Opinion ID: 202348
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disruption of a government function

Text: 94 Under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.7, [i]f the defendant's conduct resulted in a significant disruption of a governmental function, the court may increase the sentence above the authorized guideline range to reflect the nature and extent of the disruption and the importance of the governmental function affected. In applying this ground for departure, the district court made three findings related to the consequences of Wallace's evasion of arrest and prosecution in this case. First, it noted that Wallace's flight from justice caused the marshal service to engage in substantial investigative and law enforcement activity in a four-year long search for him. Second, the court stated that the defendant's actions cause[d] there to be two trials of this matter instead of one. He would have likely been tried with his co-defendant, his brother ... Third, and relatedly, Wallace's actions forced victims in this case to testify a second time and to relive the terror that they were subjected to a second time. The defendant argues that there was no indication that the government expended significant resources in searching for the defendant. Nor was there a demonstration that a joint trial would have taken place or evidence that the costs of a separate trial for defendant were such as to warrant the upward departure. We reject the defendant's argument that the district court's findings were insufficient to support the application of the departure in this case. As the district court noted, the defendant had evaded arrest for four years, leading to a trial that took place years after the trial of his co-conspirator. We have previously noted that, in a multi-defendant case, a defendant's flight from justice can disrupt government functions: 95 In addition to the possible disappearance of witnesses and the loss of evidence, the defendant may obtain a distinct advantage over the government by absconding in a multi-defendant case. If the government proceeds against the co-defendants before the defendant is found, the defendant can assess the strengths and weaknesses of the government's case before returning for his own trial. Moreover, the defendant could create additional impediments to the government's ability to prosecute the co-defendants. The co-defendants could attempt to shift the blame from themselves to the absent defendant. Further, the defendant may place additional burdens on the court because, in many cases, the court will either have to conduct multiple trials unnecessarily, or wait an indeterminate length for the capture of the defendant to conduct a single trial. 96 United States v. Moreno, 367 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted). In addition, we have noted that a long absence can provide further support for a § 5K2.7 departure: 97 [T]he length of the absence can be relevant to determining the extent to which the defendant's conduct disrupted the judicial process. The longer the absence, the more likely it is that the government will have difficulty prosecuting the defendant on his return. In addition by absenting himself, the defendant (if convicted) delays the day on which he will ultimately face punishment. 98 Id. At the very least, the government in this case had no choice but to conduct another trial, preparing witnesses it had already prepared years earlier at Nickoyan's trial, in order to obtain a conviction of the defendant. Thus, a factual basis for this departure exists in the record. Moreover, there is no concern that applying a departure here leads to any impermissible double-counting. The adjusted offense level does not otherwise account for Wallace's flight from justice. Cf. Moreno 367 F.3d at 3-5 (noting that grounds for departure under § 5K2.7 were already accounted for in offense level for defendant's bail jumping). The defendant does not convince us that this ground for departure is invalid. 99