Prosecutions for July 2009

Referring Agency: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Number Latest Month 1,319
Percent Change from previous month -4.1
Percent Change from 1 year ago 7.0
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Including Magistrate Court) -1.7
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Excluding Magistrate Court) -3.4

Table 1: Criminal Prosecutions

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during July 2009 the government reported 1319 new prosecutions for these matters. Those cases were referred by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is down 4.1% 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 (7 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 1.7 percent from levels reported in 2004.

FYMONDT: Jan2001
_FREQ_: 1,432 FYMONDT: Feb2001
_FREQ_: 1,581 FYMONDT: Mar2001
_FREQ_: 1,864 FYMONDT: Apr2001
_FREQ_: 1,559 FYMONDT: May2001
_FREQ_: 1,829 FYMONDT: Jun2001
_FREQ_: 1,582 FYMONDT: Jul2001
_FREQ_: 1,652 FYMONDT: Aug2001
_FREQ_: 1,669 FYMONDT: Sep2001
_FREQ_: 1,507 FYMONDT: Oct2001
_FREQ_: 1,472 FYMONDT: Nov2001
_FREQ_: 1,251 FYMONDT: Dec2001
_FREQ_: 1,281 FYMONDT: Jan2002
_FREQ_: 1,475 FYMONDT: Feb2002
_FREQ_: 1,275 FYMONDT: Mar2002
_FREQ_: 1,615 FYMONDT: Apr2002
_FREQ_: 1,615 FYMONDT: May2002
_FREQ_: 1,564 FYMONDT: Jun2002
_FREQ_: 1,440 FYMONDT: Jul2002
_FREQ_: 1,686 FYMONDT: Aug2002
_FREQ_: 1,496 FYMONDT: Sep2002
_FREQ_: 1,640 FYMONDT: Oct2002
_FREQ_: 1,470 FYMONDT: Nov2002
_FREQ_: 1,241 FYMONDT: Dec2002
_FREQ_: 1,180 FYMONDT: Jan2003
_FREQ_: 1,453 FYMONDT: Feb2003
_FREQ_: 1,490 FYMONDT: Mar2003
_FREQ_: 1,540 FYMONDT: Apr2003
_FREQ_: 1,521 FYMONDT: May2003
_FREQ_: 1,459 FYMONDT: Jun2003
_FREQ_: 1,252 FYMONDT: Jul2003
_FREQ_: 1,401 FYMONDT: Aug2003
_FREQ_: 1,288 FYMONDT: Sep2003
_FREQ_: 1,575 FYMONDT: Oct2003
_FREQ_: 1,533 FYMONDT: Nov2003
_FREQ_: 1,170 FYMONDT: Dec2003
_FREQ_: 1,222 FYMONDT: Jan2004
_FREQ_: 1,311 FYMONDT: Feb2004
_FREQ_: 1,269 FYMONDT: Mar2004
_FREQ_: 1,543 FYMONDT: Apr2004
_FREQ_: 1,396 FYMONDT: May2004
_FREQ_: 1,316 FYMONDT: Jun2004
_FREQ_: 1,362 FYMONDT: Jul2004
_FREQ_: 1,065 FYMONDT: Aug2004
_FREQ_: 1,324 FYMONDT: Sep2004
_FREQ_: 1,324 FYMONDT: Oct2004
_FREQ_: 1,304 FYMONDT: Nov2004
_FREQ_: 1,040 FYMONDT: Dec2004
_FREQ_: 1,106 FYMONDT: Jan2005
_FREQ_: 1,171 FYMONDT: Feb2005
_FREQ_: 1,101 FYMONDT: Mar2005
_FREQ_: 1,513 FYMONDT: Apr2005
_FREQ_: 1,270 FYMONDT: May2005
_FREQ_: 1,285 FYMONDT: Jun2005
_FREQ_: 1,270 FYMONDT: Jul2005
_FREQ_: 1,114 FYMONDT: Aug2005
_FREQ_: 1,620 FYMONDT: Sep2005
_FREQ_: 1,475 FYMONDT: Oct2005
_FREQ_: 1,275 FYMONDT: Nov2005
_FREQ_: 1,088 FYMONDT: Dec2005
_FREQ_: 1,025 FYMONDT: Jan2006
_FREQ_: 1,071 FYMONDT: Feb2006
_FREQ_: 1,132 FYMONDT: Mar2006
_FREQ_: 1,327 FYMONDT: Apr2006
_FREQ_: 1,130 FYMONDT: May2006
_FREQ_: 1,314 FYMONDT: Jun2006
_FREQ_: 1,363 FYMONDT: Jul2006
_FREQ_: 1,131 FYMONDT: Aug2006
_FREQ_: 1,190 FYMONDT: Sep2006
_FREQ_: 1,189 FYMONDT: Oct2006
_FREQ_: 1,178 FYMONDT: Nov2006
_FREQ_: 1,174 FYMONDT: Dec2006
_FREQ_: 970 FYMONDT: Jan2007
_FREQ_: 993 FYMONDT: Feb2007
_FREQ_: 938 FYMONDT: Mar2007
_FREQ_: 1,252 FYMONDT: Apr2007
_FREQ_: 1,115 FYMONDT: May2007
_FREQ_: 1,134 FYMONDT: Jun2007
_FREQ_: 1,210 FYMONDT: Jul2007
_FREQ_: 1,111 FYMONDT: Aug2007
_FREQ_: 1,287 FYMONDT: Sep2007
_FREQ_: 1,101 FYMONDT: Oct2007
_FREQ_: 1,066 FYMONDT: Nov2007
_FREQ_: 1,029 FYMONDT: Dec2007
_FREQ_: 1,086 FYMONDT: Jan2008
_FREQ_: 1,089 FYMONDT: Feb2008
_FREQ_: 1,252 FYMONDT: Mar2008
_FREQ_: 1,164 FYMONDT: Apr2008
_FREQ_: 1,070 FYMONDT: May2008
_FREQ_: 1,227 FYMONDT: Jun2008
_FREQ_: 1,347 FYMONDT: Jul2008
_FREQ_: 1,244 FYMONDT: Aug2008
_FREQ_: 1,118 FYMONDT: Sep2008
_FREQ_: 1,326 FYMONDT: Oct2008
_FREQ_: 1,391 FYMONDT: Nov2008
_FREQ_: 866 FYMONDT: Dec2008
_FREQ_: 1,091 FYMONDT: Jan2009
_FREQ_: 1,013 FYMONDT: Feb2009
_FREQ_: 1,239 FYMONDT: Mar2009
