An 8 August 2008 Washington Post editorial complained that
Texas had an opportunity this week to display a victor's grace. Instead, it rebuffed pleas by the U.S. secretary of state and the U.S. attorney general for help in resolving an international dispute and in the process gave the back of its hand to the country and its obligations.Instead, the editorial argues, Texas should have given the Federal Government more time to work things out. That's one way of looking at the matter. An analysis of the 25 March 2008 Supreme Court decision authorizing the State of Texas to do exactly what it did — in contravention of a Presidential order and of a decision of the International Court of Justice — suggests a different view. Doing as the editorial suggested would have been a bad idea.
On 5 August 2008, the State of Texas executed by lethal injection José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican citizen. On 7 August, the State of Texas also executed Heliberto Chi, an illegal immigrant from Honduras. Both had been convicted of murder. Medellín had been convicted for
his part in the 1993 gang rape and murder of two Texas girls. There is little doubt that Mr. Medellín was guilty: He confessed to the crimes just hours after his arrest, and his conviction was upheld by state and federal appeals courts.The gruesome details of the gang initiation rape and murder in which Medellín participated fully and with apparent glee are reported here. Similarly, Chi had been convicted for a robbery-murder near Dallas. Neither individual had been advised of his right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to consult with a legal representative of his country. That Convention had been ratified in 1969, upon the advice and consent of the Senate.
On 25 March 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court in Medellín v. Texas considered the impact of a decision of the International Court of Justice in Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 on State courts in the U.S. The ICJ had ruled that Medellin and others
were entitled to review and reconsideration of their U.S. state-court convictions and sentences regardless of their failure to comply with generally applicable state rules governing challenges to criminal convictions (emphasis added).The Supreme Court held that the ICJ decision did not require State courts to grant such review; the Court had held to substantially the same effect in Sanchez-LLamas v. Oregon on 28 June 2006. On 28 February 2005, after the ICJ decision but before either referenced Supreme Court decision, President Bush declared
I have determined, pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, that the United States will discharge its international obligations under the decision of the International Court of Justice in [Avena], by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.In a six - three decision (Justices Breyer, Souter and Ginsburg dissenting) the Supreme Court held that even though the ICJ's Avena decision "constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States," (emphasis in original) the President lacked the requisite authority to compel States to comply with it.
Article comments
1 - Ken Mills
As I understand it, Medellin actually had been in Texas since he was 3 years old, and never informed officials that he was not a citizen until well after he was convicted of murder.Futhermore, he confessed to the murder...his guilt or innocense has never been an issue...so, how could notifying the Mexican Consulate have been of any help? It all was a delaying tactic...Texans absolutely do not like and will not stand to be bullied by anyone and that includes our former Governor GWB or the World Court...Texans make their own laws using their own conscience as a guide and execute those laws....and, I disagree with anyone who tries to inferfere...The excessively brutal and inhuman facts of the rape, torture, and murder of 2 young, innocent beautiful daughters, sisters, granddaughers, friends of others warranted and justified the execution of the murdering monster...I only wish he could be revived and executed again, and again, ang again...maybe after being revived and executed several times, the scumbag would only then just begin to understand the hurt and misery he has brought to a whole lot of folk that didn't deserve it.
2 - Arch Conservative
Good for Texas.
The only thing that Texas did wrong in this case and also in the ase of the Honduran man they executed last week was fail to offer the executions as live pay per view events on univision and telemundo.
Don't mess with Texas!
3 - Dan Miller
Ken,
I agree that he did not inform anyone that he was a Mexican National until post-conviction. As I understand the situation, however, the authorities were required to advise him of his right to seek assistance from Mexico's legal representative.
The only way for the authorities to do that, without engaging in the sin of profiling, would have been (and would still be) to advise everyone to the following effect upon arrest: Sir (or Madam or whatever), in the event that you are not a Citizen of the United States, you are entitled to contact the legal representative of your country, whatever that may be.
Not that it would do anyone in Mr. Medellin's circumstances much good, but it would have spared Texas the cost of litigation and permitted Mr. Medellin's earlier execution. It would also have spared the U.S. some minor embarrassment and given the Washington Post a bit of editorial space in which to pontificate on something different.
Dan