In the 1995 case Stacey C. Koon v. United States, former Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Sergeant Stacey Koon and Officer Laurence Powell were convicted for violating Rodney King's civil rights by using excessive force during his arrest in 1991. The incident was captured on video and sparked national outrage over police brutality against African Americans. In this federal trial, both officers appealed their convictions arguing that they should have been tried separately from two other officers who were acquitted of all charges at state level trials earlier; also claiming that the jury selection process was biased due to extensive media coverage of the event which influenced public opinion against them before trial began. However, Supreme Court rejected these arguments stating there wasn't enough evidence to prove bias or prejudice in jury selection process nor any compelling reason for separate trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Stacey C. Koon v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold a prison sentence for two Los Angeles police officers convicted of violating Rodney King's civil rights was inappropriate and excessive. He contended that the trial judge had correctly taken into account mitigating factors such as their previous good records and the extraordinary pressure they were under during riots in Los Angeles when determining their sentences initially. Stevens believed these circumstances warranted probation rather than imprisonment, arguing that federal courts should have more discretion in sentencing decisions based on individual case details instead of being bound by strict guidelines which may not always serve justice or public interest.