The StandDown Texas Project

National News Coverage of Leal Treaty Issue

Today's New York Times reports, "Texas Death Row Case Resonates to a Treaty."  It's by Brian Knowlton.  For those new to the issue, it's a must-read recap with new details, as well.

The death penalty case against Humberto Leal García Jr. did not seem like the sort to draw attention from a high-profile list of former U.S. diplomats, prosecutors, politicians and military men: He was convicted in Texas of raping, kidnapping and murdering a 16-year-old girl, Adria Sauceda, bludgeoning her with a heavy chunk of asphalt.

But Mr. Leal, a Mexican citizen, was not immediately informed of his right, under an international treaty signed by the United States, to seek assistance “without delay” from Mexican consular officials in navigating a confusing foreign legal system.

Such help might have been crucial for someone like Mr. Leal who, his lawyers say, had few resources and a limited understanding of his plight.

“This was an eminently defendable case, and I don’t think it would have been a capital case if he’d had decent trial counsel” from the start, said Sandra L. Babcock, a Northwestern University law professor representing Mr. Leal on behalf of the Mexican government.

With Mr. Leal’s execution approaching on July 7 in Texas, where 14 other Mexicans are also on death row, calls have mounted for Governor Rick Perry to grant a stay.

The former officials and military men urging a delay say that only by zealously enforcing terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations at home, with its guarantee of quick consular notification, can the United States expect similar treatment for Americans arrested abroad.

More than 6,600 Americans were arrested abroad in the year that ended on Sept. 30, by State Department count; nearly half were incarcerated. They include exchange students accused of buying drugs, diplomats caught up in protest marches and tourists who stray across borders.

“Consider a traffic accident in a foreign country,” said Mark Warren, an Ottawa-based legal researcher who specializes in consular rights issues. “In a lot of countries you get arrested, you are held, you are interrogated, you may be held incommunicado for weeks. It’s not speculative — this happens a lot — and if you don’t have access to your consulate, you have no friends, you are completely isolated.”

Observing the treaty is not “a favor to foreigners” but a “plainly compelling” national interest in protecting Americans abroad, said John B. Bellinger III, who was the top State Department lawyer under President George W. Bush and who joined other former diplomats in a plea to Mr. Perry, the Texas governor. Mr. Perry is awaiting a recommendation from the State Board of Pardons, his office said, though Texas has rarely granted clemency.

Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced legislation this week to address cases like Mr. Leal’s. The bill, which has the backing of the Obama administration, would provide for review by a federal court when a prisoner facing a death sentence claims his consular rights were violated, and calls for a stay of execution, if necessary, to allow such a review.

But it does not extend to noncapital cases, and no comparable bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives.

“This doesn’t go as far as we’d like,” said a Senate aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the final legislative language had not yet been released, “but given the urgency of the cases involving the death penalty, we felt we had to act now and this had the best chance of securing bipartisan support.”

Though the Senate ratified the Vienna Convention in 1969, its consular notification requirement was often overlooked. Mexico, citing the cases of 51 foreign citizens then on death rows in the United States, complained to the International Court of Justice in 2004. That court found that the United States was bound by the treaty, and Mr. Bush asked the states to apply it.

And:

Early assistance in murder cases also matters, said Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor: Prosecutors know that seeking the death penalty is a long, difficult, expensive process, and they carefully weigh their chances. Knowing that the accused will be well represented could tip the balance away from seeking death, he said.

With that sort of idea in mind, Mexico in 1999 created an ambitious legal assistance program to aid its citizens in capital cases. The program’s director, Gregory Kuykendall, now heads a team of 32 lawyers; in the year ending in May, Mexico spent $3.5 million on the program, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which focuses on government accountability.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the private Death Penalty Information Center, said Mexico’s active legal support had probably contributed to a decline in death penalty cases in Texas. “I think part of it is just better representation,” he said. “Mexico gives advice to other countries about how to do this.”

The State Department has held hundreds of training sessions across the country to familiarize federal, state and local law-enforcement officials with the Vienna treaty and has issued a 144-page booklet outlining the requirements, with translations in 20 languages, including Creole and Cambodian. Still, compliance is patchy. By Mr. Warren’s calculation, 80 of the 133 foreigners currently on death row in the United States say they did not receive a Vienna notification.

“That’s a failure rate of over 60 percent,” he said, “and it’s in the most serious possible cases. We’re not talking about traffic violations.”

One American who benefited while abroad from the Vienna treaty is Euna Lee, a reporter who, with a colleague, Laura Ling, was arrested in North Korea in 2009 after crossing the border from China.

Wade Goodwyn reports, "Planned Execution Puts Mexico, Texas At Odds," at NPR.  You can listen to his report at the link.

On the night of May 21, 1994, 16-year-old Adria Sauceda attended a party on the south side of San Antonio. Witnesses testified that the teenager ingested so much alcohol, cocaine and marijuana she became extremely intoxicated. A group of eight or nine young men took her into the backyard and took turns sexually assaulting her. Anyone who tried to intervene was told to back off.

Sandra Babcock, Leal's lawyer and a professor at Northwestern University Law School, says when Leal arrived at the party and learned what happened to Sauceda he "became very upset and said that he was going to take her home."

Leal says that on the ride home, Sauceda tried to get out of the car. Leal pulled over, she got out, he tried to get her back in, they argued, he pushed her and she hit her head. But Leal maintains he didn't kidnap her and he didn't rape her. And that's the crux of his defense because without those additional crimes, Leal would not have faced a capital murder charge and a death penalty conviction.

"So although there was evidence that he was with her before she died — and that he may have had some involvement in her death — the evidence that shows that he committed a sexual assault is reed thin, and the evidence that shows that he kidnapped her is even weaker," Babcock says.

Babcock accuses the public defenders assigned to defend Leal of putting on a lazy defense. And that particularly galls the government of Mexico. All parties agree that Leal, a Mexican national in Texas legally, should have been told he had a right to notify his consulate in San Antonio. The Mexican government says had it known, it would have paid for Leal to have top-flight legal representation, investigators and experts to assist his defense.

"Mexico has a long-standing tradition — internationally recognized tradition — about assisting their nationals," says Victor Uribe, head of the legal section at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C. "Of course, due to the opposition of Mexico to the death penalty, capital cases are a priority for Mexico."

And:

"It's not a favor that we do for foreigners who travel in the United States. The United States is a party to this treaty because it protects Americans when we travel abroad," says John Bellinger, a partner at Arnold & Porter in Washington. Bellinger is the former legal adviser at the State Department who handled these cases for the Bush administration.

To the surprise of both conservatives and liberals, President Bush was persuaded by this State Department's argument and ordered states to review their foreign national cases. But Texas Gov. Rick Perry said no, and to the Bush administration's chagrin, the Republican governor challenged his predecessor in federal court — and won.

"Texas has been particularly resistant to complying. I think Texas and the governor have tended to think this is a question of bowing to pressure from Washington or protecting the sovereignty of Texas from international tribunals in The Hague," Bellinger says.

Although Perry, the state attorney general's office and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles all declined to speak to NPR, Perry's staff in the past has said, "The world court has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court. It's very important to remember that these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens."

Texas has already executed two Mexican nationals who weren't informed of their rights. Now Leal is on deck to be put to death the first week of July. Having witnessed the powerlessness of the International Court and the president of the United States to stop these executions, Uribe at the Mexican Embassy says they've appealed to the real power in all this: Perry.

"Congressional Action May Come Too Late to Stop Texas Execution," is by Peter Malof for Texas News.Service.

Legislation introduced this week in the U.S. Senate gives hope to some foreigners on death row in U.S. prisons - but it may come too late for Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican scheduled for execution next month in Texas.

The Consular Notification Compliance Act would ensure that courts follow an international law that says people arrested on foreign soil are entitled to assistance from their home countries. Leal's lawyers are filing motions today in federal court, hoping to delay his execution so that he may benefit from the legislation if and when it becomes law.

Christopher Durocher, government-affairs counsel at The Constitution Project, supports the measure, adding that consular access is critical if justice is to prevail for foreign nationals.

"When you're brought into a foreign criminal-justice system, your lack of understanding about how that system works - to navigate that system effectively - can really have a negative impact on your ability to defend yourself."

Durocher says he's fearful that if the United States doesn't uphold its treaty obligations, other countries will view consular access for Americans as optional. More than 6,600 U.S. citizens were arrested abroad last year.

Leal is a perfect example of someone whose conviction deserves review, Durocher says, because his lack of consular access clearly impacted his ability to receive a fair trial. His execution, Durocher adds, would not come as welcome news to the 172 other signatories of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Jordan Smith writes, "Will Legislation Save Humberto Leal?" for the Austin Chronicle.

Vermont Democratic U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy on June 14 filed a bill that would ensure U.S. compliance with the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which in part guarantees foreign nationals abroad access to consular officials. Advocates representing Texas death row inmate Humberto Leal hope the legislation will save their client's life.

At issue is whether foreign nationals who get in trouble with the law in the U.S. are afforded the opportunity to communicate with home-country officials. Leal is one of the more than four dozen Mexican nationals on death row in the U.S. whose cases were brought to the UN's International Court of Justice in 2004. In that case, Mexico complained that in each instance the accused was not given the opportunity to communicate with Mexican consular officials. The ICJ ultimately ruled in Mexico's favor and said that the cases should be reviewed. Then-President George W. Bush penned a memo asking the U.S. courts to give effect to the ICJ ruling, but the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that state courts were not required to do so absent an act of Congress. After several years, that legislation was finally filed this week. "Compliance with our consular notification obligations is not a question of partisan interest," Leahy said in a press release. "Given the long history of bipartisan support for the [Vienna Convention], there should be unanimous support for this legislation to uphold our treaty obligations. A failure to act places Americans at risk."

That is, of course, one of the issues here: If the U.S. continues to ignore the consular notification provisions as it pertains to foreign nationals in the States, that makes it more likely that the rights of U.S. citizens abroad will also be ignored. Since the ICJ decision in 2004, Texas has executed three foreign nationals; unless the state acts to halt Leal's execution, he will become the fourth – and the first since Congress has made a move to require compliance with the Convention, and the ICJ ruling.

Earlier coverage of Humberto Leal's case begins at the link.

The clemency petition, case background, and other information is at Humberto Leal. 

Readers who wish to sign a petition urging clemency can do so at the link, or using the right-column Take Action box.

Commentary on the Leahy Legislation

Ginny Sloan posts, "Proposed Legislation Providing Consular Access Holds Lives in the Balance," at Huffington Post.  She's the president of the Constitution Project.

Consular access also enhances the truth-seeking function at the heart of American justice, and provides an indispensable protection for foreign nationals who are unfamiliar with the U.S. criminal justice system. "Mandatory Justice: The Death Penalty Revisited," the 2005 report (PDF) of The Constitution Project's Death Penalty Committee -- a bipartisan committee comprising supporters and opponents of the death penalty -- concluded that "the policies underlying the [Vienna Convention] are similar to those underlying the right to counsel guaranteed by the United States Constitution." The diverse committee thus called on all jurisdictions to fully comply with the Vienna Convention.

The Consular Notification Compliance Act has significant implications for the many foreign nationals currently on death row, such as Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican national who is scheduled for execution by the state of Texas in less than a month. Mr. Leal was never told that he had a right to contact the Mexican consulate for legal assistance. If the legislation passes, it would give Mr. Leal the opportunity to petition a federal court to review his case and, if appropriate, order a new trial or sentencing hearing. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the act will come up for a vote in the Senate or House before Mr. Leal's July 7th execution date, so it will be up to Texas Gov. Rick Perry to grant Mr. Leal a reprieve pending a vote on the proposed bill.

Given the life and death stakes, a diverse group of former military officials, diplomats, judges and prosecutors have petitioned Governor Perry to hold off on executing Mr. Leal until the legislation is considered. This week, attorneys for Mr. Leal will file a federal habeas petition and a motion for stay of execution in the federal district court, arguing that Mr. Leal has a due process right to remain alive so that he can benefit from the legislative remedy contained in the Consular Notification Compliance Act. Now, the whole world will watch to see if Texas, and the United States, will honor the rights promised by the Vienna Convention.

At Opinio Juris, Duncan Hollis posts, "Proposed Legislation Seeks VCCR Compliance by the United States."

Those who have followed the cases relating to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) here in the United States and at the ICJ know that the United States has a compliance problem. The United States does not provide the ‘judicial review and reconsideration’ remedy that the ICJ has indicated is required in the event a violation of an individual’s rights under Article 36 of the VCCR, and the Supreme Court has indicated that the President alone cannot order U.S. states to provide those remedies.  Since 2008, many commentators have suggested that the solution to this problem lies with Congress. Earlier attempts to enact legislation authorizing the necessary procedural steps to put the United States in compliance have fallen short.  Senator Patrick Leahy, however, is ready to try again in light of a pending execution of a Mexican national in Texas (apparently scheduled for July 7), which also seems certain to revive international attention to this issue.

"U.S. Notables Urge Texas to Delay Mexican’s Execution," is the Latin American Herald Tribune report.

Retired U.S. military brass, diplomats, politicians and a former FBI chief urged the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to delay the execution of a Mexican national convicted of murder, arguing that the case needs to be reviewed.

Humberto Leal Garcia, a 38-year-old native of Monterrey, is scheduled to be executed July 7.

He was sentenced to death in 1995 by a Texas court for the kidnapping, rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl.

Without disputing Leal’s guilt, the Mexican government recently asked Texas to commute the death sentence, citing both humanitarian concerns and the failure of Texan authorities to respect foreign suspects’ right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention.

“Prompt knowledge of and access to our fellow-citizens held in foreign jails ensures that U.S. consular officers can help them obtain legal assistance, monitor their treatment, and connect them to family and friends back home,” retired military brass and diplomats said in a letter to the Texas parole board.

“The safety and well-being of Americans abroad is endangered by the U.S. maintaining the double standard of protesting denials of consular notification and access to its own citizens while simultaneously failing to comply with its obligation to remedy identical violations,” they said.

The board has received similar appeals from figures such as former FBI Director William Sessions and a former Texas governor, Mark White.

The International Court of Justice ruled on March 31, 2004, that Texas had violated the rights of Leal and other Mexican nationals, instructing U.S. authorities to review the death sentences of 51 Mexicans.

Texas, however, has refused to suspend the executions of foreigners, claiming that no international court’s ruling may replace state laws and the federal government has no authority to order the states to review such matters.

Earlier coverage of the Leal case begins with the preceding post.  Related posts are in the foreign citizen index.

Federal Legislation Filed Over Consular Notification Failures

Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has issued a news release, "Leahy Renews Effort To Bring U.S. Into Compliance With International Consular Notification Treaty."

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced legislation Tuesday to address a long-standing international concern regarding U.S. compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), a key treaty providing access for citizens detained abroad to their consulates.

The Leahy-authored Consular Notification Compliance Act will give jurisdiction to federal courts to review the cases of foreign nationals currently on death row in the United States who did not receive consular access as required by the VCCR. It includes those individuals covered by a 2004 decision by the International Court of Justice, which held that the U.S. must review the convictions and death sentences of more than 50 Mexican nationals who had not been notified of their right to consular access.  The legislation would also clarify for future cases that courts must ensure that all foreign nationals charged with a capital offense are informed of their right to contact their consulate.  More than 100 foreign nationals from more than 30 countries are currently on death row in the United States.

“Each year, thousands of Americans are detained abroad while they study, travel, work, and serve in the military.  From the moment they are detained, their safety and well-being depends on the ability of United States consular officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help them obtain legal assistance, and connect them to family back home,” said Leahy.

“That access is protected by the consular notification provisions of the VCCR, but it only functions effectively if every country meets its obligations under the treaty – including the United States.  The Consular Notification Compliance Act will bring the United States one step closer to compliance with the convention.”

Leahy chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the State Department and Foreign Operations.  The need to protect Americans overseas by bringing the U.S. into compliance with the treaty has garnered support from retired members of the military, former diplomats, retired judges and prosecutors.

Government efforts to address this problem began during the George W. Bush administration, when President Bush issued an executive memorandum directing the state courts to provide review of the convictions and death sentences.  The executive order was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Court held that the Executive Branch did not have the authority to compel the state courts to act.  The Court held that Congress must pass legislation instead.

“Compliance with our consular notification obligations is not a question of partisan interest,” Leahy said.  “Given the long history of bipartisan support for the VCCR, there should be unanimous support for this legislation to uphold our treaty obligations.  A failure to act places Americans at risk.”

The VCCR was negotiated during the Kennedy administration, and ratified during the Nixon administration.  The U.S. government has cited the VCCR in seeking access to Americans detained abroad.  According to the Department of State, more than 6600 Americans were arrested abroad in fiscal year 2010.  More than 3000 U.S. citizens were incarcerated abroad in the same time period.

The text of the Consular Notification Compliance Act is available online.

Leahy also spoke on the Senate floor on the introduction of the Consular Notification Compliance Act.  Here's an excerpt:

Today, I am introducing the Consular Notification Compliance Act.  This legislation will help bring the United States into compliance with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) and is critical to ensuring the protection of Americans traveling overseas. 

Each year, thousands of Americans are arrested and imprisoned when they are in foreign countries studying, working, serving the military, or traveling.  From the moment they are detained, their safety and well-being depends, often entirely, on the ability of United States consular officials to meet with them, monitor their treatment, help them obtain legal assistance, and connect them to family back home.  That access is protected by the consular notification provisions of the VCCR, but it only functions effectively if every country meets its obligations under the treaty – including the United States. 

Unfortunately, in some instances, the United States has not been meeting those obligations.  There are currently more than 100 foreign nationals on death row in the United States, most of whom were never told of their right to contact their consulate and their consulate was never notified of their arrest, trial, conviction, or sentence.  There are many other foreigners in U.S. prisons awaiting trial for non-capital crimes, some facing life sentences, who were similarly denied consular access.  This failure to comply with our treaty obligations undercuts our ability to protect Americans abroad and deeply damages our image as a country that abides by its promises and the rule of law.  It would also be completely unacceptable to us if our citizens were treated in this manner.

The Consular Notification Compliance Act seeks to bring the United States one step closer to compliance with the convention.  It is not perfect.  It focuses only on the most serious cases – those involving the death penalty – but it is a significant step in the right direction and we need to work together to pass it quickly.  Texas is posed to execute the next foreign national affected by this failure to comply with the treaty on July 7, 2011.  He was not notified of his right to consular assistance, and the Government of Mexico has expressed grave concerns about the case.  We do not want this execution to be interpreted as a sign that the United States does not take its treaty obligations seriously.  That message puts American lives at risk.

