Court Opinion

ID: 9496089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:17:46.37845+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:21.887548
License: Public Domain

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that “it is possible to reconcile the jury verdict with the existence” of Cock-ett’s alleged significantly reduced mental capacity as a matter of law. I also do not agree with the majority’s conclusion that the record supports the district court’s factual conclusion. I therefore DISSENT.
I.
It is agreed that, at sentencing, the district court cannot rely on a finding that directly conflicts with the jury’s verdict. United States v. Reed, 264 F.3d 640, 648 (6th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 962, 122 S.Ct. 1374, 152 L.Ed.2d 366 (2002). In criminal tax fraud cases, the Government must establish that the defendant acted “willfully” at the time of the offense. Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 200, 111 S.Ct. 604, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991). Congress decided that, given the proliferation and complexity of the tax laws, a person should not be prosecuted for failing to adhere to a tax law unless the individual knew of the law and consciously disregarded it. See id. at 199-200, 111 S.Ct. 604. Thus, the tax laws are an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no defense to criminal prosecution. Id. Accordingly, to find Cockett guilty of violating § 7606(2), the jury was required to find that she “willfully” aided and assisted in the preparation of false tax returns. United States v. Sassak, 881 F.2d 276, 278 (6th Cir.1989).
The jury in this case was instructed on the requisite mental state as follows:
“Willfully” means a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In other words, to act willfully means to act voluntarily and deliberately with the specific intent to do something the Defendant knew the law prohibited. Willfulness necessarily depends on the Defendant’s state of mind at the time that the acts for which she is charged were committed. The word “knowingly” also means to act voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake, accident .or other innocent reasons. Accidental, inadvertent or negligent conduct does not constitute willful conduct.
As the majority notes, “[t]he defense theory at trial was that Cockett did not act willfully, having prepared the returns for the women in this case with a good-faith belief that she was not acting in violation of the law.” Maj. Op. at 709. In returning guilty verdicts, the jury necessarily rejected Cockett’s contention that she did not *717act willfully at the time of the offenses. That is, based on the jury instruction, the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Cockett acted “voluntarily and deliberately with the specific intent to do something the defendant knew the law prohibited.”
Thus, I simply do not see how Cockett’s alleged significantly reduced mental capacity, an alleged depressive disorder and thought disorder, “which potentially impaired Cockett’s power of reasoning,” Maj. Op. at 715, can be squared with the jury’s finding. The majority maintains that, “unlike the situation in Reed, it is possible to reconcile these two findings.” I cannot discern how the majority actually reconciles them, however. The majority states that the two findings are reconcilable “given their differing scopes of application and the fact that a direct causal link between the sentencing factor and the offense conduct is unnecessary.” Maj. Op. at 711. Regarding the “differing scopes of application,” the majority acknowledges that “the government would prevail despite the lesser burden of at sentencing, if we assumed that the defense and the mitigating factor were not appreciably different.” Maj. Op. at 712-713.1 Yet the majority does not explain in what way the two are appreciably different in this case. Instead, it simply concludes: “Nevertheless, the government is not correct in concluding that the jury’s verdict, finding that Cockett has acted willfully, and the judge’s finding of diminished capacity are necessarily in conflict. In other words, Cockett could voluntarily and intentionally violate the tax laws, but nevertheless be impaired in her ability to exercise the power of reason. Impairment does not mean total absence of reason.”2 Maj. Op. at 713.
Again, the question to my mind is, but how? How can someone allegedly suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity that purportedly caused her to “not consider herself as a conscious willful lawbreaker,” allegedly impaired “her ability to both exercise the power of reason and to control her behavior,” and prevented her “from understandfing] that she ac*718tually did something wrong,” nevertheless “act voluntarily and deliberately with the specific intent to do something [she] knew the law prohibited”? How can someone allegedly suffering from a thought disorder and “intermittent immobilizing depression” have the wherewithall to utilize her training in the business of preparing tax returns, offer to prepare and to actually prepare tax returns for women who earned very little or no income at all, falsely report at Part I of each of the Schedule C-EZs that each taxpayer was a self-employed “care provider,” exaggerate or completely fabricate the self-employment income reported at Part II on the Schedule C-EZs, falsely report the false Schedule C-EZ figures on each taxpayer’s Form 1040 at the line designated for business income, and then claim Earned Income Credit based on the false income amount in order to obtain a refund, and also backdate several forms to make it appear that they were filled out before the filing deadline? I cannot perceive the majority’s formula for reconciliation.
