The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Tuesday, February 20, 1996
Decision: Thursday, June 13, 1996
Issues: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sentencing Guidelines

Advocates

Michael R. Dreeben (Argued the cause for the respondent)
William J. Kopeny (Argued the cause for petitioner Powell)
Theodore B. Olson (Argued the cause for petitioner Koon)

Facts of the Case

Petitioners Stacey C. Koon and Laurence M. Powell, Los Angeles police officers, were acquitted on state charges of assault and excessive use of force in the beating of Rodney King during an arrest. They were convicted under 18 U. S. C. Section 242 of violating the victim's constitutional rights under color of law. Although the applicable U.S. Sentencing Guideline, 1992 USSG Section 2H1.4, indicated that they should be imprisoned for 70 to 87 months, the District Court granted them two downward departures from that range. The first was based on the victim's misconduct, which significantly contributed to provoking the offense. The second was based on a combination of four factors: (1) that the petitioners were unusually susceptible to abuse in prison; (2) that the petitioners would lose their jobs and be precluded from employment in law enforcement; (3) that the petitioners had been subject to successive state and federal prosecutions; and (4) that the petitioners posed a low risk of recidivism. The sentencing range after the departures was 30 to 37 months, and the court sentenced each petitioner to 30 months. The Court of Appeals reviewed the departure decisions utilizing a de novo standard and rejected all of them.

Question

Did the Court of Appeals use the wrong standard in deciding whether a federal trial judge had erred in departing from the federal Sentencing Guidelines and giving lighter sentences to two ex-policemen convicted in the beating of Rodney King?

Conclusion

Yes. In an opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that the Court of Appeals should not review de novo a decision to depart from the Guideline sentencing range, but instead should ask whether the sentencing court abused its discretion. Furthermore, because the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting certain of the downward departure factors relied upon by the District Judge, wrote Justice Kennedy, significant parts of the appellate court's rulings require reversal.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Full Opinion: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Sentencing Guidelines: 5 - 4
Voted with the minority, authored a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the minority, authored a special concurrence
Breyer
Voted with the minority, joined Souter's special concurrence, joined Breyer's special concurrence
Ginsburg
Voted with the minority, authored a special concurrence
Souter
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Kennedy
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
O'Connor
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
Scalia
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's opinion
Thomas

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1664/>
(last visited ).