_FREQ_: 1,259 FYMONDT: Apr2009
_FREQ_: 1,472 FYMONDT: May2009
_FREQ_: 1,148 FYMONDT: Jun2009
_FREQ_: 1,375 FYMONDT: Jul2009
_FREQ_: 1,319 FYMONDT: Jun2001
moveave: 1641.1666667 FYMONDT: Jul2001
moveave: 1677.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2001
moveave: 1692.5 FYMONDT: Sep2001
moveave: 1633 FYMONDT: Oct2001
moveave: 1618.5 FYMONDT: Nov2001
moveave: 1522.1666667 FYMONDT: Dec2001
moveave: 1472 FYMONDT: Jan2002
moveave: 1442.5 FYMONDT: Feb2002
moveave: 1376.8333333 FYMONDT: Mar2002
moveave: 1394.8333333 FYMONDT: Apr2002
moveave: 1418.6666667 FYMONDT: May2002
moveave: 1470.8333333 FYMONDT: Jun2002
moveave: 1497.3333333 FYMONDT: Jul2002
moveave: 1532.5 FYMONDT: Aug2002
moveave: 1569.3333333 FYMONDT: Sep2002
moveave: 1573.5 FYMONDT: Oct2002
moveave: 1549.3333333 FYMONDT: Nov2002
moveave: 1495.5 FYMONDT: Dec2002
moveave: 1452.1666667 FYMONDT: Jan2003
moveave: 1413.3333333 FYMONDT: Feb2003
moveave: 1412.3333333 FYMONDT: Mar2003
moveave: 1395.6666667 FYMONDT: Apr2003
moveave: 1404.1666667 FYMONDT: May2003
moveave: 1440.5 FYMONDT: Jun2003
moveave: 1452.5 FYMONDT: Jul2003
moveave: 1443.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2003
moveave: 1410.1666667 FYMONDT: Sep2003
moveave: 1416 FYMONDT: Oct2003
moveave: 1418 FYMONDT: Nov2003
moveave: 1369.8333333 FYMONDT: Dec2003
moveave: 1364.8333333 FYMONDT: Jan2004
moveave: 1349.8333333 FYMONDT: Feb2004
moveave: 1346.6666667 FYMONDT: Mar2004
moveave: 1341.3333333 FYMONDT: Apr2004
moveave: 1318.5 FYMONDT: May2004
moveave: 1342.8333333 FYMONDT: Jun2004
moveave: 1366.1666667 FYMONDT: Jul2004
moveave: 1325.1666667 FYMONDT: Aug2004
moveave: 1334.3333333 FYMONDT: Sep2004
moveave: 1297.8333333 FYMONDT: Oct2004
moveave: 1282.5 FYMONDT: Nov2004
moveave: 1236.5 FYMONDT: Dec2004
moveave: 1193.8333333 FYMONDT: Jan2005
moveave: 1211.5 FYMONDT: Feb2005
moveave: 1174.3333333 FYMONDT: Mar2005
moveave: 1205.8333333 FYMONDT: Apr2005
moveave: 1200.1666667 FYMONDT: May2005
moveave: 1241 FYMONDT: Jun2005
moveave: 1268.3333333 FYMONDT: Jul2005
moveave: 1258.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2005
moveave: 1345.3333333 FYMONDT: Sep2005
moveave: 1339 FYMONDT: Oct2005
moveave: 1339.8333333 FYMONDT: Nov2005
moveave: 1307 FYMONDT: Dec2005
moveave: 1266.1666667 FYMONDT: Jan2006
moveave: 1259 FYMONDT: Feb2006
moveave: 1177.6666667 FYMONDT: Mar2006
moveave: 1153 FYMONDT: Apr2006
moveave: 1128.8333333 FYMONDT: May2006
moveave: 1166.5 FYMONDT: Jun2006
moveave: 1222.8333333 FYMONDT: Jul2006
moveave: 1232.8333333 FYMONDT: Aug2006
moveave: 1242.5 FYMONDT: Sep2006
moveave: 1219.5 FYMONDT: Oct2006
moveave: 1227.5 FYMONDT: Nov2006
moveave: 1204.1666667 FYMONDT: Dec2006
moveave: 1138.6666667 FYMONDT: Jan2007
moveave: 1115.6666667 FYMONDT: Feb2007
moveave: 1073.6666667 FYMONDT: Mar2007
moveave: 1084.1666667 FYMONDT: Apr2007
moveave: 1073.6666667 FYMONDT: May2007
moveave: 1067 FYMONDT: Jun2007
moveave: 1107 FYMONDT: Jul2007
moveave: 1126.6666667 FYMONDT: Aug2007
moveave: 1184.8333333 FYMONDT: Sep2007
moveave: 1159.6666667 FYMONDT: Oct2007
moveave: 1151.5 FYMONDT: Nov2007
moveave: 1134 FYMONDT: Dec2007
moveave: 1113.3333333 FYMONDT: Jan2008
moveave: 1109.6666667 FYMONDT: Feb2008
moveave: 1103.8333333 FYMONDT: Mar2008
moveave: 1114.3333333 FYMONDT: Apr2008
moveave: 1115 FYMONDT: May2008
moveave: 1148 FYMONDT: Jun2008
moveave: 1191.5 FYMONDT: Jul2008
moveave: 1217.3333333 FYMONDT: Aug2008
moveave: 1195 FYMONDT: Sep2008
moveave: 1222 FYMONDT: Oct2008
moveave: 1275.5 FYMONDT: Nov2008
moveave: 1215.3333333 FYMONDT: Dec2008
moveave: 1172.6666667 FYMONDT: Jan2009
moveave: 1134.1666667 FYMONDT: Feb2009
moveave: 1154.3333333 FYMONDT: Mar2009
moveave: 1143.1666667 FYMONDT: Apr2009
moveave: 1156.6666667 FYMONDT: May2009
moveave: 1203.6666667 FYMONDT: Jun2009
moveave: 1251 FYMONDT: Jul2009
moveave: 1302
Plot of moveave * FYMONDT

