The purpose of the study was to investigate the role and impact of forensic science evidence on the criminal justice process. The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed criminal cases in five jurisdictions (Los Angeles County, California; Indianapolis, Indiana; Evansville, Indiana; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and South Bend, Indiana) from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The data were based on a random sample of the population of reported crime incidents between 2003 and 2006, stratified by crime type and jurisdiction. A total of 4,205 cases were sampled including 859 aggravated assaults, 1,263 burglaries, 400 homicides, 602 rapes, and 1,081 robberies. Descriptive and impact data were collected from three sources: police incident and investigation reports, crime lab reports, and prosecutor case files. The data contain a total of 175 variables including site, crime type, forensic variables, criminal offense variables, and crime dispositions variables.

Investigator(s): Bureau of Justice Statistics This series tabulates the number of persons convicted of felonies in state courts and describes their sentences. Data were collected from state courts and state prosecutors in 300 counties of the United States. The collection contains socio-demographic information such as age, race, and sex of the felon. Types of offenses committed include homicide, rape, and robbery. Adjudication variables referring to the process between arrest and sentencing are also included. Data can be analyzed at the national level or by the individual counties.Years Produced: Every 2 years

This data collection examines the impact of defendants' prior criminal records on the sentencing of male and female defendants committing violent and non-violent crimes. The collection also provides data on which types of prior records most influenced the sentencing judges. Variables deal specifically with the defendant, the judge and the characteristics of the current case. Only cases that fell into one of 14 categories of common offenses were included. These offenses were murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, minor assault, burglary, auto theft, embezzlement, receiving stolen property, forgery, sex offenses other than rape, drug possession, and driving while intoxicated.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.This collection includes data gathered through three separate study designs. The first study called for tracking cases and forensic evidence through local criminal justice processes for five offenses: homicide, sexual assault, aggravated assault, robbery and burglary. Two sites, Denver, Colorado, and San Diego, California, participated in the study. Demographic data were collected on victims (Victim Data n = 7,583) and defendants (Defendant Data n = 2,318). Data on forensic evidence collected at crime scenes included DNA material (DNA Evidence Data n = 1,894), firearms evidence (Ballistics Evidence Data n = 488), latent prints (Latent Print Evidence Data n = 766), trace evidence (Other Impressions Evidence Data n = 49), and drug evidence (Drug Evidence Data n = 43). Comparisons were then made between open and closed cases from the participating sites. Two smaller studies were conducted as part of this grant. The second study was an analysis of an experiment in the Miami-Date, Florida Police Department (Miami-Data County Data n = 1,421) to determine whether clearance rates for no-suspect property crimes could be improved through faster processing of DNA evidence. The third study was a survey of 75 police departments across the nation (Crime Labs Survey Data) to obtain information on the organizational placement, staffing and responsibilities of crime lab units.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This research was conducted in two phases. Phase one analyzed a random sample of approximately 2,000 case files from 2006 through 2009 that contain forensic analyses from the Connecticut State Forensic Science Laboratory, along with corresponding police and court case file data. As with Peterson, et al. (2010), this research had four objectives: 1) estimate the percentage of cases in which crime scene evidence is collected; 2) discover what kinds of forensic are being collected; 3)track such evidence through the criminal justice system; and 4)identify which forms of forensic evidence are most efficacious given the crime investigated. Phase two consisted of a survey administered to detectives within the State of Connecticut regarding their comparative assessments of the utility of forensic evidence. These surveys further advance our understanding of how the success of forensic evidence in achieving arrests and convictions matches with detective opinion.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The objective of this study was to determine how homicide investigators use evidence during the course of their investigations. Data on 294 homicide cases (315 victims) that occurred in Cleveland between 2008 and 2011 was collected from investigative reports, forensic analysis reports, prosecutors and homicide investigators, provided by the Cleveland Ohio Police Department, Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner's Office, and Cuyahoga County Clerk of Courts. The study collection includes 1 Stata data file (NIJ_Cleveland_Homicides.dta, n=294, 109 variables).

The study involved the collection of data on serious assaults that occured in three cities: Miami, Florida (1996-1997), Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1994-1996), and St. Louis, Missouri (1995-1996). The data were extracted from police offense reports, and included detailed information about the incidents (Part 1) as well as information about the victims, suspects, and witnesses for each incident (Parts 2-9).

The underlying data are from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. BJS has expanded upon the FBI's estimates to provide national arrest estimates detailed by offense, sex, age, and race.

This data collection provides information on multiple prosecutions for individual offenders. The data are intended for use in the exploration and description of relationships among the various elements of the adjudication process (characteristics of the offender and offense and decisions made by various actors in the prosecution and sentencing of the offenders). The sampled incidents were drawn from two types of offenses: residential burglary and armed robbery. The collection includes only those incidents involving male offenders who were previously unknown to their victims and who were facing adjudication in adult court. The data collection instrument probed five areas for each offender and incident sampled: A. Related Incidents (information to identify all other incidents for which processing overlapped that of the sampled incident), B. Incident Description (information about the criminal incident itself, such as date and location of the incident, date of arrest, victims, weapons, accomplices, witnesses, and evidence), C. Adjudication Process (information such as bond amount, legal representation, adjudication events and outcomes, date of sentencing, and type and length of incarceration), D. Defendant (information about the defendant himself, including date of birth, race/descent, and employment status), and E. Prior Record (information about the defendant's record, such as his age at first arrest and first incarceration, the number of times he was incarcerated, and history of drug and/or alcohol abuse).

전국 경찰관서에 고소, 고발, 인지 등으로 형사입건된 사건의 발생, 검거, 피의자에 대한 죄종별 분석 현황