Joseph Wood, III v. Charles Ryan, et al

Filing

Filed Order for PUBLICATION (SIDNEY R. THOMAS) (Dissents by Chief Judge Kozinski and Judge Callahan) The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. Pursuant to the rules applicable to capital cases in which an execution date has been scheduled, a deadline was established by which any judge could request a vote on whether the panel s July 19, 2014 opinion should be reheard en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the panel s opinion en banc. A majority of the non-recused active judges did not vote in favor of rehearing en banc. Judges Graber, Murguia, and Hurwitz did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. The Court s July 19, 2014 opinion, granting a conditional stay of Wood s execution, remains in effect. [9175804]

Case: 14-16310

07/21/2014

ID: 9175804

DktEntry: 35-2

Page: 1 of 4

FILED
JUL 21 2014

Wood v. Ryan, No. 14-16310

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S.
Chief Judge KOZINSKI, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc: COURT OF APPEALS

I have little doubt that the Supreme Court will thwart this latest attempt to
interfere with the State of Arizona’s efforts to carry out its lawful sentence and
bring Wood to justice for the heinous crimes he committed a quarter century ago.
There is little I can add to the irrefutable arguments in Judge Bybee’s dissent and
Judge Callahan’s dissental. If Baze could not get a stay of execution under
the Eighth Amendment, see Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 62–63 (2008), Wood
certainly is not entitled to one under the First.
I take the occasion to point out how we got here. Until about three decades
ago, executions were carried out by means designated for that purpose alone:
electric chairs were the most common, but gas chambers, hanging and the
occasional firing squad were also practiced. See generally Kirk Johnson, In Utah,
Execution Evokes Eras Past, N.Y. Times, June 16, 2010, available at
http://goo.gl/duIwV0 (discussing Gary Mark Gilmore’s execution by firing squad).
Most of these means were challenged on Eighth Amendment grounds, but the
challenges were largely unsuccessful. See Poyner v. Murray, 507 U.S. 981, 981
(1993) (denying stay of execution by electric chair); Stewart v. LaGrand, 525 U.S.
1173, 1173 (1999) (vacating stay of lethal gas execution); Campbell v. Wood, 18

Case: 14-16310

07/21/2014

ID: 9175804

DktEntry: 35-2

Page: 2 of 4

page 2
F.3d 662, 687 (9th Cir. 1994) (hanging); Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130, 131–36
(1879) (firing squad). Nevertheless, starting in the late 1970s, states began moving
away from these traditional methods of execution and towards using drugs as
execution tools. Perhaps this was done in the belief that it would forestall a
constitutional challenge to the method of execution; perhaps it was thought to be
more humane; and perhaps it was thought to be less brutal. Whatever the reason,
the federal government and all states that retain capital punishment now authorize
the use of drugs for that purpose, and generally it is the default method of
execution.
Whatever the hopes and reasons for the switch to drugs, they proved to be
misguided. Subverting medicines meant to heal the human body to the opposite
purpose was an enterprise doomed to failure. Today’s case is only the latest in an
unending effort to undermine and discredit this method of carrying out lawful
executions. Another symptom of the problem is the decade-long inability (or
perhaps unwillingness) of California state officials to come up with an execution
protocol, effectively putting the state’s death chamber out of commission. See
Jones v. Chappell, No. CV 09-02158-CJC, slip op. at 5 n.7 (C.D. Cal. July 16,
2014). Old age, not execution, is the most serious risk factor for inmates at the San
Quentin death row. Then, again, you get odd cases like that of Russell Bucklew,

Case: 14-16310

07/21/2014

ID: 9175804

DktEntry: 35-2

Page: 3 of 4

page 3
who obtained a stay of execution on the ground that the drugs that would be used
to kill him would cause a lingering, painful death. See Bucklew v. Lombardi, 134
S. Ct. 2333, 2333 (2014).
Whatever happens to Wood, the attacks will not stop and for a simple
reason: The enterprise is flawed. Using drugs meant for individuals with medical
needs to carry out executions is a misguided effort to mask the brutality of
executions by making them look serene and peaceful—like something any one of
us might experience in our final moments. See Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141,
1143 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in denial of certiorari) (“How enviable a quiet
death by lethal injection . . . .”). But executions are, in fact, nothing like that.
They are brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that
reality. Nor should it. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should
be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our
behalf.
If some states and the federal government wish to continue carrying out the
death penalty, they must turn away from this misguided path and return to more
primitive—and foolproof—methods of execution. The guillotine is probably best
but seems inconsistent with our national ethos. And the electric chair, hanging and
the gas chamber are each subject to occasional mishaps. The firing squad strikes

Case: 14-16310

07/21/2014

ID: 9175804

DktEntry: 35-2

Page: 4 of 4

page 4
me as the most promising. Eight or ten large-caliber rifle bullets fired at close
range can inflict massive damage, causing instant death every time. There are
plenty of people employed by the state who can pull the trigger and have the
training to aim true. The weapons and ammunition are bought by the state in
massive quantities for law enforcement purposes, so it would be impossible to
interdict the supply. And nobody can argue that the weapons are put to a purpose
for which they were not intended: firearms have no purpose other than destroying
their targets. Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out
executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding
human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution
carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all.
While I believe the state should and will prevail in this case, I don’t
understand why the game is worth the candle. A tremendous number of taxpayer
dollars have gone into defending a procedure that is inherently flawed and
ultimately doomed to failure. If the state wishes to continue carrying out
executions, it would be better to own up that using drugs is a mistake and come up
with something that will work, instead.