PRESS RELEASE

The United States Supreme Court has denied the international rights claim of a Mexican national convicted of the attempted murder of an Oregon police officer.  In a split decision released today in the case of Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, the Court refused to exclude incriminating statements the defendant voluntarily made to police, even though the Mexican consulate was not notified of his arrest in accordance with an international treaty called the Vienna Convention which was ratified in 1969.  The decision also rejected the claim in a separate case by Mario Bustillo, a Honduran national convicted of murder in Virginia.  Bustillo claimed that, although he failed to raise his Vienna Convention claim as required by state rules, it could not be defaulted, like other improperly introduced claims.

While over 30 groups and individuals had filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs in support of Moises Sanchez-Llamas’ international rights claim, the California-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed a brief showing that no published decision of any court in any other country had suppressed evidence on this basis.

Writing for the 6 Justices in the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “There is no reason to suppose that Sanchez-Llamas would be afforded the relief he seeks here in any of the other 169 countries party to the Vienna Convention. .... The relief petitioners request is, by any measure, extraordinary.  Sanchez-Llamas seeks a suppression remedy for an asserted right with little if any connection to the gathering of evidence; Bustillo requests an exception to procedural rules that is accorded to almost no other right, including many of our most fundamental constitutional protections.”

The treaty, called the Vienna Convention, was ratified in 1969 with both the United States and Mexico as signatories.  The treaty requires police who arrest a foreign national for a crime to notify his consulate, if he so requests, and to inform him of that right.  However, the statements at issue in this case were made well before the notice was due, so the violation had no causal connection to the statements.

“The defendant and his supporters were insisting that America exclude valid criminal evidence, which is not required by the treaty or, apparently, by the law in his home country of Mexico,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “While police departments should train their officers to comply with the treaty, a technical violation causing no actual harm should not give a windfall to a clearly guilty criminal,” he added.
 
The case involved an incident which occurred in the early morning of December 18, 1999.  Police responded to a call that an intoxicated man in a Medford, Oregon, suburb had threatened two women with a gun.  At the scene, officers observed Sanchez-Llamas carrying a .357 magnum revolver and ordered him to drop it.  The defendant responded by shooting at the officers, wounding one in the leg.  He then ran behind a duplex and eventually put the revolver and another handgun he was carrying on the ground.  Following his arrest, an interpreter advised Sanchez-Llamas of his right to remain silent and of his right to an attorney (Miranda rights).  The defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to talk to the police.  During questioning, he made several incriminating statements which were later introduced as evidence.  Sanchez-Llamas claims that police were informed of his Mexican citizenship before he was questioned, but the police dispute this.

Prior to the trial, the defense attorney notified the Mexican consulate that Sanchez-Llamas had been arrested and charged with several crimes.  At the trial, Sanchez-Llamas moved to suppress his statements, claiming that because his consulate was not notified before he was questioned, they could not be used as evidence.  He also argued that the waiver of his Miranda rights was not voluntary.  The trial court denied both claims.  Evidence against Sanchez-Llamas included the testimony of witnesses (including his girlfriend), forensic evidence showing the bullet that injured the police officer came from his gun, and his statements incriminating himself.  A urine test taken after his arrest showing that, in addition to alcohol, Sanchez-Llamas had ingested methamphetamine was also introduced.  The jury convicted him of eleven felony counts, including attempted murder.  He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

On appeal, the defendant sought to overturn his conviction, arguing that both Miranda and his international rights required the suppression of his incriminating statements.  The Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court rejected these claims.

Last Fall, the United States Supreme Court agreed to decide Sanchez-Llamas’ international rights claim.  In addition to his state-appointed defense attorney, over 30 amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have been filed on his behalf by groups including the European Union and Members of the International Community, Mexico, the New York Bar Association, several law professors, a group calling itself the International Court of Justice Experts, and Former Senior United States Diplomats.

Before the Supreme Court, Sanchez-Llamas suggested that his experiences in his homeland of Mexico, where the people have few rights and the police hold almost unlimited power, left him afraid to refuse to answer questions by Oregon police officers.  In spite of this, Sanchez-Llamas and his supporters insisted that the failure to notify the Mexican government or inform him that he had the right to do so required the same result as a failure to advise a defendant of his rights under American law:  the suppression of any incriminating statements.

The Foundation’s amicus curiae brief in this case argued that no provision of the Vienna Convention suggests that notification is required prior to questioning or that incriminating statements made before a defendant’s consulate is notified must be excluded from trial.  The Foundation also pointed out that no case cited by Sanchez-Llamas and his supporters holds that the treaty requires this. Neither Mexico nor the European Union cite any case in which any of its courts has suppressed a confession under similar circumstances.

“It was preposterous to claim that the treaty requires suppression of evidence, when no court of any other party to the treaty has so held,” said Scheidegger.

---