<p>The case in issue is Medellin v. Texas.</p>
<p>On June 24, 1993, 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena were walking home when they encountered Medellín and several fellow gang members. Medellín attempted to engage Elizabeth in conversation. When she tried to run, Medellin threw her to the ground. Jennifer was grabbed by other gang members when she, in response to her friend's cries, ran back to help. The gang members raped both girls for over an hour. Then, to prevent their victims from identifying them, Medellín and his fellow gang members murdered the girls and discarded their bodies in a wooded area. Medellín was personally responsible for strangling at least one of the girls with her own shoelace.</p>
<p>Medellín was arrested at approximately 4 a.m. on June 29, 1993. A few hours later, between 5:54 and 7:23 a.m., Medellín was given Miranda warnings; he then signed a written waiver and gave a detailed written confession. Local law enforcement officers did not, however, inform Medellín of his Vienna Convention right to notify the Mexican consulate of his detention. Medellín was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.</p>
<p>Medellin never argued prior to his conviction that his prosecution was somehow flawed because of the officers’ failure to abide by the terms of the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention, a treaty ratified by the United States in 1969, essentially stipulated that whenever a foreign national is taken into official custody, the United States shall without delay inform the foreign country of the detention and shall inform the arrestee of his or her right to contact the consulate office from his or her country. Under the treaty, disputes concerning the interpretation of the treaty are brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.</p>
<p>Mexico brought a claim against the United States in the ICJ, arguing that Medellin, and 50 other Mexican nationals, were all entitled to a review of their convictions based upon the United States’ failure to abide by the terms of the Vienna Convention. The IJC ruled that the named Mexican nationals were all entitled to a review of their cases and that the review should be conducted without regard to any United States court procedural rules that the Vienna Convention arguments were forfeited because the Mexican nationals failed to properly raise the issues previously.</p>
<p>After the ICJ’s ruling, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum stating that the United States would abide by the ICJ’s ruling and that state courts would “give effect” to the ICJ’s ruling. Medellin filed a petition in the Texas state courts seeking to overturn his conviction, citing the ICJ’s ruling, as well as the President’s memorandum. The Texas state courts dismissed Medellin’s petition and Medellin sought review in the United States Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The United States Supreme Court ruled that there were two issues in the case: “First, is the ICJ's judgment in directly enforceable as domestic law in a state court in the United States? Second, does the President's Memorandum independently require the States to provide review and reconsideration of the claims of the 51 Mexican nationals … without regard to state procedural default rules?”.</p>
<p>As to the first issue, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the ICJ’s ruling was not enforceable in state courts. The Court ruled that the ICJ’s judgment creates an international law obligation on the part of the United States, but it is not automatically binding domestic law because none of the relevant treaty sources creates binding federal law in the absence of implementing legislation, and no such legislation has been enacted. The Court noted that the relevant language does not indicate that the Senate, in intended to vest ICJ decisions with immediate legal effect in domestic courts.</p>
<p>The Court went on to note that there are 47 nations that are parties to the ICJ Optional Protocol, and 171 nations that are parties to the Vienna Convention. The Court noted that neither Medellín nor his amici ever identified a single nation that treats ICJ judgments as binding in their domestic courts. The lack of any basis for supposing that any other country would treat ICJ judgments as directly enforceable as a matter of their domestic law strongly suggests that the treaty should not be so viewed in US courts.</p>
<p>As to the second question, the Court ruled that the President’s memorandum could not bind state courts. The Court began by noting that, in issuing the memorandum, the President was seeking to vindicate plainly compelling interests in ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign governments, and demonstrating commitment to the role of international law. The Court ruled that, while these goals are very important, they do not allow the Court to set aside the basic rule that the President's authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” which the memorandum does not.</p>
<p>The Court rejected three arguments in support of the President’s memorandum. The first is that the issuance of the memorandum was authorized by the Optional Protocol. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the power to implement the treaty falls with Congress, and not the President. The second was that the memorandum was an exercise of the President’s authority to resolve international disputes. The Court noted that this power flows from a narrow set of circumstances – typically a civil dispute between a US citizen and foreign government or foreign citizen, which is not the case here. Finally, the Court rejected an argument advanced by Medellin that the President’s memorandum is consistent with the President’s duty, under the US Constitution, to “take care” that the laws be faithfully executed. The Court dismissed this argument, noting that the ICJ’s decision is not a domestic law that the President is charged with enforcing.</p>
<p>Accordingly, the Court let stand the ruling of the Texas state courts that Medellin’s death sentence was proper.</p>
<p>The California Criminal Defense Attorneys (http://www.wklaw.com) at Wallin & Klarich have extensive experience in handling Sex Crimes cases. Call us today for your free consultation.</p>
About the Author:
I have over twenty-nine years of experience handling all types of criminal defense matters, and currently supervise serious felonies being handled by our law firm. In addition, I have extensive experience in both juvenile crimes and juvenile dependency matters. We pride ourselves in doing all we can to put our clients at ease during a time of great personal stress in their lives when they are facing allegations of criminal misconduct. You are in good hands when you decide to retain Wallin & Klarich to assist you in your time of need.
Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:37:28 - 100%
Article Source: Find Articles - Reprint Rights feel free to publish this article on your website but you must agree to leave all active links contained within 'About The Author' intact and "as is" and NOT hidden behind a java or redirect script.