The Government of Great Britain has expressed similar concerns about a case involving a British citizen facing the death penalty here, who was denied consular access. 

The bill I am introducing would allow foreign nationals who have been convicted and sentenced to death to ask a court to review their cases and determine if the failure to provide consular notification led to an unfair conviction or sentence.

Earlier coverage of the case of Humberto Leal begins at the link.

Honor This Treaty

That's the heading for an editorial in today's Washington Post.  It's titled, "Why the U.S. should allow arrested foreigners to contact their consulates."  An extended excerpt:

Humberto Leal Jr. is scheduled to be put to death by the state of Texas next month for the 1994 murder of a 16-year-old girl. Like so many cases involving capital punishment, Mr. Leal’s has generated controversy, but not for the typical reasons.

Mr. Leal is a Mexican national. When he was arrested, Texas officials failed to advise him of his right to communicate with his country’s embassy as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The United States, Mexico and some 160 other countries are signatories to the convention. Mr. Leal is one of roughly 40 Mexican nationals who were not advised about consular access and who sit on death row in this country.

Mexico filed a grievance on behalf of its nationalsand prevailed in 2004 before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the judicial arm of the United Nations. The ICJ concluded that the United States was obligated to comply with the treaty and that it should review these cases to determine whether the defendants had been harmed by the lack of notification.

Texas, where the majority of these inmates are held, balked. Three years ago, the state executed Jose Ernesto Medellin, another Mexican national who was not informed of his right to consular access and who was denied additional review. The state is likely to take the same approach in the Leal case. “Here, in Texas, if you commit terrible and heinous crimes you’re going to pay the ultimate price,” says Katherine Cesinger, press secretary to Gov. Rick Perry (R).

This misses the point entirely. This is not about coddling criminals nor is it a referendum on the death penalty. It is about a country’s obligation to honor its treaty commitments. The United States must comply with the Vienna Convention — and demonstrate good faith in addressing past mistakes — if U.S. citizens abroad are to be afforded the same rights and protections.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) is expected to introduce legislation as soon as this week to provide meaningful review in federal court for those denied consular access. The legislation should be narrowly tailored and mandate that the legal proceedings focus solely on whether denial of access seriously prejudiced an inmate’s ability to defend against charges. The bar for success should be high, and only those who can provide compelling evidence of such harm should be allowed a new trial or benefit from a reduced sentence.

Earlier coverage of the case of Humberto Leal begins at the link.

Austin American-Statesman on the Leal Case

The Statesman editorial is, "Execution case important to international relations."  It appeared in the Saturday issue.

The Golden Rule of life also applies to the tricky business of international relations. What we do to non-Americans in our country we can reasonably expect to be done unto Americans in other countries.

It is for that reason that Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles — both in the uncommon position of making a decision with international impact — should commute or postpone the death sentence of Humberto Leal, a Mexican raised in Texas, scheduled to die July 7 for the 1994 murder of Adria Sauceda, 16, in Bexar County.

The key issue in this case at this point is not whether Leal committed the crime. Also not central now are the circumstances involving Leal, including sexual abuse by a priest, a challenging family history and other factors that, though significant, fail to add up to justification for murder. They could, however, count as mitigating factors that argue for a life sentence.

It's what happened after Sauceda was killed that is at issue. More specifically, it's what didn't happen. Despite the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requirements, Leal was not informed of his right to contact Mexican officials to seek legal assistance. Records indicate that he was not aware of that right until told about it by a fellow death row inmate.

Instead of getting legal help from Mexican consular officials, who have a track record of providing quality legal representation for Mexicans facing the death penalty in the U.S., Leal was represented by a court-appointed team that included a lawyer who twice had his license suspended.

Back in 2004, the International Court of Justice said Leal was entitled to a hearing to determine the extent of harm he suffered as a result of the lack of consular access. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling has said the U.S. must comply with the decision by the international court. Texas, citing state law, said no such hearing could take place. Congress now is poised to consider legislation, to be filed in coming weeks, that would establish a procedure for a federal court hearing on the extent of harm caused to Leal because he was not advised of his right to contact Mexican officials.

And:

Sandra L. Babcock, a Northwestern University law professor representing Leal, said he would not have been convicted if he had received proper consular assistance. We have no way of knowing that. But there is no arguing with Babcock's contention that "with consular access, Mr. Leal would have had competent lawyers and expert assistance that would have transformed the quality of his defense."

And, as she noted, Mexican officials have developed expertise in helping Mexicans facing the death penalty in the U.S.

"It really is a very modest remedy we are talking about," Babcock said.

Modest, indeed, but with important international ramifications.

"Franciscans request execution halt," is the San Antonio Express-News report written by Michelle Mondo.  It also ran on Saturday.

The list of those calling for Texas to stay the July execution of Humberto Leal Jr. grew on Friday when the Franciscan Order and organizations representing victims of sexual abuse by priests sent letters to the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole.

The letters from the abuse-victims organizations, including the San Antonio chapter of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, and the Franciscans call for a stay or commutation of Leal's sentence so the Catholic Church can investigate the allegations he made against Father Federico Fernandez.

The allegation by Leal, 38, that Fernandez sexually abused him when he was 10 or 11 and attending St. Clare's Catholic Church was made for the first time in a recent petition for a reprieve or commutation Leal's attorney sent to the board and Gov. Rick Perry.

Leal was sentenced to die for the rape and bludgeoning death of Adria Sauceda, 16, whose naked body was found on May 21, 1994, on a dirt road not far from a party that she and Leal both attended. The execution is scheduled for July 7.

Franciscan Provincial Minister William Spencer said in a letter that he needed to add his voice to those calling for a reprieve because, he said, the sex-abuse claim could have merit. A spokesman for the San Antonio Archdiocese has said Leal's allegation would be investigated.

Fernandez, a San Antonio priest, was charged in 1988 with molesting two young boys but the charges were later dropped and a lawsuit was settled out of court.

Earlier coverage of the Leal case begins at the link.

Sandra Babcock on the Leal Case

"Texas Execution Could Risk Americans' Safety Abroad," is the title of her post at Huffington Post.  Babcock is an attorney for Humberto Leal and and a clinical professor at Northwestern University Law School.  Here's the beginning:

This week, prominent bipartisan groups, including former U.S. diplomats, retired military leaders, former judges and prosecutors, and organizations representing Americans abroad called on the Texas Governor and Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant a stay of execution to Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican national on death row who is scheduled to be executed on July 7. These are not the usual suspects who call for clemency in a death penalty case; in fact, many of them undoubtedly support capital punishment. What unites this diverse group is their concern that if Mr. Leal is executed in violation of a binding judgment of the International Court of Justice, other nations will be emboldened to violate the consular rights of U.S. citizens arrested in foreign countries.

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty ratified by 173 nations, establishes that whenever the authorities arrest a foreign national, they must advise her that she has the right to have her consulate notified of her detention. This applies to foreign nationals arrested in the United States as well as to Americans detained abroad. American foreign exchange students, missionaries and others who have been wrongly detained overseas often say that the assistance of the consulate is more important than the advice of a foreign lawyer. American consulates can help them contact family members, obtain evidence back home, and assist in obtaining competent legal representation.

But when Texas authorities arrested Humberto Leal García, a Mexican national with no prior criminal convictions, they tried, convicted, and sentenced him to death without ever informing him of his consular rights and without notifying the Mexican consulate of his plight. On March 31, 2004, the International Court of Justice held that the United States had breached its obligations under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention in the case of Mr. Leal and 50 other Mexican nationals on death row. The ICJ held that, as a remedy for the violations of Article 36, the United States must provide judicial "review and reconsideration" of Mr. Leal's conviction and sentence to determine whether, and how, he was prejudiced by the violation of his consular rights.

Earlier coverage of Leal's case begins with the preceding post.

At the Nexus of Abuse and Execution

That's the title of Brandi Grissom's must-read report on the case of Humberto Leal.  It's published in today's New York Times and Texas Tribune, and examines a different aspect of Leal's request for clemency.

St. Clare’s is a small church with a tight-knit congregation in this impoverished south side neighborhood, a place where neighbors come for a respite from the gritty streets.

But in the 1980s, it became a place of fear and shame for children who allege they were victims of sexual abuse by a prominent priest.

One of those alleged victims is Humberto Leal, a death row inmate who in 1995 was convicted of raping and bludgeoning to death a 16-year-old girl. His attorneys this week filed a clemency petition on his behalf. They asked Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to stay his execution and allow him to testify both as a victim and a witness of abuses allegedly perpetrated decades ago by Father Federico Fernandez, who served at St. Clare’s from 1983 to 1988.

Now, others who attended St. Clare’s have been spurred by Mr. Leal’s recent revelations to come forward and report similar abuse. They hope that by telling their stories they can stop the July 7 execution of Mr. Leal, and spur law enforcement to investigate and prosecute Father Fernandez.

The priest, who currently works in a church in Bogotá, Colombia, denies ever abusing anyone.

Church authorities in San Antonio removed him from the parish and sent him to New Mexico for treatment in 1988 after a grand jury indicted him for sexually abusing two other boys. In statements to police, the boys described multiple occasions when Father Fernandez schemed to get them alone and groped them. After the indictment, the boys’ family reached a settlement with the church, and the young men decided not to testify. Charges against Father Fernandez were dropped, and terms of the settlement were sealed.

Even before Father Fernandez arrived at St. Clare’s, he had been accused of sexual misconduct. In 1983, San Antonio police charged him with exposing himself in public, though the charges were eventually dropped. And since Mr. Leal’s revelation, others who attended St. Clare’s have reported similar abuse.

Under the shadow of a spindly tree in St. Clare’s parking lot — the modest structure where he was baptized and later married — a mild-mannered 44-year-old in work boots described how the priest who had been his boyhood role model nearly shattered his faith.

“I wanted to give myself to the church, and I got something bad,” said the man, who is not being identified because he is a victim of sexual abuse.

At 15, he wanted to be a priest. He faithfully attended Bible classes at St. Clare’s. He grew close to the priests there, and in particular Father Fernandez. It was Father Fernandez, he said, who took him into a room alone and then stripped naked in front of him.

“I was just played for a fool,” he said. But now he hopes that exposing his pain can help relieve someone else’s. “This person killed persons in their heart and their faith, and he gets away with it.”

And:

The head of the international order of Franciscan priests wrote to state officials on Mr. Leal’s behalf. Father William Spencer wrote that he could not confirm Mr. Leal’s account of abuse, but given Father Fernandez’s history, it raises the possibility that jurors who sentenced Mr. Leal to death were unaware of mitigating evidence that could have persuaded them to imprison him for life instead. Father Spencer did not return calls requesting comment.

Earlier coverage of Humberto Leal's case begins at the link; more in the next post.

The clemency petition, case background, and other information is at Humberto Leal. 

Readers who wish to sign a petition urging clemency can do so at the link, or using the right-column Take Action box.

Additional Coverage of the Leal Clemency Petition

Today's San Antonio Express-News reports, "Texas asked to hold off executing killer of S.A. teen."  It's written by Michelle Mondo.

A petition filed Tuesday to stay the execution of Humberto Leal Jr., a Mexican national convicted here for the rape and murder of a San Antonio teenager, cites the international implications of the case and was accompanied by letters of support from high-ranking U.S. government leaders, including judges and retired military leaders.

The request for a reprieve or commutation of Leal's scheduled July 7 execution was the latest round in a legal battle stemming from a 2004 ruling at the International Court of Justice in The Hague that said neither Leal nor 50 other Mexican citizens on death row nationwide had been told they could contact Mexican consulate representatives when they were arrested.

The remedy for that breach of their rights, the world court determined, was to grant new hearings to the condemned to determine if consular access would have affected the outcome of their capital murder trials.

“It's not just about one person,” said Sandra Babcock, his attorney. “If (Leal's) execution goes forward the effects are going to reverberate far beyond the borders of Texas and far beyond the United States.”

Babcock, a law professor at Northwestern University, said U.S. citizens need the same right when traveling abroad. If U.S. authorities don't abide by the treaty that established it, those Americans — including members of the military, tourists, missionaries and business people — will be at risk, say support letters sent with the petition.

That problem has attracted bipartisan attention at the highest levels of government. Then-President George W. Bush, an ardent supporter of the death penalty, in 2005 tried to force states to hold hearings on consular access in each case.

And:

He has lost previous appeals citing incompetent attorneys. Babcock said his attorneys failed to counter forensic claims and didn't offer mitigating evidence that included an abusive background.

Her petition includes an allegation never mentioned in earlier appeals, that he was raped as a boy by Father Federico Fernandez at St. Clare Catholic Church in San Antonio. Fernandez was indicted in 1988 in the abuse of two boys, but the case was dismissed and a lawsuit was settled out of court.

Leal had never disclosed the abuse to anyone, Babcock said. Pat Rodgers, spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Antonio, said the allegation would be investigated.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles will review the petition and make a recommendation to Gov. Rick Perry.

Tony Mauro posts, "Coalition Seeks Clemency for Mexican Man on Texas Death Row," at the BLT and Law.com.

With the backing of former judges, prosecutors and diplomats from across the country, lawyers are asking Texas Gov. Rick Perry and other state officials to delay the scheduled July 7 execution of Humberto Leal Garcia.  The case echoes the dispute involved in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in Medellin v. Texas, and also implicates pending action in Congress.

Leal is a Mexican national arrested in 1994 on suspicion of murder who was never told that he had a right under an international treaty to contact the Mexican consulate for legal assistance. It was not until he was on death row that a fellow inmate gave him the address of the Mexican consulate.

Without the legal assistance he might have gotten through the Mexican government, Leal received "disgracefully inadequate legal representation," acccording to the clemency petition, and was convicted on "junk science" evidence that has since been discredited. At his sentencing hearing, Leal's lawyers failed to present any mitigating evidence including his mental disabilities, brain damage and sexual abuse as a child. "He never stood a chance," said Northwestern University School of Law professor Sandra Babcock, Leal's current attorney and author of the petition sent to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles Tuesday.

But the broader issue in Leal's case -- his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations -- is what attracted the nationwide coalition of supporters. If Leal is executed without any examination of the unfairness of his failure to be notified of his consular rights, they argue, then foreign governments may retaliate and not honor the consular rights of U.S. citizens arrested in other countries.

Because foreign nationals may be unfamiliar with the U.S. legal system or unable to secure adequate representation, receiving the help of a consulate "can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal, or between life and death," said the group of former judges and prosecutors in a letter to Perry and the pardons board. "It is appropriate to ensure that our country complies with the laws to which it has obligated itself, and to ensure that those laws apply to our own citizens as well." Among those signing this statement were former FBI director and district court judge William Sessions, former federal appeals judges Shirley Hufstedler, John Gibbons and Nathaniel Jones, and former Texas attorney general and governor Mark White.

And:

A bill is expected to be introduced soon in the Senate -- with the backing of the State Department and Justice Department -- that would provide for court hearings to review the cases of foreign nationals whose consular rights were violated.

Babcock said the congressional response has momentum, after years of delay caused by related and unrelated reasons. "Here we are, the most powerful country in the world, and we can't figure out how to comply with the law." She also said the Leal case poses a starker example of the importance of the consular rights treaty than the Medellin case did, because having competent counsel through the Mexican government clearly would have made a difference for Leal. "This would not have been a capital case. It was a defensible case," she said, because of the flawed evidence introduced at trial and the failure of counsel to assert mitigating factors at sentencing.

More broadly, she said the consular issue, once it is explained, gains wide support because of the possible repercussions for U.S. citizens if the U.S. does not honor the treaty.

"Protests mount to block mexican’s execution in Texas," is the title of Tom Ramstack's AHN post.

An international dispute is arising from the planned execution July 7 of a Mexican citizen whose government questions whether proper procedures were followed in sentencing the convicted murderer.

Mexico’s ambassador delivered a request this week to Texas Gov. Rick Perry asking him to delay the execution until a review is completed of the sentencing procedures.

The Mexican government does not deny “the horrific nature of the crime” committed by Humberto Leal Garcia, the letter from Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan says.

However, the Mexicans want to ensure Leal was given legal representation required by a ruling of the International Court of Justice.

Leal, 38, was sentenced to death for the May 21, 1994 rape and murder of 16-year-old Adra Sauceda in San Antonio, Texas. He is one of 51 Mexicans on death row in United States.

In a 2004 ruling, the International Court of Justice determined that the United States was not granting death penalty convicts from Mexico their right to legal assistance by their own country.

The international court said the United States was violating the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Leal’s attorneys argue he would not have been sentenced to death if he was given an opportunity for support and legal advice from his own country.

ThompsonReuters daily Summary Judgements contains, "Clemency sought for Texas death row inmate."

Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican national convicted of murder in 1994, is scheduled to die on July 7. But a group of former judges, prosecutors and diplomats from across the United States have written to Gov. Rick Perry asking him to the delay the execution. Leal wasn't told until he was already on death row that he had the right, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to seek legal help from the Mexican consulate. The clemency petition from the judges, prosecutors and diplomats argues that without the help of his government, Leal got "disgracefully inadequate legal representation." And their fear, Legal Times reported, is that if Leal is executed other countries may retaliate by depriving American citizens arrested abroad of their right to seek consular help.

The Lincoln Tribune of Lincolnton, NC, has "Mexicans blast execution of criminal alien murderer in Texas."

Ealier coverage of Leal's case for clemency begins at the link.  The clemency petition, case background, and other information is at Humberto Leal.  Readers who wish to sign a petition can do so at the link.

News Coverage of Leal Clemency Filing

The Guardian reports, "US politicians and lawyers protest against death penalty for Mexican man."  It's written by Ed Pilkington in New York.

Top military leaders, lawyers, diplomats and former government officials have joined forces to protest against the pending execution of a Mexican citizen in Texas which they say would be in breach of international law and could put American lives abroad at risk.

The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, has vowed to press ahead on 7 July with the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, despite condemnation across the political and legal realms. Presidents George Bush and Barack Obama have, while in office, opposed the execution, and Congress is likely to soon introduce legislation designed to make such a judicial killing impossible.

The almost blanket condemnation of Texas's position stems from the fact that Leal was prosecuted without the benefit of consular support and advice from the Mexican authorities, as is required under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. He was found guilty in 1994 of sexually assaulting and murdering a 16-year-old girl in San Antonio.