I also do not see how someone whose “image of herself is of a person who helps others, rather than a person who takes advantage of them,” asks the majority of these impoverished taxpayers for one-half of the refund they received from the IRS. Nor can I imagine how someone suffering from impaired reasoning and immobilizing depression is capable of writing letters to the IRS inquiring into the status of the refunds, and concealing her involvement by failing to enter her name as the tax preparer in the designated section of the 1040 form and by failing to sign her name on the letters.
In further support of its conclusion, the majority also reasons that a direct causal link between the sentencing factors and the offense conduct is unnecessary. In support, it relies on United States v. Sadolsky, 234 F.3d 938 (6th Cir.2000), which I authored. However, the significantly reduced mental capacity at issue in Sadolsky was a volitional disorder, namely a gambling disorder. With volitional disorders, the defendant has a “significantly impaired ability to ... (B) control behavior that the defendant knows is wrongful.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13, cmt. (n.l). In Sadolsky, the Government argued that the defendant’s gambling problem would only justify a downward departure if he had been arrested for gambling, rather than fraud. Specifically, the Government contended that “ ‘the question [was] whether this new volitional test requires that the defendant be unable to control the behavior that constitutes the crime, or whether it can be satisfied by an inability to control behavior that provides the motive for the crime.’ ” Sadolsky, 234 F.3d at 942-43. In rejecting the Government’s argument, we explained:
The Guideline language does not support the Government’s argument. Section 5K2.13 does not distinguish between SRMCs [significantly reduced mental capacity(s)] that explain the behavior that constituted the crime charged and SRMCs that explain the behavior that motivated the crime. In other words, § 5K2.13 does not require a direct causal link between the SMRC and the crime charged.... Thus, because Sadolsky’s gambling disorder is a likely cause for his criminal behavior [credit card fraud to obtain cash], given that he had already “maxed out” his own credit line before resorting to fraud, the two-point reduction is not inconsistent with the guideline provision.
Id. at 943 (footnote omitted).
Because Sadolsky dealt with a volitional impairment-i.e. the defendant suffered from a lack of impulse control over behavior “the defendant knows is wrongful,” it is not dispositive in a case where the potential conflict is between the specific intent *719element of a crime and a cognitive impairment. Thus, the statement in Sadolsky that a direct causal link between the conduct that caused the crime and the behavior that motivated the crime should not be read out of context, because volitional and cognitive impairments are obviously not analogous. Furthermore, the majority has not even shown an indirect causal link. Having said this, I do not mean to suggest that cognitive impairments can never be squared with specific intent crimes. However, I simply do not see how they can be reconciled in this ease.
II.
In addition to requiring an actual cognitive impairment, § 5K2.13 requires that “[i]f a departure is warranted, the extent of the departure should reflect the extent to which the reduced mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 (emphasis added). The district court made the following fact findings:
And this case is fraught with special circumstances.
First of all, there’s nothing in the guidelines that takes into account 54 or 53 or 55 years of lawful conduct. Secondly, in my short tenure on the bench, almost three years I have not seen an individual in the same emotional state as Mrs. Cockett. And I’m not referring to the last ten or 15 minutes. I am referring to the trauma that has been visited upon her in her lifetime, which from the information I have, has never been properly addressed through grief counselling [sic] or the like. And that includes being stabbed approximately 26 times by her former husband. That includes living through the murder of her son.
We have had testimony in the nature of diminished capacity at trial, as well as reports in the nature of competency at trial, as well as reports in the nature of competency for trial, examination reports. And as the record will reflect, there have been times when this case could not proceed because-of her mental condition, which was sufficiently impaired so that she could not understand the nature of the proceedings and/or aid her counsel.
It troubles me somewhat that the Government has taken the position that the guidelines are the last step in this case, or if that’s a mischaracterization, then that there’s no reason for a downward departure in this particular case. I won’t do the easy thing, which would be to do a ten-— or 15-second sound bite about the conduct of Mrs. Cockett compared to some other taxpayers who are not prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Nor will I dwell on the guideline provisions that — or the Government’s argument that seem to encourage higher sentences for people who exercise their constitutional right to go to trial. But I do find that there is a basis—
... I find, given the extraordinary facts, that there is a basis for downward departure based on 5K2.13, which states the sentence below the applicable guideline range may be warranted if the Defendant committed the offense while suffering from a significantly reduced mental capacity. And then they have three exceptions to that rule, none of which apply here. Then the last sentence says, “If a departure is warranted, the extent of the departure should reflect the extent to which the reduced mental capacity contributed to the commission of the offense.”
