District by District

For the nation as a whole during the fiscal years 2004 through 2008, government data show that almost every one of the 90-plus federal districts had at least one instance when investigators recommended a prosecution on charges classified as terrorism under the restrictive rules followed by the U.S. courts. With these rules defendants are categorized as terrorists only when they have been charged with one or more of fourteen specific terrorism offenses.

The table below presents the various outcomes obtained for all of the 1,730 referrals for criminal prosecutions that were disposed of during the past five years (these are referred to as "cohort two" in the text).

The data show that well over one third (42%) of the 1,730 referrals were concentrated in ten districts. The ten with the largest number were California Central (Los Angeles) with 146, Virginia East (Alexandria) with 131, Maryland (Baltimore) with 72, New York South (Manhattan) with 63, the District of Columbia with 59, Florida South (Miami) 57, both New York East (Brooklyn) and Texas East (Tyler) with 51, California North (San Francisco) with 49, and Florida Middle (Tampa) with 45.

TRAC's analysis found that among these ten districts there were significant differences that could be explained by either the quality of the referrals coming from the investigative agencies or the diverse enforcement policies adopted by the assistant U.S. attorneys in various parts of the country. For example, still focusing only on the ten busiest districts, the proportion of referrals that ultimately led to a criminal filing ranged from somewhat less than half to close to zero. At the top was California South (San Diego), where the prosecution rate was 43%. At the other extreme, was Maryland (Baltimore), where the rate was only 1.4%.

One curiosity is that the top ten districts in terms of disposing of terrorism referrals are not the same as the top ten in prosecuting them. This means that while Maryland, Texas East (Tyler) and California North (San Francisco) were among the most active when it came to disposing of these matters, they dropped out when only the volume of prosecutions were counted and were replaced by California South (San Diego), the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) and the Western District of New York (Buffalo).

Considerable variation was also found in the district-by-district conviction rates. Again limiting the comparison to the ten busiest districts, the data show that about one third (31.6%) of the 45 prosecutions in Florida South (Miami) resulted in a conviction. But that outcome occurred in only 1.4% of the prosecutions in Maryland (Baltimore).



Federal Court Terrorism Definition*
District-by-District Criminal Terrorism Referrals for Prosecution
Completed Fiscal Years 2004 - 2008

  Number Percent of District Referrals
Judicial District Total Declined Prosecuted Convicted Total Declined Prosecuted Convicted
All 1,730 1,495 235 187 100% 86.4% 13.6% 10.8%
Alaska 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ala, N 4 3 1 1 100% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Ala, M 0 - - - - - - -
Ala, S 7 6 1 1 100% 85.7% 14.3% 14.3%
Ark, E 18 14 4 2 100% 77.8% 22.2% 11.1%
Ark, W 3 2 1 1 100% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3%
Arizona 15 10 5 5 100% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3%
Cal, C 146 137 9 7 100% 93.8% 6.2% 4.8%
Cal, E 38 35 3 3 100% 92.1% 7.9% 7.9%
Cal, N 49 46 3 2 100% 93.9% 6.1% 4.1%
Cal, S 21 12 9 6 100% 57.1% 42.9% 28.6%
Colorado 9 9 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Conn 9 6 3 3 100% 66.7% 33.3% 33.3%
D. C. 59 49 10 5 100% 83.1% 16.9% 8.5%
Delaware 2 2 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Fla, M 45 38 7 5 100% 84.4% 15.6% 11.1%
Fla, N 11 8 3 3 100% 72.7% 27.3% 27.3%
Fla, S 57 37 20 18 100% 64.9% 35.1% 31.6%
Ga, M 4 2 2 2 100% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Ga, N 23 18 5 3 100% 78.3% 21.7% 13.0%
Ga, S 2 1 1 1 100% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Hawaii 5 3 2 2 100% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Iowa, N 1 0 1 0 100% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0%
Iowa, S 7 7 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Idaho 17 17 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ill, C 6 6 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ill, N 32 27 5 4 100% 84.4% 15.6% 12.5%
Ill, S 4 3 1 1 100% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Ind, N 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ind, S 36 36 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Kansas 3 3 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Ken, E 6 3 3 2 100% 50.0% 50.0% 33.3%
Ken, W 7 7 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
La, E 13 13 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
La, M 2 2 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
La, W 8 7 1 1 100% 87.5% 12.5% 12.5%
Mass 41 40 1 0 100% 97.6% 2.4% 0.0%
Maryland 72 71 1 1 100% 98.6% 1.4% 1.4%
Maine 1 0 1 1 100% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mich, E 25 21 4 3 100% 84.0% 16.0% 12.0%
Mich, W 5 5 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Minnesota 10 8 2 2 100% 80.0% 20.0% 20.0%
Mo, E 19 19 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Mo, W 2 2 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Miss, N 2 2 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Miss, S 4 2 2 2 100% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%
Montana 5 4 1 1 100% 80.0% 20.0% 20.0%
N Car, E 5 5 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N Car, M 4 3 1 1 100% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
N Car, W 10 7 3 3 100% 70.0% 30.0% 30.0%
N Dakota 7 5 2 1 100% 71.4% 28.6% 14.3%
Nebraska 7 7 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
New Hamp 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N. J. 43 37 6 6 100% 86.0% 14.0% 14.0%
N Mexico 14 14 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Nevada 37 37 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
N. Y., E 51 40 11 4 100% 78.4% 21.6% 7.8%
N. Y., N 19 14 5 4 100% 73.7% 26.3% 21.1%
N. Y., S 63 41 22 17 100% 65.1% 34.9% 27.0%
N. Y., W 42 35 7 6 100% 83.3% 16.7% 14.3%
Ohio, N 12 9 3 3 100% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Ohio, S 31 29 2 2 100% 93.5% 6.5% 6.5%
Okla, E 4 3 1 1 100% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Okla, N 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Okla, W 15 13 2 1 100% 86.7% 13.3% 6.7%
Oregon 30 24 6 5 100% 80.0% 20.0% 16.7%
Penn, E 15 11 4 4 100% 73.3% 26.7% 26.7%
Penn, M 16 12 4 3 100% 75.0% 25.0% 18.8%
Penn, W 25 24 1 1 100% 96.0% 4.0% 4.0%
Puer Rico 3 3 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
R. I. 6 6 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
S Car 43 43 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
S Dakota 2 2 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tenn, E 11 11 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tenn, M 16 16 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Tenn, W 9 9 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Texas, E 51 49 2 2 100% 96.1% 3.9% 3.9%
Texas, N 33 25 8 6 100% 75.8% 24.2% 18.2%
Texas, S 37 33 4 4 100% 89.2% 10.8% 10.8%
Texas, W 26 20 6 4 100% 76.9% 23.1% 15.4%
Utah 5 2 3 2 100% 40.0% 60.0% 40.0%
Virg, E 131 120 11 10 100% 91.6% 8.4% 7.6%
Virg, W 5 3 2 2 100% 60.0% 40.0% 40.0%
Virgin Is 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Vermont 6 6 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Wash, E 4 4 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Wash, W 23 18 5 5 100% 78.3% 21.7% 21.7%
Wisc, E 4 3 1 1 100% 75.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Wisc, W 2 2 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
W Virg, N 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
W Virg, S 1 1 0 0 100% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Wyoming 1 0 1 1 100% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

* For details of definition see table