Court Opinion

ID: 9488316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:41:50.647975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:49.086465
License: Public Domain

FLAUM, Circuit Judge,
with whom ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc.
Respectfully, it is my judgment that the manner in which we review the voluntariness *367of confessions on direct appeal is exactly the type of issue deserving of en banc consideration, especially when we are overruling the law of the circuit, creating intercircuit conflicts, and placing a questionable spin on Supreme Court precedent. See Rovner, J., Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Bane at 368. Quite apart from the issue of operating with a short-handed court, see Ripple, J., Dissent from Denial of Rehearing En Banc at-& n. 1, this court’s use of a case from our non-argued calendar, with limited briefing, to decide a significant point of law not necessary to final disposition, is not in my view the best way to go about our business. Recognizing this circuit’s apparent desire to be the most proactive court in the country on questions of expanding deferential review, see, e.g., United States v. Spears, 965 F.2d 262, 268-71 (7th Cir.) (applying clearly erroneous review for trial court’s determinations in eases involving warrantless seizures under the Fourth Amendment), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 502, 121 L.Ed.2d 438 (1992); Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A., 880 F.2d 928, 930 (7th Cir.1989) (en banc) (rejecting de novo and applying deferential review for trial court decisions to impose Rule 11 sanctions), I believe we should painstakingly examine this vexing predilection to lessen our review capacity.