Prosecutions for July 2009

Referring Agency: Drug Enforcement Administration

Number Latest Month 1,209
Percent Change from previous month -16.2
Percent Change from 1 year ago 2.3
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Including Magistrate Court) -12.7
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Excluding Magistrate Court) -15.4

Table 1: Criminal Prosecutions

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during July 2009 the government reported 1209 new prosecutions for these matters. Those cases were referred by the Drug Enforcement Administration. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is down 16.2% over the previous month.

The comparisons of the number of defendants charged are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. (See Table 1)

When monthly 2009 prosecutions of this type are compared with those of the same period in the previous year, the number of filings was up (2.3 percent). Prosecutions over the past year are still much lower than they were five years ago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are down 12.7 percent from levels reported in 2004.

FYMONDT: Jan2001
_FREQ_: 1,121 FYMONDT: Feb2001
_FREQ_: 1,308 FYMONDT: Mar2001
_FREQ_: 1,559 FYMONDT: Apr2001
_FREQ_: 1,393 FYMONDT: May2001
_FREQ_: 1,331 FYMONDT: Jun2001
_FREQ_: 1,386 FYMONDT: Jul2001
_FREQ_: 1,351 FYMONDT: Aug2001
_FREQ_: 1,549 FYMONDT: Sep2001
_FREQ_: 1,484 FYMONDT: Oct2001
_FREQ_: 1,302 FYMONDT: Nov2001
_FREQ_: 1,220 FYMONDT: Dec2001
_FREQ_: 1,355 FYMONDT: Jan2002
_FREQ_: 1,367 FYMONDT: Feb2002
_FREQ_: 1,356 FYMONDT: Mar2002
_FREQ_: 1,565 FYMONDT: Apr2002
_FREQ_: 1,431 FYMONDT: May2002
_FREQ_: 1,498 FYMONDT: Jun2002
_FREQ_: 1,288 FYMONDT: Jul2002
_FREQ_: 1,414 FYMONDT: Aug2002
_FREQ_: 1,319 FYMONDT: Sep2002
_FREQ_: 1,570 FYMONDT: Oct2002
_FREQ_: 1,544 FYMONDT: Nov2002
_FREQ_: 1,285 FYMONDT: Dec2002
_FREQ_: 1,210 FYMONDT: Jan2003
_FREQ_: 1,311 FYMONDT: Feb2003
_FREQ_: 1,550 FYMONDT: Mar2003
_FREQ_: 1,537 FYMONDT: Apr2003
_FREQ_: 1,613 FYMONDT: May2003
_FREQ_: 1,617 FYMONDT: Jun2003
_FREQ_: 1,587 FYMONDT: Jul2003
_FREQ_: 1,641 FYMONDT: Aug2003
_FREQ_: 1,485 FYMONDT: Sep2003
_FREQ_: 1,808 FYMONDT: Oct2003
_FREQ_: 1,474 FYMONDT: Nov2003
_FREQ_: 1,319 FYMONDT: Dec2003
_FREQ_: 1,382 FYMONDT: Jan2004
_FREQ_: 1,147 FYMONDT: Feb2004
_FREQ_: 1,297 FYMONDT: Mar2004
_FREQ_: 1,800 FYMONDT: Apr2004
_FREQ_: 1,514 FYMONDT: May2004
_FREQ_: 1,462 FYMONDT: Jun2004
_FREQ_: 1,578 FYMONDT: Jul2004
_FREQ_: 1,523 FYMONDT: Aug2004
_FREQ_: 1,524 FYMONDT: Sep2004
_FREQ_: 1,495 FYMONDT: Oct2004
_FREQ_: 1,393 FYMONDT: Nov2004
_FREQ_: 1,404 FYMONDT: Dec2004
_FREQ_: 1,261 FYMONDT: Jan2005
_FREQ_: 1,458 FYMONDT: Feb2005
