PRESS RELEASE

In a decision announced today in the case of In re Medellin, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has denied relief to Ernesto Medellin, a foreign national sentenced to death for the 1993 rape and murder of two teenaged girls in Houston.  The court was unanimous that the petition should be denied.

Medellin’s case went back to the Texas state courts after the United States Supreme Court denied his petition for federal habeas corpus review of his claim that his conviction and death sentence violated an international treaty and a 2004 International Court of Justice (ICJ) Avena ruling.  The Court’s 5 to 4 holding in 2005 dismissed its review of the case, which left a Federal District Court’s earlier denial of the defendant’s petition in place.  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.  The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation had filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the case to encourage this decision.

Today’s Texas court decision held that Medellin is not entitled to further review of his international rights claim based on the ICJ ruling.  Writing for the court, Judge Michael Keasler stated, “In this case, we are bound by the Supreme Court’s determination that ICJ decisions are not binding on United States courts.  As a result, Medellin, even as one of the named individuals in the decision, cannot show that Avena requires us to set aside Section 5 and review and reconsider his Vienna Convention claim.”  “Section 5” refers to the Texas statute regarding a second petition by a prisoner whose claims have already been considered and rejected on an earlier petition.

While Medellin’s case was pending before the Supreme Court, President Bush issued a memorandum stating that the United States would carry out its obligations under the Avena decision “by having State courts give effect to the decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision.”  The nature and legal effect of this memorandum was the subject of dispute.  Although the Constitution says that treaties can override state law, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements with other countries can, this memorandum is neither.  The Texas court assumed, for the purpose of this case, that the memorandum was an executive order.  With neither a treaty nor a statute to authorize it, the Texas court held that an executive order could not direct a court to act contrary to otherwise applicable law.  “We hold that the President has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary.”

Medellin is a Mexican citizen who has lived in Texas most of his life.  According to an international treaty signed in 1963, the police were required to inform Medellin of his right to have the Mexican government notified of his arrest.  They did not do so, and Medellin was convicted and sentenced to death.

Medellin’s conviction and 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).  Later, the federal appeals court denied Medellin’s application to appeal his Vienna Convention claim, based upon U. S. Supreme Court precedent.  The 2005 Supreme Court decision denied Medellin review of his claim in federal court and effectively sent the case back for consideration by the Texas court.

The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation joined the case to argue that the Texas courts have already reviewed Medellin’s international rights claims and found them meritless and that no further review or delay of his death sentence was necessary.  “This case has already dragged on far too long,” said CJLF Legal Director Kent Scheidegger.  “While the constitutional issues here are important, underneath them is a patently meritless claim delaying a long overdue execution.  We hope this is the last review of this case, and that justice can finally be carried out.”

---