Wood v. Milyard (10-9995)

argument 10-9995

Wood v. Milyard

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 1m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 5 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central dispute over the statute of limitations in Wood v. Milyard?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument next in case ten nine nine five Wood versus Milliard. Ms. Lord.

Unknown 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The tenth circuit, after finding that Mr. Wood's petition presented two substantial constitutional claims, denied him habeas relief solely on the ground that his petition was untimely. It did this even though the state had done three things that should have precluded this result. First, the state deliberately relinquished a known statute of limitations defence. Second, in doing so, the state acted strategically, not inadvertently. And third, in doing so, the state induced the district court to expend substantial resources in deciding claims exhaustion and ex in deciding claims on the merits.

Elena Kagan 0:56

Council We asked uh for two questions presented. The first was Do Court of Appeals have the power, Suspante, to raise issues? And in your reply brief You appear to say Yes, they do in some circumstances. So are you conceding that that power exists or that there's no power whatsoever?

Unknown 1:25

I'm proposing a clear line that would divide situations in which the Court of Appeals would have power and those in which it absolutely has no power.

Elena Kagan 1:37

Is that a question of power or a question of exercise of discretion?

Unknown 1:45

I would say it's a question of power and this is why.

Elena Kagan 1:50

Mm seems sort of strange. You both rely on on a factual situation. Either you can do something or you can't. That's power. If you can do it sometimes, that's still power, and then the question is, did you do it when you couldn't do it?

Unknown 2:08

Well what I am proposing is that there are situations when it is never a proper exercise of the appellate court's jurisdiction to consider suasponte a statute of limitations defense, even in the habeas context. Correct. That in day the court said that courts courts, it wasn't directed at appellate courts, but no court would be free to disregard a deliberate waiver of a statute of limit.

Elena Kagan 2:38

So all this fight is about is whether there was a deliberate waiver or not?

Unknown 2:42

Well that's

Elena Kagan 2:43

as opposed to power.

Unknown 2:45

That's our primary our primary um argument is that there was a deliberate waiver in this case and given what this court said in day um the case could be resolved on the ground. Well it is it is what the the in swords are crossed over here because you say this is a deliberate waiver and the government says uh no it's it's a Forfeiture. And forfeiture if it's forfeiture then the Court of Appeals has discretion to take it up. If it's a waiver, then they make clear Uh so so it's a question of which box this case fits into, is it forfeiture or is it Waiver and your position is it's waiver. That's correct. And my position also is that there is an overlap between those boxes and that When The statute of limitations defense is forfeited in the sense of not being preserved in a timely manner.

Unknown 3:49

Because of a deliberate choice. I mean and in in this instance are there a lot of cases uh raising the you know, the ambiguity that exists in this case? I mean if you tell me that's all this case is is about. I think we ought to dismiss it dismiss it as improvidently granted. Well, I'm not sure.

Unknown 4:19

We don't sit to decide factual questions like that that come up in a particular case. I thought we took this case to decide The the more significant issue on which there is a division in the lower courts as to whether there is, as you say, power of of the court to disregard uh the fact that a a statute of limitations defense has not been raised. We all agree it wasn't raised. Now whether it was forfeited or not is another question. If that's all you want us to decide I don't want to decide that. I clearly want um a decision that would favor my client. Um this this court granted cert on two issues and certainly this case presents the first issue, which is whether a court of appeals Once the state has had an opportunity to raise the statute of limitations defence and chooses not to, whether

Elena Kagan 5:16

it acknowledges in day We faulted the district court for not telling the state essentially, which we may not telling the state that it had a potential statute of limitations.