Opinion ID: 767340
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Propriety of Granting the Motion for Reconsideration

Text: 72 Having found that the presence of Judge Baer is in no sense a ground for reversal, we turn to the merits of his ruling. After the rehearing at which the government introduced new testimony, Judge Baer decided to admit the evidence seized from Bayless's car, as well as her post-arrest statements. In this regard, Bayless first argues that Judge Baer erred when he granted the government's motion to reopen the suppression hearing. The argument is meritless. 73 This circuit has not explicitly ruled on the proper standard of review of a district court's decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration of a suppression order. Other circuits, however, have held that such decisions should be reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Dickerson, 166 F.3d 667, 678 (4th Cir. 1999); United States v. Hassan, 83 F.3d 693, 696 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Roberts, 978 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1992); United States v. Buffington, 815 F.2d 1292, 1298 (9th Cir. 1987). And we have adopted that standard in the analogous case of a district court's decision to grant a motion for reconsideration of an order denying a motion to dismiss. See Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). We conclude that the abuse of discretion standard accurately reflects the degree of deference properly accorded a district court's decisions regarding evidentiary matters and the general conduct of trials, and join our sister circuits in adopting it. 74 Some courts have applied a rule requiring the government - when it moves for reconsideration of a suppression order on the ground that it can introduce new evidence intended to show that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred - to proffer a justification for its failure to present the relevant evidence at the original suppression hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Villabona-Garnica, 63 F.3d 1051, 1055 (11th Cir. 1995) ([B]y failing to raise [an] issue at [a] suppression hearing without offering any justification therefor, the government waive[s] its right to assert it in subsequent proceedings. (quoting United States v. Thompson, 710 F.2d 1500, 1504 (11th Cir. 1983)) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alterations in Villabona-Garnica)); McRae v. United States, 420 F.2d 1283, 1286-88 (D.C. Cir. 1969). Other courts, citing a policy in favor of introduction of lawfully obtained evidence, have declined to impose such a justification requirement. See United States v. Rabb, 752 F.2d 1320, 1323 (9th Cir. 1984) (We reject McRae's 'justification' requirement and adopt the Fifth and Seventh Circuits' position: if the record reveals matters which indicate that the evidence was lawfully obtained, the district court may reconsider its suppression order at trial.); United States v. Regilio, 669 F.2d 1169, 1177 (7th Cir. 1981) (If matters appearing [after the original suppression decision] indicate that no constitutional violation occurred, society's interest in admitting all relevant evidence militates strongly in favor of permitting reconsideration.); United States v. Scott, 524 F.2d 465, 467 (5th Cir. 1975). 75 We need not decide which of these two approaches is preferable, because we find that the government adequately justified its decision not to introduce the testimony of Sergeant Bentley at the original suppression hearing. Given that Sergeant Bentley's testimony echoed that of Officer Carroll, the government had no reason to believe that his testimony would be anything but cumulative. 4 Judge Baer's decision, in the interests of justice, to reopen the suppression hearing and to allow the government to introduce testimony of the officer in charge at the time of the arrest, was therefore not in error. See McRae, 420 F.2d at 1289. McRae is the rare case in which a court of appeals found a district court's decision to grant a motion for reconsideration to be in error. Then-Chief Judge Bazelon noted, however, that [t]he situation might be different if the government had sought to introduce the corroborating testimony of a second arresting police officer at the second hearing, and had provided a good reason why he did not testify at the first hearing. Id. That is exactly the case here. 76 As we have said in a similar situation, vague notions of unfairness, that the government should not have 'two bites' off the same apple, ought not control. United States v. Tucker, 380 F.2d 206, 214 (2d Cir. 1967) (commenting that no injustice would result if the government were allowed to withhold the identities of its informants until after a suppression hearing and then, if the motion to suppress was granted, to move to reopen the hearing and disclose their identities). We conclude that Judge Baer acted correctly in granting the government's motion.