But the Mexican authorities were never informed of his arrest, and at his trial he was assigned court-appointed lawyers whom his current attorneys say were unprepared and incompetent. One of the trial lawyers has twice been suspended from practising law and reprimanded two other times for failing to carry out his obligations to his clients, according to the attorneys.

In a clemency petition lodged with the Texas governor on Tuesday, Leal's current lawyers argue that had Leal had consular access, he could have avoided conviction, let alone a death penalty. "The complete failure of Mr Leal's attorneys to represent their client in any meaningful way deprived him of his chance for a fair trial," the petition says.

Joint letters have been sent to Perry's office to accompany the petition, whose signatories include prominent figures in the worlds of law, diplomacy and the military.

One letter comes from former US diplomats and top officials in the state department, among whom are the top legal adviser to the state department under Bush, John Bellinger, and the former US ambassadors to the UN and Nato, Thomas Pickering and William Taft respectively.

In their joint letter, the diplomats argue that by failing to honour the rights of foreign nationals arrested in the US, Texas is putting at risk those of American nationals arrested abroad. "We believe that continued non-compliance will surely alienate this nation from its allies."

Top retired military figures including Rear Admiral Don Guter, Brigadier James Cullen and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson warn in a separate letter that, by disregarding the Vienna Convention, Texas is also putting at risk military personnel stationed overseas. "As retired military leaders, we understand that the preservation of consular access protections is especially important for US military personnel, who when serving our country overseas are at greater risk of being arrested by a foreign government."

And:

Leal is one of 40 or so Mexican nationals in a similar legal trap; individuals who are awaiting execution in the US, despite having consular access withheld at the time of their arrest and trial. Under the Vienna Convention, those facing prosecution in a foreign country must be given regular access to their consular representatives.

Though that legal point has been pressed by the US on many occasions in cases where American citizens have been arrested abroad, Texas has decided to press ahead with the execution regardless.

Jordan Smith writes, "Is Texas Breaking the Law?"  It's posted at the Austin Chronicle.

If the state of Texas goes through with the planned July 7 execution of Humberto Leal it will be committing an "irreparable breach of international law," attorney Sandra Babcock argues in a clemency petition filed this week with the Board of Pardons and Paroles. Leal was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1994 kidnap, rape and murder of 16-year-old Adria Sauceda in Bexar County. Among the problems with Leal's case – and there are many, including bad lawyering at the trial level, reliance on junk forensic science, and the state's current opposition to performing new DNA testing – is the fact that Leal is a Mexican national who was never afforded consular access after his arrest, in keeping with international law codified in the Vienna Convention, to which the U.S. is a signatory. Leal had no prior convictions, suffered from brain damage and resultant learning disabilities, and had previously been sexually abused by his Catholic parish priest. In short, Babcock argues in the petition to the BPP, he is "precisely the sort of person Article 36 of the Vienna Convention was meant to protect." But he was never afforded that access. Instead, writes Babcock, it wasn't until Leal arrived on death row "that he received the address of his consulate – from another inmate."

This is no small matter, since Mexico does not have the death penalty – and it is not the first time the issue of denying foreign nationals access to consular advice has come up in Texas. In 2004, Mexico took to the International Court of Justice it's claim that the U.S. had violated the Convention in the cases of 54 Mexicans – including Leal and then-Texas death row inmate José Medellín – facing death in the States. Medellín was convicted and sentenced to die for the gang rape and murder of two Houston teens, Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña. He argued that his case should be overturned because he was never notified of his right to contact the Mexican consulate – in fact, like Leal after him, Medellín didn't learn of that right until he'd already been in prison for four years. The ICJ sided with Mexico in the case, and then-President George W. Bush asked the Texas courts to take heed of the court's ruling. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals did not, and in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court said that state courts did not have to abide the decision, clearing the way for Texas to execute Medellín &ndash and others like him. In order for the ruling to have effect in state courts, the Supremes ruled, Congress would have to act.

With the support of the Obama Administration, that's on the horizon, argues Babcock, which would mean that executing Leal now would again deny him due process. "While the Executive and Legislative Branches are closer than ever to fully implementing the [ICJ] decision, their efforts will come too late for Mr. Leal unless [the BPP] recommends a reprieve or commutation," Babcock writes in Leal's petition. "The immensity of the interests at stake – Mr. Leal's life, and the treaty obligations of the United States – should not be taken lightly." In the meantime, however, since the ICJ ruling in March 2004, the state has executed four foreign nationals, including Medellín. Currently, there are 23 foreign nationals on Texas' death row, including 14 Mexican nationals.

And:

Babcock, a professor of law at Northwestern University, asks that the BPP recommend that Gov. Rick Perry either commute Leal's death sentence or recommend that he extend a 180-day reprieve in order to provide Congress the opportunity to pass legislation that would give effect to the ICJ decision before the state takes the life of another foreign national.

Earlier coverage of the Leal case begins at the link.  The clemency petition, case background, and other information is at Humberto Leal.

David Von Drehle on the Leal Case

"Cut Off from His Country, Another Foreign National Faces Execution in Texas," is the title of Von Drehle's post at Time.

Two U.S. Presidents, the State Department and the Justice Department, an assortment of diplomats, military brass, and former judges all want the State of Texas to delay the scheduled July 7 execution of Humberto Leal Garcia Jr. But that may not be enough.

Leal was convicted of the 1994 sexual assault and murder of 16-year-old Adrea Sauceda in San Antonio. In subsequent appeals, Leal argued that his court-appointed trial attorney was incompetent — the man twice has his law license suspended — but given the savage nature of the crime, and incriminating statements by Leal and his brother, it’s not clear that a better lawyer would have made a difference.

So why have figures from former FBI Director William Sessions to former U.S. Ambassador to the United National Thomas Pickering taken an interest in Leal’s case? Because he is one of more than 50 foreign nationals sentenced to death in the U.S. without having access to their consulates.

A petition filed on Tuesday with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, supported by letters from groups of retired generals, judges and ambassadors, argues that Americans abroad will be put at risk if the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not honored. Leal’s attorney, Sandra Babcock of the Northwestern University School of Law, asks the Board to recommend clemency for her client — or at least delay his execution long enough for Congress to pass a law mandating new trials for the foreign nationals.

“There can be little doubt that if the government of Mexico had been allowed access to Mr. Leal in a timely manner, he would not now be facing execution for a capital murder he did not commit,” Babcock writes—adding a claim of innocence on top of the plea to respect the Vienna treaty. “Mexico has had an extensive program for monitoring and providing assistance to its citizens facing the death penalty in the United States since the late 1980s.

And:

In 2004, the ICJ found in favor of Mexico and ordered the U.S. to grant hearings to the Mexican nationals. Then-President Bush issued an order to comply with the ruling, but Texas — in the case of Jose Ernesto Medellin — argued that Bush lacked the power to interfere in a state proceeding. In 2008, the Supreme Court agreed, and Medellin was executed.

The high court held open the possibility that an act of Congress could compel the states to give new hearings to the inmates. The Obama Administration is backing a measure to do just that, by withholding certain federal funds from states that do not comply. But the failure to pass a budget has put that legislation on ice.

“For Texas to proceed with [Leal’s] execution prior to full compliance with these treaty obligations would endanger the interests of American citizens and the United States around the world,” the diplomats write in their letter to the pardons board.

It may be a long shot to expect the board and Texas Gov. Rick Perry to halt Leal’s execution after permitting Medellin’s execution under similar circumstances with a Texan in the White House. The Supreme Court concluded that the ICJ judgment “constitutes an international law obligation on the United States,” but in the Lone Star State that collides with a simpler dictum: Don’t Mess With Texas.

Earlier coverage of the Leal case begins at the link.

Humberto Leal Clemency Petition Filed

Humberto Leal's clemency petition is available in Adobe .pdf format.

"Bipartisan Agreement: TX Execution Threatens Safety of Americans Abroad," is the title of Peter Malof's report for Texas News Service.

The planned execution of a Mexican man next month in Texas is sparking bipartisan appeals to Governor Rick Perry. The 1994 prosecution of Humberto Leal Garcia violated international law, according to an array of retired military leaders, judges, and diplomats, who say Leal was deprived of assistance from his government until after his conviction.

His attorney, Sandra Babcock, is filing a reprieve petition today. She believes the issue is bigger than justice for one man. When the U.S. violates its treaties, she says, it encourages other countries to do the same, putting hundreds of thousands of Americans at risk of languishing helplessly in foreign jails.

"U.S. service members, missionaries, teachers, businessmen. Really there are so many different people - in addition to those of us who just like to vacation abroad - who really depend on this lifeline of consular assistance."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that foreigners are, in fact, protected by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, signed by 173 countries, but that Congress needs to amend domestic law to match provisions of the treaty.

Such legislation is expected to be introduced soon. The question is, will Leal be put to death before statutes require review of his conviction?

Babcock, who is a professor of law at Northwestern University in Chicago, says if the execution proceeds as scheduled on July 7, it would send a message that the U.S. picks and chooses which international commitments to honor.

"And if we do that, then what incentive does any country have to enter into a treaty with us about nuclear arms, business negotiations, cooperation in the fight against global terror?"

Consular assistance, Babcock says, is crucial for understanding one's rights under the laws of foreign countries. Leal, who has learning disabilities, was arrested when he was 21 for the rape and murder of a 16-year-old in San Antonio. He maintains his innocence.

Babcock says he was convicted using "junk science" and had shoddy representation.

Attorneys for Leal have issued a news release, "Former U.S. Diplomats, Retired Military Leaders, Judges, Prosecutors, & Americans Abroad Urge TX Governor to Grant Clemency to Humberto Leal."

Attorneys for Humberto Leal Garcia today filed a clemency petition with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Governor Rick Perry, requesting a stay of his July 7 execution date.  The petition states that Mr. Leal would not have been convicted and sentenced to death if the United States had complied with treaty obligations to notify the Mexican consulate after his 1994 arrest for capital murder.

Congress is poised to introduce legislation to remedy the violation of Mr. Leal’s rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which allows individuals facing prosecution in a foreign country to have early and ongoing contact with their consular representatives. 

Prominent bipartisan groups, including former U.S. diplomats, retired military leaders, former judges and prosecutors, and organizations representing Americans abroad, have come forward to urge the Texas Governor and Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant a stay of execution to allow time for Congress to remedy the violations in Mr. Leal’s case.  In their letters, these diverse groups express concern that if Mr. Leal is executed despite the Vienna Convention violations, other nations will be emboldened to violate the consular rights of U.S. citizens arrested in foreign countries.

“For Texas to proceed with [Leal’s] execution prior to full compliance with these treaty obligations would endanger the interests of American citizens and the United States around the world,” states John B. Bellinger, III, former Legal Advisor for the Department of State during the second term of the Bush Administration, in a letter signed by a group of former ambassadors and State Department officials that was delivered to Governor Perry today.

“Improving U.S. enforcement of its consular notification and access legal obligations will help protect American citizens detained abroad, including U.S. military personnel and their families stationed overseas,” write retired military leaders supporting clemency for Mr. Leal, including Brigadier General James P. Cullen, Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, and Rear Admiral Don Guter. “We urge you to support those who are serving our country overseas by granting a reprieve in this case while Congress acts to meet our international responsibilities.”

In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Mr. Leal must have a hearing to determine if he was harmed by the United States’ violation of the Vienna Convention.  The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the United States is obligated to comply with the ICJ decision, but that Congress must act to implement the Court’s decision.  Both the Bush and Obama administrations have sought to enforce the decision, and in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision the Government has supported federal legislation to provide hearings for Mr. Leal and other Mexican nationals denied their consular rights.

“If Mr. Leal had been provided consular assistance, he would not have been convicted, let alone sentenced to death.  With consular access, Mr. Leal would have had competent lawyers and expert assistance that would have transformed the quality of his defense,” said Sandra L. Babcock, Clinical Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and attorney for Mr. Leal.

Mexican consulates have a history of monitoring capital trial proceedings and securing competent lawyers for their citizens facing the death penalty in the U.S.  If the government of Mexico had been informed of Mr. Leal’s arrest, he would have been provided with highly qualified and experienced legal counsel, as well as funding for necessary experts and investigators.   

The court-appointed lawyers Mr. Leal received were inexperienced and ineffective.  One of them was suspended from the practice of law twice for failing to adequately represent clients and publicly reprimanded on two other occasions.  

The state’s case relied on antiquated and flawed DNA testing. Modern DNA testing may show that Mr. Leal is innocent of the crime.  Yet, the state is refusing to allow the testing to proceed.  A case is pending in federal court to compel Texas to release evidence so that it may be subjected to new DNA testing.      

In addition, the state relied on “bite mark” evidence that is now universally recognized as inconclusive junk science.  A recent scientific study revealed a 63% false positive rate when attempting to use bite mark evidence to establish identity.  Indeed, several men have recently been exonerated after so-called “bite mark experts” linked them to the crime.  Mr. Leal’s lawyers failed to challenge both the bite mark and faulty DNA evidence.

Moreover, Mr. Leal’s lawyers failed to present powerful mitigating evidence at the sentencing phase of trial.  As a result, the jury that sentenced Mr. Leal to death did so without the opportunity to hear about his struggle to overcome learning disabilities and brain damage.  Nor did they learn that between the ages of ten and eleven, Humberto was subjected to terrifying acts of sexual abuse by his parish priest, abuse that caused severe and lasting psychological damage. 
 
This and other significant mitigating evidence came to light only after the Mexican consulate got involved in his case.

Earlier coverage of Humberto Leal's case begins at the link

Mexico Seeks Commutation for Humberto Leal

Fox News is reporting, "Mexican rights body seeks clemency for man on Texas death row."

A clemency request has been filed with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican sentenced to death in that U.S. state, the National Human Rights Commission, or CNDH, said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been asked to "suspend the execution planned for next July 7 and to commute the sentence that was imposed for another of prison time," the CNDH, Mexico's equivalent of an ombudsman's office, said.

The International Court of Justice ruled on March 31, 2004, in the Avena and Other Mexican Nationals case that Leal's rights had been violated, the CNDH said.

The ICJ, which is based in The Hague and is the United Nations' highest judicial organ, ruled that U.S. authorities should review the death sentences of 51 Mexicans.

The international judicial panel found that the 38-year-old Leal and the other Mexicans "were denied the guarantee under international law to be informed of their right to consular assistance to mount their defense before the courts, which is established under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention," the CNDH said.

"Respect for life and bodily integrity are pillars of the concept of ius cogens, made up of a group of essential principles for civilized life among individuals, peoples and nations," CNDH president Raul Plascencia said in his signed clemency petition.

The decision made in the Leal case "will, without a doubt, be recognized by the international community as an unequivocal sign of the commitment that all authority should have to respect for life and the fundamental rights of human beings," the CNDH said.

Earlier coverage of the Leal case begins at the link.  Earlier coverage of the issue of Mexican nationals on Texas' death row and the ICJ begins at the link.

Related posts are in the foreign citizen index.

Humberto Leal

SA Current, San Antonio's alt-weekly, features, "Illegal injections: How Texas is breaking the law, one execution at a time," written by Michael Barajas.  Here's the beginning of this lengthy examination of the case with its tangled issues:

In the early hours of May 21, 1994, 16-year-old Adria Sauceda and dozens of others attended a raucous Southside house party on Vincent Street, where witnesses reported seeing a dazed Sauceda — pumped full of alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana — pulled to the backyard. There she was stripped and circled by eight or nine men, each “taking turns” on the disoriented teenager. Friends who came to her aid were told to shut up, drink, and quit spoiling the party.

Later that morning, Humberto Leal, Jr. showed up, furious about what had happened to Sauceda, according to witnesses. He insisted on taking the girl home, saying she was a neighbor of his. Hours after Leal drove off with the victim in his father’s 1977 Mercedes, police found the girl’s naked and beaten body in a field just yards away from the house. She had been repeatedly raped, lastly with a crude wooden plank, and bludgeoned to death.

The account of that tragedy, pulled from hundreds of pages of trial transcripts and case files, is complex and, Leal’s defense now claims, filled with holes. Leal has always claimed he left the party with the victim that drunken night, and admitted to police he may have accidentally killed her during an alcohol-fueled fight on the side of the road. But for over a decade, Leal has denied he ever kidnapped or raped the victim.

But Leal’s imminent execution is now entangled in a controversy that has dogged the administrations of two U.S. presidents. Set to die by lethal injection this summer, the execution of the Mexican national flies in the face of international law, the wishes of the Mexican government, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. Leal, born in Monterrey, Mexico, is one of 50 Mexicans sitting on death row who have been charged, tried, and sentenced to die without gaining access to Mexican consular officials — a clear violation of a long-standing international treaty that protects thousands of Americans arrested abroad each year.

Leal’s lawyers claim the lack of access to the Mexican consulate sabotaged his case from the start, equipping him with a hopelessly inadequate defense team that failed to challenge the case against him. A review of the trial, they say, reveals a shoddy investigation that left more questions than answers in the wake of Sauceda’s brutal 1994 slaying.

While denied a retrial and, as of yet, the ability to re-test a crucial piece of evidence that secured his conviction, Leal’s lawyers say a judicial review, as requested by numerous U.S. and Mexican officials, would give the case a fair shake and flush out any uncertainty that still looms over the investigation into the teenager’s tragic murder.

Leal has a July 7th execution date.

Related posts are in the foreign citizen index.

Lethal Injection Roundup

There is news from Alabama, Montana, and the UK this morning.

"Ala has drug needed for Hallford execution," is the title of Bob Johnson's AP report via Louisiana's Lafourche Parish Daily Comet.

State prison officials said Monday they have an adequate supply of the drug needed for the scheduled execution Thursday of Phillip Hallford, condemned to die for the 1987 shooting death of his pregnant daughter's boyfriend in Dale County.

Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett said the state has enough sodium thiopental to carry out the lethal injection, despite a national shortage that has delayed some executions in other states.

Arizona had to go overseas to obtain the drug for an execution last week. But Corbett said the Alabama Department of Corrections "has a sufficient supply of unexpired, FDA-approved sodium thiopental to carry out the execution as ordered by the Alabama Supreme Court."

From Montana, the Missoulian reports, "Judge grants injunction halting execution of double-murderer Ronald Smith."  It's by Gwen Florio.  The injunction is in Adbobe .pdf format.

A district judge in Helena on Monday halted the execution of Ronald Allen Smith, even though a date for his death has yet to be set.

That date was supposed to be scheduled Wednesday by Missoula County District Judge John Larson. It was unclear Monday evening whether the scheduling hearing, to be held in Powell County District Court in Deer Lodge, would still happen.