_FREQ_: 1,279 FYMONDT: Mar2005
_FREQ_: 1,734 FYMONDT: Apr2005
_FREQ_: 1,486 FYMONDT: May2005
_FREQ_: 1,588 FYMONDT: Jun2005
_FREQ_: 1,474 FYMONDT: Jul2005
_FREQ_: 1,582 FYMONDT: Aug2005
_FREQ_: 1,656 FYMONDT: Sep2005
_FREQ_: 1,611 FYMONDT: Oct2005
_FREQ_: 1,272 FYMONDT: Nov2005
_FREQ_: 1,507 FYMONDT: Dec2005
_FREQ_: 1,540 FYMONDT: Jan2006
_FREQ_: 1,425 FYMONDT: Feb2006
_FREQ_: 1,276 FYMONDT: Mar2006
_FREQ_: 1,680 FYMONDT: Apr2006
_FREQ_: 1,338 FYMONDT: May2006
_FREQ_: 1,481 FYMONDT: Jun2006
_FREQ_: 1,605 FYMONDT: Jul2006
_FREQ_: 1,265 FYMONDT: Aug2006
_FREQ_: 1,397 FYMONDT: Sep2006
_FREQ_: 1,305 FYMONDT: Oct2006
_FREQ_: 1,512 FYMONDT: Nov2006
_FREQ_: 1,220 FYMONDT: Dec2006
_FREQ_: 1,344 FYMONDT: Jan2007
_FREQ_: 1,174 FYMONDT: Feb2007
_FREQ_: 1,288 FYMONDT: Mar2007
_FREQ_: 1,615 FYMONDT: Apr2007
_FREQ_: 1,265 FYMONDT: May2007
_FREQ_: 1,423 FYMONDT: Jun2007
_FREQ_: 1,267 FYMONDT: Jul2007
_FREQ_: 1,251 FYMONDT: Aug2007
_FREQ_: 1,435 FYMONDT: Sep2007
_FREQ_: 1,581 FYMONDT: Oct2007
_FREQ_: 1,413 FYMONDT: Nov2007
_FREQ_: 1,176 FYMONDT: Dec2007
_FREQ_: 1,214 FYMONDT: Jan2008
_FREQ_: 988 FYMONDT: Feb2008
_FREQ_: 1,078 FYMONDT: Mar2008
_FREQ_: 1,397 FYMONDT: Apr2008
_FREQ_: 1,308 FYMONDT: May2008
_FREQ_: 1,442 FYMONDT: Jun2008
_FREQ_: 1,367 FYMONDT: Jul2008
_FREQ_: 1,236 FYMONDT: Aug2008
_FREQ_: 1,291 FYMONDT: Sep2008
_FREQ_: 1,366 FYMONDT: Oct2008
_FREQ_: 1,224 FYMONDT: Nov2008
_FREQ_: 1,223 FYMONDT: Dec2008
_FREQ_: 1,299 FYMONDT: Jan2009
_FREQ_: 1,017 FYMONDT: Feb2009
_FREQ_: 1,282 FYMONDT: Mar2009
_FREQ_: 1,415 FYMONDT: Apr2009
_FREQ_: 1,317 FYMONDT: May2009
_FREQ_: 1,342 FYMONDT: Jun2009
_FREQ_: 1,443 FYMONDT: Jul2009
_FREQ_: 1,209 FYMONDT: Jun2001
moveave: 1349.6666667 FYMONDT: Jul2001
moveave: 1388 FYMONDT: Aug2001
moveave: 1428.1666667 FYMONDT: Sep2001
moveave: 1415.6666667 FYMONDT: Oct2001
moveave: 1400.5 FYMONDT: Nov2001
moveave: 1382 FYMONDT: Dec2001
moveave: 1376.8333333 FYMONDT: Jan2002
moveave: 1379.5 FYMONDT: Feb2002
moveave: 1347.3333333 FYMONDT: Mar2002
moveave: 1360.8333333 FYMONDT: Apr2002
moveave: 1382.3333333 FYMONDT: May2002
moveave: 1428.6666667 FYMONDT: Jun2002
moveave: 1417.5 FYMONDT: Jul2002
moveave: 1425.3333333 FYMONDT: Aug2002
moveave: 1419.1666667 FYMONDT: Sep2002
moveave: 1420 FYMONDT: Oct2002
moveave: 1438.8333333 FYMONDT: Nov2002
moveave: 1403.3333333 FYMONDT: Dec2002
moveave: 1390.3333333 FYMONDT: Jan2003
moveave: 1373.1666667 FYMONDT: Feb2003
moveave: 1411.6666667 FYMONDT: Mar2003
moveave: 1406.1666667 FYMONDT: Apr2003
moveave: 1417.6666667 FYMONDT: May2003
moveave: 1473 FYMONDT: Jun2003
moveave: 1535.8333333 FYMONDT: Jul2003
moveave: 1590.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2003
