Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Dkt. 2 - 07.22.14 Opposition to Application to Vacate Stay of Execution

Dkt. 2 - 07.22.14 Opposition to Application to Vacate Stay of Execution

Ratings: (0)|Views: 90|Likes:
Published by cbsradionews
Joseph Wood response at Supreme Court to Arizona request to vacate stay of execution.
Joseph Wood response at Supreme Court to Arizona request to vacate stay of execution.

More info:

Published by: cbsradionews on Jul 22, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 14A82
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
 Charles L. Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Correction, et al., Petitioner, vs. Joseph Rudolph Wood III, Respondent.
OPPOSITION TO APPLICATION TO VACATE STAY OF EXECUTION
 EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR JULY 23, 2014, 10 A.M. (MST) / 1:00 P.M. (EST) JON M. SANDS Federal Public Defender District of Arizona Dale A. Baich
Counsel of Record
 Robin C. Konrad 850 West Adams Street, Suite 201 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 382-2816 voice (602) 889-3960 facsimile dale_baich@fd.org robin_konrad@fd.org
 Attorneys for Respondent
Joseph Rudolph Wood III
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i
Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ii
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 I.
 
Mr. Wood, as a member of the public, has an individual First  Amendment right of access, which the Court of Appeals appropriately recognized in issuing its conditional injunction.
 ......................................................3
 II.
 
The limited holding of the Court of Appeals does not create a First  Amendment right of access to “any” government information.
 ............................7
 III.
 
The Ninth Circuit applied the “complementary considerations” from Press-Enterprise II to determine that access to documents that are inextricably intertwined with historically open execution proceedings directly contributes to the constitutionally protected, informed discussion of governmental affairs.
 ...........................................................................13
 IV.
 
The Court of Appeals applied the correct preliminary-injunction standard, which is consistent with this Court’s precedent.
 .................................17
 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 19 
Certificate of Service .................................................................................................................... 20
 
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
 Associated Press v. Otter 
, 682 F.3d 821 (9th Cir. 2012) ...................................................18
Cal. First Amend. Coal. v. Woodford 
, 299 F.3d 868 (9th Cir. 2002) ............................9, 11
 Elrod v. Burns
, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) .................................................................................18
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Ct. for Norfolk Cnty.
, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) ..12, 13, 14, 15
 Hill v. McDonough
, 547 U.S. 573 (2006) ..........................................................................17
 Lopez v. Brewer 
, 680 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................17
 New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Authority
, 684 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................................................16
 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) ......................................................17
Pell v. Procunier 
, 417 U.S. 817 (1974) .............................................................................12
Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services v. Abbott 
, 134 S. Ct. 506 (2013) (citation omitted) ..................................................................................6
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct.
, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) ............................................7, 13, 14
Richmond Newspapers,
 
Inc. v. Virginia
,
 
488 U.S. 555 (1980)
 .............................14
 Russian Media Group, LLC v. Cable America, Inc.
, 598 F.3d 302 (7th Cir. 2010) ............6
The Monrosa v. Carbon Black Export, Inc.
, 359 U.S. 180 (1959) ....................................12
Travelers Casualty and Sur. Co. of America v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
, 549 U.S. 443 (2007) ..............................................................................................................4
Wellons v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
, 2014 WL 2748316 (11th Cir. June 17, 2014) ..............................................................................11
Winter v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc.
, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) .............................18
Wood v. Milyard 
, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012) ............................................................................3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->