 243,863 31% 26% 66% 34% 63% 30% 11%

Female 39,121 65 62 80 62 80 71 34

Age

17 or younger 339 50% 67% 74% 28% ^ ^ 28%

18–19 6,513 37 43 57 43 66% 36% 17

20–29 97,829 31 32 62 37 62 27 11

30–39 95,175 31 23 65 35 59 30 11

40 or older 83,118 47 31 80 42 71 44 15

Race/ethnicity

Whiteb 60,427 65% 30% 82% 60% 73% 46% 41%

Black/African Americanb 54,346 43 22 76 36 57 27 34

Hispanic/Latino 155,036 20 23 48 26 49 24 11

American Indian/Alaska Nativeb 4,049 54 42 78 62 58 35 53

Asian/Pacific Islanderb 5,569 66 42 78 59 76 41 52

Citizenship status

U.S. citizen 148,348 55% 31% 82% 47% 69% 34% 59%

Legal alien 15,100 43 35 71 30 60 39 46

Illegal alien 116,321 10 5 28 5 21 5 8

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to missing information for demographic characteristics and citizenship status. Race/ethnicity excludes defendants classified as 

other race. Information on race and ethnicity was available for 99.0% of defendants, sex was available for 99.9%, age was available for 99.9%, and citizenship status was 

available for 98.7%. 

^Too few cases to provide a reliable rate.

aIncludes defendants who were never detained and those who were also detained for part of the pretrial period.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 11

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 publicorder (21%) offenses. For the remaining offense categories, 

however, less than 10% of defendants identified as illegal 

aliens were released prior to case disposition. 

Figure 5

Percent of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in 

federal district courts, by age of defendant, FY 2008–2010

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial 

Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent released pretrial

17 or younger

18–19

20–29

30–39

40 or older

Age of defendant

47%

31%

31%

37%

50%
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 12

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%). 

Table 10

Race and ethnicity of defendants for cases disposed in federal district courts, by criminal history and citizenship status, FY 

2008–2010

Criminal history and citizenship status White*

Black/African 

Americana Hispanic/Latino

American Indian/ 

Alaska Nativea Asian/Pacific Islandera

Number of prior arrests

None 32% 15% 28% 24% 50%

1 13 7 14 11 17

2 to 4 20 18 26 23 16

5 to 10 18 26 21 21 10

11 or more 18 35 12 22 7

Number of prior convictions

None 43% 24% 41% 32% 66%

1 14 12 18 15 14

2 to 4 20 27 26 24 13

5 to 10 15 25 12 18 6

11 or more 7 13 3 11 2

Nature of prior convictionsb

Misdemeanor conviction only 35% 18% 33% 46% 42%

Felony conviction 65 82 67 54 58

Nonviolent 16 9 19 11 18

Drug 22 27 27 10 17

Violent 27 46 22 33 23

Citizenship status

U.S. citizen 95% 95% 20% 98% 61%

Legal alien 3 3 7 1 26

Illegal alien 3 3 73 1 13

Number of defendants 60,427 54,346 155,036 4,049 5,569

Note: Excludes defendants classified as other race. Information on race and ethnicity was available for 99.0% of defendants, citizenship status was available for 98.7%, 

and information on criminal history was available for 99.8% of defendants. Felony conviction percentages may not sum to total due to rounding.

aExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin. 

bIncludes only defendants with a prior conviction record.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 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).

Table 11

Behavior of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by offense type, FY 2008–2010

Percent of released defendants who had—

Most serious 

offense charged

Number of released 

defendants At least one violation Failed to appear

Technical violations of 

bond conditions

A rearrest for 

new offense* Release revoked

All defendants 101,622 19% 1% 17% 4% 11%

Violent 2,668 26% 1% 24% 4% 18%

Property 31,332 15% 1% 13% 3% 7%

Fraudulent 25,378 14 1 12 3 7

Other 5,954 16 1 14 3 9

Drug 31,887 28% 2% 25% 5% 16%

Trafficking 26,683 29 2 26 6 17

Other 5,204 24 2 23 4 12

Public-order 15,058 12% 1% 11% 2% 6%

Regulatory 2,818 10 1 9 2 5

Other 12,240 12 1 11 2 6

Weapons 7,127 33% 2% 30% 8% 21%

Immigration 11,939 7% 1% 6% 1% 4%

Note: Detail will not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Information on offense type available for 98.4% of released 

defendants. 

*Includes felony and misdemeanor offenses.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 14

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.)