And it’s the sentence of this Court on Counts 2 through 22 of the indictment, pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the Defendant is hereby placed on probation for a period of two years, all to be served concurrently. I’m instructing that a condition of that probation is continued mental health counsel-*720ling [sic] with an emphasis, although belatedly, on grief counselling [sic],
Mrs. Cockett, your life of 56 years has had substantially more than your share of grief. From the reports that I have read, I have not seen until very recently any attempt by any professional to help you. That requires that you cooperate. And now you have no choice, because it’s a condition of probation.
In my view, these fact findings do not support a conclusion that Cockett has an alleged diminished mental capacity which contributed to the offenses. As detailed above, the nature of the scheme here required a fair amount of mental acumen, which belies any finding that any purported reduced mental capacity was present at the time of the offenses. See United States v. Johnson, 979 F.2d 396, 401 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that the district court erred in departing under Section 5K2.13 based on a diagnosed severe adjustment disorder because there was no indication that the defendant was unable to process information or to reason; stating that “[t]o the contrary, from all accounts, defendant displayed considerable mental agility in his professional and personal affairs, both legal and illicit”); United States v. Goossens, 84 F.3d 697, 701 (4th Cir.1996) (holding that the district court erred in departing on the grounds that the defendant suffered from generalized anxiety disorder because most of the evidence presented to the district court indicated a high level of mental functioning on his part, including the fact that the defendant encrypted the pornographic material on his computer to avoid detection).
Furthermore, the Government introduced evidence at trial regarding Cockett’s mental state at the time of the offenses. Several of Cockett’s tax clients testified that she was intelligent and acted normally. Cockett impressed the Internal Revenue Service Agent who interviewed her on August 18, 1998, as being intelligent, professional, and knowledgeable about tax law. Cockett’s activities during the time frame of the offenses also undermine any claim that she was operating under a reduced mental capacity. While preparing the fraudulent returns, Cockett was working as a nurse at a medical center. Cock-ett’s supervisor testified that she properly performed her duties as a nurse during 1997 and 1998. Cf. Johnson, 979 F.2d at 401 (finding that the letters attesting to the defendant’s upstanding qualities and seeming “normality” undermined any contention that his psychological infirmity was significant). Cockett’s supervisor also testified that Cockett did not display signs of depression until August, 1999, when her son was killed. Thus, the evidence indicates that any mental impairments did not arise until after the commission of the tax offenses in 1997 and 1998. Any mental capacity therefore could not have “contributed to” the commission of the offenses.
The district court also focused on the abusive treatment by Cockett’s ex-husband as a basis for concluding that she suffered from a reduced mental capacity. This treatment by her ex-husband occurred in the late 1960s, nearly thirty years prior to the offenses. I have a difficult time seeing how events that occurred so many years in the past can be linked to the crime at issue.
The district court also referenced “the nature of diminished capacity at trial, as well as reports in the nature of competency for trial.” The district court was referring to the testimony of Dr. Jackson, a forensic psychologist appointed by the court. At trial, Jackson testified that he believed Cockett had been suffering from a mood and thought disorder in the 1990s. However, he also testified that he had not drawn a definite conclusion in that regard. Prior to sentencing, Jackson submitted a letter, which contrary to his testimony, *721concluded that at the time of the offenses, “she was experiencing ongoing symptoms of impairment in her ability both to exercise the power of reason and to control her behavior. Thus, it is my opinion that she did so while suffering a significantly reduced mental capacity.”3
In my view, the district court erred in relying on Jackson’s (or Abramsky’s) opinion in departing downward. Jackson’s opinion at trial was not certain and was based upon only four hours of examination, two to three years after the offenses in question. Moreover, the examinations were conducted after Cockett had been indicted, when she had an incentive to exaggerate or fabricate her condition. See United States v. Soliman, 954 F.2d 1012, 1014 (5th Cir.1992) (holding that the court was not bound by definition of “significantly reduced mental capacity” provided by testifying psychologist and psychiatrist where the court specifically found that the mental condition described by the defendant’s expert witnesses as depression did not contribute to the commission of the crime). Jackson’s post-trial letter conflicts with his testimony at trial. At trial, Jackson could not determine with certainty Cockett’s state of mind at the time of the offenses. Jackson did not evaluate Cock-ett between trial and sentencing. Therefore, his revised conclusion is inexplicable. Similarly, Abramsky concluded merely that, during her treatment, she was unable to understand the wrongfulness of her behavior post-indictment. Abramsky stated that, based on the history Cockett provided, it appeared that she had suffered from intermittent immobilizing depressions over the last fifteen years. He did not express an opinion as to her state of mind at the time of the offense. Thus, any reliance by the district court on Abramsky’s letter is misplaced.
