United States v. Garthus
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14332
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Garthus pleaded guilty to transporting, receiving, and possessing child pornography; sentenced to 360 months.
- Guideline range was 360 months to life; statutory minimum was 180 months; defendant was 44 at sentencing.
- Defense argued diminished capacity under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13; argument referenced in prior Seventh Circuit cases.
- Defendant had a long history with child pornography and prior molestation; expert testimony addressed cognitive/psychiatric issues.
- Judge noted troubled upbringing and physical ailments but rejected departure from guidelines; did not explicitly adopt diminished capacity argument.
- Court affirmed sentence, emphasizing risk of recidivism and incapacitation over defendant’s mild mitigation arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not addressing diminished capacity | Garthus's diminished capacity argued as mitigating factor | Evidence of diminished capacity should reduce sentence | No reversible error; court did not explicitly argue diminished capacity |
| Validity of sentencing under Booker framework balancing goals | Guidelines provide reasonable framework | Judge could adopt own penal philosophy post-Booker | Judge properly weighed incapacitation versus just deserts; reasons adequate for sentence |
| Impact of expert testimony on recidivism risk and punishment | Recidivism risk supports longer sentence | Evidence could support lighter sentence with treatment prospects | Court prioritized risk of future crimes and incapacitation; no reversible error |
| Propriety of challenging child pornography guideline intensity | Guidelines are reasonable in context of offense | Guidelines empirically unsupported and vindictive | Argument addressed to Commission/Congress; not a basis to depart at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. United States, 505 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 2007) (mitigating role of diminished capacity referenced in guidelines)
- Cunningham v. United States, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (discusses sentencing considerations post-Booker)
- Roach v. United States, 296 F.3d 565 (7th Cir. 2002) (diminished capacity framework in federal sentencing)
- Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (allocation of discretion in applying guidelines post-Booker)
- United States v. Gammicchia, 498 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2007) (illustrates judge's balancing of just deserts and incapacitation)
- United States v. Coopman, 602 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2010) (discusses relevance of evidence in recidivism assessment)
- United States v. Corner, 598 F.3d 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (post-Booker authority on judge's discretion in sentencing)
- United States v. McIlrath, 512 F.3d 421 (7th Cir. 2008) (necessity of properly considering risk literature in recidivism)
- United States v. Pape, 601 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2010) (court's approach to guideline history and application)