"To set an execution date - there's no purpose in it because there's not going to be an execution," said Ron Waterman, the Helena attorney who successfully sought the injunction from District Court Judge Jeffrey Sherlock.

And:

Waterman's request for the injunction cited his earlier litigation that terms Montana's method of lethal injection unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.

It also noted that the old house trailer on the grounds of the Montana State Prison used for executions was moved earlier this year to make way for an addition to the prison.

The addition isn't finished yet, meaning the prison has no approved place for executions, Waterman's motion said. Prison spokesman Bob Anez said last week that the house trailer easily could be moved back into place if necessary.

In his order granting the injunction, Sherlock wrote that "execution of the death sentence currently pending against Plaintiff will cause great and irreparable injury to Plaintiff."

The order also stays the deadline for Smith to file a petition for clemency if Larson still sets a date on Wednesday.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from Smith, who originally sought the death penalty when he pleaded guilty to the killings.

If Waterman's legal action addressing Montana's method of execution, or "protocol," fails to stop the execution, Smith's last hope lies with clemency from Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Once an execution date is set, a prisoner has 10 days to file a clemency request with the Board of Pardons, which in turn would make a recommendation to the governor.

Schweitzer, however, has said that he'll follow the wishes of the victims' families in the matter.

The AP report is, "Execution of Canadian on death row in Mont. halted," via NECN.

A judge in Helena on Monday halted the execution of the only known Canadian on death row in the United States, even though a date for the death has not been set.

"Cable under fire for allowing execution drug sale," by Ian Dunt is at the British site, Politics.

Vince Cable was the subject of a scathing attack from human rights groups today, after he refused to prevent a UK company supplying a drug used in executions.

Law firm Leigh Day and Reprieve will today launch a legal action against the government on behalf of Edmund Zagorski, an American prisoner facing imminent execution with drugs imported from Britain.

The groups say one death row prisoner, Jeffery Landrigan, has already been executed in Arizona using drugs supplied by a British company.

US authorities were forced to use British-produced chemicals after they ran out of Sodium Thiopental.

And:

The groups said that Mr Cable, business secretary, refused to act on the basis that the drug would be available from other countries and that he preferred not to interfere in US-UK trade.

Jeremy Browne at the Foreign Office also refused to become involved, campaigners said.

Earlier coverage from Arizona and Montana at the links.

An Update on the Linda Carty Case

"Replica prison cell highlights Briton's death row plight," is the UK Press Association report, via Google News.

A life-size death row cell will be opened to the public in central London to highlight the plight of death row Briton Linda Carty, campaigners have said.

Carty, 51, could be given the lethal injection within weeks after the US Supreme Court refused to review a murder conviction campaigners say resulted from a "catastrophically flawed" trial.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of legal action charity Reprieve, said: "Linda faces execution very soon now.

"There is no lonelier place than a death row cell, and no greater power imbalance than that between a condemned prisoner and the government that wants to kill them. I encourage visitors to enter Death's Waiting Room and imagine yourself in Linda's position - I'm sure it will be an unforgettable experience."

The exhibition, which opens on Thursday, will replicate Carty's death row cell in the courtyard of St Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square.

And:

Carty has always maintained her innocence. She claims she was framed over the murder by the men who carried out the abduction due to her earlier work as an informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency.

Reprieve claim Carty was given an incompetent defence lawyer during the original trial who, amongst other alleged failings, neglected to inform the British Government so it could intervene on her behalf. Likewise the Foreign Office complained of "ineffective counsel" in court filings it made under the last government in support of Carty.

"US Death Row to Haunt Trafalgar Square," is the posting at LondonNet.

DEATH stalks Trafalgar Square from 12 August in the eerie form of a full-size replica of an American death row.

Billed as Death's Waiting Room, the exhibit will appear outside St Martin-in-the-Fields Church, just across from the Square, to draw attention to the case of Linda Carty, a grandmother from Britain who faces execution in the Texas.

The death row on show is to be an exact copy of the one in which Carty currently languishes.

"I encourage visitors to enter Death's Waiting Room and imagine yourself in Linda's position," said Clive Stafford Smith, a leading anti death penalty campaigner and director of legal action charity Reprieve.

Earlier coverage begins with this post, noting the Supreme Court's refusal to review her case.

An Extradition Hitch

"Court: UK must not extradite terror suspects to US," is the AP report written by Robert Weilaard via Google News.

An international court on Thursday ordered Britain to hold off on extraditing four terrorism suspects to the United States, saying it must show that life terms without parole in maximum security prisons would not violate Europe's human rights charter.

The suspects include three Britons and the Egyptian-born radical cleric Mustafa Kamal Mustafa — also known as Abu Hamza al-Masri, the one-eyed, hook-handed hardliner accused of setting up a terrorist training camp in rural Oregon.

The European Court of Human Rights gave Britain until Sept. 2 to respond to questions about the punishment they will face.

If convicted of charges filed between 2004 and 2006, they could get lifelong jail terms without parole in maximum security conditions, including concrete furniture, timed showers, tiny cell windows and no communications with the outside world.

And:

Europe and the United States have long disagreed on the merit of the death penalty. Thursday's ruling opens a new front, this one over the U.S. practice of putting convicted criminals in spartan, maximum security prisons for the rest of their lives.

It is now up to Britain, presumably in collaboration with U.S. legal experts, to show it is not cruel or degrading.

After the four exhausted their appeals against extradition in British courts, they turned to the Strasbourg, France-based court.

They argued incarceration in the U.S. will be so long and harsh it would amount to a violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950. The article says, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

And:

The 70-page ruling cites the harsh conditions at a maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado, where the suspects will likely be sent, if convicted. Human Rights Watch, the New York-based rights group, has said the prison's conditions violate U.S. international treaty obligations.

The court is an arm of the 47-nation Council of Europe, Europe's premier human rights watchdog. Its judgment are binding on members.

Related posts are in the foreign citizen and international law indexes.

Supreme Court Refuses to Examine Three Texas Cases

"US Supreme Court upholds Texas death convictions," is the title of Michael Graczyk's AP report via the Houston Chronicle.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld death sentences for two Texas inmates, including a man accused of leading a gang responsible for several murders, and refused to reconsider the case of a British grandmother condemned for killing a woman and kidnapping her newborn son.

Dexter Darnell Johnson, 22, was convicted of the June 2006 shooting deaths of a young couple during a carjacking. Investigators said the Houston man was the ringleader of a group responsible for dozens of robberies and at least four homicides.

The justices also upheld the conviction of Max Soffar, 54, for a shooting rampage at a bowling alley that killed three people in 1980.

The court also refused to rehear its rejection of an appeal from Linda Carty, a 51-year-old British grandmother convicted of murdering her neighbor and taking the victim's 4-day-old son in 2001. Carty maintains her innocence, but prosecutors said she was desperate to have child after a miscarriage. The infant was found unharmed.

Carty is among 10 women on death row in Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state. Thirteen lethal injections have been carried out this year and two more are scheduled for this week.

Execution dates haven't been set for Johnson, Soffar or Carty.

And:

Soffar and Johnson likely have another round of appeals before their executions become imminent, but Carty has nearly exhausted her appeals. Her lawyers sought a rehearing after the justices in early May refused to review her case.

Earlier coverage of the Carty case begins with this post; more on Soffar, here.

More on the Linda Carty Case

"Linda Carty, a British woman on death row in America, says that her last hope may be an appeal for clemency by David Cameron" is the Guardian article reported by Ruth Hill in Gatesville, Texas.

Gatesville is a tiny town miles from anywhere, deep in the heart of Texas, four hours drive north of Houston. There is little to it but a Wal-Mart, a drive-in movie theatre and two enormous prisons. One of the jails looming out of the flat landscape is called Mountain View. But there is no mountain, and from the prison's death row, there is no view.

This is where, in all probability, Linda Carty, the only British woman on death row in America, is living out her last weeks and months. Carty has been on death row in Texas for the past nine years, accused of murdering a young mother in order to steal her baby. Any day now, without warning, her execution date will be handed down by the authorities, following a decision by the US supreme court last month to reject her final appeal.

Sitting behind bulletproof glass inside one of Mountain View's characterless concrete buildings last week, she seemed to vacillate between residual hope and growing despair. "Waiting for my execution date to come down just makes me feel like an object. But this is a human being sitting here," Carty told the Observer, raising her softly Caribbean-lilted voice in exasperation.

Time is running out for her. Born on the island of St Kitts before it gained independence from Britain, Carty kept her British citizenship and passport after moving to Houston when she was 23. Following the supreme court ruling, she now faces the prospect of lethal injection within as little as three months, in a case that has British officials seething. They argue that international diplomatic agreements and simple justice have been trampled in the drive to get her into the busy Texan death chamber.

And:

"My trial counsel didn't bother to present a case. I didn't want anyone's baby. Do you go around accusing every woman who has a miscarriage of trying to steal someone's baby? This conviction is the most degrading thing. As a mother myself I feel so sorry for the lady who lost her life. Now someone is trying to take my life for someone else's crime," she said.

UK legal campaigners call the conduct of her case "catastrophically flawed" but admit that the odds are stacked against her in a state that is ruthless even by contemporary US standards. Last week, Carty appealed to the prime minister, David Cameron, to intervene personally and save her life. From the austere interview booth at Mountain View, Carty pleaded for help: "Now that Mr Cameron has settled in, he needs to play a much larger role if Texas is not to kill an innocent British person," she said.

"I'm not asking Mr Cameron to give me a 'get-out-of-jail free' card, I'm asking for help to get the opportunity to present my arguments with the right counsel," the 52-year-old mother of one said, nervously fingering her neat plait of hair draped over her white prison-issue overalls.

When she was arrested in 2001, the British consulate in Houston was not informed of the arrest, as it should have been in accordance with UK-US bilateral agreements. Then Carty was assigned Jerry Guerinot as a public defender. Guerinot has one of the worst records in the US for saving his clients from execution. He met her for just 15 minutes and failed to call defence witnesses at her trial.

"A decent lawyer would certainly not have let her face the death penalty and would have had a good chance of getting her acquitted," said Sophie Walker, a lawyer with the British legal action charity Reprieve. Reprieve's founder, Clive Stafford Smith, says Carty's case is a most desperate, outrageous miscarriage of justice. No forensic science evidence was presented and there were no witnesses who saw her do anything connected with the crime.

Earlier coverage of her case begins with this post; more on Carty's court-appointed trial attorney, Jerry Guerinot, here.  Related posts are in the foreign citizen index.

The Texas Attorney General's Office has published a Magistrate's Guide to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The Linda Carty Case

The United Kingdom's Press Association reports, "Plea to MPs over death row Briton," via Google News.

The daughter of a British woman on death row in the US has pleaded with MPs to help prevent her mother's execution.

Linda Carty, 51, could be given the lethal injection within months after the Supreme Court refused to review a murder conviction campaigners say resulted from a "catastrophically flawed" trial.

Her daughter, Jovelle Carty Joubert, has flown into the UK from her home in Texas, as part of desperate efforts to rally support for the condemned woman, who has always protested her innocence.

Over the next few days she will meet Foreign Office officials and MPs in a bid to rally support for her mother. But she has so far failed to secure a meeting with any Government ministers.

Speaking at a press conference inside the House of Commons, Ms Carty Joubert called on politicians to increase the pressure on US authorities over her mother's case. She said support from the UK was coming across "loud and clear" in Texas but more needed to be done.

And:

Legal rights charity Reprieve claim Carty was given an incompetent defence lawyer during the original trial who, amongst other alleged failings, neglected to inform the British Government so it could intervene on her behalf.

Documents filed with the Supreme Court accuse the court-appointed trial counsel Jerry Guerinot of a "deplorable" trial performance. Likewise the Foreign Office complained of "ineffective counsel" in court filings it made under the last government in support of Carty.

Despite this, the US Supreme Court has refused an application to review the 51-year-old's murder conviction, which means that Carty could be executed within months unless the Governor of Texas intervenes. She is currently being held in a death row prison in Gatesville, Texas.

Earlier coverage of the case begins with this post.

Canada Speaks Out for Clemency in Montana Case

"Canada seeks clemency from U.S. for Alta. man on death row," is the title of Randy Boswell's Canwest News Service report, via the Montreal Gazette.

Nearly three years after the Conservative government declared it would no longer seek clemency for the only Canadian citizen on death row in the U.S., one of the country’s top consular officials has met with Montana’s governor to give formal notification that Canada has reversed its stance, and to ask that Alberta-born killer Ronald Smith be spared execution.

The Department of Foreign Affairs confirmed late Thursday that Canada’s consul general in Denver “met recently Montana Governor (Brian) Schweitzer to discuss Mr. Smith’s case.”

In a statement sent to Canwest News Service, the department added that “the government of Canada is complying with the March 4, 2009, Federal Court ruling” — a reference to a court decision last year ordering Canadian officials to re-launch efforts to seek clemency for Smith.

Smith has faced the death penalty in Montana for nearly 30 years, ever since his conviction in a brutal double-murder south of the Alberta-Montana border in 1982.

The turnabout followed a decision by the Federal Court of Canada last year that the government had acted “unlawfully” in October 2007 by abruptly ending a decade-long effort to win clemency for Smith, who confessed to killing Montana men Thomas Running Rabbit and Harvey Mad Man during a booze-and-drug fuelled hitchhiking trip from his home in Red Deer, Alta.

Canada’s fresh overture to Schweitzer also follows a major legal setback for Smith last month when a U.S. appeal court rejected his defence team’s last-ditch effort to have the 52-year-old Canadian’s death penalty overturned on the basis of mistakes made by a lawyer during the original murder trial.

That defeat left Smith with two remaining options: launching an unpromising legal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, or requesting clemency from Schweitzer — a supporter of the death penalty who has, nevertheless, acknowledged that difficult political and diplomatic issues would be raised if a Canadian citizen is executed in the U.S.

Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976 and — until the Conservative government’s controversial and ill-fated policy reversal three years ago — has routinely sought to protect Canadians abroad from facing capital punishment.

Earlier coverage begins with this post.  Related posts are in the foreign citizen, international, and international law indexes.

A Lawyer Known Best for Losing Capital Cases

That's the title of Adam Liptak's Sidebar column in today's New York Times.  LINK  It's a must-read.  Here are several excerpts:

A good way to end up on death row in Texas is to be accused of a capital crime and have Jerry Guerinot represent you.

Twenty of Mr. Guerinot’s clients have been sentenced to death. That is more people than are awaiting execution in about half of the 35 states that have the death penalty.

“People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said.

So what is Mr. Guerinot’s secret?

It seems to boil down to a failure to conduct even rudimentary investigations, said David R. Dow, a law professor at the University of Houston and the litigation director of the Texas Defender Service, which represents death row inmates, including not a few of Mr. Guerinot’s former clients.

“He doesn’t even pick the low-hanging fruit which is hitting him in the head as he’s walking under the tree,” Mr. Dow said.

Mr. Guerinot did not respond to two messages seeking comment. In 2007, he told The Observer, a London newspaper, that judges gave him only tough cases.

And:

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to review Mr. Guerinot’s work in the case of Linda Carty, a 51-year-old British woman. The case has gotten a lot of attention in Britain, where journalists and a documentary filmmaker, Steve Humphries, have been examining Mr. Guerinot’s performance.

“It is no exaggeration to suggest that Mr. Guerinot has perhaps the worst record of any capital lawyer in the United States,” Mr. Humphries said in a supporting brief urging the court to hear Ms. Carty’s case.

Prosecutors said Ms. Carty had orchestrated a macabre plot to kidnap and murder Joana Rodriguez and claim Ms. Rodriguez’s newborn son as her own. The evidence against Ms. Carty consisted mostly of testimony from four men said to be her accomplices, who were described by a prosecutor as “an armed robber, a dope dealer, a drive-by shooter and another armed robber.”

Mr. Guerinot did not visit Ms. Carty for three months after he was appointed to represent her. Ms. Carty, in a video interview with Mr. Humphries, described her meeting with Mr. Guerinot just weeks before her trial: “I met this guy for less than 15 minutes. Once.”

“Basically,” she told The Observer, “he’s an undertaker for the State of Texas.”

Mr. Guerinot never interviewed Jose Corona, who was Ms. Carty’s common-law husband but gave powerful testimony about a motive for her actions — that she desperately wanted a baby.

Mr. Corona later said he did not want to help the prosecution but believed he had no choice.

“It was never explained to me that there is a marital privilege, and under the privilege I had the right to refuse to testify,” he said in a sworn statement.

And:

The Supreme Court lately seems to be washing its hands of the Texas capital justice system. Last month, two weeks before it turned down Ms. Carty, the court refused to hear an appeal from Charles Dean Hood, who was sentenced to death by a judge who had been sleeping with the prosecutor.

Mr. Guerinot, for his part, has given up capital work and now handles more ordinary criminal cases, on a volume basis. An analysis in The Houston Chronicle last year found that he had represented 2,000 felony defendants in 2007 and 2008 — far above the caseload limits recommended by bar associations and other groups that take criminal defense work seriously.

Earlier coverage of the Linda Carty case begins with this post.  Lise Olsen's reporting on Harris County indigent defense issues in the Houston Chronicle is noted here.

Supreme Court Rejects Review of Linda Carty Case

"Supreme Court rejects plea from British woman on death row," is the title of Renee Lee's report in the Houston Chronicle.

The Supreme Court has refused to review the case of a British woman sentenced to death for killing a Houston mother and stealing her baby in 2001.

The justices rejected an appeal from Linda Carty, who complained her trial lawyers were deficient.

And:

It is rare for women to get the death penalty in the United States and even rarer for them to be put death. Fifty-four women are on death row and in the modern era (1973 to 2009) of the death penalty, only 11 women have been executed.

Part of the reason is that few women commit capital offenses, but Ohio Northern University law professor Victor Streib, who has studied women and death penalty for 25 years, suggests there's a secondary reason.

The justice system, Streib said, treats women differently than men.

“Women aren't sentenced to death at trial as often as you think,” Streib said. “And once they're sentenced to death, they're more likely to have the sentence reversed by an appellate court. As a society, we're nervous about taking women's lives.”

That's even true in Texas, the nation's death penalty capital, he said. The state has executed only three women since 1973. The last female execution in the U.S. was in Texas in 2005. Francis Newton, of Harris County, was put to death for killing her husband and children in 1987. She sat on death row for nearly 20 years.

Most prosecutors and judges deny there's a bias, but the statistics show otherwise, said Streib, who publishes an annual report, Death Penalty for Female Offenders.