moveave: 1580 FYMONDT: Sep2003
moveave: 1625.1666667 FYMONDT: Oct2003
moveave: 1602 FYMONDT: Nov2003
moveave: 1552.3333333 FYMONDT: Dec2003
moveave: 1518.1666667 FYMONDT: Jan2004
moveave: 1435.8333333 FYMONDT: Feb2004
moveave: 1404.5 FYMONDT: Mar2004
moveave: 1403.1666667 FYMONDT: Apr2004
moveave: 1409.8333333 FYMONDT: May2004
moveave: 1433.6666667 FYMONDT: Jun2004
moveave: 1466.3333333 FYMONDT: Jul2004
moveave: 1529 FYMONDT: Aug2004
moveave: 1566.8333333 FYMONDT: Sep2004
moveave: 1516 FYMONDT: Oct2004
moveave: 1495.8333333 FYMONDT: Nov2004
moveave: 1486.1666667 FYMONDT: Dec2004
moveave: 1433.3333333 FYMONDT: Jan2005
moveave: 1422.5 FYMONDT: Feb2005
moveave: 1381.6666667 FYMONDT: Mar2005
moveave: 1421.5 FYMONDT: Apr2005
moveave: 1437 FYMONDT: May2005
moveave: 1467.6666667 FYMONDT: Jun2005
moveave: 1503.1666667 FYMONDT: Jul2005
moveave: 1523.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2005
moveave: 1586.6666667 FYMONDT: Sep2005
moveave: 1566.1666667 FYMONDT: Oct2005
moveave: 1530.5 FYMONDT: Nov2005
moveave: 1517 FYMONDT: Dec2005
moveave: 1528 FYMONDT: Jan2006
moveave: 1501.8333333 FYMONDT: Feb2006
moveave: 1438.5 FYMONDT: Mar2006
moveave: 1450 FYMONDT: Apr2006
moveave: 1461 FYMONDT: May2006
moveave: 1456.6666667 FYMONDT: Jun2006
moveave: 1467.5 FYMONDT: Jul2006
moveave: 1440.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2006
moveave: 1461 FYMONDT: Sep2006
moveave: 1398.5 FYMONDT: Oct2006
moveave: 1427.5 FYMONDT: Nov2006
moveave: 1384 FYMONDT: Dec2006
moveave: 1340.5 FYMONDT: Jan2007
moveave: 1325.3333333 FYMONDT: Feb2007
moveave: 1307.1666667 FYMONDT: Mar2007
moveave: 1358.8333333 FYMONDT: Apr2007
moveave: 1317.6666667 FYMONDT: May2007
moveave: 1351.5 FYMONDT: Jun2007
moveave: 1338.6666667 FYMONDT: Jul2007
moveave: 1351.5 FYMONDT: Aug2007
moveave: 1376 FYMONDT: Sep2007
moveave: 1370.3333333 FYMONDT: Oct2007
moveave: 1395 FYMONDT: Nov2007
moveave: 1353.8333333 FYMONDT: Dec2007
moveave: 1345 FYMONDT: Jan2008
moveave: 1301.1666667 FYMONDT: Feb2008
moveave: 1241.6666667 FYMONDT: Mar2008
moveave: 1211 FYMONDT: Apr2008
moveave: 1193.5 FYMONDT: May2008
moveave: 1237.8333333 FYMONDT: Jun2008
moveave: 1263.3333333 FYMONDT: Jul2008
moveave: 1304.6666667 FYMONDT: Aug2008
moveave: 1340.1666667 FYMONDT: Sep2008
moveave: 1335 FYMONDT: Oct2008
moveave: 1321 FYMONDT: Nov2008
moveave: 1284.5 FYMONDT: Dec2008
moveave: 1273.1666667 FYMONDT: Jan2009
moveave: 1236.6666667 FYMONDT: Feb2009
moveave: 1235.1666667 FYMONDT: Mar2009
moveave: 1243.3333333 FYMONDT: Apr2009
moveave: 1258.8333333 FYMONDT: May2009
moveave: 1278.6666667 FYMONDT: Jun2009
moveave: 1302.6666667 FYMONDT: Jul2009
moveave: 1334.6666667
Plot of moveave * FYMONDT