Table 12

Misconduct of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by criminal history, FY 2008–2010

Percent of released defendants who had—

Criminal history

Number of released 

defendants

At least one 

violation

Failed to 

appear

Technical violations 

of bond conditions

A rearrest for 

new offense*

Release 

revoked

All defendants 101,622 19% 1% 17% 4% 11%

Number of prior arrests

None 38,009 10% 1% 9% 2% 5%

1 14,902 16 2 14 3 8

2 to 4 21,909 22 2 20 4 12

5 to 10 16,044 28 2 26 6 17

11 or more 10,547 33 2 29 8 21

Number of prior convictions

None 52,790 13% 1% 12% 2% 6%

1 15,842 20 2 18 4 11

2 to 4 19,785 25 2 23 5 15

5 to 10 9,771 31 2 27 7 19

11 or more 3,223 35 2 31 9 24

Nature of prior convictions

Misdemeanor conviction only 21,214 24% 2% 21% 5% 14%

Felony conviction 27,407 27 2 24 6 16

Nonviolent 7,672 20 2 17 5 12

Drug 10,065 28 2 25 6 17

Violent 9,670 31 2 28 8 19

Prior failure to appear

None 88,262 17% 1% 15% 3% 9%

1 6,204 29 2 27 6 17

2 or more 6,945 37 2 33 8 22

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Not all violations resulted in revocation. Information on number of 

prior felony arrests or convictions, nature of prior convictions, and failure to appear history available for 99.8% of released defendants.

*Includes felony and misdemeanor offenses.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 15

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. 

Table 13

Misconduct of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by demographic characteristics and 

citizenship status, FY 2008–2010

Percent of released defendants who had—

Demographic characteristic 

and citizenship status

Number of released 

defendants

At least one 

violation

Failed to 

appear

Technical violations 

of bond conditions

A rearrest for 

new offensea Release revoked

All defendants 101,622 19% 1% 17% 4% 11%

Sex

Male 75,991 20% 2% 18% 4% 11%

Female 25,438 17 1 15 3 9

Age

17 or younger 169 17% 2% 15% 2% 10%

18–19 2,387 22 1 21 4 14

20–29 30,630 24 2 22 5 14

30–39 29,039 20 2 18 4 11

40 or older 39,202 14 1 13 2 7

Race/ethnicity

Whiteb 39,534 18% 1% 16% 3% 10%

Black/African Americanb 23,570 27 2 24 6 15

Hispanic/Latino 30,542 14 2 13 2 9

American Indian/Alaska Nativeb 2,172 29 2 27 5 22

Asian/Pacific Islanderb 3,663 16 1 14 2 6

Citizenship status

U.S. citizen 81,902 22% 1% 20% 4% 12%

Legal alien 6,481 17 5 14 3 10

Illegal alien 11,793 2 1 2 -- 1

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Excludes defendants classified as other race. Information on race 

and ethnicity available for 98.5% of released defendants. Information on sex available for 99.8% of released defendants, age available for 99.8%, and citizenship status 

available for 98.6%.

--Less than 0.5%

aIncludes felony and misdemeanor offenses.

bExcludes persons of Hispanic or Latino origin.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 16

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. 

Table 14

Misconduct of defendants released pretrial for cases disposed in federal district courts, by type of pretrial release, 

FY 2008–2010

Percent of released defendants who had—

Type of release 

Number of released 

defendants

At least one 

violation

Failed to 

appear

Technical violations 

of bond conditions

Rearrested for 

new offense*

Release 

revoked

All releases 101,622 19% 1% 17% 4% 11%

Financial release 27,271 15% 2% 13% 3% 8%

Collateral bond 6,577 20 2 18 5 10

Deposit bond 12,359 17 2 14 3 10

Surety bond 8,335 8 1 7 1 5

Unsecured bond 39,734 21% 2% 19% 4% 11%

Personal recognizance 32,292 21% 1% 19% 4% 12%

Note: Detail may not sum to total because a defendant could have more than one type of violation. Excludes financial and nonfinancial release types for 2,325 

defendants with a release classified as other or whose release types could not be determined. 

*Includes felony and misdemeanor offenses.

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System, 2008–2010.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 17

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 fourdigit 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.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 18

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.
PRETRIAL RELEASE AND MISCONDUCT IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS, 2008-2010 | NOVEMBER 2012 19

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.
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. James P. Lynch is the director.

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

report.

Jill Thomas and Morgan Young edited the report, and Barbara Quinn produced 

the report under the supervision of Doris J. James. Barbara Parthasarathy of Urban 

Institute provided comments.

November 2012, NCJ 239243