Source: https://www.nathanslaw.com/articles/1998-downward-departure/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:14:47+00:00

Document:
This review includes two November 1998 amendments to the downward departures guidelines and relevant caselaw from the circuit and district courts published in 1998. No cases are included which merely affirm the denial of a downward departure where the district court understood its ability to depart but refused to exercise its discretion. A number of cases appear two or three times in this review because they address two or three different departures. The post - Koon trend continues with more departures in the district courts, and circuit court decisions more likely to uphold those departures. For white collar practitioners, courts created significant departure caselaw and opportunities for creative defense arguments in 1998 on topics ranging from money laundering, mental heath claims involving diminished capacity, substantial assistance in absence of government motion, post-offense and post-sentencing rehabilitation, extreme remorse, and waiver of valid forfeiture claims.
Two of the November 1998 amendments to the Guidelines affect downward departures. First, § 5K2.13 (Diminished Capacity) has changed in two ways. Amendment 583 rewrote the policy statement to explain that a departure is possible "if the defendant committed the offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity," unless (1) the reduced mental capacity was caused by voluntary use of drugs or other intoxicants, (2) the offense involved actual violence or a serious threat of violence and thus the public needs to be protected, or (3) the defendant's criminal history demonstrates a need to protect the public through incarceration. This amendment changes the language of the policy statement referencing the underlying offense. As amended, the policy statement no longer references a "non-violent offense." Now, the exception only applies to offenses which do not involve actual violence or a serious threat of violence.
Relying on United States v. McBroom, ___124 F.3d 533___ (3rd Cir. 1997), amendment 583 also added application note 1 defining "significantly reduced mental capacity" as "a significantly impaired ability to (A) understand the wrongfulness of the behavior comprising the offense or to exercise the power of reason; or (B) control behavior that the defendant knows is wrongful." Prior to this definition, some courts had a required showing under (A) as opposed to either (A) or (B).
Second, in addition to minor language changes, the November 1998 amendments altered the language of § 5K2.0 (departures) in three potentially substantive ways. First, the commission added a new paragraph to the commentary explaining that under Koon the abuse of discretion standard applies to appellate review of district court departure decisions. The added section also provides an extensive quote from Koon explaining how district courts should define the heartland and determine whether the instant case falls within or outside the heartland by comparison with other cases before the court on a day-to-day basis.
Second, at the end of the last paragraph of the policy statement of § 5K2.0, the Commission struck the following quoted provision: that a potential departure factor may distinguish the case from the heartland "in a way that is important to the statutory purposes of sentencing." This revision potentially expands departures under § 5K2.0 for factors not considered by the guidelines because those factors do not need to remove the case from the heartland in a way related to the purposes of sentencing, outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Rather, the factor can remove the case from the heartland in any way with no restrictions.
Third, to the last sentence in the first paragraph of the policy statement, the amendment added that even if a guideline takes a factor into account, the factor can still be the basis for a departure in unusual circumstances if the "weight attached" to that factor is "excessive." Thus by adding "excessive," the Commission recognized that a departure may be warranted in part because specific offense characteristics or adjustment itself is excessive. The Commission's recognition that an enhancement or an adjustment may be excessive provides some new ground to argue for departures.
(11) Probation officer conducting pre-sentencing report concluded that downward departure was marginally appropriate factor, but not on par with other appropriate factors.
United States v Fagan, ___ F.3d ___, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 32538 (10th Cir. December 29, 1998) (Reversing denial of downward departure for remorse, because district court stated it could not consider such a factor. Although remorse is taken into account under acceptance of responsibility, it can provide a basis for a departure if present to an exceptional degree).
United States v. Houran, ___161 F.3d 206 ___(3rd Cir. 1998) (District court does not have the authority to downward depart for substantial assistance under § 5K1.1 where government fails to make a motion unless government's failure is based upon (1) an unconstitutional motive, i.e. race, gender, or defendant exercising constitutional rights, or (2) the government acted in bad faith. § 5K2.0 provides no additional grounds for departure for substantial assistance).

References: § 5
 v. 
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 3553
 v. 
 § 5
 § 5