SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER RIGHTS OF
FOREIGN MURDERERS
Oral argument in Medellin v. Dretke
set for Monday, March 28
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in
a controversial case which will determine what additional rights (if
any) a foreign national is entitled to when police fail to notify his
government of his arrest, as required by an international treaty.
The case of Medellin v. Dretke involves the 1993 conviction
and death sentence of Ernesto Medellin for the gang rape and murder
of two young girls in Houston, Texas, 12 years ago. Medellin is a Mexican
citizen who has lived in Texas most of his life. According to an international
treaty signed in 1963, police were required to notify the Mexican government
of Medellin’s arrest. Last year, in a case involving 51 Mexican
nationals convicted of murder in the United States, the International
Court of Justice ruled that when a foreign national’s government
has not been notified, the defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine
if the failure to notify had a prejudicial effect on his case.
“This is an important case because it will determine how much
disruption the World Court decision will cause in the American system
of justice,” said Kent Scheidegger, author of the Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation’s amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief
in the case.
The facts found by the jury in this case describe a particularly brutal
crime. At about 11:00 p.m. on June 24, 1993, Medellin was hanging out
in a remote Houston neighborhood with several fellow street gang members
when they spotted two young girls. Fourteen-year-old Jennifer Ertman
and her sixteen-year-old friend, Elizabeth Pena, were walking home from
another friend’s house. As they passed the gang, Medellin grabbed
Elizabeth and threw her to the ground as Jennifer ran. When Elizabeth
called for help, Jennifer returned to help her and was thrown to the
ground by other gang members. Over the next hour, both girls were subjected
to what investigating officers called the most brutal gang rapes they
had ever encountered. Following the rapes, the men dragged the bleeding
girls to a wooded area as they begged for their lives. Two men initially
tried to strangle Jennifer with a belt wrapped around her neck with
one pulling at each end. When the belt broke, they strangled her to
death with a shoelace. Medellin later complained, “the bitch wouldn’t
die,” and it would have been “easier with a gun.” Elizabeth
was also strangled to death with her shoelaces. The murderers then divided
money and jewelry taken from the girls and several joined Medellin at
the home of one of the men’s brother and sister-in-law. There they
bragged about the rapes and murders. Medellin explained to the sister-in-law
that the girls had been killed to prevent them from identifying him
and his accomplices. A few days later, the couple reported the crime
to police. Following his arrest and after waiving his Miranda
rights, Medellin confessed his participation in the rapes and murders
in a written statement. Several hours after his confession, he disclosed
that he had been born in Mexico. After learning this, but apparently
unaware of a requirement of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations,
the Houston police failed to notify the Mexican Consul that Medellin
was under arrest for murder.
Following his trial, Medellin’s conviction and death sentence
were upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. At that point, the
Mexican consular authorities learned about the case and actively participated
in the review on state habeas corpus. They argued that, had they been
notified, they would have advised Medellin to refuse to talk to police
without an attorney. The consulate did not suggest that they would have
arranged for a more effective defense at Medellin’s trial, or that
he suffered any other harm because the Mexican government was not notified
following his arrest.
The state habeas judge reviewed Medellin’s claim and ruled that
the “failure to notify” had no effect on the validity of Medellin’s
conviction or sentence, in addition to holding that the claim was too
late. The state appellate court later affirmed that ruling. On federal
habeas corpus, Medellin made several claims of trial and sentencing
error in addition to the Vienna Convention issue. After reviewing the
Vienna Convention claim, the district judge found it meritless, as well
as procedurally defaulted (improperly raised). In 2004, the International
Court of Justice (World Court) ruled, in a case including Medellin and
50 other murderers, that the United States should provide a hearing
for foreign nationals convicted of crimes whose home government was
not notified prior to the trial in accordance with the Vienna Convention.
Even so, the federal appeals court upheld the District Court’s
ruling and denied Medellin the right to appeal his Vienna Convention
claim, based upon U. S. Supreme Court precedent. Last December, the
Supreme Court agreed to consider Medellin’s claim that the lower
court wrongly denied him any further opportunity to appeal his Vienna
Convention claim.
At the request of the Texas Solicitor General, the Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation has filed an amicus curiae brief to encourage
a decision which does not disrupt the American legal process. The CJLF
brief points out that Medellin has already had two hearings on the merits
of his Vienna Convention claim and, under American law, it should not
cause any further delay of his execution. CJLF argues that any decision
to accommodate the World Court ruling should allow one hearing in state
court, which can be appealed only to a state appellate court and the
U. S. Supreme Court, not the lower federal courts. At such a hearing,
the burden would be on the defendant to prove that a failure to notify
his government had a prejudicial effect on his trial or sentencing.
“This murderer has already received the process he is due, and
the United States has already complied with its treaty obligations,”
said Scheidegger. “There is no need for any further delay of justice
in this case.”
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available
for comment at (916) 446-0345.
Foundation arguments have helped win three United States Supreme
Court decisions benefitting law enforcement and public safety during
the current term. The Foundation’s brief in this case is available
at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Medellin.pdf
|
