Broward Lawyer Among First to Argue Before Newly Minted Justice Brett Kavanaugh in US Supreme Court
Fort Lauderdale attorney and Assistant Public Defender Brenda Greenberg Bryn argued the first case to come before Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh at the U.S. Supreme Court, which recognized a clash between federal and Florida state law over what consitutes a "violent" crime.
October 10, 2018 at 01:30 PM
4 minute read
Brenda Greenberg Bryn, assistant federal public defender, Broward. Courtesy photo.
A criminal case argued by Fort Lauderdale attorney and assistant federal public defender Brenda Greenberg Bryn landed at the top of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's shiny new docket Tuesday.
Kavanaugh was confirmed 50-48 by the Senate and sworn in Monday by President Donald Trump and Justice Anthony Kennedy after a combative confirmation hearing marred by sexual assault accusations from high school and college classmates.
In his first oral argument sitting, Kavanaugh and the panel heard Bryn's defense of Denard Stokeling from Florida, who was convicted of three “violent” felonies, one of which was an unarmed robbery in 1997.

Stokeling's case touches on the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, a federal law that imposes 15-year minimum sentences on felons convicted of three or more drug or “violent” crimes, including arson, burglary and extortion.
The court considered whether Stokeling's first crime, the unarmed robbery, should be classified as a violent crime, as the state contends it should. If so, Stokeling's prison sentence would increase from a 10-year to a 15-year maximum.
Bryn argued that Stokeling's conviction is not a violent felony under Florida law, which “requires only slight force to overcome slight victim resistance.”
“There are very few states that would be like Florida that also don't have an armed robbery provision that involves use, display, threat of a weapon,” Bryn said.
Read the full oral argument transcripts:
Kavanaugh asked only a few questions, which centered around precedent. He challenged Bryn's comparison to a case involving Curtis Johnson, whose 15-year prison sentence was struck down in 2010 when the Supreme Court found the Florida battery conviction didn't meet the federal threshold for violence.
In Johnson's case, “physical force” was found to mean “violent force” that is “capable of causing any pain or injury.” According to the Florida statute, robbery is “the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another” and involves “the use of force, violence, assault or putting in fear.”
Frederick Liu, assistant to the solicitor general in Washington, appeared on behalf of the state, which rejected ”the idea that Florida here is somehow an outlier among common law jurisdictions.”
“The petitioner cannot identify a single state whose basic robbery statute, whether based on the common law or not, would qualify under his interpretation,” Liu said.
Liu argued that Congress introduced the ACCA for the precise reason of imposing harsher punishment and avoiding ambiguity.
Stokeling's case has emerged in tandem with a polarized opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Eleventh Circuit, which agonized over federal career criminal sentences for violent crime, a debate that one judge labeled “nuts.”
'Judicial Charade': 11th Circuit Judges Polarized on Sentencing for Violent Crime

Bryn told the panel of justices that definitions of violent crime should depend on “judges using their common sense and common experience that they use every day under the guidelines to make determinations of degree, determining what's minor, what's major. This is what judging is. This is what juries do.”
Criminal defense lawyer David Oscar Markus, who represents clients from trial court to the U.S. Supreme Court level, said the ACCA statute is “a mess.”
“All criminal practitioners and judges know it,” Markus said. “If we are going to read the statute as it is written, then Florida robbery does not count as 'violent' because violence is not needed to effectuate a robbery. If prosecutors don't like that result, they should call their elected representatives.”
Related stories:
As Justice, Like Circuit Judge, Kavanaugh Shows Active Style on Bench
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
© 2025 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 All
US Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
3 minute read
Special Counsel Urges Appeals Court to Reinstate Classified Documents Case Against Trump


'It's Anyone's Guess': Ga. Court of Appeals to Eye Trump's Arguments for Recusing Fani Willis
Trending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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