Michael Graczyk files, "Condemned British woman in US loses appeal," for AP, via Google News.

Carty had been seeking a new trial, claiming her trial attorneys, led by Houston lawyer Jerry Guerinot, did little to defend her. She also claimed the slaying was connected to her role as a federal drug informant, which stopped after she led police on a chase that ended with the discovery of 50 pounds of marijuana and two guns in her car.

According to a petition filed for Carty by appellate attorneys obtained through the British government, Guerinot didn't meet with her until two weeks before her trial, ignored the fact that Carty had been raped and forced to give up a child and never sought legal help from the British consulate. It also said Corona was never informed he could invoke spousal privilege and not offer damning testimony against her.

Britain also filed a companion brief supporting Carty's Supreme Court appeal, slamming her trial defense and saying its consulate officials were not informed properly under terms of international treaties when she was arrested.

The Los Angeles Times carries, "Supreme Court denies Briton's death penalty appeal," by Carol Williams.

British officials and pro bono lawyers had appealed to the justices to order a new trial for Linda Carty, citing what they said were gross errors by her court-appointed lawyer during the 2001 trial, in which prosecutors said Carty killed her neighbor to steal her newborn son.

Paul Lynch, Britain's consul general in Houston, said Carty would have been provided a more effective lawyer and British government support during her trial had Texas authorities informed Carty of her right to consult with British diplomats.

"We are deeply concerned by the position Linda Carty is now in, and we will be working extremely hard to help her over the coming weeks and months," Lynch said after the justices denied her last appeal.

"High Court refuses to hear appeal of woman on death row," is the title of Bill Mears' report for CNN.

She was sentenced to death in February 2002. She is one of 10 female prisoners on a special death row at the Mountain View prison in Gatesville, Texas.

Carty asserts her innocence, and her appellate legal team claims her original trial was "catastrophically flawed." Among the allegations filed in various appeals are that her court-appointed lawyer was incompetent and failed to meet Carty until immediately before the trial, failed to spot flaws and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, failed to interview witnesses and did not look at key mitigating evidence.

Reprieve, a British human rights groups serving as her new legal team, also said she should have been given access upon arrest to the British consulate.

The British Foreign Office has filed two amicus briefs in U.S. federal courts in Carty's case, which complain that Britain was not notified of her original arrest, said a Foreign Office spokesman who declined to be named, in line with policy. The Foreign Office remains in close touch with Carty and her legal representatives, the spokesman said.

"We're continuing to provide her with consular assistance," he said. "We've also made the U.S. aware of our stance (against) the death penalty."

The BBC reports, "Death row Briton loses US appeal."

Carty, who has been backed by human rights group Reprieve, has always maintained she was framed by three men in revenge for her work as an informant with a drug enforcement agency.

It is claimed Texas authorities and her defence lawyer neglected to inform the British Consulate that she held a UK dependent territory passport.

Paul Lynch, the British consul general in Texas, said this represented a "terrible failure" that led to her death sentence.

The Independent, from the UK, has, "Death row Briton loses US appeal," by Lewis Smith.

Ms Carty has maintained her innocence and supporters have presented strong evidence to suggest her trial was badly flawed. British Foreign Office officials are among those who made representations urging the Supreme Court to review the case.

The British consulate should have been informed of her arrest "without delay" but only learnt of it after the sentence. The Foreign Office said last night: "We are deeply concerned by the position Linda Carty is now in, and we will be working extremely hard to help her over the coming weeks and months ... we have made our concerns known throughout the legal process. We have also raised her case a number of times through the correct political channels."

Ms Carty, a British national born on St Kitts in the British Virgin Islands, emigrated to the US in 1982 and worked as an undercover informant for the US Drug Enforcement Agency. Unless a stay of execution is granted, Ms Carty will be the first British woman to be executed in 55 years.

Earlier coverage of her case begins with this post.

Bianca Jagger on the Linda Carty Case

She posts, "A Case for the Supreme Court," at Huffington Post, today.

Linda Carty, a British citizen, faces the death penalty by lethal injection later this year, unless the Supreme Court agrees to hear her case. As with so many other death penalty convictions, Linda's case was fraught with errors and is an egregious miscarriage of justice.

For nearly three decades I have campaigned for justice and human rights throughout the world. During that period I have witnessed the State machinery of death at work, selectively killing people because they are poor, members of a minority and cannot afford adequate legal counsel. The death penalty is unfair, arbitrary and capricious, often based on jurisprudence fraught with racial discrimination and judicial bias. There is no guarantee that those who are executed are those who have committed the worst crimes; the death penalty is a Russian roulette.

And:

Michael Goldberg is an eminent Texas lawyer. Although he is not a proponent of abolishing the death penalty, he is appalled at the miscarriages of justice in Linda's case. Mr Goldberg's firm, Baker Botts, a prominent international legal firm with three offices in Texas, is now representing her free of charge. Goldberg condemns Guerinot's mishandling of the case: "once I saw what had happened in the trial, or rather what didn't happen in terms of no defence, I just became outraged."

The US authorities failed to notify British officials when Linda was arrested, which is a violation of the US/ UK bilateral Treaty. Moreover, by not contacting the British Consulate or informing Linda of her right to contact the consulate the authorities violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which requires that local authorities inform foreign nationals being held on criminal charges of their rights abroad, and their right to consult with their country's diplomats in order to secure a fair trial. Like some other foreign nationals who have not had access to this contact and assistance, Linda Carty was a victim of woefully inadequate legal representation.

Earlier coverage of the case begins here.  Related posts can be found in the foreign citizen and international law indexes.  The Texas Attorney General's Office has published a Magistrate's Guide to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

More on Montana Lethal Injection Litigation

"Canadian on death row sues for end of execution chamber," by Randy Boswell of Canwest News Service is via the National Post.  It appeared in the Monday edition. 

A U.S. lawsuit by Alberta-born double-murderer Ronald Smith -- the only Canadian citizen facing the death penalty in the United States -- has put Montana's controversial execution chamber itself on death row.

Facing a legal challenge from Smith over the alleged "cruelty" of Montana's lethal-injection mode of capital punishment, state officials have advised a judge hearing the case that the makeshift facility used for decades to administer a fatal dose of drugs to condemned prisoners -- a converted trailer on the grounds of Montana State Prison -- will be shut down this year after a new "multi-purpose storage room" is added to the jail's maximum security building for executions and other uses.

The plan has put Smith's lawsuit -- backed by the American Civil Liberties Union -- on hold until the design of the $300,000, 72-sq. metre addition is complete.

The prison's current execution trailer has long been targeted by Montana death penalty opponents as a symbol of what they claim is the state's "inhumane" protocol for carrying out lethal injections.

The existing "death chamber" is a "1960s model" trailer, says Smith lawyer Greg Jackson, adding that the lawsuit is being delayed pending the redesign because the state's execution protocol "is integrally tied to the facility."

And:

The lawsuit said Montana's lethal injection procedure follows "a protocol that is not even allowed in the euthanasia of a household pet" under state veterinary rules.

"Botched executions in Florida and Ohio, which use a three-drug protocol similar to Montana, have graphically illustrated how lethal injections go awry, and the great pain and suffering inflicted on condemned prisoners," the ACLU said at the time. "They show how untrained individuals can mismanage this lethal injection procedure, resulting in prolonged pain and suffering to the condemned."

Earlier coverage of the Montana execution chamber begins with this post.

Extraditions From Mexico

"Mexico reaches record 100 extraditions to US," is Mark Stevenson's national AP report, via Google News.  It's datelined Mexico City.

Mexico has extradited a record number of criminal suspects to the United States this year, underscoring a dramatic improvement in cross-border law enforcement cooperation — and an urgent attempt to clean up the country's crime-addled prisons.

Authorities reached the historic 100-person mark with the shipment north of 11 crime fugitives on Sunday, the eve of a visit by Mexican Attorney General Arturo Chavez to Washington. Previously, the most suspects sent from Mexico to the U.S. in a year was 95, the number extradited in 2008.

While it behooves Mexican justice officials to cooperate with their counterparts given a $1.4 billion, three-year aid package the U.S. has recently promised them, they stress their historic willingness to extradite criminals is more than a symbolic gesture.

Since he took office in December 2006, President Felipe Calderon has launched a nationwide crackdown against Mexico's ubiquitous and powerful drug traffickers, sending thousands of troops into practically every area of the country.

That effort has been undermined, however, by widespread corruption plaguing both law enforcement and the country's prisons, where bribed guards turn a blind eye as captured criminal kingpins continue to run their illegal operations behind bars.

In that context, getting the criminals out of the country is simply good law enforcement, said Leopoldo Velarde Ortiz, Mexico's deputy attorney general in charge of extraditions.

"It isn't a case of 'You give me something and I'll give you something,'" Velarde Ortiz told The Associated Press in a recent interview, referring to the promised U.S. crime aid. "There is no such negotiation. What there is, is a clear understanding that we cannot allow impunity, and that we have to stop crime."

Velarde Ortiz noted that top-level drug suspects often bitterly fight extradition through drawn-out appeals because in U.S. penitentiaries "they would lose the possibility of operating their activities from inside prison."

And:

Mexican authorities have extradited 284 fugitives to the U.S. since Calderon became president — more than in the previous 15 years all together.

The increase is a sign the two countries have laid to rest a long history of disputes in which Mexico traditionally treated extradition requests from the U.S. as threats to its sovereignty.

In 1990, relations between the two countries reached a low point when, after authorities refused to extradite a Mexican doctor wanted in connection with the slaying of a U.S. drug agent, U.S.-paid bounty hunters captured the suspect in Mexico and brought him back to Los Angeles for trial.

Mexico demanded the doctor's return and briefly suspended anti-drug cooperation with the United States as a result.

The Mexican government's resistance began to ease in the late 1990s, signaled by the 1996 extradition of a Mexican singer convicted of child molestation. In 1999, a Mexican man was extradited to face murder charges in the killing of a Florida woman. By 2000, the number of Mexicans extradited to the U.S. in one year had increased to nine.

"Each year since 2001, Mexico has increased the number of defendants it extradites to the United States," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement Sunday. "By ensuring that alleged criminals are held accountable, we send a strong message that fleeing across the border does not mean you will escape justice."

The 11 suspects extradited Sunday are wanted for murder, sex offenses, drug trafficking and money laundering in Texas, Washington, Florida, Indiana, California and Maryland.

"This is a great day for U.S.-Mexican partnership and cooperation. And obviously, a very bad day to be a bad guy," U.S. Embassy charge d'affaires John Feeley said in a statement. "This action by the government of Mexico demonstrates it will not allow its country to be a refuge and hiding place for criminals."

Authorities still refuse to extradite anyone who might face the death penalty, which is illegal in Mexico. U.S. prosecutors usually overcome that obstacle by promising to give the criminals life sentences instead.

More on Linda Carty

Clive Stafford Smith's OpEd, "The final act of Linda Carty's tragedy," is in the Guardian.  Stafford Smith is the director of Reprieve.

All of this leads up to last week's final tragedy. The fifth circuit court of appeals turned down the penultimate appeal of British grandmother Linda Carty, which means she has only the supreme court and Governor Rick Perry between her and an encounter with the executioner.

As to whether she should even have been convicted, the court found it a "close case", but the verdict was good enough for government work. An unfair trial is apparently OK, so long as it is not "fundamentally unfair." 

But the court had to indulge in greater contortions to justify Carty becoming the first black British woman to be executed in over a century. She is not only a black woman, she is a battered woman, herself the victim of rape. So what? The court refused even to consider it. Her court-appointed advocate is, quite clearly, the worst capital defence lawyer in the country: he has had more clients facing execution than the death row population of 25 of the states. But the court blamed Carty for his inaction, accepting without question his statement that she refused to talk to him until he "bribed her with a bar of chocolate". While this was not the only dubious assertion the lawyer made, it was perhaps the most flagrant: Carty is allergic to chocolate.

None of this caused the court to doubt the infallibility of the Texas death penalty. The court concluded that Carty should die.

Even so, in a sane world there would be no chance that Carty would be executed. The supreme court would reverse her case, or the governor would grant clemency. But Death Row USA leaves little room for hope. The supreme court hears only one capital case in 30. And few observers expect Texas to clean up its own mistakes. Far from being a heartless killer, Cameron Willingham was the victim of a terrible tragedy, yet Perry sanctioned his execution. It is farcical to suggest that Charles Hood had an impartial judge, yet he is slated to die. And if Texas doesn't manage to kill Carty the first time, it'll probably put her back in the holding cell and have another go seven days later.

The Fifth Circuit ruling is here, in Adobe .pdf format.

Kevin Quinn reports, "Death row inmate speaks after losing appeal," for Houston television station KTRK.  Video is available at the link.

Her current attorney says the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called this a close one, finding that her trial attorney acted unreasonably. But the court also concluded that even if her attorney had done everything she asked at trial, the evidence against her was overwhelming.

Inside the Mountain View unit in Gatesville, where all women sentenced to death in Texas are housed, we met Tuesday with Linda Carty.

"I want my name cleared. I know I didn't do it," said Carty.

She was convicted and sentenced to death for the 2001 abduction and murder of Joana Rodriguez. Prosecutors say Carty kidnapped Rodriguez and her infant son because Carty wanted the baby. Rodriguez was found dead in the trunk of a car Carty had rented. She had been suffocated with a plastic bag over her head.

"I had nothing to do. I could never do something like that," Carty said.

Carty at one time was a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Agency. She has maintained her innocence all along, saying she was framed by folks she met while working undercover.

She blames her conviction on her trial attorney who she claims failed to do his homework. She said he neglected to present witnesses at trial who would speak favorably of her and refused to spend more than 15 minutes with her prior to trial.

Just last week, a human rights group erected a cardboard cutout of Carty in a public square in London while playing an audio recording of her pleading for help from the British government. She was born on the Caribbean island of St. Kitts so she is considered a British national.

"There are very, very strong legal reasons why the case needs to be looked at again," said Paul Lynch, British Consul General in Houston.

Lynch says Carty deserves a new trial because the British Consulate was not notified of her capital murder charge prior to her conviction.

"Because we were not informed, Linda Carty was not given all the assistance she should have been given by her government. And therefore she did not get the representation that she should have had at her first trial," said Lynch.

The appeals court ruled Carty's request for help from the British government came too late. Carty's attorney says still that their quest to save her life is not over.

Earlier coverage begins here.

London Art Project Focuses on Linda Carty

"Texas death row inmate appeals to Londoners," is Rafael Satter's AP report via Google News.

Texas death row inmate Linda Carty's voice was broadcast into London's Trafalgar Square on Thursday, begging Britons to help save her life.

Carty's seven-minute appeal, recorded this week in the Mountain View Unit women's prison outside Gatesville in Texas, was broadcast on loop over a stereo system mounted on an empty plinth at the corner of the 19th century plaza.

"I'm sorry if I sound like a desperate woman," the 50-year-old says in the broadcast, which was just barely audible on the busy square. "I am desperate, because the British people may be my last hope. If they ask for my life to be spared, maybe Texas will listen."

Carty was sentenced to death in 2002 for killing a young mother and her baby during a kidnapping. Prosecutors say Carty masterminded the abduction so she could masquerade as the child's mother in an effort to salvage her troubled relationship with her boyfriend.

British human rights group Reprieve argues the case against her was full of inconsistencies and that her court-appointed lawyer was incompetent.

The group also says that Carty, who was born on the British Caribbean island of St. Kitts, holds a U.K. dependent territory passport and should have received assistance from the British consulate at the time of her arrest, which she did not.

The unusual broadcast was accompanied on the square block by charity manager Brian Capaloff, who held up placards with excerpts of the speech and a life-size cutout of Carty.

The plinth, built in 1841 for a statue that was never completed, is being made available to members of the public as part of an art project that puts randomly selected people on display in one of London's most famous public spaces.

Those selected have an hour to do whatever they please on display: strip naked, throw a party or read a book.

Capaloff, one of those picked to perform, approached Reprieve to ask what he could do to help, according to staffer Laura Stebbing. She said the group suggested he publicize the plight of Carty, whose final appeal is now being considered by U.S. federal judges.

A ruling is expected soon, and Reprieve is trying to raise money to fight her case — or to lobby for clemency should her appeal fail.

The British government, which opposes capital punishment, filed a legal brief on Carty's behalf on May 4 urging that she be granted a new trial. The British Foreign Office said it would fight any move to execute her.

"Death row woman in Texas uses Gormley plinth to plead for reprieve," is James Meikel's report in today's Guardian.

She stood on Trafalgar Square's fourth plinth, an elegantly dressed grandmother in white jacket and maroon skirt pleading for a reprieve from the execution she faces for a crime she says she did not commit.

Or rather a life-sized cardboard cut-out of 51-year-old Linda Carty, did. And via a recording, her voice, competing with sirens, the constant drone of London traffic and the splash of the fountains, struggled to tell her story of how she reached death row in Texas.

Tourists, passersby and a posse of media who found it difficult to hear could read placards with extracts written out in capital letters held up by Brian Capaloff, a campaigner who had won one of the randomly allocated slots on the London monument as part of Antony Gormley's One & Other Exhibition.

The placards announced: "It is everybody's worst nightmare to be executed for a crime they did not commit. When the jury reached its verdict I was devastated. I went numb … I am locked up in a cell, actually it is a cage."

On Carty's recording were the words: "Time is now running out and I appeal to everyone of you and the British government to help me."

The former primary teacher, who is from St Kitts, in the eastern Caribbean, was convicted of participating in the murder of a 25-year-old woman eight years ago. The appeals process following the 2002 sentence of death by lethal injection is nearing its end and her death could be just months away.

"I am desperate because the British people could be my last hope. If they ask for my life to be spared, maybe Texas will listen," said the recording. "Texas doesn't care about clearing my name. It is going to have to come down to either the British government, a member of parliament or a US senator."

Melissa Gray writes, "Death row grandmother in Trafalgar Square plea," for CNN.

"Linda Carty's speech to Trafalgar Square shows that she is a terrified woman, and with good reason," said Clive Stafford Smith, director of Reprieve. "Texas plans to kill her by lethal injection, which is a painful and lonely death."

He added: "The British government must do everything in its power to prevent Linda's death."

The British Foreign Office has filed two amicus briefs in Carty's case complaining that Britain was not notified of her original arrest, said a Foreign Office spokesman, who declined to be named in line with policy. The first was in 2006 with a U.S. district court in Texas and the second was in May of this year with the federal appeals court.

