'I Regret My Error:' Judge Issues Apology in 11th Circuit Ruling
Judge Robin Rosenbaum apologized for a 2015 opinion that a colleague had called "wrong-headed."
June 25, 2020 at 04:16 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Report
It's not something one usually sees in a federal appellate ruling—an apology.
But Judge Robin Rosenbaum did just that Wednesday in a separate concurrence with an en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that revoked an opinion she penned in 2015 in a Florida criminal case, United States v. Sparks.
"As the writer of the Sparks opinion, I regret my error and appreciate the court's correction of our circuit's jurisprudence," Rosenbaum wrote.
The Sparks opinion stemmed from an appeal of a Florida trial judge's refusal to suppress evidence of child pornography seized without a warrant from a lost cellphone that was turned over to law enforcement. Rosenbaum's majority opinion in Sparks held that, where a defendant has abandoned a premises, or a cellphone, from which evidence is subsequently seized, that defendant suffers no legal injury and has no standing to appeal, either on its merits on Fourth Amendment grounds or, more broadly, in federal court at all.
Rosenbaum was not the only one to issue a mea culpa of sorts in the en banc opinion handed down Wednesday in a separate Florida criminal case, U.S. v. Wali Ebbin Rashee Ross.
In remanding Ross' appeal, Judge Kevin Newsom, writing for the Eleventh Circuit, vacated his own 2019 panel opinion in Ross' case. That panel also included Judges Charles Wilson and David Proctor of the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.
"Sometimes courts make simple mistakes," Newsom wrote in Wednesday's opinion. "And simple mistakes call for simple fixes."
Newsom's opinion cited his own misgivings about the 2015 Sparks decision that he spelled out in a separate concurrence with himself in the now-vacated 2019 ruling for Ross.
At the time, Newsom urged the en banc court to revisit the issue, writing that the 2015 Sparks opinion "seems not just wrong to me, but also wrongheaded."
"The rule that we adopted in Sparks threatened unintended consequences," Newsom explained in Wednesday's opinion. "Namely, (1) producing incongruous results among Fourth Amendment cases, (2) jeopardizing the fairness of judicial proceedings, and (3) impeding sound judicial administration. Scrapping it will minimize those threats."
Ross' appeal arose out of the denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized in two separate warrantless searches of a motel room where he was staying but wasn't registered. A trial court denied Ross' suppression motion, and he subsequently pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon and possession with intent to distribute heroin. But he maintained, and later exercised, his right to appeal.
In defending Ross' conviction, prosecutors raised a new issue at the Eleventh Circuit, claiming Ross abandoned the motel room, which law enforcement officers were then free to search.
The appeals court's 2019 opinion, relying on Sparks, addressed questions over whether Ross even had standing to challenge the search and whether prosecutors had standing to introduce a new issue on appeal.
Last year, Newsom made clear his concerns with the Sparks opinion. "By permitting the government to raise abandonment for the first time on appeal as a 'jurisdictional' issue, Sparks thrusts this court into the uncomfortable position of making a de novo determination of a purely factual issue, with respect to which there has been no fact-finding and no lower-court analysis," he said. "That strikes me as more than a little a little topsy-turvy—and unnecessarily so."
In Wednesday's en banc opinion, Newsom said the legal tenets embraced in Sparks contravene U.S. Supreme Court precedent and violates the justice's directive that courts should avoid "jurisdictionalizing" issues that are more properly characterized as "claim-processing" rules or aspects of a litigant's merits case.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGeorgia Poll Workers Seek 'Severe Sanctions' and Contempt Order Against Rudy Giuliani Over Noncompliance
State Court Considers If Physician Can Be Held Liable for Lack of Tests, Treatment
Trending Stories
- 1Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
- 2How the Trump II Administration Can Combat Antisemitism
- 3Peirce, Crypto Lawyers Eye Potential Regulatory Changes Under SEC Chair-Nominee Atkins
- 4Newsmakers: Bracewell Adds Transactional Tax Partner in Dallas
- 5Martin Act Investigatory Tools—An Overview
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250