Figure 1: Monthly trends in prosecutions

The decrease from the levels five years ago in prosecutions for these matters is shown more clearly in Figure 1. The vertical bars in Figure 1 represent the number of prosecutions of this type recorded on a month-to-month basis. Where a prosecution was initially filed in U.S. Magistrate Court and then transferred to the U.S. District Court, the magistrate filing date was used since this provides an earlier indicator of actual trends. The superimposed line on the bars plots the six-month moving average so that natural fluctuations are smoothed out. The one and five-year rates of change in Table 1 and in the sections that follow are all based upon this six-month moving average. To view trends year-by-year rather than month-by-month, see TRAC's annual report series for a broader picture.

Cases were classified by prosecutors into more specific types.

The largest number of prosecutions of these matters in July 2009 was for "Drugs-Drug Trafficking", accounting for 61.2 percent of prosecutions. Prosecutions were also filed for "Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FOIA challen" (18.5%), " Drugs-Organized Crime Task Force" (16.3%). See Figure 2.

progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 19%  (18.53%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 20%  (20.26%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 61%  (61.21%)
PIE3D chart of progcatlabel

Figure 2: Specific types of prosecutions

Prosecutions in U.S. Magistrate Courts

Top Ranked Lead Charges

In July 2009, 391 defendants in cases for these matters were filed in U.S. Magistrate Courts. These courts handle less serious misdemeanor cases, including what are called "petty offenses." In addition, complaints are sometimes filed in the magistrate courts before an indictment or information is entered. In these cases, the matter starts in the magistrate courts and later moves to the district court where subsequent proceedings take place.

In the magistrate courts in July the most frequently cited lead charge was Title 21 U.S.C Section 841 involving the "Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A". This was the lead charge for 65.2 percent of all magistrate filings in July.

Other frequently prosecuted lead charges include: "21 USC 846 - Attempt and conspiracy" (21%).

Prosecutions in U.S. District Courts

In July 2009, 818 defendants in new cases for these matters were charged in the U.S. District Courts. In addition during July there were an additional 375 defendants whose cases moved from the magistrate courts to the U.S. district courts after an indictment or information was filed. The sections which follow cover both sets of cases and therefore cover all matters filed in district court during July.

Top Ranked Lead Charges

Table 2 shows the top lead charges recorded in the prosecutions of matters filed in U.S. District Court during July 2009referred by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Lead Charge Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
21 USC 841 - Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A 562 1 1 1 More
21 USC 846 - Attempt and conspiracy 362 2 2 2 More
18 USC 922 - Firearms; Unlawful acts 9 3 3 4 More
21 USC 843 - Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts C 8 4 8 5 More
21 USC 963 - Attempt and conspiracy 6 5 4 3 More
18 USC 2118 - Robberies/burglaries w/controlled substances 5 6 18 - More
18 USC 3146 - Penalty for failure to appear 4 7 14 19 More
46 :70503 4 7 12 - More
18 USC 846 - Explosives - Additional powers of the Secretary 3 9 11 11 More
18 USC 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim or informant 3 9 - 19 More
21 USC 856 - Establishment for manufacturing operations 3 9 24 12 More

Table 2: Top charges filed

  • "Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A" (Title 21 U.S.C Section 841) was the most frequent recorded lead charge. "Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A" (Title 21 U.S.C Section 841) was ranked 1 a year ago, while it was the 1 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 2nd in frequency was the lead charge "Attempt and conspiracy" under Title 21 U.S.C Section 846. "Attempt and conspiracy" under Title 21 U.S.C Section 846 was ranked 2 a year ago, while it was the 2 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 3rd was "Firearms; Unlawful acts" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 922. "Firearms; Unlawful acts" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 922 was ranked 3 a year ago, while it was the 4 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

Among these top ten lead charges, the one showing the greatest increase in prosecutions—up 700 percent—compared to one year ago was Title 21 U.S.C Section 856 that involves " Establishment for manufacturing operations ". Compared to five years ago, the largest increase—280 percent—was registered for prosecutions under " Penalty for failure to appear " (Title 18 U.S.C Section 3146 ).

