Medellin, Jose v. Dretke, Doug, Dir., Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Div. (05/23/2005)

Questions presented: (1) In a case brought by a Mexican national whose rights were adjudicated in the Avena Judgment, must a court in the United States apply as the rule of decision, notwithstanding any inconsistent United States precedent, the Avena holding that the United States courts must review and reconsider the national's conviction and sentence, without resort to procedural default doctrines? (2) In a case brought by a foreign national of a state party to the Vienna Convention, should a court in the United States give effect to the LaGrand and Avena Judgments as a matter of international judicial comity and in the interest of uniform treaty interpretation?

BY NUSHIN HUQ, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Jose Ernesto Medellin's parents testified at his trial that, until the sixth grade, their son was a good student and made good grades. But by the time Medellin was convicted of murder in 1993, he had been expelled from school for gang-related behavior and often bragged about someday being featured on the front page of a newspaper for killing someone, according to the state of Texas.

On June 24, 1993 Medellin and six other members of the gang, "Blacks and Whites," had come together to initiate a new gang member. The initiation consisted of fighting each gang member for a five to 10 minute period. After the initiation, the boys came across two girls, ages fourteen and sixteen, on their way home from visiting a friend. Medellin attempted to engage the older girl in conversation. When she attempted to run away, he grabbed her and threw her to the ground. She called out to her friend who ran back to help her and was grabbed and thrown down by two other gang members. What resulted was the rape and murder of the two girls.

The boys then returned to the house of Peter Cantu, one of the gang members, and bragged about their exploits to his older brother and his wife. Christina Cantu, Peter's sister-in-law, convinced her husband to call the police and all boys involved were eventually arrested.

Medellin was tried and convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death. On April 29, 1997, after a number of appeals, Mexican consular authorities learned of Medellin's detention when he wrote to them from death row, and they began assisting him.

Medellin's attorneys filed a federal habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in November 2001. The district court denied habeas relief on all claims a year-and-a-half later.

In January, 2003, as Medillin's case was pending in district court, the Mexican government initiated proceedings in the International Court of Justice against the United States, alleging violations of the Vienna Convention in the cases of Medellin and 53 other Mexican nationals who had been sentenced to death in state criminal proceedings.

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention allows consular officers to protect nationals who are detained in foreign countries. Mexican consular officers assist capital defendants in the United States by providing funding for experts and investigators, gathering mitigating evidence, acting as a liaison with Spanish-speaking family members, and ensuring that Mexican nationals are represented by competent and experienced defense counsel.

On March 31, 2004, the ICJ issued its decision, which has become known as the Avena ruling. The court found the United States had breached parts of the Vienna Convention in the case of Medellin and 51 others by failing "to inform detained Mexican nationals of their rights under that paragraph" and "to notify the Mexican consular post of the(ir) detention."

The court also held that the United States violated its obligations "to enable Mexican consular offices to communicate with and have access to their nationals," under the Convention agreement.

The ICJ denied Mexico's request for annulment of the convictions and sentences. However, it held that the United States courts must provide review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences tainted by the violations it had found. The court reached its decision by a vote of fourteen to one. Both the United States and Mexican judges voted with the majority. The Venezuelan judge was the lone dissenter.

This wasn't the first case a member state of the Vienna Convention has brought against the United States to the ICJ. In 2001, Germany brought a similar case, known as the LaGrand case, involving German nationals on death row in Virginia. The ICJ ruled in favor of Germany, but in that case the people involved had already been executed.

Medellin appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that he was given insufficient counsel and that as a Mexican citizen he was not allowed to contact the Mexican consulate, according to the Vienna convention.

On May 20, 2004, two months after the ICJ's ruling the 5th Circuit ruled against Medellin, holding that his petition for habeas relief was procedurally barred because neither Medellin nor his attorneys brought up the issue at trial. This was despite the ICJ's ruling that the United States courts must provide review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences and that procedural default doctrines could not bar review.

In a unanimous, yet unsigned 15-page opinion, the 5th Circuit panel pointed to a Supreme Court case ruling prior to Avena and Lagrand. In Breard v. Greene the Court ruled that Vienna Convention claims, like Constitutional claims, could be procedurally defaulted.

"Though Avena and Lagrand were decided after Breard and contradict Breard, we may not disregard the Supreme Court's clear holding that ordinary procedural default rules can bar Vienna Convention claims," the opinion stated. "That is, only the Supreme Court may overrule a Supreme Court decision."

In seeking Supreme Court review, Medellin's lawyers argued that as a member state, the United States must comply with International Court of Justice rulings to ensure international comity, which is when courts recognize the judgments of other competent courts in order to secure the reciprocal recognition by foreign states.

On the other hand, the Texas State Attorney's office argued that the lower courts properly determined that Medellin's Vienna Convention claim was procedurally barred.

In its brief, Texas explained that even if the Avena ruling were enforceable, it would allow Medellin to have the U.S. courts review and consider the effect of the Vienna Convention violation on his criminal proceedings. According to the brief, Medellin was already granted this type of review in both his state and federal habeas proceedings.

Bartram Brown, a professor of law and co-director of the international and comparative law program at the Illinois Institute of Technology's Kent College of Law, said in the past the Supreme Court has not ruled in favor of foreign nationals in similar cases.

"In the LaGrand case, which was similar to the Medellin case except that it involved German nationals from Virginia, the Supreme Court held that although the mistake was regrettable, it was a harmless error and the petitioner would have been convicted anyway," Brown said.

The LaGrand case came before the Supreme Court in 1998. The German government, like the Mexican government, filed a suit against the United States with the International Court of Justice. But the Lagrand case was brought before the ICJ after the men had already been executed. The Medellin case is before the Supreme Court after the ICJ made its decision, so the legal significance is whether judgments made in the ICJ have any bearing on United States law.

On Dec. 10, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case.

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice argues that even assuming that Avena was enforceable, Medellin would only be entitled to have the U.S. courts review and reconsider the effect of the Vienna Convention violation on his criminal proceedings, a review which Medellin was already provided in both his state and federal habeas proceedings.

The state also claims that Medellin "failed to show that he was harmed by any lack of notification to the Mexican consulate concerning his arrest for capital murder."

Brown disagrees.

"Many of these people come from civil law countries," said Brown. "So they don't know that it's better not to say anything. They might think that if they keep their mouths closed, it makes them look guilty. But when they contact the consulate, they're advised not to say anything until their lawyers are present, and that can make a difference in their case. "

But Brown said this case must be viewed in a broader context. Treaties are a part of United States law, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the decision of the International Court of Justice has any bearing on United States law. Traditionally, the Supreme Court has taken the view that the ICJ rulings have no bearing on United States law, which isn't the case for all member states of the Vienna Convention. For example, Germany applies ICJ rulings seriously. Brown said that the United States needs to reexamine its commitment to executing the Vienna Convention treaty.

"People need to consider the implications of not following the Vienna Convention agreement. What happens when a United States citizen gets arrested in Turkey and sentenced to fifty years in prison," Brown asked rhetorically. "What if the United States consulate is never informed and the government or the person's family never knows he or she is in a Turkish prison. We need to realize what goes around comes around."

On May 23, 2005, the Court dismissed the writ as improvidently granted. The short, unsigned lead opinion cited President George Bush's memorandum that he issued on Feb. 28, 2005, two months after the Court accepted review, that stated that the United States would discharge its international obligations "by having State courts give effect to the [ICJ] decision in accordance with general principles of comity in cases filed by the 51 Mexican nationals addressed in that decision."

Though short and unsigned, the opinion was not unanimous. Four justices -- Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Stephen Breyer -- dissented.