Motion Practice? Judge Has Clerk Test Behind-the-Back Phone Call Claim
Judge said he knew "on good authority that you can make a phone call with your hands behind your back."
December 13, 2019 at 01:19 PM
3 minute read
Appeals court judges do not generally assume the role of fact-finder, but at least one jurist on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit apparently wanted to investigate a particular claim in contention for himself.
A panel hearing Thursday in a Florida case involved a criminal suspect's lawsuit against a sheriff's deputy accused of pulling the handcuffed man's pants down and exposing his privates to onlookers. One key question is what purportedly happened just prior to the incident.
Plaintiff Omar Alston, who is appealing the district court's dismissal of his claims on summary judgment, said he was cuffed with his hands behind him in the back of a patrol car when he managed to extract his cellphone and call his aunt.
The claim is among several facts in dispute in the underlying case. Ian Forsyth of Hilyard Bogan & Palmer in Orlando, who represents the deputy, noted that the district court had expressed skepticism that Alston could have "retrieved" his phone and made a call with his hands restrained behind him.
More likely, Forsyth said, Alston had bent over and moved his hands under his feet to the front, which he had denied.
Judge Charles Wilson interjected that he had it "on good authority that you can make a phone call with your hands behind your back."
A moment later Wilson elaborated.
"I asked my law clerk if she could make a telephone call with her cellphone behind her back, and she did it," said Wilson, as Judge Britt Grant burst out laughing.
"Was she sitting down in a patrol car in handcuffs?" Forsyth asked.
"Well, if you can make a telephone call with your hands behind your back, I wouldn't say it's inconceivable to do it with handcuffs on," said Wilson, postulating that the matter might be one for a jury to decide.
Rising for a brief rebuttal, Alston & Bird partner Andy Tuck first thanked Wilson "for winning a bet for me."
"I had a bet with some of my colleagues that there were law clerks in the various chambers trying to go through these shenanigans," said Tuck as laughter rippled through the courtroom.
This content has been archived.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 Appeals Court Cancels Hearing in Election Interference Case Against Trump
3 minute readJustice Department Says Fulton County Jail Conditions Violate Detainee Rights
6 minute readSupreme Court Rejects Push to Move Georgia Case Against Ex-Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows
3 minute read3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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