United States v. Gentry - 925 F.2d 186 (7th Cir. 1991)

Rule:

The extent of upward departure must be linked to the structure of the guidelines. Downward departures, the mirror image, must be justified in the same fashion.

Facts:

Kevin Mark Gentry is no extortionist, but he made a false report of food tampering. On May 2, 1989, he told fellow employees -- plus the security force of the mall where he worked -- that he had bit into a pin when he ate M&M candy bought from a vending machine. One of Gentry's fellow employees found some metal embedded in the candy. Sheriff's deputies who investigated the report found Gentry's claim hard to believe and asked him to take a polygraph test. Gentry did; the examiner concluded that he was lying; after the examiner switched off the machine, Gentry confessed that he had put the pin in the candy and made the report to get attention. He was prosecuted for violating § 1365(c)(1) and received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. Gentry contended that the statement made to the polygraph examiner should have been suppressed as involuntary. Gentry also objected to the testimony from an employee of the manufacture that there were no other reports of pins in the candy. 

Issue:

Was the degree of departure appropriate?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court determined that the testimony was relevant because it implied the pins came from Gentry not the factory. The government contended that the trial judge had departed too far downward. The court did not approve of the trial judge's justification for downward departure. The court determined that the record did not contain a conclusion that Gentry had significantly reduced mental capacity. The court concluded that there was not sufficient justification for Gentry to have received such a generous downward departure. The court affirmed the conviction and vacated the sentence, remanding the case for resentencing.