Figure 1: Monthly trends in prosecutions

The leveling out 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 "Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FOIA challen", accounting for 22.6 percent of prosecutions. Prosecutions were also filed for "Drugs-Drug Trafficking" (13%), " Drugs-Organized Crime Task Force" (7.9%), "Bank Robbery" (7.4%), "Project Safe Childhood" (6.6%), "Violence-Other" (4.9%), "Fraud-Health Care" (4.6%), "Other Criminal Prosecutions" (4.6%), "Weapons-Operation Triggerlock Major" (3.8%), " Fraud-Financial Institution" (3.2%), "Violence-Indian Country" (2.7%). See Figure 2.

progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 23%  (22.59%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 64%  (64.44%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 13%  (12.96%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 13%  (12.96%) progcatlabel: Drugs-Drug Trafficking
percentage: 13%  (12.96%)
PIE3D chart of progcatlabel

Figure 2: Specific types of prosecutions

Prosecutions in U.S. Magistrate Courts

Top Ranked Lead Charges

In July 2009, 251 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 18 U.S.C Section 2113 involving the "Bank robbery and incidental crimes". This was the lead charge for 13.1 percent of all magistrate filings in July.

Other frequently prosecuted lead charges include: "18 USC 1073 - Flight to avoid prosecution or giving testimony" (9.2%), "21 USC 846 - Attempt and conspiracy" (6.8%), "21 USC 841 - Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A" (6 %).

