Direct indictment
7.6%
Median 15.1%
-7.5 pts
Petersburg Commonwealth's Attorney
1,758 circuit court filings · 1,220 resolved · 2025 calendar year · Volume band A (≥1,000 filings)
At a glance vs. statewide median
Each card pairs Petersburg's rate with the statewide median across 118 qualifying offices.
Nolle prosequi
18.3%
Median 17.8%
+0.5 pts
Guilty
30.6%
Median 34.9%
-4.3 pts
Trial on contested
13.4%
Median 9.5%
+3.9 pts
Direct indictment is % of filings; nolle prosequi, guilty, and trial-on-contested are % of resolved cases. Trial-on-contested excludes nolle prosequi and probation-revocation matters from the denominator. 72 trial dispositions out of 536 contested cases.
Charging method mix
How cases entered the circuit court. Percentages are of total 2025 filings (1,758) and sum to 100%.
Direct indictment skips the district-court preliminary hearing and routes the case directly to grand jury. Reinstatement covers cases revived after a prior dismissal (commonly probation-revocation matters). The Commonwealth's Attorney influences the direct-indictment rate; the appeal-from-district rate reflects defendant choices. Other includes ancillary misdemeanors attached to felony cases, fail-to-appear matters, J&DR appeals, and similar less-common methods.
Disposition breakdown
How 2025 cases ended. Percentages are of resolved cases (1,220) and sum to 100%. Pending or unresolved cases are excluded.
"Probation revoked" = § 19.2-306 revocation matters (prior conviction returning for sentence enforcement). They are not new prosecutions and are excluded from the trial-on-contested calculation. Other includes remanded cases, generic "Resolved" entries, withdrawn appeals, and 27 acquittals (2.2% of resolved cases).
Trial activity
Of the 536 contested cases in 2025 (resolved cases excluding nolle and probation revocations), 72 ended at trial — a rate of 13.4%. The statewide median is 9.5%.
Plea outcomes are the inverse of trial outcomes among contested cases. The data shows what happened, not why — plea dynamics depend on evidence, witness availability, prior record, and defense strategy, none of which are visible in court records.
What this data does NOT capture
- Plea-bargain dynamics (which charges were reduced or dropped during negotiation, what was offered)
- Evidence quality, witness availability or cooperation
- Prior record, victim input, or sentencing terms imposed
- Judicial reasoning behind any disposition
- Individual prosecutor performance — these are office-level totals; CIS does not publish prosecutor names by case
- Federal cases (not in CIS)
- Defendant demographics or income
A higher or lower rate compared to the statewide median can reflect prosecutorial policy, local docket composition, charging mix, court resources, or any combination. The data is the starting point of a question, not the answer.
Methodology & sourcing
- Source: Virginia Circuit Court Information System (CIS), 2025 calendar year. Data is keyed by FIPS code; the office is identified at the jurisdiction level.
- Volume band: A (≥1,000 filings). Bands D and E carry wide confidence intervals on any rate.
- Charging-method percentages are of total filings; disposition percentages are of resolved cases; trial-on-contested rate excludes nolle prosequi and § 19.2-306 probation revocations from the denominator.
- The 19th Judicial Circuit (Fairfax County, Fairfax City, Falls Church) Circuit Court is not in CIS and is not included in the 119-office universe.
- Full site methodology · Read the 2025 accountability report · Report a correction