Rachel Browning’s Legal Blog

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court (5-4) denied a motion for a stay of execution requested by Jose Ernesto Medellin, a Mexican citizen on death-row in Texas for the 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston.  Medellin’s request for a stay was based on a last ditch hope that either the U.S. Congress or Texas State Legislature would decide to give a recent International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision the weight of domestic law and thus determine that Medellin’s arrest and detention by Texas authorities violated certain rights guaranteed to him by a 1963 Treaty entered between the U.S. and Mexico. 

The long and convoluted procedural history of this case goes like this:

·         Medellín was arrested after he and several fellow gang members raped and murdered two teenage girls.  He signed a confession after being given his Miranda warning.  Texas authorities neglected to advise him of his right to contact his consulate, however, under the terms of a treaty between the U.S. and Mexico allows individuals under arrest the right to contact their respective consular representatives.  The Vienna Convention outlines the rights and responsibilities that all countries must follow to honor the terms of treaties entered between them. 

·         Medellín was eventually convicted of rape and murder, and sentenced to death in 1997.  He appealed, and raised the issue of his Vienna Convention rights as part of his appeal, but his conviction was nevertheless upheld by the trial court and by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

·         In 2003, he then filed a petition for habeas corpus in United States district court. The district court denied relief, holding that Medellín’s Vienna Convention claim should have been raised at trial and that he had failed to show that the Vienna Convention violation had prejudiced him in any way.

·         In the meantime, in 2003 Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, The Netherlands, stating that the United States had failed to notify not just Medellin, but 50 other defendants—all Mexican citizens accused of various state criminal offenses—of their Vienna Convention right to contact the Mexican Consulate. 

·         In 2004, the ICJ ruled in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), that the 51 Mexican nationals were entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences.

So, what, you may ask, is the ICJ and how does it get to tell the United States what to do?  Well, at the moment, that’s a source of legal debate and the very issue that took this case to a whole other level of dispute.  The ICJ is the judicial arm of the United Nations tasked with the responsibility of presiding over disputes between nations.  Their website is here.  Technically, as a member of the United Nations, the U.S. is obligated to follow decisions of the ICJ; but how it chooses to do so is up to the U.S. government to determine.  At least that’s how I understand it; and I’m not the only one confused regarding what weight, if any, should be given to ICJ decisions regarding relations between countries and the terms of the treaties entered between them. 

Anyway, back to the case:

·         Medellin, stoked by his unexpected vindication from the ICJ, took his case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, citing the ICJ ruling as proof of his right to relief.  The 5th Circuit denied his case, and so Medellin appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

·         Just to keep things interesting, before the Supreme Court had ruled on the case, President Bush issued a Memorandum to the U.S. Attorney General, authorizing all state courts to review the convictions and sentences of foreign nationals who had not been advised of their Vienna Convention rights.

·         Because of the President’s Memorandum, Medellín filed a second case in state court for habeas corpus.

·         The Supreme Court dismissed Medellin’s first petition; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellín’s second appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time.

·         In a case unrelated to Medellin and the other Mexican defendants, the Supreme Court, in Sanchez-Lamas v. Oregon, ruled that states could admit evidence against defendants even if the evidence was obtained in violation of the Vienna Convention; but it left open the question of whether the Vienna Convention itself created individual rights that had to be honored in state criminal proceedings.  The Supreme Court also declared the ICJ’s ruling to be in error, because absent a clear and express statement to the contrary in the Vienna Convention and the Optional Protocol, the procedural rules of each nation govern the implementation of the treaty.

Finally, in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled on Medellin’s second appeal.  In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that, while an international treaty may constitute an international commitment (i.e., between nations), it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing” – meaning there is no implementing legislation necessary.  The Court also said that decisions of the ICJ not binding domestic law, nor do they create individual rights.  Finally, the court held that absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the ICJ.

After Mexico’s repeated requests to Governor Rick Perry for a stay of execution were denied, Medellin made an additional appeal to the Supreme Court for of a stay of his execution, suggesting that an act of Congress could force Texas to honor its agreement with Mexico.  The Supreme Court denied his request and Medellin was executed August 5, 2008.

So after years of litigation on everything but the criminal legal issues involved, a criminal case has been put to rest, and hopefully, the families of the two victims can find some sense of closure – if that’s ever possible in these types of crimes.  Obviously the issues litigated in this case have nothing to do with the death penalty or Medellin’s due process rights as a criminal defendant.  But the Supreme Court’s ultimate ruling touched on everything from separation of powers and the reach of the executive to the impact that international treaties and the ICJ have on U.S. domestic policy.  As an interesting twist, the state of Texas issued this statement:

…the State of Texas acknowledges the international sensitivities presented by the Avena ruling, as well as the observation of Justice Stevens in his concurring opinion that “[t]he cost to Texas of complying with Avena would be minimal.”  … The State of Texas will take certain measures in future proceedings…

Accordingly, and as an act of comity, if any such individual should seek such review in a future federal habeas proceeding, the State of Texas will not only refrain from objecting, but will join the defense in asking the reviewing court to address the claim of prejudice on the merits, as courts have done for Medellin.

Wow, I never would have seen that coming, but given the level of attention this case has received, and the complicated state of relations between Texas and Mexico, it’s possible the State government wanted to do what it could to repair any potential damage to its image in international circles.  Of course, making such a statement could also raise more issues than it settles.  But for now, that’s the last word, from anyone. 

I applaud those of you who stuck with me through the entirety of this posting.  For a more in depth look at the case and other international law perspectives and articles, I recommend the blog Opinio Juris, found at http://opiniojuris.org/.  Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend!