Posted on 05/23/2005 11:06:12 AM PDT by cweese
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday turned aside an appeal by a Mexican citizen on death row in Texas.
In an unsigned decision, justices dismissed the case brought by Jose Medellin that had drawn worldwide interest.
Medellin was one of five gang members sentenced to death for raping and murdering two Houston girls in 1993. The victims were 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena.
His attorneys said Medellin and 51 other Mexican death row inmates' rights under international law were violated when they were denied legal help from their consulates.
The justices cited a last-minute maneuver by President Bush ordering state courts to revisit the issue, making Supreme Court intervention unnecessary at this time.
It reserved the right to hear the appeal again once the case had run its full course in state court.
But in a signed dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she'd have ordered federal courts to review the important issue of whether international law should bind U.S. courts.
The dissent was joined by justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer.
I hope this doesn't mean what I think it means.
How in the world do you appeal that?
I have no idea. I'm also curious as to why these Mexican's think they can get their murder convictions overturned because their consulates didn't meet them. If you break the law in Texas (or anywhere), you should be prepared to accept the consequences.
Does this mean that President Bush has had a phone call from the fox in the hen house from mexico?
What, that he's kissing up to Fox again?
But in a signed dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said she'd have ordered federal courts to review the important issue of whether international law should bind U.S. courts.
We are the world.
We are the children…
The IT on the SC should be impeached.
American law is supreme!
The US has signed treaties that require US authorities to allow foreign citizens accused of a crime to contact their consulates. In this case, the Texas authorities didn't allow this guy to contact the Mexican consulate.
The question is, what kind of remedy, if any, is available here. This treaty was meant to prevent foreigners from being thrown in a hole without their government knowing what happened to them. In practice, this treaty doesn't do much. if you're accused of a crime in Iran there's not much the American government can do for you. If you're accused of a crime in Belgium, there's not much the American government can (or should) do for you.
Case Overview
Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was 18 years of age when he participated in the gang rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman, 14, (white) and Elizabeth Pena, 16, (Latina) in Harris County, Texas on June 24, 1993. He was subsequently found guilty and sentenced to death.
Facts of the Case
On the evening of June 24, 1993, Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16, left a social gathering at a friend’s apartment in Houston. They were taking a shortcut home through the woods, when they encountered Jose Medellin and other members of the so-called “Black and White” gang. All six gang members were engaged in a gang initiation rite for Raul Villareal. The gang had spent the evening drinking and “jumping in” Villareal, requiring him to fight all the other members until he lost consciousness.
After stumbling across the Black and White gang, each girl was repeatedly raped by the gang for the next hour. The girls were then strangled, beaten, and kicked to death.
Following a tip-off by the brother of one of the gang members, the bodies of the girls were found four days later in dense brush along a railroad track in northeast Houston, close to where they had been raped and killed. Medellin was one of the five gang members charged with capital murder. Medellin was found to have raped both girls, and to have helped to murder at least one by holding one end of the shoelace used to strangle her. Medellin, along with codefendants Peter Cantu, Raul Villareal, Sean O’Brien, and Efrain Perez, were all sentenced to death for the murders of Ertman and Pena. Medellin’s brother, Venancio, who was 14 at the time, was also prosecuted. He received a 40-year sentence. The execution dates of Villereal and Perez have been stayed pending Simmons v. Roper. Medellin was 18 at the time of the crime.
Arrest and Trial
Upon his arrest on June 29, 1993, Medellin informed the arresting officers he was born in Laredo, Mexico. He also notified Pre-trial Services for Harris County that he was not a United States citizen. Despite this, Medellin was never advised of his right to contact and seek the assistance of Mexican consular officials. As a result, Mexican consular officials were deprived of any opportunity to assist him before and during his trial.
After the completion of the first two trials, (Peter Cantu in January and Sean O’Brien in March 1994), the decision was made to try the remaining three defendants concurrently to save time and money. According to Assistant District Attorney Don Smyth, this was the first time Harris County had conducted simultaneous trials of three defendants. The three trials, held in separate courtrooms before separate judges and juries, all started at various times on Monday, September 12, 1994. Separate juries found Perez, Villareal, and Medellin guilty of capital murder and sentenced them to death for the girls’ rapes and murders. There was intense media coverage surrounding all three trials. Sean O’Brien’s lawyer stated that there was “just a little too much publicity for him to get a fair trial,” and that during jury selection more than 150 of about 180 potential jurors who were questioned had heard of the case.
Appeals
On April 29, 1997, more than a month after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his direct appeal of his conviction and sentence, Mexican consular authorities learned of Medellin for the first time through his correspondence to them from death row. Upon learning of his situation, Mexico began assisting Medellin through its consulate.
Medellin subsequently filed appeals arguing that his conviction and sentence should be vacated as a remedy for the authorities’ violation of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“VCCR”). In support of this claim, Medellin submitted an affidavit from Manuel Perez Cardenas, the Consul General of Mexico in Houston, explaining that Mexico would have provided immediate assistance if consular officers had been informed of his detention in time. Each appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.
Keep in mind that Mexico does not allow the death penalty, which I think Medellin can get in Texas for rape and murder x two counts. I think the penalty for aggravated rape is around 20 years. If he's a gang member and the case is made for this being an initiation, you have malice of forethought and BINGO! He's now on our public teat for life - unless we provide lethal injection for the scumbag.
So basically, its some legal eagle looking for technicalities.
let's just hope our courts can keep this up.
I think it is a valid point for a defendant to raise. The US did sign this treaty, so American government officials are bound by it.
I don't know what kind of remedy would be appropriate, however, but this treaty is the law of the land. I think the most that should happen here should be a new trial.
Is there a reason why they can't simply allow the man to contact his consulate now, then proceed with a re-trial with that little tidbit out of the way?
That would seem to make sense. Failing to let him talk to his consulate will not let him walk out of court a free man. He might well get a new trial. Where he'll be convicted and most likely sentenced to death.
I quess we'll just have to wait and see if sense prevails.
Why the hell is BUSH getting involved in this?
What I want to know is: what does Fox have on Bush? I'm serious. I'm beginning to wonder if there's some kind of blackmail going on here.
The defense is right. They have a valid point here. What Bush has done makes it so this issue will be looked at in state courts instead of the Supreme Court. If the state court decides the defendant should have a new trial with the assistance of his consulate, then so be it. If they decide to vacate the conviction entirely, then that decision can be appealed in favor of a new trial.
If, however, this issue were to go directly before the SC, then there would be no chance to argue an appeal should the conviction simply be overturned rather than a new trial ordered.
I don't think Bush providing a safety net in case the courts issue a 'get out of jail free' card is such a bad thing.
I think in this case, and I could be wrong, that Texas authorities were not aware the individual was a Mexican citizen until after the trial and conviction. I don't think this is a case of anyone in Texas intentionally preventing this individual from contacting the Mexican consulate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.