The majority also relies on the results of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Test administered by Jackson. This test was administered on April 11 and April 17, 2000, two to three years after the offenses at issue and after her son’s death. In his letter dated April 18, 2000, Jackson stated that he conducted the test “[i]n order to further clarify Mrs. Cockett’s current functioning” as part of his evaluation of whether Cockett was then competent to stand trial. (J.A. 614) (Emphasis added.) Although the majority links the results of this test to Jackson’s opinion in later reports regarding Cockett’s diminished capacity at the time of the offenses, the psychologist himself did not make this connection until post trial, and in contradiction with his trial testimony. Thus, I think it is disingenuous for the majority to state that the results of the MMPT support a conclusion that Cockett’s purported depressive disorder and thinking disorder “is explicitly linked to a diminished capacity to reason during the relevant time period. ” Maj. Op. at 715. Moreover, it is equally likely that the intervening trauma of her son’s death affected the MMPT result.
Based on its remarks at sentencing, it is apparent that the district court fashioned Cockett’s sentence based on its sympathy for Cockett rather than the evidence presented at trial.4. Cockett’s fifty-some *722years of lawful conduct is not a special circumstance, and the Sentencing Guidelines factor in a defendant’s lack of a criminal record via the criminal history categories. Furthermore, the district court’s obvious compassion for the unfortunate events of Cockett’s life is not a substitute for a specific finding that she was suffering a cognitive impairment at the time of the offenses. This Court has emphasized that emotional hardship, alone, cannot support a § 5K2.13 departure. “[W]e think it ‘ill-advised’ to excuse a defendant’s unlawful conduct merely because he has suffered insult or hardship.... Such a ruling would entitle virtually every defendant to a *723downward departure, since an inescapable aspect of human existence is misfortune or defeat.” Johnson, 979 F.2d at 401; see also United States v. Dyer, 216 F.3d 568, 571 (7th Cir.2000) (stating that reducing a defendant’s sentence pursuant to § 5K2.18 because the court feels sorry for the defendant is “just the kind of ad hoc unfocused sentencing judgment that the guidelines seek to purge”); United States v. Withers, 100 F.3d 1142, 1147-48 (4th Cir.1996) (noting that the Guidelines instruct that mental and emotional conditions are not ordinarily relevant, thus to qualify for a departure, the defendant must be suffering from something greater than emotional problems or hardship; otherwise “anyone who could point to a sufficiently tragic event in his or her life would be eligible for a sentence reduction”); United States v. Pullen, 89 F.3d 368, 369-71 (7th Cir.1996) (affirming the district court’s refusal to depart downward where the defendant had suffered physical and emotional abuse and a psychologist testified that the defendant suffered from a schizoid disorder that impaired his ability to think and act clearly because “[i]f a miserable family history were ... a permissible basis for leniency ... this would resurrect the pre-guidelines regime of discretionary sentencing”). In essence, as the Government observes, “[t]he district court’s comments at sentencing reveal that it simply applied a thin glaze of ... questionable and inapplicable expert opinion to tragic events in defendant’s life in order to justify a finding of cognitive impairment.” The Sentencing Guidelines do not allow this, however.
For the foregoing reasons, I therefore respectfully DISSENT.

. The majority correctly recognizes that “if a downward departure were available only where Cockett had not acted willfully, there is no question that the judge could not subsequently find by a preponderance of the evidence that Cockett had not acted willfully, since the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Cockett acted willfully.” Maj. Op. at 713.

