Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wood Miilyard SCOTUS Transcript

Wood Miilyard SCOTUS Transcript

Ratings: (0)|Views: 834|Likes:
Published by Circuit Media

More info:

Published by: Circuit Media on Feb 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Official - Subject to Final Review
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xPATRICK WOOD, :Petitioner : No. 10-9995v. :KEVIN MILYARD, WARDEN, ET AL. :- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - xWashington, D.C.Monday, February 27, 2012The above-entitled matter came on for oralargument before the Supreme Court of the United Statesat 11:04 a.m.APPEARANCES:KATHLEEN A. LORD, ESQ., Assistant Federal PublicDefender, Denver, Colorado; on behalf of Petitioner.DANIEL D. DOMENICO, ESQ., Solicitor General, Denver,Colorado; on behalf of Respondents.MELISSA ARBUS SHERRY, ESQ., Assistant to the SolicitorGeneral, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.;for United States, as amicus curiae, supportingRespondents.1
Alderson Reporting Company
Official - Subject to Final Review
ORAL ARGUMENT OF PAGEKATHLEEN A. LORD, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 3ORAL ARGUMENT OFDANIEL D. DOMENICO, ESQ.On behalf of the Respondents 22ORAL ARGUMENT OFMELISSA ARBUS SHERRY, ESQ.For United States, as amicus curiae, 39supporting RespondentsREBUTTAL ARGUMENT OFKATHLEEN A. LORD, ESQ.On behalf of the Petitioner 492
Alderson Reporting Company
Official - Subject to Final Review
P R O C E E D I N G S(11:04 a.m.)CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We'll hear argumentnext in Case 10-9995, Wood v. Milyard.Ms. Lord.ORAL ARGUMENT OF KATHLEEN A. LORDON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERMS. LORD: Mr. Chief Justice, and may itplease the Court:The Tenth Circuit, after finding thatMr. Wood's petition presented two substantial claims,denied him habeas relief solely on the ground that hispetition was untimely. It did this even though theState had done three things that should have precludedthis result: First, the State deliberately relinquisheda known statute of limitations defense.Second, in doing so the State actedstrategically, not inadvertently. And third, in doingso the State induced the district court to expendsubstantial resources in deciding claims of exhaustionand deciding claims on the merits.JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, we asked fortwo questions presented. The first was: Do court ofappeals have the power sua sponte to raise issues? Andin your reply brief you appear to say, yes, they do in3
Alderson Reporting Company

You're Reading a Free Preview

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