Pretrial Risk-Assessment Process

by Fred Sisto | Nov 23, 2016 | Blog, Criminal Law, Legal Procedures

“One of the most critical innovations under-girding the entire reform initiative is that this predictive process henceforth will be informed by an objective pretrial risk-assessment process that has been designed and validated through empirical research. See N.J.S.A. 2A: 162-25(c).”

That statute reads:

“NJSA 2A:162-25 Statewide Pretrial Services Program; risk assessment instrument.

11. a. The Administrative Director of the Courts shall establish and maintain a Statewide Pretrial Services Program which shall provide pretrial services to effectuate the purposes of sections 1 through 11 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-15 et seq.).

b. The Pretrial Services Program shall, after an eligible defendant is temporarily detained pursuant to subsection a. of section 2 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-16) following the issuance of a complaint-warrant, conduct a risk assessment on that eligible defendant for the purpose of making recommendations to the court concerning an appropriate pretrial release decision, including whether the eligible defendant shall be: released on the eligible defendant’s own personal recognizance or on execution of an unsecured appearance bond; released on a non-monetary condition or conditions as set forth under subsection b. of section 3 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-17); released on monetary bail, other than an unsecured appearance bond; released on a combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions set forth under section 3 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-17); or any other conditions necessary to effectuate the purposes of sections 1 through 11 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-15 et seq.). The risk assessment shall be completed and presented to the court so that the court can, without unnecessary delay, but in no case later than 48 hours after the eligible defendant’s commitment to jail, make a pretrial release decision on the eligible defendant pursuant to section 3 of P.L.2014, c.31 (C.2A:162-17).

c. The pretrial risk assessment shall be conducted using a risk assessment instrument approved by the Administrative Director of the Courts that meets the requirements of this subsection.

(1) The approved risk assessment instrument shall be objective, standardized, and developed based on analysis of empirical data and risk factors relevant to the risk of failure to appear in court when required and the danger to the community while on pretrial release. The risk assessment instrument shall not be required to include factors specifically pertaining to the risk for obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process.

(2) The approved risk assessment instrument shall gather demographic information about the eligible defendant including, but not limited to, race, ethnicity, gender, financial resources, and socio-economic status. Recommendations for pretrial release shall not be discriminatory based on race, ethnicity, gender, or socio-economic status.

d. In addition to the pretrial risk assessments made pursuant to this section, the Pretrial Services Program shall monitor appropriate eligible defendants released on conditions as ordered by the court.”

The 48 hour maximum cut-off for the decision to be made is disturbing because it allows for an arrestee to be held in the county jail for two full days without the ability to secure their release while pre-trial services conduct their risk assessment. While two days is the maximum period allowed, since court staff and prosecutors are almost never concerned with such a delay for an individual accused of a crime, two full days of being held in the county jail before the conditions of pretrial release are set will probably be the norm. In fact, this writer would not be surprised if three or four days routinely passes on the case of a late Friday night arrest since court staff and prosecutors will almost certainly enjoy be immunity from civil suits unless intentional delay can be proven. Even then, the time and expense involved with civil litigation would probably be not worth the effort since only actual damages like lost wages can be recovered from public officials, as opposed to punitive damages.

      Excellent rating  
 Based on 288 reviews 
    
  
 
 
      Mr Sisto is an excellent lawyer. The tickets I received were nothing compared to the charges i had originally. I got the best possible outcome for my case, and Mr Sisto was incredibly understanding and patient and responded to any questions I had within about 30 minutes of me asking them. I'll be going to him again for any legal trouble I have in the future
     Brandon K 
 
 
 
 
    mr. fred sisto esq. was very professional, answered all questions i had, & made my husband & i feel more at ease about our criminal case.
     Meridith T 
 
 
 
 
    Fred never represented me but been in touch with him a few times and was a very professional experience from the minute I called the office
     Jj B 
 
 
 
 
    Fred is a very competent attorney.  He is knowledgeable, thorough, effective and possesses outstanding interpersonal skills. He provided excellent representation in my case and obtained a favorable outcome.
     Michael G 
 
 
 
 
    Fred Sisto's attention to detail, his representation and unwavering advocacy for me made all the difference in my case.
     Jill F 
 
 
 
 
    Hired Mr.Sisto to handle a case of mine a couple of months ago and while the service was okay the customer service was awful. When I had inquired about a charge I was unsure of on my bill, Mr. Sisto immediately got defensive and had the unprofessionalism to ask me if I “was high” for asking this question. I wonder if Mr. Sisto asks all of his clients this question or only the ones who have jobs in the cannabis industry? Regardless, I don’t believe this was an appropriate question to ask, regardless of the industry one works in, and therefore Mr. Sisto needs to heavily work on his customer service. Edit: Mr. Sisto had the UNPROFESSIONALISM to reach out to my family and ask them to ask me to take down my review instead of reaching out directly towards me when it was I who was his client, not my family. Clearly speaks to the unprofessionalism surrounding this practice. This has not been the only time Mr.Sisto has gone directly to my family instead of me, his client, for important legal matters and I will not seek out his services again. For those who may not understand Spanish, the email starts with “You should speak to your daughter regarding the review she has just published.” Edit to Response: As an attorney, one should be able to make appropriate questions and comments regardless if a client is “uncooperative” or “disrespectful.” The fact that rather than apologizing for the awful interaction with your firm, and I was not released  “within hours” as you claim shows how low value your firm is and how you openly  instead chose to harass my family through email for my initial review rather than actually revomy case which I ended up doing and you chareged me for . Regardless of results, your character speaks volumes and anyone who reads this would know better than to give their money to an awful person such as yourself. What a shame
     Ximena C 
 
 
 
 
    Mr. Sisto was knowledgeable preofessional and experienced. He knew the right steps to take every step of the way and went above and beyond to make sure that I understood the situation. Mr. Sisto will have your back in any legal matter!
     Corey S 
 
 
 
 
    2 👍🏻👍🏻 up
     Cc 
 
 
 
 
    Very informative. Would not hesitate to use Attorney Sisto.
     Rose C 
 
 
 
 
    Realmente es un gran abogado, me ayudo muchísimo en todo este proceso y sobre todo que habla español que es una de las cosas importantes para mi. Por que lo hizo mas entendible y facil cada una de las cosas que tenía que hacer y su amabilidad y paciencia para poder explicarme qué tenía que hacer. Además que mi caso fue un éxito gracias a él ya cada uno de sus conocimientos y a su apoyo en todo momento. Lo recomiendo 100%.
     Luis A