Koon v. United States

518 U.S. 81 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

King was with two friends who decided it would be a good idea to drink and drive and that going 100 M.P.H. was a good idea too. When King refused to pull over the Highway Patrol called for help with the L.A.P.D. They joined the pursuit. King left the freeway after an eight-mile chase. When they finally stopped, the occupants were ordered from the car and told to assume the felony prone position. King got out of the car and did not lie down. Koon (D) arrived on the scene, and D took charge of the location, as he was the sergeant. King was ordered again but only got on his knees but did not lie down. Three officers tried for force King down, but he resisted and became combative; the officers retreated. D then fired taser darts into King. The events that followed the taser darts were captured on videotape. The text then describes what happened on the videotape. King was eventually taken to the hospital and treated for a fractured leg, facial fractures, numerous bruises, and contusions. D, Powell, Briseno, and Wind were tried in state court on charges of assault with a deadly weapon and excessive use of force by a police officer. The officers were acquitted of all charges except for a hung jury on an assault charge against Powell. Of course, this was a good reason to riot and as a result, 40 more people were killed, 2,000 injured, and nearly $1 billion in property damage occurred. The federal grand jury indicted the four officers under 18 U.S.C. Section 242 for violating King's constitutional rights under color of law. Koon and Powell were convicted, but Wind and Briseno was acquitted. The sentences were reviewed. The District Court used section 2H1.4 of the Guidelines Manual, and under the point system, the District Court departed from those guidelines downward eight levels. The court granted a five-level departure because the victim's wrongful conduct contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior. The court also granted a three-level departure because of widespread publicity, and emotional outrage that Ds were particularly likely to be targets of abuse in prison; Ds were also likely to be discharged from their positions and disgraced and disqualified from prospective employment; Ds were significantly burdened by having been subjected to state and federal successive prosecutions; Ds were not violent or likely to engage in future criminal conduct, and there was no need to protect the public from them. These departures yielded a sentencing range of 30-37 months. The court then sentenced each to 30 months in jail. The government appealed. The Appeals Court reversed the District Court's departure determinations. The Court of Appeals reviewed “de novo whether the district court had authority to depart.” This was appealed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine the standard of review governing appeals from a district court's decision to depart from the sentencing ranges in the Guidelines.