Again among the top ten lead charges, the one showing the sharpest decline in prosecutions compared to one year ago—down 64.3 percent—was 46 :70503 (Title 46 U.S.C Section 70503 ). Compared to five years ago, the most significant decline in prosecutions— 75.8 percent—was for filings where the lead charge was " Explosives - Additional powers of the Secretary " (Title 18 U.S.C Section 846 ).

Top Ranked Judicial Districts

In July 2009 the Justice Department said the government brought 479.2 prosecutions for every ten million people in the United States.

Understandably, there is great variation in the per capita number of prosecutions that are filed in each of the nation's ninety-four federal judicial districts.

The districts registering the largest number of prosecutions per capita for these matters last month are shown in Table 3. Districts must have at least 5 prosecutions to receive a ranking.


Judicial District Percapita Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
Arizona 2,842 146 1 6 7 More
N Mexico 2,657 43 2 7 6 More
Alaska 2,480 14 3 72 85 More
New Hamp 2,195 24 4 94 80 More
N Dakota 1,882 10 5 72 78 More
Ala, M 1,881 17 6 67 81 More
Mo, E 1,664 40 7 16 13 More
Cal, S 1,545 40 8 23 12 More
Iowa, N 1,378 15 9 42 44 More
Texas, W 1,234 59 10 1 1 More

Table 3: Top 10 districts (per ten million people)

  • The District of Arizona—with 2842 prosecutions as compared with 479.2 prosecutions per ten million population in the United States—was the most active during July 2009. The District of Arizona was ranked 6 a year ago, while it was ranked 7 five years ago.

  • The District of New Mexico ranked 2nd. The District of New Mexico was ranked 7 a year ago, while it was ranked 6 five years ago.

  • District of Alaska is now ranking 3rd.

Recent entrants to the top 10 list were Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis), now ranked 7th , and Southern District of California (San Diego) at 8th In the same order, these districts ranked 16th and 23rd one year ago and 13th and 12th five years ago.

The federal judicial district which showed the greatest growth in the rate of prosecutions compared to one year ago— 1400 percent—was New Hampshire . Compared to five years ago, the district with the largest growth— 120 percent—was Middle District of Alabama (Montgomery).

In the last year, the judicial District Court recording the largest drop in the rate of prosecutions— 19.2 percent—was Western District of Texas (San Antonio).  But over the past five years, New Mexico showed the largest drop— 11.6 percent.

Top Ranked District Judges

At any one time, there are about 680 federal District Court judges working in the United States. The judges recorded with the largest number of new crime cases of this type during July 2009 are shown in Table 4.

Judge Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
Junell, Robert A. Texas, W 30 1 1 1 More
Zapata, Frank R. Arizona 22 2 76 98 More
Bury, David C. Arizona 22 2 152 23 More
Webber, E. Richard Mo, E 22 2 104 544 More
Jorgenson, Cindy K. Arizona 18 5 130 38 More
Davis, Michael J. Minnesota 18 5 499 163 More
Arcara, Richard Joseph N. Y., W 18 5 13 36 More
Collier, Curtis Lynn Tenn, E 14 8 29 38 More
Jack, Janis Graham Texas, S 14 8 6 6 More
Hayes, William Q. Cal, S 13 10 438 - More
Autrey, Henry Edward Mo, E 13 10 111 488 More

Table 4: Top 10 judges

A total of 7 out of the "top ten" judges were in districts which were in the top ten with the largest number of filings per capita, while the remaining 4 judges were from other districts. (Because of ties, there were a total of 11 judges in the "top ten" rankings.)

  • Judge Robert A. Junell in the Western District of Texas (San Antonio) ranked 1st with 30 defendants in cases. Judge Junell appeared in the top ten rankings one year (ranked 1) and five years ago (rank 1).

  • Judges Frank R. Zapata in the District of Arizona, David C. Bury in the District of Arizona and E. Richard Webber in the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis) ranked 2nd with 22 defendants in cases.

TRAC Copyright
Copyright 2009, TRAC Reports, Inc.

TRAC RSS Feed for this page Email Feed for this page Email this page