The Foreign Office is also in close touch with Carty and her legal representatives, the spokesman said.

"We're continuing to provide her with consular assistance," he said. "We've also made the U.S. aware of our stance (against) the death penalty."

The BBC has, "Plinth spot for death row Briton."

Carty has British dependent territory citizenship because she was born on the island of St Kitts, in the Caribbean, to Anguillan parents.

"Death row woman uses art project to plea for help," is the AFP report via Google News.

A British grandmother on death row in the United States pleaded her innocence Thursday in a recording broadcast in London's Trafalgar Square, using an art project to make a final cry for help.

"It is everybody's worst nightmare to be executed for a crime they did not commit. I am living that nightmare," said Linda Carty, 50, who is awaiting death by lethal injection for the 2001 murder of a neighbour.

Her message, recorded in jail in Texas, was broadcast from the empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square, where a cardboard cut-out of the former school teacher was placed.

The stunt is part of project by artist Antony Gormley, which will over the course of three months see 2,400 members of the public take to the plinth for an hour at a time as living monuments.

Carty said she used the plinth as a final push to get Britain to intervene in her case.

"I am desperate, because the British people may be my last hope... That's why I need to tell you my story. Please listen, and tell everyone you know. Please don't let me die here," she said.

Born on the Caribbean island of St Kitts and a holder of a UK dependant territory passport, Carty worked as an informant for the US Drug Enforcement Agency in Houston for many years before her arrest.

When three men kidnapped her neighbour, Joana Rodriguez, and put her in the boot of a car where she suffocated, Carty was accused of planning the crime. She says the men responsible framed her because of her informant work.

The case has been highlighted by legal charity Reprieve, which argues that Carty received inadequate legal advice from a court-appointed lawyer.

"I wasn't convicted and sentenced to death because I'm guilty. I was convicted and sentenced to death because I had a terrible lawyer," Carty said.

Earlier coverage of her case begins here.  Reprieve has posted the transcript of Linda Carty's message.

Linda Carty

The UK's Independent reports, "British citizen on Death Row in Texas launches 'last chance' appeal."  It's written by Tom Leonard.

Carty, 51, a grandmother from the Caribbean island of St Kitts, was sentenced to death for the murder in 2001 of a young mother whose baby she was allegedly trying to steal after what her British legal team describes as a "catastrophically flawed" trial.

However, they said judges have refused to hear new evidence that the conviction was unsafe and that Carty is innocent.

If her lawyers fail to to persuade judges in New Orleans's Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, all that stands between Carty and death by lethal injection is the US Supreme Court, which only hears a small number of cases every year.

Carty has been represented by lawyers by the charity Reprieve since it emerged that she was born to Anguillan parents and so holds a British Overseas Territory passport.

And:

Her lawyers claim she was forced to rely on a court-appointed lawyer whose incompetence had already led to 20 clients end up on death row – more than any other US defence lawyer.

Among the charges levelled against him were that he failed to spot obvious inconsistencies in the prosecution case, did not meet his client until immediately before the trial and failed to interview important witnesses.

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's director, said the US court system's refusal to hear most of their arguments "makes no sense".

He said: "Linda's legal representation at trial was appalling and she would not be on Death Row on Thursday if she had received an adequate defence."

"The rules that courts use to deny justice in capital cases are simply bizarre - only last week Justice Scalia reiterated that someone who is innocent can be executed so long as she had a 'fair' trial."

He said Carty was "dangerously close to the execution chamber" and that the British Government needed to everything in its power to save her life.

The Foreign Office confirmed it had made representations to the US authorities that it was opposed to the death penalty.

It has also offered consular assistance to Carty and her family.

Carty is one of 10 women on death row in Texas, which executes far more convicted criminals than any other state.

Earlier coverage of the case is here.

Why Is the UK Involved in a Texas Death Case?

That's the title of a guest entry at the Dallas Morning News Death Penalty blog.  It's written by Hugh Southey, a British Barrister.  LINK

The United Kingdom recently took the relatively unusual step of filing an Amicus brief in the 5th circuit in the case of Linda Carty, a United Kingdom national presently detained on death row in Texas. Ms Carty has also received support from a United Kingdom charity, Reprieve. Those interventions follow similar interventions by other foreign governments in cases concerning their nationals.

And:

International travel is now a core aspect of modern life. Every day thousands of foreign nationals enter Texas lawfully to engage in business or enjoy a holiday. Similar numbers of Texans travel overseas. That travel benefits us all. The Texan economy (as well as all other economies) would suffer without travel.

Travel is inevitably undermined if states fail to adopt minimum standards for the treatment of people within their jurisdiction. To give an obvious example, very few people wish to travel to Somalia because the absence of the rule of law leaves all people at risk of ill-treatment. Less obviously many United Kingdom nationals now have concerns about travel to Thailand following reports of arrests at Bangkok airport as a way of extorting bribes.

The concerns about minimum standards have caused states (including the United States) to sign up to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Among other things, this enables states to visit their nationals who are detained overseas and make representations on their behalf. There are recent examples of cases where I have little doubt that the American authorities will have sought to intervene on behalf of their nationals. For example, the American authorities will have wished to intervene on behalf of John Yettaw, the American imprisoned for seeking to swim to Aung San Suu Kyi. However, it is not only high profile cases that matter. The cases of American nationals arrested for more routine matters are as important. They are entitled to fair trials and proper treatment.

And:

The reason why the death penalty is the particular focus of the interventions is that there are real issues about the compatibility of the death penalty with international law. International law may have reached the stage where the use of the death penalty is as unacceptable as torture. In addition, even if the death penalty is compatible the restrictions upon its use that are imposed as a matter of international law mean that in practice its use may well violate international law. Violations of international law have been found in American death penalty cases by both the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. That means that foreign governments are likely to have grounds for intervention in death penalty cases. They are likely to be able to argue that accepted standards have not been met.

Related posts can be found in the international law category index.

Court Interpreters in Short Supply in Multilingual Texas

That's the title of Dianne Solis' report for the Sunday Dallas Morning News.  LINK

The Honduran woman had been beaten repeatedly. And when it was time to face her former boyfriend who she said had tormented her, she wanted the jury in the Dallas courtroom to understand key details. Her voice shook. She spoke only Spanish.

The young woman used an interpreter, Lyda Baro. In English, Baro said, "And from a beating, he gave me a miscarriage."

The accused was found guilty of a criminal misdemeanor offense.

Court interpreters like Baro give voice to women challenging domestic violence, to children who've been abused, to witnesses of murders, and to many other parts of often-complex legal processes. And they have never been in more demand – a reflection of the demographic sweep of immigration in North Texas and across the country.

"We live in a state with a death penalty," Baro said as she sat outside a courtroom. "So this is crucial stuff."

It is also the exacting stuff of stories that will affirm or contradict guilt or innocence or witness credibility. And yet a victim with a limited vocabulary can't be helped by an interpreter with a college degree, a poetic flair and a gift for narrative arc.

Interpreters must remain neutral and not add or subtract from what's said, according to administrative rules of the state licensing agency.

There are false cognates, and there are true cognates. (Crimen isn't an exact translation of crime, for example.) There are literal meanings versus idiomatic expressions of a certain region. ("Keep your nose clean" isn't so easy to translate.)

Linguistic nimbleness is only half the skill needed, experts say. Interpreters must also know a good deal about the law and have excellent memories.

So the licensing process is tough.

There are only 32 licensed interpreters in Dallas County, and about 500 in the state. About 40 percent of Dallas County, or 830,000 people, and about a third of the Texas population, or 7.2 million, speaks a language other than English in the home, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Spanish dominates among the foreign languages, followed by Vietnamese, Chinese and Korean.

Medellin Execution 'Defied Court Order' - UPDATED

UPDATE - The judgment is here.

The January 20 edition of the Los Angeles Times has, "U.S. broke obligations in Mexican's execution."

The International Court of Justice ruled Monday that the United States violated its order last year when Texas proceeded with the execution of a Mexican national convicted of murder and rape.

The court, based in The Hague, said the United States remains bound by a 2004 ruling to review the cases of 51 Mexican citizens on death row despite its failure to do so in the past. That earlier decision said the United States violated the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by not advising the Mexican arrestees of their right to seek help from their nation's consular officials.

But in Monday's ruling, the court, also known as the World Court, rejected Mexico's request that it require that U.S. authorities provide a guarantee to review and reconsider each case.

Mexico formally outlawed the death penalty in 2005, and the execution of Mexicans for capital crimes in the United States is a hot-button issue here. Many Mexicans believe their countrymen are more likely to face the death penalty than U.S. citizens charged with the same crimes.

After Monday's ruling, Mexico called on the incoming Obama administration to ensure that the United States meets its obligations under international treaty to safeguard the rights of Mexican arrestees.

That's the headline of the BBC report.  LINK

The International Court of Justice says the US was in breach of an order not to execute a Mexican man sentenced to death in Texas after a flawed trial.

The court was handing down judgment in a bid by Mexico to force a review of the sentences of 51 of its citizens on death row in the US.

Mexico says the US ignored a ruling by the court in 2004 that America had denied the Mexicans consular access.

The court said then that the convictions should be reconsidered.

The International Court of Justice - the UN's highest court - issued an emergency ruling last July intended to halt pending executions.

But three weeks later Texas gave a lethal injection to Jose Medellin, convicted of the rape and murder of two teenage girls.

"The court... finds that the United States of America has breached the obligation incumbent upon it," the ICJ - sitting in The Hague - ruled.

In its latest appeal, Mexico had asked the court for an interpretation of its judgment in 2004.

That judgement found the US in breach of the Vienna Convention because the Mexicans were denied consular access when they were arrested.

"US breached order by executing Mexican: UN court," is the AFP report.

The UN's highest court Monday held the United States in breach of its July order not to execute a Mexican man sentenced to death in Texas after a flawed trial.

"The court ... finds that the United States of America has breached the obligation incumbent upon it," by executing 33-year-old Jose Ernesto Medellin in August, the International Court of Justice ruled in The Hague.

It was handing down judgment in a bid by Mexico to pressure the United States to review the sentences of 51 of its citizens sentenced to death on American soil after trials that violated international rights obligations.

Mexico accuses Washington of contravening the court's 2004 order holding it in breach of the Vienna Convention for having failed to inform the Mexicans of their right to consular assistance during trial.

The court directed the US government in 2004 to review and reconsider all the convictions and sentences, but Mexico claims requests for such reviews had been denied in nearly all the cases.

"US lawyer: Court ruling won't affect executions," was yesterday's preview by AP.

The United States has asked the court to dismiss the Mexican complaint, saying it agrees with Mexico but is powerless to act because the prison system is in the hands of the states.

President George W. Bush issued a directive to the states in 2005 to comply with the order of the U.N. court in The Hague, also known as the World Court. But Texas refused, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision last year that Bush lacked the authority to overrule the state legal process in Texas.

Three weeks after the World Court issued an emergency ruling intended to halt pending executions last July, Texas gave a lethal injection to Jose Medellin, convicted of the rape and murder of two teenage girls.

State Department legal adviser John Bellinger III said Bush had done all he could, and it was up to Congress to enact legislation giving precedence to international law over U.S. state law.

"A further ruling reaffirming its decision cannot give more power to the president," Bellinger said.

Mexico has asked the international tribunal to rule that "the United States breached the court's order" by executing Medellin.

If the court rules for the U.S., Bellinger said, it would simply acknowledge that the Bush administration did its best to carry out the court's order, but it would have no immediate practical effect for other death row prisoners.

A ruling for Mexico would not amount to a rebuke, he said.

"The court has no enforcement powers," he told a small group of reporters. "It is not the role of the court" to issue a reprimand.

Mexico has asked the court to spell out the meaning of its earlier ruling, arguing that the United States must take practical measures to fulfill the court's demand that the death sentences should undergo judicial review.

It said international law must apply not only to the United States but also to its individual states.

Earlier coverage of Medellin begins with this post.

Death and Texas

That's the title of Maura Kelly's column in The Guardian.  It's subtitled, "Governor Rick Perry and his state's flawed judicial system are now executing convicts for crimes they did not commit."

Texans - or at least governor Rick Perry and his supporters - seem to love the death penalty almost as much as flying the state flag. And last week, the good ol' Texan bloodlust came under international scrutiny once again when the state put to death a man born in Mexico, where capital punishment is prohibited.

During the trial of death row inmate José Ernesto Medellín, he was not given the opportunity to seek legal help from Mexican consulates, a right granted under the 1963 Vienna Convention. Appeals from all over the world - including one from the UN's International Court of Justice and another from President Bush himself - pointed out the discrepancy and asked the state to delay the execution till Medellín's case could be further reviewed. But Perry refused to put on the brakes, and Medellín died of a lethal injection on August 6.

"Texans are doing just fine governing Texas," Perry said last year in response to the European Union's request that he reconsider another death row case involving a young man who had never been accused of directly participating in the murder to which he was linked. Given Perry's audacity, perhaps it's no surprise he has single-handedly overseen more executions than any other governor in the country since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. He also vetoed a ban on the execution of mentally handicapped inmates in 2002.

Lazarus on Medellin Execution

Edward Lazarus' latest column at FindLaw.com is, "Texas Executes a Mexican Citizen Despite a Breach of the Vienna Convention: A Decision that Undermines America's International Standing and Commitment to the Rule of Law."

Last week, the State of Texas executed Jose Ernesto Medellin. It’s hard to work up much sympathy for Medellin. He was convicted of gang-raping and murdering two teenage girls, and there is no indication that he was either innocent of the crimes for which he lost his life or mentally incompetent to have fully understood the heinous nature of his acts. For those who are not unalterably opposed to the death penalty on philosophical grounds, Medellin’s crimes are the sort that cry out for expressing the extreme moral outrage that the death penalty is designed to reflect.

Yet Medellin’s demise – or at least the judicial process ushering in his demise – should still be a cause of frustration and disappointment. Medellin’s case presented a test for whether our judicial system would add to or subtract from our collective commitment to the rule of law and either enhance or further diminish our moral standing around the world. We failed that test.

And:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling was perfectly reasonable. But, as Justice John Paul Stevens observed in his trenchant concurrence, the fact that the ICJ decision was not binding law on Texas did not change the fact that Texas had failed to observe this country’s treaty obligation to provide foreign nationals with consular notification. And, given that Texas had placed the United States in the position of breaching its promises, surely the wise, prudent, and proper thing for Texas to have done would be to have voluntarily reviewed Medellin’s consular notification claim, in order to bring our country into compliance with its duties.

In similar circumstances, Oklahoma had reviewed the conviction of a foreign national who had not received consular notification, and had quickly determined that the omission was a harmless error. Surely Texas could have gone through the same modest exercise. But Texas officials showed no interest in voluntary compliance with America’s treaty obligations, no matter how modest the cost in time and energy. They had the power to kill Medellin without further ado – and so they exercised that power, as though simply having the power to do something also made it the right thing to do.

Earlier coverage of the Medellin case begins here.

Texas's Disdain

That's the title of a Friday editorial in the Washington Post.  The sub-head is:, "In carrying out two executions, the state endangers Americans detained abroad."

THE STATE of 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.

And:

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Texas, concluding that the ICJ ruling was not binding domestically and that the president overstepped his bounds in trying to force the state's compliance. The court, however, acknowledged that the United States had breached its duties under the Vienna Convention. Justice John Paul Stevens, who was part of the majority, urged the state to voluntarily comply or to work toward a reasonable resolution so as to mend the breach. Instead, Texas set this week's execution date for Mr. Medellín, which all but foreclosed the possibility of a legislative or diplomatic solution. In refusing to give the federal government more time, Texas has now increased the possibility that foreign countries will not recognize in a robust way the rights of U.S. citizens detained abroad. Yesterday, Texas executed a second foreign national, Heliberto Chi, a Honduran whose lawyers made arguments about his lack of consular access.

Texas should be commended for agreeing to support federal court review for some of the other Mexican nationals on death row. The state must be held to that promise. And all states and municipalities must be conscientious in the future to ensure that foreign nationals are informed of their right to consular access.

Earlier StandDown coverage of Medellin is here.  Earlier StandDown coverage of Chi is here and here.

U.N. Concern at Fate of 50 Mexicans On U.S. Death Row

That's the title of a Reuters dispatch from the Hague.  LINK

The U.N. human rights office voiced concern on Friday for the fate of 50 Mexican nationals on death row in the United States after Texas defied a World Court order and executed one of their compatriots earlier this week.    

The United States has an international legal duty to comply with a ruling by the International Court of Justice in March 2004 that it had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention in the cases of 51 Mexican nationals, the U.N. said.

Jose Medellin, executed by lethal injection on Tuesday in Texas for the 1993 rape and murder of 16-year-old Elizabeth Pena, was among the 51 named by the ICJ as having been deprived of their right to consular services after their arrests.

The Mexican government had brought the case against the United States to the Hague court.

The ICJ ordered that the United States ensure that Medellin not be executed unless and until he received a review of his case to determine whether the breach of the Vienna Convention prejudiced his defence, U.N. human rights spokesman Rupert Colville told a news briefing in Geneva.

"The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights notes that the ICJ orders remain valid for another 50 Mexican nationals on death row in the United States whose situation is similar to that of Mr. Medellin," he said.

The U.N. human rights office has long opposed the death penalty, saying it should be imposed only for the worst crimes after a fair trial that meets international standards.

"The finality of the death penalty makes it essential that it is applied with scrupulous attention to safeguards set down in international law," Colville said.

"One of those safeguards is that foreign nationals should have access to consular services. That is crucial for the protection of all individuals who travel abroad," he said, referring to the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

AFP has, "Medellin execution highlights flaw in international law: experts," via Google News.

The execution of a Mexican citizen by the United States against the orders of the UN's highest court highlights a flaw in international law that enables countries to snub rulings without repercussions, experts say.

While the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) orders are binding, their execution are left up to states who consent voluntarily to the court's jurisdiction, they told AFP.

And while such a system theoretically enables states to act with impunity, it could never be altered for the risk of encroaching upon state sovereignty.

"International law cannot bind a state against its will, simply because we don't have a world government, a world legislature, or a world judicial system," said Jann Kleffner, international law professor at the University of Amsterdam.

"The will of the international community cannot be imposed on states just like that."

The US state of Texas on Tuesday put to death a Mexican convicted of murder in defiance of an order of the ICJ and ignoring a last-minute appeal from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

And:

Annemarieke Vermeer, international law lecturer at the University of Leiden, said the ICJ would continue finding itself in difficult terrain in matters so close to the essence of state sovereignty as domestic justice.

