Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2008-03-25 5:25 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 5773
Medillin v. Texas?
The Supreme Court just released an opinion in Medellin v. Texas Bush weighed in on the side of Mexico, IIRC. My view of it is that "states rights" now trump treaties. Should make life interesting for the State Department.
MEDELLIN v. TEXAS
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
No. 06–984. Argued October 10, 2007—Decided March 25, 2008
In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v.
U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 (Avena), the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) held that the United States had violated Article 36(1)(b) of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention or
Convention) by failing to inform 51 named Mexican nationals, includ
ing petitioner Medellín, of their Vienna Convention rights. The ICJ
found that those named individuals were entitled to review and re
consideration of their U. S. state-court convictions and sentences re
gardless of their failure to comply with generally applicable state
rules governing challenges to criminal convictions. In Sanchez-
Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U. S. 331—issued after Avena but involving
individuals who were not named in the Avena judgment—this Court
held, contrary to the ICJ’s determination, that the Convention did
not preclude the application of state default rules. The President
then issued a memorandum (President’s Memorandum or Memoran
dum) stating that the United States would “discharge its interna
tional obligations” under Avena “by having State courts give effect to
the decision.”
Relying on Avena and the President’s Memorandum, Medellín filed
a second Texas state-court habeas application challenging his state
capital murder conviction and death sentence on the ground that he
had not been informed of his Vienna Convention rights. The Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellín’s application as an
abuse of the writ, concluding that neither Avena nor the President’s
Memorandum was binding federal law that could displace the State’s
limitations on filing successive habeas applications.
Held: Neither Avena nor the President’s Memorandum constitutes di
rectly enforceable federal law that pre-empts state limitations on the
filing of successive habeas petitions. Pp. 8–37.
But then, I don't have a law degree, nor am I working towards one. I know that some of you MILFers do. Thoughts?
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#2 2008-03-25 6:01 pm
- test
- Member
- From: Collingwood, Ont., CANADA
- Registered: 2002-12-13
- Posts: 5077
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
What language is that?
Patience is a virtue of the weak for it makes them stand still long enough for the strong to crush them with ease.
Offline
#4 2008-03-25 10:19 pm
- smilr
- Soldering Iron Savvy
- From: The Dalles OR, U. S. of Apple
- Registered: 2000-06-21
- Posts: 2854
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
It appears to say that "Because the president says so" and "Because those furiners at the ICJ say so" is not Binding Federal Law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and that The state of Texas' rules regarding how many times a murder convict can appeal shall not be trumped by the Vienna convention, despite the federal government having ratified said treaty.
I wonder if the ICJ or any of the signers to that treaty will have the guts / means by which to sanction the US Federal Gov. I honestly hope they do - I find this supreme court ruling to be full of smurf.
There is some solace in knowing that some things just can't be attained by throwing piles of money at them in the name of corporate greed. --CaptKevMan
Offline
#5 2008-03-25 10:56 pm
- JakeTheTall
- Cargo Cultist
- From: In Permanent Opposition
- Registered: 2003-03-13
- Posts: 8064
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the fascists ruling AGAINST the President and the liberal commie weenies ruling with him.
“I don’t see (subprime mortgage market troubles) imposing a serious problem. I think it’s going to be largely contained” -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, April 2007
Offline
#6 2008-03-25 11:00 pm
- Farmerkev
- Official Dementor
- Moderator
- Registered: 2003-01-03
- Posts: 16826
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
We withdrew from the Vienna Convention in 2005.
http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/nwo_u … tocol.html
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Offline
#7 2008-03-25 11:22 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 5773
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
Farmerkev wrote:
We withdrew from the Vienna Convention in 2005.
http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/nwo_u … tocol.html
The US has never been one to let diplomatic niceties get in the way of killin'.
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#8 2008-03-26 2:54 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 5773
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#9 2008-03-26 3:09 pm
- radarman
- Member
- Registered: 2005-02-28
- Posts: 2418
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
So, if I understand this correctly, a Mexican comes to the US, commits a murder, and then wants to call a mulligan because of his nationality, and the fact that he wasn't informed of his rights under the Vienna convention?
WTF? If I went to Mexico, and committed a crime, you can be darn sure they are going to put me in a Mexican jail. I doubt they would let me serve my sentence in a US prison.
So long as the conviction was good, I fail to see how this clowns rights have been violated. He knew, or should have known, that Texas doesn't play around, and that they have the death penalty. Perhaps he should have contemplated this before committing the crime in Texas.
Of course, I suspect he's wanting a commutation to life in prison w/o parole, not a free ride back to Mexico City. Even so, he committed his crime in the US, and should be punished under the applicable laws.
Offline
#10 2008-03-26 3:24 pm
- bratboy
- attorney-at-law
- Royal Wombat
- From: Austin, Texas
- Registered: 2003-01-19
- Posts: 30818
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
It's more like this (at least the issue of his procedural claim):
Medellín first raised his Vienna Convention claim in his first application for state postconviction relief. The state trial court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted because Medellín had failed to raise it at trial or on direct review. The trial court also rejected the Vienna Convention claim on the merits, finding that Medellín had “fail[ed] to show that any non-notification of the Mexican authorities impacted on the validity of his conviction or punishment.” Id., at 62.1 The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. Id., at 64–65.
Medellín then filed a habeas petition in Federal District Court. The District Court denied relief, holding that Medellín’s Vienna Convention claim was procedurally
defaulted and that Medellín had failed to show prejudice arising from the Vienna Convention violation.
"One thing we've learned is there's a difference between being disappointed and having madmen in authority."
--Paul Krugman
Offline
#11 2008-03-26 3:34 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 5773
Re: Medillin v. Texas?
radarman wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, a Mexican comes to the US, commits a murder, and then wants to call a mulligan because of his nationality, and the fact that he wasn't informed of his rights under the Vienna convention?
WTF? If I went to Mexico, and committed a crime, you can be darn sure they are going to put me in a Mexican jail. I doubt they would let me serve my sentence in a US prison.
So long as the conviction was good, I fail to see how this clowns rights have been violated. He knew, or should have known, that Texas doesn't play around, and that they have the death penalty. Perhaps he should have contemplated this before committing the crime in Texas.
Of course, I suspect he's wanting a commutation to life in prison w/o parole, not a free ride back to Mexico City. Even so, he committed his crime in the US, and should be punished under the applicable laws.
Well, if you are accused of a crime in Mexico, the US Embassy may help you find a lawyer. Most of us have some inkling of our rights if accused of a crime in the US, though Miranda warnings are helpful as a reminder. But under Mexican law? Damned if I know. In Mexico, can you remain silent? In Mexico, how long can they hold you? Do understand enough Spanish to sign away your rights? A lawyer's advice is always valuable, but in a foreign country it's doubly so.
From the article on Gonzalez I linked to earlier:
In the absence of a lawyer and without access to Mexican authorities, Tristan, who neither spoke nor understood English, signed a confession that he later said he believed to be an immigration document.
PS: Commutation of Death sentences has always bothered me. On the one hand, one less person dies at the hand of the state. On the other hand, some governors have commuted only after the prisoner agrees to drop claims of actual innocence.
Last edited by jerwin (2008-03-26 3:49 pm)
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
