Medellin v. Texas first essay and vienna convention on consular relations

This case alone got a whole day at the Supreme Court. Why? Because of its enormous complexity. At issue, stated briefly, is whether the President can tell states to comply with a decision of the International Court of Justice. But if that is all you know about this case or all that interests you, you are missing out on a whole lot. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which decided the case before it arrived at the US Supreme Court (decision at 223 SW 3d 315 (2006)), spoke of "many remarkable issues of first impression for this Court to resolve," 223 SW 3d at 323. The opinion issued by that court is almost book-length; five other judges issued their own opinions. What is all the fuss about? Read on. Actually, I will need two essays to work through all the issues...

A Sample of the Issues

I have found with most things in history and life, that if you just go slowly enough you tend to understand what is going on. And, with law, many of the most difficult issues start with facts that are not atypical. Let's go through them in numbered points, for clarity.

1. Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted of participating in the 1993 gang rape and murder of two girls in Houston and sentenced to death.

2. His conviction and sentence was affirmed on appeal in Texas state court in 1997.

3. As is his right in a death penalty case, he can then seek what is called "state habeas corpus" relief--to determine if his attorneys provided him constitutionally adequate counsel at trial. For the first time in this forum he raised the notion that his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (adopted by the UN in 1963) had been violated because he wasn't advised of his right to contact the Mexican consul after he was arrested. The Vienna Convention is a 79-article multilateral treaty that promotes the effective delivery of consular services in foreign countries, including access to consular assistance when a citizen of one country is arrested in another. The USA ratified the Convention and it became binding law on the USA at the end of 1969 [conventions such as this one are regarded as treaties, which are equivalent in authority to Congressionally-passed laws]. The important provision of Article 36 in this case is sec. 1(a):

"With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to the nationals of the sending State: (a) consular officials shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and have access to them..."

The article goes on to say that if the person arrested "so requests," the "receiving State" (i.e., the USA) shall "without delay, inform the consular post of the Sending State if...a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison." Well, Medellin never requested such a meeting because he wasn't informed that he had this right. So, the TX court decided early in 2001 that since Medellin failed to object to the violation of his Vienna Convention rights at trial, his claim was procedurally improper at this later habeas corpus review [One comment here. I wonder that if Medellin had requested consular consultation at trial the trial court would have disallowed it because he would have needed to do it at the time of arrest. So many unsolved questions in law...]. But the court also found another thing: that Medellin, as a private individual, didn't have standing to bring a claim under the Vienna Convention because it is a treaty among nations and therefore didn't confer enforceable rights on individuals. Finally, the court held that Medellin failed to "show harm" because he had received effective legal counsel.

Let's pause and catch our breath right here. The issues so far in the case are pretty interesting. Notice that the TX court didn't claim that the Vienna Convention had no effect. It is, after all, the equivalent of a federal law. The court only maintained that Medellin hadn't invoked it at the right time. And, by the way, even if he had invoked it, it wouldn't have done him any good because only the nation could invoke it. This is a harder one to understand--but the point is that the law only applies to the nation and not to individuals. That would mean that only signatory nations could bring claims of violation. So, I suppose that would mean that after Medellin was executed (or while he case was pending if the countries got around to it), that Mexico could say to the US or to some international body, "We object to the way you/the US treated Medellin." The US could delay, wait for TX to execute him and then say, "Well, the issue is moot now." Is that cynical? In any case, one of the big issues is whether private citizens have any rights conferred on them by the Geneva Convention.

4. This decision of the state district court was appealed, and the state Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the district court on all issues in Oct. 2001.

5. Then, Medellin brought a habeas corpus petition in federal court. This is generally the way things are doing in death penalty cases, such as the state with which I am most familiar--Oregon. You first exhaust your state remedies and then you go onto the federal remedies. The federal district court denied his relief in April 2003.

6. So, under relevant federal death penalty law, in order to appeal this denial to the federal Court of Appeals, you have to apply for a "certificate of appealability." Medellin did so through his attorneys. But, while this application was pending, two things happened that sent this case into a cocked hat....

But let's pause one more minute. Even though things might appear complex so far, really the only issue is whether Medellin brought up his Vienna Convention claim in a timely manner and whether the Convention can be invoked by individuals. But, before you begin patting yourself on the back that you understand all things divine and human, go on to the next essay to learn what then happened.

3152