SUPREME COURT’S MEDELLIN DECISION DENIES REVIEW
TO TEXAS MURDERER
In a per curiam decision announced today, the
United States Supreme Court has effectively denied a petition for federal
habeas corpus review of a foreign national's claims that his conviction
and death sentence violated an international treaty and a 2004 World
Court ruling. The Court's 5 to 4 holding dismissed its review of the
case, which means the District Court's denial of the defendant's petition
stands. The high court indicated that the Texas courts "may provide
Medellin with the review he seeks," but there are several reasons the
lower federal courts cannot. Any decision by the state courts remains
subject to the Supreme Court's review.
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, twelve 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 inform
Medellin of his right to have the Mexican government notified of his
arrest. Last year, in a case involving 51 Mexican nationals convicted
of murder in the United States, the International Court of Justice (World
Court) ruled that when police do not inform an arrested foreign national
of his treaty rights, the defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine
if the failure had a prejudicial effect on his case.
"With today's decision, it is likely that Vienna Convention claims
in all of the remaining cases will be resolved by the state courts,
avoiding the lengthy delay of executions associated with federal habeas
corpus review," said Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation. The first threshold issue cited in the decision
to dismiss review of Medellin's claim was the Court's 1994 holding in
Reed v. Farley that decision limits federal habeas
corpus review of nonconstitutional claims to fundamental defects in
the trial or sentencing. Neither party in the case mentioned that holding,
but it was a major focus of the argument in Scheidegger's amicus
curiae (friend of the court) brief.
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 or inform Medellin he had the right to such
notice.
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, arguing 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
claim had been raised too late and also that the failure to notify had
no effect on Medellin's conviction or sentence. 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 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 when the police
did not comply with the Vienna Convention. Even so, the federal appeals
court denied Medellin's application 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.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation joined the case at the invitation
of the Texas Solicitor General. The Foundation's amicus curiae
brief encouraged a decision which would accommodate the World Court
ruling without altering the American legal process. The CJLF brief pointed
out that a state court hearing would be sufficient to resolve a defendant's
Vienna Convention claim and would not be as disruptive as extended review
on federal habeas corpus. 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.
CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger is available
for comment at (916) 446-0345.
Foundation arguments have helped win four United
States Supreme Court decisions benefitting law enforcement and public
safety during the current term.
|