"The court cannot order a state to change its systems," she said.

Analysts agreed that Medellin's execution was a blow to the ICJ as it brought its relevance into question.

And it may lead other states to emulate the United States when it suited them.

But while the tribunal has no enforcement powers of its own, states that ignore its judgments risk their international reputation and endanger reciprocal agreements with other states.

In another famous snub of the ICJ, Israel ignored a 2004 ruling that parts of a barrier it had built on Palestinian land were illegal and should be torn down.

"If for no other reason, governments need to respect the judgments of the ICJ out of long-term self-interest," said David Fathi, director of the US programme of lobby group Human Rights Watch.

"Even if a state does not like a ruling of the ICJ, it is in everybody's long-term interest that we have an international system governed by the rule of law."

The ICJ was by no means a worthless institution, argued Kleffner, as illustrated by the fact that most of its rulings were complied with -- even unpopular ones.

The Chi Execution

In the New York Times, David Stout reports, "Texas Executes Inmate After High Court Steps Aside."

An  Honduran immigrant convicted of murder was put to death in Texas on Thursday evening after the  Supreme Court declined to block the execution, despite his lawyers’ complaints that he should have been told that he could get assistance early on from Honduran diplomats.      

The court’s ruling came without dissent and without comment.

The immigrant, Heliberto Chi, 29, was executed in Huntsville, Tex., for shooting to death his former boss during a robbery at a men’s store in Arlington in 2001.

Mr. Chi’s execution is the second one this week with diplomatic implications. On Tuesday night, Texas executed José Medellín, a Mexican national, in defiance of an international court ruling and despite pleas from the Bush administration that he be given a new hearing. The Supreme Court declined to block that execution earlier on Tuesday.

"Illegal immigrant from Honduras executed in Texas," is Mike Graczyk's AP filing.

On Thursday, the high court rejected Chi's appeal without dissent, ruling about 2 1/2 hours before his scheduled execution time.

Unlike Medellin, executed for participating in the gruesome gang rape and murders of two teenage Houston girls 15 years ago, Chi was not among some 50 death row inmates around the country, all Mexican-born, whom the International Court of Justice said should have new hearings in U.S. courts to determine whether the 1963 Vienna Convention treaty was violated during their arrests.

President Bush asked states to review those cases and legislation to implement the process was introduced recently in Congress, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year neither the president nor the international court could force Texas to wait.

Chi's attorneys argued that unlike the Vienna Convention obligations with Mexico, the 1920s-era U.S. Bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Honduras was specifically between the U.S. and Honduras and was self-executing, meaning it didn't require legislation to have effect. They said the treaty also conferred individual rights and incorporated international law into enforceable domestic law.

Terry O'Rourke, a lawyer on Chi's legal team who teaches international law at Houston's University of St. Thomas, said he was saddened Texas was violating international law to execute Chi.

"It takes you back to a very ugly time in history in Texas when we killed people because of the color of their skin and their poverty," he said.

AP also has, "Honduras laments execution of man in US," filed from Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Honduras' government protested Thursday's execution in Texas of a Honduran man that the Central American country says was arrested in violation of an international treaty.    

Honduras lobbied to stop the execution of Heliberto Chi, saying he was not permitted to contact anyone from his government after he was arrested in California and extradited to Texas.

"We lament that in this case, the arrangements established by the Vienna Convention treaty were not followed," the Honduran government said in a statement.

The argument is similar to the one raised earlier this week by Mexican-born Jose Medellin, who was executed late Tuesday night for his part in a gruesome gang rape-slayings of two teenage Houston girls 15 years ago.

And:

Honduras said it would take all necessary measures to protect the lives of the 12 U.S. prisoners in Honduran prisons after local media reported they could be attacked in revenge.

The U.S. citizens are serving time for murder and drug trafficking offenses, the statement said.

The Honduran government said it would repatriate Chi's remains next week.

John Moritz writes, "Honduran executed for 2001 slaying of Arlington store manager," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Heliberto Chi, the native Honduran who shot an Arlington store manager in the back during an after-hours robbery in 2001, was executed Thursday after the Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch appeal based on the terms of an international treaty.

Chi, 29, was pronounced dead at 6:25 p.m. as two sons of his victim, Armand Paliotta, silently watched from a tiny room adjacent to the death chamber in Huntsville’s Walls Prison.

"God forgive them and receive my spirit," Chi said, who had a tear in his eye as he lay on the gurney.

In a separate witness room, Chi’s cousin wept uncontrollably and banged a fist against the glass that divided the room from the death chamber.

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal that Chi’s conviction was tainted because authorities did not tell him at the time of his arrest about an international treaty that allowed him to seek help from Honduran consular representatives. Chi was in the country illegally.

"Texas executes Honduran man for 2001 murder," is the Reuters dispatch.  Al Jazeera English reports, "Texas executes another foreigner."

 

Execution of Honduran Allowed

That's the title of Lyle Denniston's updated post at SCOTUS Blog.  LINK

UPDATE 4:30 p.m.  Without recorded dissent, the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon refused to delay the execution in Texas of a Honduran for a 2001 murder in Arlington, Texas. The Court’s order (found here) also denied review of Heliberto Chi’s appeal. Justice Antonin Scalia, as Circuit Justice, referred the case to the full Court.  There was no written opinion.  The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. Central time.

It will be Texas' sixth execution of 2008; the second execution in the state this week.  It will be the 18th execution in the nation this year. 

Texas has by far the most active execution chamber in the nation. With Chi's execution Texas will have been responsible for 411 of the country's 1,117 executions since 1977; more than 36% of all the executions in America.

According to TDCJ, 13 more executions have been scheduled in Texas for the remainder of the year, including four more in the month of August.  It's possible that more may be ordered before the end of 2008.  One execution has already been set for 2009.

A Renewed Focus on Consular Notification and Heliberto Chi

With the clock ticking toward's a 6:00 p.m. death warrant and legal papers filed at the Supreme Court, there is a new focus on the Chi case.

At The BLT, Tony Mauro posts, "Supreme Court Weighs Another Texas Execution."

What makes Chi's case different from Medellin's, according to lawyer Morris Moon from the Texas Defender Service, is that Chi is covered by a separate treaty between Honduras and the United States, not just the broad-based Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.

The bilateral treaty is self-executing, Moon's brief argues, meaning that once it was ratified, it did not require further action by Congress to enforce its provisions. The Vienna treaty, by contrast, was deemed by the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas not to be self-executing, giving it no power to keep Texas from proceeding with its exeuction. "Nonetheless, [Chi] faces execution in a matter of hours without any court having addressed the merits of his interpretation" of the treaty, Moon writes. The plea is before Justice Antonin Scalia, who handles emergency applications from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, but he can bounce the case to the full court.

Ashby Jones posts, "Two Days After Medellin Execution, Similar Issues Back at High Court,"at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.

All those who found the case of Jose Medellin compelling might want to pay attention for the next several hours to the latest death-penalty showdown that’s landed on the U.S. Supreme Court’s doorstep. It involves a Honduran national named Heliberto Chi, who was sentenced to death in Texas for a 2001 killing.

As was the case with Medellin, who was executed by lethal injection on Tuesday, Chi was not notified of his right to seek assistance from his consulate after he was arrested, a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights.

But there exist two main differences between the cases, one which would seem to weigh in Chi’s favor, one against. (Click here, here and here for background on the Medellin case.)

And:

There’s some intuitive appeal to Chi’s argument, at least assuming that the Honduran treaty is, in fact, self-executing. But a stay of his execution is still likely a longshot. Yesterday, in a concurring opinion addressing the argument, a justice on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said Chi “faces an insurmountable burden” in raising his challenge at this stage. Writes Scotusblog: “The burden [Justice Tom] Price cited included the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2006 in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (another Vienna Convention case) saying that a treaty could override state procedural rules only if the agreement contained a clear statement doing so. Price found no such statement.”

Still, Wes Ball, Chi’s attorney, is hopeful, citing the Court’s 5-4 ruling allowing Medellin’s execution to go forward. “All we need is to persuade one of those five justices,” he told the Law Blog. “I think the argument we have is a good one.”

Earlier coverage is here.

Chi Case at Supreme Court

Lyle Denniston reports, "New treaty-based challenge to execution," at SCOTUS Blog.

A Honduran national, scheduled to be executed Thursday evening in Texas, asked the Supreme Court Thursday morning to delay that process and hear his claim that Texas violated a U.S.-Honduran treaty in his case.  The challenge by lawyers for Heliberto Chi (petition 08-5652, stay application 08A112) came two days after the Supreme Court allowed Texas to execute another foreign national, Mexican Jose Ernesto Medellin.

The cases are similar, in that both Chi and Medellin contend that they were denied access to diplomatic officers from their country as their criminal cases went forward in Texas.  Chi’s challenge is not based directly on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — the treaty at issue in the Medellin case — but rather on a consular rights treaty between the U.S. and Honduras, dating from 1927.  His appeal contends that this bilateral agreement is “self-executing,” unlike the Vienna Convention, and thus is binding within the U.S. and on Texas.

Earlier coverage is here.

From UK's The Independent

David Usborne writes, "The Big Question: Why is the United States still imposing the death penalty?" from New York.  Here's an excerpt:

What America does in its own prisons is its own business, most of the time.   That was not true on Tuesday night, however, when a lethal injection was   administered to a Mexican national in Huntsville prison, Texas, convicted in   a case of gang rape and strangulation of two teenage girls in Houston 15   years ago.

The death of Jose Medellin brought an instant diplomatic protest from Mexico,   which had demanded that he and 50 other Mexicans on death row in America be   allowed consular access, as required by a treaty to which the US is a   signatory.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague has twice in the past five   years ruled that the US should hold hearings on the status of foreign   nationals on death row. The White House had asked Texas at least to delay   the execution. But on Tuesday night, Texas defied George Bush and the world   after a last-minute appeal to the US Supreme Court on behalf of Medellin was   turned down.

Are there other foreign nationals on death row?

As of the end of last year, there were 123 foreign nationals awaiting   execution in the US. Although Mexicans make up the largest single   contingent, 38 other countries are represented, including Germany and   France, but not, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, any   currently from the United Kingdom. Most are in California.

Most countries, Britain included, balk at allowing the extradition of   prisoners to the US where a possible capital offence is involved and if the   state seeking extradition has the death penalty on its books. The British   citizen Neil Entwistle was extradited and recently convicted of murdering   his wife and daughter in Massachusetts, one of a minority of US states which   do not execute prisoners.

So it's not just southern states that have the death penalty?

No. Currently 36 states in the US have the death penalty on their books,   including liberal states such as New York and Maryland, while only 14 are   without death rows (plus Washington, DC). Since 1976, when a ruling by the   US Supreme Court allowed states to begin reintroducing capital punishment, a   total of 1,115 people had been executed in the country as of 1 August this   year. Of those, 38 per cent were African-Americans, far disproportionate to   their share of the population (about 13 per cent). The busiest year for   executioners was 1999, when 98 condemned men and women were dispatched.

Texas has executed four times more inmates over the past three decades than   any other single state. (The second most assiduous has been Virginia.) It's   true that the region loosely termed the South is far more likely to execute   than other parts of the country. Not every state that has the option of   killing its prisoners actually exercises it. New Hampshire is a capital   punishment state but has not executed anyone in decades.

Mexico Protests Medellin Exeuction

"Mexican government protests Texas execution," is the CNN report.

The United States violated international law by putting a Mexican national to death in Texas, the Mexican government said Wednesday.

Protesters for and against Jose Ernesto Medellin's execution gathered before he was put to death Tuesday night in Huntsville, Texas, for raping and murdering two teens in 1993.

His death ended 15 years of legal disputes on a sour note.

"The government of Mexico sent the U. S. Department of State a diplomatic note of protest for this violation of international law, expressing its concern for the precedent that it may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country," the Mexican government said in a written statement.

"The Ministry of Foreign Relations reiterates that the importance of this case fundamentally stems from the respect to the right to consular access and protection provided by consulates of every state to each of its nationals abroad."

And:

In June, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Attorney General Michael Mukasey asked Texas Gov. Rick Perry to delay the execution.

"We continue to seek a practical and timely way to carry out our nation's international legal obligation," wrote the Cabinet officers, "a goal that the United States needs the assistance of Texas to achieve."

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also asked Texas officials this week to delay the capital punishment.

Medellin's lawyers, who argued that Mexican consular officials were not able to meet with the man until after his conviction, condemned the execution.

"With this action, our nation has broken a commitment willingly made by our president and our Senate," the lawyers said in a written statement. "We must now hope that other nations stand stronger in their promises than we do, lest our own citizens be placed at risk elsewhere."

The Guardian has, "Texas ignores treaty to execute Mexican killer."

The Mexican government has now sent a note of protest to the US state department, expressing "its concern for the precedent that [the execution] may create for the rights of Mexican nationals".

In the Houston Chronicle, Rosanna Ruiz files, "Court defied critics in Medellin ruling."

In its rejection of Jose Ernesto Medellin's appeal, the Supreme Court made clear its refusal to bow to international pressure and its unwillingness to await related legislation that had not progressed beyond the "bare introduction of a bill."

Medellin, 33, was executed Tuesday night after an almost four-hour delay as Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials awaited the high court's 5-4 decision.

The majority opinion stated that neither President Bush nor Gov. Rick Perry had made clear to the court that congressional or Texas legislative action was likely that would necessitate a delay. The court also noted that the Department of Justice had not sought to intervene in the case.

And:

The inaction by Congress and the Texas Legislature was consistent, the court said, with Bush's decision to withdraw from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 2005.

Legislation requires more time, and it only became apparent when the High Court ruled in March that such action was necessary to mandate hearings in the death row cases, said Sarah Cleveland, a Columbia Law School professor.

The issue first was raised in 2004, when the United Nations' International Court of Justice ruled that hearings should be held to determine whether the cases of Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in the United States were harmed by not being allowed access to their consular officials.

"The majority opinion reads as if there wasn't any expectation that the U.S. would comply with the ICJ's judgment," Cleveland said. "It doesn't put the U.S. in a good light, particularly because the executive branch tried to convey the opposite message."

Earlier coverage is here.  Tuesday evening's Supreme Court ruling, and the dissenting opinions, are in Adobe .pdf format here, via SCOTUS Blog.  More on Medellin I and Medellin II, via Oyez.org.  Earlier coverage of Medellin v. Texas (Medellin II) is here.

Heliberto Chi

For the second time in two weeks a Texas execution threatens to violate international law.  Like Jose Medellin, law enforcement officials failed to provide Heliberto Chi the consular notification that he had the right to contact the government of Honduras at the time he was arrested.  Chi is scheduled to be executed tonight in Huntsville.

Here's a statement from Houston attorney Terence O'Rourke, who represents the Republic of Honduras in the matter  He's an adjunct professor of international law at St. Thomas University.

The State of Texas is set to execute Heliberto Chi tomorrow in wanton and obvious violation of international law AND U.S. federal law.: From the time that Heliberto Chi was arrested by the Los Angeles police, the states of California and Texas have been in violation of U.S. treaty law.

It is important to note that the violation of international law is WORSE in the Chi case than in the Medellin case.

 

In Chi, there is a self-executing bi-lateral treaty between the USA and Honduras.  This is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court noted was NOT in the Medellin case.  If Mexico and the USA had a bi-lateral treaty, like that of Honduras, the Medellin would be alive today and serving life without parole .

 

The Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights, Dec. 7, 1927, U.S.-Hond., 45 Stat 2618, 1928 WL 26688 is a treaty with the same effect as an act of Congress.  It is USA federal law. Under the federal supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, the State of Texas is compelled to comply with federal law. 

 

If the State of Texas to executes Heliberto Chi, it [and its responsible state officers] will be engaged in an unlawful killing.

The International Herald Tribune carries an AP report, "Honduras seeks to block citizen's US execution."

The Honduran government says it is lobbying U.S. authorities to stop Thursday's scheduled execution of one of its citizens for a 2001 slaying in Texas.

Honduran consular assistance director Ramon Valladares says Heliberto Chi was not given access to consular help as mandated by the 1963 Vienna Convention treaty.

However, Chi is not among some 50 U.S. death row inmates who the International Court of Justice has said should be given new hearings.

Valladares told HRN radio Wednesday that Chi's legal team could soon file appeals on other grounds.

"Honduran faces execution tonight for Arlington killing," is the title of John Moritz report in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Heliberto Chi, a Honduran native who led authorities on a six-week manhunt after gunning down an Arlington clothing-store manager in 2001, moved one step closer to execution Wednesday when the state’s highest criminal court rejected his bid for a stay.

Chi, condemned for killing Armand Paliotta during an after-hours robbery of the K&G Men’s Superstore in Arlington, will be put to death tonight in Huntsville unless his lawyers can persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to spare his life.

Arlington attorney Wes Ball said the odds are against Chi because Ball’s argument is similar to the one the justices rejected late Tuesday when they allowed the execution of Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin to go forward.

"The court went 5-4 against Medellin, so we’ll have to turn one justice to our side," Ball said.

Medellin’s case rested on the fact that he was not notified that he had the right under international treaty to visit with a Mexican consular representative after his arrest. Chi likewise was not notified of that right, but Ball said his client will also argue that the United States has a separate treaty with Honduras that ensures each country’s citizens will be notified of their right to consular help if they are arrested abroad.

Earlier coverage of the Chi case is here.

Judge Denies Stay in Chi Case

Texas is preparing to execute another foreign citizen, Heliberto Chi, a Honduran.  Like Medellin, Chi was not provided consular notification that he could contact his government.  Chi is not covered by the International Court of Justice ruling in Avena, which was limited to Mexican nationals on death rows in America.

"Fort Worth judge denies execution delay for Arlington killer," is the report in the Fort Worth Star Telegram written by John Moritz and Nathaniel Jones.

An Arlington killer scheduled to die Thursday for gunning down a store manager during a robbery in 2001 lost a bid Tuesday to have his execution date set aside when a judge rejected the argument that putting him to death would violate international law.

Lawyers for Heliberto Chi, a 29-year-old native of Honduras, had asked state District Judge Phillip Vick of Fort Worth to at least postpone the execution on grounds that their client was denied an opportunity to visit with a representative from his native country at the time of his arrest and in the days after.

"How can we expect other countries to honor their agreements with us if we do not honor our agreements with other countries?" lawyer Wes Ball said after Vick declined to set aside the date.

Ball’s argument was similar to the one rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday on behalf of Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen.