. Nor do I comprehend how the majority’s hypothetical concerning a mentally retarded person who knowingly throws a grenade into a neighbor's yard proves their point in Cock-ett’s case. While it may be illustrative of the general principle that it is possible in certain cases to reconcile a jury verdict with the existence of a significantly reduced mental capacity, I do not see the analogy to this case. As the Supreme Court recently observed,
mentally retarded persons frequently know the difference between right and wrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impairments, however, by definition they have they have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. There is no evidence that they are more likely to engage in criminal conduct than others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan, and that in group settings they are followers rather than leaders. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability.
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002). Whatever Cockett’s diminished mental capacity, it does not meet the definition of a mentally retarded person or otherwise appear analogous. I therefore believe the majority’s example is an inappropriate illustration of their point that Cockett's alleged cognitive impairment is not inconsistent with the jury’s finding of willfulness.

. Although the district court did not explicitly refer to it, Mr. Michael Abramsky, a psychologist, also submitted a letter to the district court at sentencing. Abramsky wrote that, based on her self-report, Cockett “it appears that this woman has suffered from intermitted immobilizing depressions over the last fifteen years” and “continues to be as baffled as before, never comprehending that she actually did something wrong.” Cockett did not begin seeing Abramsky until April 5, 2000, about a week after she was indicted.

. At the sentencing hearing, the district court rejected the Government’s argument that the “key inquiry” was whether Cockett was suffering from a diminished mental capacity at the time of the offense.
*722THE COURT: Isn't the key inquiry here what is an appropriate sentence for somebody with her background, her age, her involvement and the lack of sophistication of this whole scheme?
I mean, if I were to turn my back and forget everything I heard at trial, I would think you were talking about a tax protester or a large dollar amount. You have expended an enormous amount of energy writing a wonderful brief as to all of the points that you have just raised. And now you have repeated them in court just in case I didn’t understand your wonderful brief. But we’re not faced with a multiple repeat offender. We’re not faced with somebody who has systematically raided the treasuiy or attempted to raid the treasury in a large way. We’re talking about somebody who was involved with all of these counts with less than $23,500, which is-should be taken into consideration somewhere in the line.
I mean, it’s wonderful that the Internal Revenue Service was able to prevent the loss. And it’s terrible that Mrs. Cockett attempted to defraud the IRS. Those are givens. Now, we are faced with a human being. And it troubles me a little bit that the bigger effort that you are putting into this case would indicate that this somehow-the conduct of Mrs. Cockett somehow was a threat to the treasury of the United States.
MS. COHEN: In response, Your Honor, the Government submits that the guidelines, sentencing guidelines themselves take into consideration the amount of loss in this case. The guideline range is simply 15 to 21 months, and that guideline range takes into account the amount of loss to the IRS.
The comments that the Court has made may be taken into consideration in determining whether her guideline range should be at the bottom, middle or top of that guideline range. The Government simply submits that Defense, the Defense counsel has not submitted any reasons that legally justify a downward departure or any other sentence outside of the applicable guideline range, which is 15 to 21 months.
From the foregoing colloquy it appears that the district court misunderstood both the purpose and functioning of the Guidelines, despite the Government's clear explanations in its brief and at argument. As the Policy Statement of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 explains, "the Act’s basic objective was to enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to combat crime through an effective, fair sentencing system.” United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Ch. 3, Pt.A, intro. To achieve this goal, Congress sought honesty in sentencing. Furthermore, it "sought reasonable uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal offenses committed by similar offenders.” Id. And, Congress "sought proportionality in sentencing through a system that imposes appropriately different sentences for criminal conduct of differing severity.” Id. As the Government pointed out at the sentencing hearing, the guidelines achieve these goals through a sentencing scheme that lakes into account both the amount of loss, and the defendant’s relative lack of criminal experience.
It further appears that the district judge perceived that his personal views and sympathies were appropriately factored into the departure calculus. They were not. See United States v. Pullen, 89 F.3d 368, 371 (7th Cir.1996) (stating that the goal of the Sentencing Reform Act "is to place federal sentencing on an objective, uniform, and rational (or at least articulable, nonintuitive) basis” and to do away with pre-guidelines discretionary sentencing). And I would submit that, albeit a relatively "small” financial loss to the United States Treasury, it is still fraud on the United States Government and the citizens of this country. The district judge and I may see the matter differently; but again the Sentencing Guidelines remove such a philosophical debate from the sentencing calculus.