Judge Lists Reasons for Lesser Penalty

The guidelines are intended to carve out a heartland, a core of typical cases, and where a case is found to be atypical and the underlying conduct significantly differs from the norm, the court may consider whether a departure is warranted. . . . Is this an atypical case? This is an atypical case.

I would say that the conduct of Mr. King which began in the suburb of Altadena with a remarkable consumption of alcoholic beverage (and included a high-speed chase and resisting arrest) . . . falls clearly within conduct that contributed significantly to provoking the offense behavior.

The defendants in the court’s judgment, and I so find, will incur punishment in addition to the sentence that is imposed upon them in this court today. That additional punishment will find its sources in two elements, the additional adversarial proceedings that they will face, that they have faced, and secondly, the extraordinary publicity, the extraordinary notoriety that this case has generated. . . .

And additionally, the additional element, or sub-element, is the high emotional response to this case and their status as police officers and I believe, makes them unusual, susceptible to abuse in prison and that is a recognized reason for a downward departure. . . .

Neither of these defendants are dangerous individuals. Albeit they have been convicted of a dangerous and violent offense, they constitute no threat to society whatsoever.

And thirdly, . . . the fact that the federal government chose to indict these defendants is an unusual circumstance. Double jeopardy and the dual sovereign principle attaches and the government has not interfered with their constitutional rights in one whit by prosecuting them in this court, but my comment is that this second indictment and the second prosecution has a specter of unfairness and it makes this case, it contributes to perception that this case falls within the downward departure standards of the guidelines.