Chi would be the first inmate from Tarrant County to be executed since the Supreme Court ruled in April that the three-drug protocol used in lethal injections does not violate the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

And:

Ball said that he intends to continue Chi’s appeals. Even if the courts reject the appeal on the basis that his execution would violate the international Vienna Convention, Ball said, he will appeal on grounds that the United States has a separate treaty with Honduras that allows that country’s citizens to visit with their consulate if they encounter legal trouble in the United States.

Americans have the same rights in Honduras under the treaty, which was signed by both countries in 1928, Ball said.

Today's Star-Telegram also carries the AP report, "Illegal immigrant from Honduras facing execution," by Mike Graczyk.

Last September, Chi was spared from execution when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stopped his scheduled punishment after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether lethal injection procedures were unconstitutionally cruel. When the Supreme Court earlier this year upheld the method as proper, his date was reset for Thursday.

Chi, from Honduras, was in the United States illegally at the time of Paliotta's 2001 slaying. Lawyers for the Central American country said Chi was unable to contact anyone from his government, a violation of an international treaty, after he was arrested in California and extradited to Texas.

It's an argument similar to the one raised earlier this week by another condemned Texas prisoner, Mexican-born Jose Medellin, who was executed late Tuesday night for his part in a gruesome gang rape-slayings of two teenage Houston girls 15 years ago.

Unlike Medellin, Chi was not among some 50 death row inmates around the country, all Mexican born, who the International Court of Justice said should have new hearings in U.S. courts to determine whether the 1963 Vienna Convention treaty was violated during their arrests.

Earlier coverage of the Chi case is here.

Medellin -- International News Coverage - Updated

The Guardian has, "Texas defies Hague and executes José Medellín."

The state's Republican governor, Rick Perry, rebutted attempts to delay off the execution arguing that the state's courts were not bound by the rulings of the ICJ.

The ICJ in the Hague had ordered Medellín's case and those of 50 other Mexicans on death row be reviewed because none had been informed of their right to consular assistance.

The US state department said it was powerless to delay the execution, noting that the country's supreme court had ruled in March that president Bush did not have the authority to intervene in the case.

The Mexican government has now sent a note of protest to the US state department, expressing "its concern for the precedent that (the execution) may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country."

And:

The 1963 Vienna Convention, which both Mexico and the US signed, requires foreigners accused of crimes to be given that opportunity.

Over the last five days, Medellín's lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing to the Supreme Court that it should be put off until Congress had a chance to pass pending legislation that would require a review of similar cases.

They argued that Medellín would be deprived of life without due process if he died before Congress acted.

But the court decided 5-4 that the possibility of congressional action was too remote to justify a stay.

One member of the supreme court, justice Stephen Breyer wrote however, that to permit the execution would place the US "irremediably in violation of international law and breaks our treaty promises."

"Texas execution sparks international legal debate," is the CBC report from Canada.

The International Court of Justice, known also as the World Court, has argued that never happened in the case of Medellin and some 50 other Mexicans on death row in the United States.

U.S. President George W. Bush asked the states to review the cases, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year that neither the president nor the international court could force Texas to wait.

Texas authorities argued Medellin, who came to the U.S. when he was three years old and grew up in Houston, never sought Mexican consular protections until four years after he was arrested. By then, he already had been tried for capital murder, convicted and condemned.

But international legal researcher Mark Warren said there are greater issues at stake, and that as a result of the execution, other countries would no longer be obliged to offer Americans the protection laid out in the treaty.

"I think the U.S. is in a very difficult position now because of the obstruction and belligerence of the state of Texas," he said.

But Ted Poe, a Republican congressman from Texas, told CBC News that the case is a matter of sovereignty.

"The Supreme Court has ruled according to our law and constitution that none of those entities have any say as to what takes place in Texas," Poe said.

Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said it sent a note of protest to the U.S. State Department about Medellin's case.

The statement said officials "were concerned for the precedent that [the execution] may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country."

Earlier coverage is here.  Last night's Supreme Court ruling, and the dissenting opinions, are in Adobe .pdf format here, via SCOTUS Blog.  More on Medellin I and Medellin II, via Oyez.org.  Earlier coverage of Medellin v. Texas (Medellin II) is here.

Radio Netherlands has, "Texas execution damages international law."

"I was one of the judges in the 2004 Avena case," says Professor Peter Kooijmans, a former foreign minister and until 2006, a judge at the ICJ. Because the case is not yet closed, the court is not allowed to respond. Professor Kooijmans confirms that Medellín was refused the right to consular assistance: "There were 58 people, including Medellín, who were refused consular assistance. In 2004, we ruled that their death sentences had come under juridical review and reconsideration."

Texas did review the case against Medellín, though whether it conformed to the 2004 ICJ ruling is questionable. According to Professor Kooijmans, the problem lies with the fact that the US interprets a juridical review and reconsideration far more liberally then the ICJ. The professor again emphasises that he is not permitted to talk about his old cases.

Mexico concluded that the review of the case against Medellín did not conform to international law and again challenged the sentence at the International Court in order to prevent the execution. In June, the ICJ ruled that Texas had to stay the execution until the request for interpretation had been answered. However, today's execution makes it clear that Texas ignored the court's ruling, though the governor of Texas did refer the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the execution by a narrow majority.

Professor of International Law Geert-Jan Knoops says,

"The US has disregarded ICJ rulings before. The US Supreme Court has ruled that individual states have absolute authority in such cases."

Professor Knoops says the execution is a bad omen for US citizens as well as the international community: "The US is always the first to support an international tribunal but when it comes to internal questions, it is an extremely nationalistic and conservative country". Mr Knoops says he is afraid that the reputation of the International Court has been damaged.

Medellin -- Texas News Coverage

Dave Montgomery writes, "Texas executes Mexican national," from the Washington bureau of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Jose Ernesto Medellin, whose Death Row appeal provoked an international dispute over U.S. treaty obligations, was executed Tuesday night for his role in the gang rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston 15 years ago.

The 33-year-old Mexican citizen was pronounced dead at 9:57 p.m.

"I’m sorry my actions caused you pain," Medellin said to witnesses in the death chamber in Huntsville. "I hope this brings you the closure that you seek. Never harbor hate."

Medellin’s attorneys exhausted their last hopes for leniency when Texas Gov. Rick Perry and the U.S. Supreme Court turned down separate requests for stays of execution.

The execution was scheduled for 6 p.m. but was delayed nearly four hours as the Supreme Court reviewed Medellin’s appeal.

On Monday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted 7-0 not to recommend that Perry delay Medellin’s execution or commute his sentence.

In the Houston Chronicle, "Medellin executed for rape, murder of Houston teens," is written by Allan Turner and Rosanna Ruiz.

At issue in Medellin's last-minute appeal was his assertion that authorities refused his right to contact the Mexican Consulate after his arrest. By doing so, his attorneys argued, officials violated a 1963 treaty signed by the U.S. and 165 other countries that should have granted him access. His case stirred international controversy when the United Nations' high court found his rights had been violated. The court ordered the execution be stayed.

While some cheered Texas' decision to execute him on Tuesday, others warned that his death could render the treaty void, putting the lives of American citizens arrested overseas in jeopardy.

The fathers of the victims, however, expressed relief.

"It's a long time coming," Adolfo Peña said, "Fifteen years is a long time. I wish those two girls could've lived that long."

Randy Ertman stood with his arm around Christina Alamaraz, a close friend. He said recent media attention had been too focused on Medellin and not their daughters.

Sandra Babcock, a law professor at Northwestern University in Chicago and an attorney for Medellin, said the case was not just about one Mexican national on death row.

"It's also about ordinary Americans who count on the protections of the consulate when they travel abroad in strange lands," she said. "It's about the reputation of the U.S. as a nation that adheres to the rule of law."

And:

"Outside of Texas this is a huge diplomatic misstep," said Columbia Law School professor Sarah Cleveland. "Unfortunately, I doubt the international community is likely to brush this off as simply the actions of Texas. In the international community ... the United States is responsible for Texas' actions."

Judge Cathy Cochran, of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, took a different view.

"Some societies may judge our death penalty barbaric," she noted. "Most Texans, however, consider death a just penalty in certain rare circumstances. Many Europeans disagree. So be it."

Earlier coverage is here.

Medellin -- National News Coverage

The New York Times reports, "Texas Executes Mexican Despite Objections."  It's written by James C. McKinley, and a version also appears in the International Herald Tribune.

Mr. Medellín’s case has become the focal point of a dispute between Mexico and the United States over whether some Mexicans have been denied fair trials because they were never given an opportunity to talk to a consul. A 1963 treaty requires foreigners accused of crimes to be given that opportunity.

Over the last five days, Mr. Medellín’s lawyers tried to stop the execution by arguing to the Supreme Court that it should be put off until Congress had a chance to pass pending legislation that would require a review of similar cases. They argued that Mr. Medellín would be deprived of life without due process if he died before Congress acted.

But the court, in a 5-to-4 decision, said the possibility of Congressional action was too remote to justify a stay. Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote in dissent that to permit the execution would place the United States “irremediably in violation of international law and breaks our treaty promises.”

Mexico opposes the death penalty and has used the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to try to block the executions of Mr. Medellín and 50 other Mexicans in the United States. Moments after the execution, Mexico sent a formal diplomatic protest to Washington.

Twice in the last five years, the International Court of Justice,  at the Hague, has said hearings should be held to determine if the 51 trials were fair.

Worried about fallout for Americans abroad, the State Department, the attorney general and the White House all urged Texas to delay the execution.

"Mexican National Executed in Texas," is Manuel Roig-Franzia's Mexico City-based report.

Mexico formally abolished the death penalty in 2005, though it had not executed anyone for decades before that.

This week, Mexico's Senate urged President Felipe Calderón to press U.S. officials to delay the execution. Calderón did not respond to the Senate request.

"Texas executes Mexican killer amid international protests," is Reed Johnson's article in the Los Angeles Times, also datelined Mexico City.

The issue of capital punishment for Mexicans convicted of crimes in the United States is extremely sensitive here, driven by the perception that Mexicans convicted of capital crimes north of the border are more likely than U.S. citizens to face the death penalty.

Capital punishment was abolished in Mexico in 2005 during the Vicente Fox presidency.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International contend that executing foreign citizens in opposition to the court order could put U.S. citizens abroad at risk of being convicted and even executed for crimes without having access to U.S. consulates or embassies.

In a Monday opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow expressed that same view.

The heated debate in both countries over immigration policy probably has contributed to the controversy surrounding the execution.

Earlier coverage is here.

Medellin -- Wire Service Coverage - Updated

AP has two reports on the wires this morning.  "Mexican-born killer put to death in Texas," is by Mike Graczyk.

With the parents of his victims watching a few feet away, a Mexican-born condemned killer apologized before he was executed for his part in a horrific attack on two teenage girls 15 years ago.

"I'm sorry my actions caused you pain," Jose Medellin told the teens' parents late Tuesday. "I hope this brings you the closure that you seek."

Nine minutes later, Medellin was pronounced dead. His execution, the fifth this year in Texas, was delayed for about four hours while the U.S. Supreme Court weighed his appeal.

"It's been a long night," Randy Ertman, whose daughter was killed by Medellin and five other gang members, said after watching the 33-year-old man receive lethal injection.

The appeal to the nation's highest court focused on whether Medellin was denied treaty-guaranteed help from the Mexican consulate when he was arrested.

"Execution prompts concern for detained Mexican," is the second AP report.  It written by Jorge Vargas, datelined from Nuevo Laredo.

Mexico is protesting the execution of one of its citizens in Texas despite a world court ruling for a new hearing, expressing concern for the rights of other Mexicans detained in the United States.

Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said it sent a note of protest to the State Department about Jose Medellin's case, which drew international attention because of allegations that Medellin wasn't allowed to consult the Mexican consulate for legal help following his arrest.

Texas executed Medellin, 33, late Tuesday for the 1993 rape and killing of two teenage girls in Houston.

And:

The Mexican government statement said officials "were concerned for the precedent that (the execution) may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country."

Reuters' Ed Stoddard writes, "Texas defies World Court with execution."

The World Court last month ordered the U.S. government to "take all measures necessary" to halt the upcoming executions of five Mexicans including Medellin's on the grounds that they had been deprived of their right to consular services after their arrests.

Medellin's execution is sure to anger neighboring Mexico and analysts have said it could make life rough for Americans arrested abroad if other countries decide to evoke the U.S. example and deprive them of their right to consular services.

This typically means diplomats will visit and provide legal advice to their nationals being held by authorities.

Bloomberg's Greg Stohr writes, "Divided U.S. Supreme Court Allows Mexican National's Execution."

A divided U.S. Supreme Court allowed the execution of Jose Ernesto Medellin, a convicted murderer whose case became an international dispute because he wasn't told of his right to seek help from the Mexican consulate.           

The justices, voting 5-4, rejected Medellin's bid for a stay of execution, clearing the way for Texas officials to put him to death yesterday by lethal injection. The majority rejected Medellin's contention that Congress and Texas lawmakers needed more time to respond to the court's March 25 ruling in his case.    

``Neither the president nor the governor of the state of Texas has represented to us that there is any likelihood of congressional or state legislative action,'' the five-justice majority said.

And:

The four dissenting justices yesterday -- John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- all said they would have sought input from the Bush administration before letting Texas proceed with the execution. Breyer wrote that Medellin's execution ``will place this nation in violation of international law.''    

Stevens Switch    

Stevens was part of the 6-3 majority when the court ruled in March. He said yesterday he voted to delay the execution because ``it appears that Texas has not taken action to address the serious national security and foreign policy implications'' of the case.    

Earlier coverage is here.

Medellin Execution Allowed -- UPDATED

That's the headline of Lyle Denniston's latest post at SCOTUS Blog.

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court refused Tuesday night to delay the execution in Texas of Mexican national Jose Ernesto Medellin.  The majority’s unsigned opinion, and dissents by each of the other four Justices, can be read here.

It will be Texas' fifth execution of 2008; the 17th execution in the nation this year. 

Texas has by far the most active execution chamber in the nation. With Medellin's execution Texas will have been responsible for 410 of the country's 1,116 executions since 1977; more than 36% of all the executions in America.

While Texas asserted that it provided Jose Medellin additional review -- a fact disputed by Medellin's attorneys, Mexico, and the chronology of the case -- Texas has offered additional review to the other Mexican citizens on Texas death row, as noted in this earlier post from today.  Only time will tell whether the promised review is any more substantive than that provided Medellin.

We'll also be watching for the other shoe to drop; the form of Mexico's expected formal protest.  Mexico's position is not hollow.  It does not allow capital punishment, and feels itself to be a part of the large world community on that issue.  Extraditions from Mexico to the United States routinely limit prosecutions to not seeking death sentences in capital cases; a condition routinely granted by American prosecutors in exchange for the extradition. 

Also, Mexico is serious about providing legal assistance to its citizens detained by law enforcement in this and other countries.  It is especially observant in providing legal assistance to its citizens facing the death penalty.  Earlier this year, a Houston jury gave one Mexican citizen a life sentence following his conviction in the shooting death of a law enforcement officer.  Many observers attribute the sentence to evidence developed by counsel provided by Mexico, as noted in this post.  A related post noted the country's substantive assistance in other capital cases.

Thus, it's no empty assertion that consular notification and Mexican government assistance can make a critical difference in any case; prejudice, in the formal sense of the word, may not attach to a case simply because of the particular facts of the crime without respect to the lack of consular notification and Mexican government involvement.

The right to consular notification by a foreign citizen detained by law enforcement is a part of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations at the express insistence of the United States.  America demanded that its citizens be notified of their right to contact the government if detained in a signatory country and be allowed to do so.  The U.S. Department of State, the Texas Secretary of State and the Texas Attorney General's Office provide information to U.S and Texas law enforcement agencies on how to comply with the treaty.

Texas had the opportunity to follow the Oklahoma model, noted in Justice Stevens' concurring opinion in Medellin v. Texas.  In 2004, shortly after the Avena ruling by the International Court of Justice, Osbaldo Torres faced execution in that state.  Oklahoma provided additional judicial review, but the state's high court determined that no prejudice had occurred; the jury would have returned the same verdict even with Mexico's involvement, the court stated.  Governor Brad Henry then exercised executive clemency, commuting Torres' death sentence to life in prison without parole.  Henry cited the ICJ's Avena ruling, the threat to American citizens traveling abroad had the treaty been broken, and respected the request of the U.S. Department of State to honor the words and substance of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Awaiting Word...

Motions and responses have been at the Supreme Court for hours now.  Justice Scalia is the Supreme Court Justice for the Fifth Circuit, but presumably the entire Court is involved in any decision on the Medellin execution.

As of 9:00 p.m., CDT, the execution is on hold pending word from the Court.  The execution warrant became valid at 6:00 p.m., and remains in effect until 12 midnight.

In addition to e-mail, I'm monitoring SCOTUS Blog, Google News, the Houston Chronicle, and the McClatchy DC Bureau.

At the Supreme Court

Final pleadings in the matter of Jose Medellin are at the Supreme Court.  Lyle Denniston has, "Final filings in Medellin case," at SCOTUS Blog.

In what may be the last round of legal arguments on Texas’ scheduled execution at 7 p.m. Tuesday of Jose Ernest Medellin, attorneys for the Mexican National told the Supreme Court that if he is put to death, “the world will have every reason to question” the U.S. government’s commitment to treaty obligations in general.  A reply brief, filed Monday evening, is here, and a new appendix is here.

Seeking to keep the Court’s attention focused on the international aspects of the case, in contrast to Texas’ emphasis on its sovereign power to enforce its criminal laws, Medellin’s counsel said the execution would run counter to the design of the Constitution itself — a design his lawyers said was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in its most recent ruling in Medellin v. Texas on March 25.

That ruling, the reply brief said, settled the legal fact that the U.S. government has “an international obligation” to provide a new review of whether Medellin’s treaty rights were violated during his prosecutor for a gang rape and murder in 1993.  The President, the brief added, has reinforced that obligation.  And Congress, the branch that the Supreme Court said must act to enforce Medellin’s treaty rights, “has now begun to take steps to comply.”

In the face of all that, the brief said, “Texas is about to execute Mr. Medellin anyway, taking the decision out of Congress’ hands and placing the United States irrevocably in breach.  That course of affairs is fundamentally inconsistent with the holding and rationale of this Court’s decision in Medellin v. Texas.”

Earlier coverage is here.  More on Medellin I and Medellin II, via Oyez.org.  Earlier coverage of Medellin v. Texas (Medellin II) is here.