Recent Court Decisions: Koon v. United States
RODNEY KING CASE USED AS BASIS FOR DETERMINING PROPRIETY OF DOWNWARD DEPARTURE BY FEDERAL SENTENCING COURTS FROM FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES; ABUSE-OF-DISCRETION STANDARD ADOPTED.

Koon v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 59 CrL 2132, Nos. 94-1664, 94-8842 (1996).

In this case the Court considered the propriety under the federal Sentencing Guidelines of a federal district court’s downward departure in sentencing police officers convicted under 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 242 of violating the civil rights of Rodney King by using or allowing others to use unreasonable force in effecting King’s arrest. In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy interpreting the Guidelines, the Court approved three of the grounds cited by the district court in its downward departure; disapproved two of the grounds; and accordingly ordered a resentencing of the officers. 833 F.Supp. 679 (Cal. 1993), 34 F.3d 1416 (9th Cir. 1994). The court took this action.

  1. Approved a downward departure because Rodney King’s conduct substantially contributed to provoking the officers’ actions. This was considered to be an “encouraged” basis for departure under the guidelines to counterbalance cases of misconduct by officers where the victim offers no provocation whatever in a situation that sets the base offense level under the guidelines.
  2. Approved a downward departure based on the susceptibility of the police officer defendants to abuse in prison. This factor related to the widespread publicity of the case and was consistent with the overall broad goals of the Guidelines and the statute that establishes general sentencing considerations for the federal courts. 18 U.S.C.A. sec. 3553(a)(2).
  3. Approved on the same basis as (2) supra, a downward departure based on the argument that the defendants had been significantly burdened by being put through successive federal and state prosecutions for essentially the same conduct (although double jeopardy principles did not apply).
  4. Disapproved a downward departure based on the argument that the defendants faced collateral employment consequences by virtue of their convictions. This was not considered a factor outside the purview of the Guidelines. The Court noted that it is not unusual for public officials to suffer such consequences for their official misconduct, indeed they can expect it.
  5. Disapproved a downward departure on the basis that the defendants were a minimal risk for recidivism. This factor had already been taken into consideration in establishing the Guideline levels as applicable to first time offenders.
Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer concurred.

Note: As with all the cases discussed on the web pages of LELP, do not assume the law on this subject is the same in your jurisdiction; check with your legal advisor to determine the law in your own jurisdiction and how it would apply in a particular case.

Copyright (c) 1996 Law Enforcement Legal Publications


[ Return to Recent Court Decisions Index ]