Prosecutions in U.S. District Courts

In July 2009, 1068 defendants in new cases for these matters were charged in the U.S. District Courts. In addition during July there were an additional 153 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 Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Lead Charge Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
21 USC 846 - Attempt and conspiracy 170 1 3 2 More
21 USC 841 - Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A 97 2 1 3 More
18 USC 2113 - Bank robbery and incidental crimes 95 3 2 1 More
18 USC 2252 - Material involving sexual exploitation of minors 62 4 4 7 More
18 USC 1347 - Health Care Fraud 53 5 13 16 More
18 USC 922 - Firearms; Unlawful acts 35 6 11 11 More
18 USC 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television 34 7 7 8 More
18 USC 1341 - Mail Fraud - Frauds and swindles 33 8 9 5 More
18 USC 1344 - Bank fraud 29 9 5 4 More
18 USC 113 - Assaults within maritime and territorial jurisdictions 27 10 8 12 More

Table 2: Top charges filed

  • "Attempt and conspiracy" (Title 21 U.S.C Section 846) was the most frequent recorded lead charge. "Attempt and conspiracy" (Title 21 U.S.C Section 846) was ranked 3 a year ago, while it was the 2 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 2nd in frequency was the lead charge "Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A" under Title 21 U.S.C Section 841. "Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A" under Title 21 U.S.C Section 841 was ranked 1 a year ago, while it was the 3 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 3rd was "Bank robbery and incidental crimes" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 2113. "Bank robbery and incidental crimes" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 2113 was ranked 2 a year ago, while it was the 1 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

Among these top ten lead charges, the one showing the greatest increase in prosecutions—up 64.3 percent—compared to one year ago was Title 21 U.S.C Section 846 that involves " Attempt and conspiracy ". Compared to five years ago, the largest increase—119.6 percent—was registered for prosecutions under " Health Care Fraud " (Title 18 U.S.C Section 1347 ).

Again among the top ten lead charges, the one showing the sharpest decline in prosecutions compared to one year ago—down 34.5 percent—was Drug Abuse Prevention + Control-Prohibited acts A (Title 21 U.S.C Section 841 ). Compared to five years ago, the most significant decline in prosecutions— 57.5 percent—was for filings where the lead charge was " Bank fraud " (Title 18 U.S.C Section 1344 ).

Top Ranked Judicial Districts

In July 2009 the Justice Department said the government brought 490.4 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  
S Car 2,383 86 1 11 10 More
S Dakota 1,979 13 2 30 20 More
Cal, S 1,661 43 3 35 50 More
Wyoming 1,638 7 4 84 81 More
N Dakota 1,506 8 5 68 67 More
N Mexico 1,483 24 6 32 27 More
La, E 1,464 17 7 34 43 More
W Virg, N 1,358 10 8 75 92 More
Tenn, W 1,329 17 9 54 24 More
Utah 1,256 27 10 25 34 More

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

  • The District of South Carolina—with 2383 prosecutions as compared with 490.4 prosecutions per ten million population in the United States—was the most active during July 2009.

  • The District of South Dakota ranked 2nd.

  • Southern District of California (San Diego) is now ranking 3rd.

Recent entrants to the top 10 list were South Carolina , now ranked 1st , and Utah at 10th In the same order, these districts ranked 11th and 25th one year ago and 10th and 34th five years ago.

The federal judicial district which showed the greatest growth in the rate of prosecutions compared to one year ago— 215 percent—was Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling). This was the same district that had the largest increase— 1160 %—when compared with five years ago.

In the last year, the judicial District Court recording the largest drop in the rate of prosecutions— 17 percent—was Montana .  But over the past five years, Western District of Tennessee (Memphis) showed the largest drop— 29.9 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  
Feess, Gary Allen Cal, C 42 1 59 392 More
Larson, Stephen G. Cal, C 39 2 250 - More
Moskowitz, Barry Ted Cal, S 15 3 302 532 More
Alvarez, Micaela Texas, S 15 3 154 - More
St. Eve, Amy J. Ill, N 11 5 45 157 More
Jones, Barbara S. N. Y., S 11 5 366 344 More
Nugent, Donald C. Ohio, N 11 5 154 44 More
01540 Penn, E 11 5 - - More
Russell, Thomas B. Ken, W 10 9 512 392 More
Mordue, Norman A. N. Y., N 10 9 512 192 More
Keeley, Irene Patricia Murphy W Virg, N 10 9 50 683 More

Table 4: Top 10 judges

A total of 2 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 9 judges were from other districts. (Because of ties, there were a total of 11 judges in the "top ten" rankings.)

  • Judge Gary Allen Feess in the Central District of California (Los Angeles) ranked 1st with 42 defendants in cases.

  • Judge Stephen G. Larson in the Central District of California (Los Angeles) ranked 2nd with 39 defendants in cases.

  • Judges Barry Ted Moskowitz in the Southern District of California (San Diego) and Micaela Alvarez in the Southern District of Texas (Houston) ranked 3rd with 15 defendants in cases.

TRAC Copyright
Copyright 2009, TRAC Reports, Inc.

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