|
|
|
| Vienna Convention |
|
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon,
No. 04-10566 (U.S., June 28, 2006): Vienna Convention. This case deals with the provisions of the Vienna Convention which mandate that a foreign national arrested in the United States must be informed of his/her right to contact and seek help from his/her consulate. In this case, the Court, in a fractured and lengthy opinion, held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to violations of the Vienna Convention (to bar the admission of custodial statements in this case) and that the normal procedural default rules of the State are enforceable against the provisions of the Vienna Convention (such as when a petitioner does not raise it on direct appeal and the State courts deem the claim as having been waived).
|
|
|
Victor Alfonso Duenas-Flores,
No. C-2005-1 (Okl.Cr., June 28, 2007) (unpublished): 1. Guilty Pleas; 2. Vienna Convention: Interesting guilty plea case involving a Mexican national charged with DUI Manslaughter in Blaine County. He was not advised of his right to contact the Mexican consulate under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Prior to trial, he applied for state funds to hire an expert to attack the blood alcohol test (he tested .21). The trial court denied the request and this denial, according to Flores, forced him into the plea and the subsequent 45-year sentence. The Court held that, had he been advised properly of his rights under the VCCR, he would have opted to proceed to trial. Certiorari GRANTED.
|
|
Medellin v. Texas
No. 06-984 (U.S., March 25, 2008): Vienna Convention: In this case involving a death row inmate's assertion, filed in Texas state court, that the state violated the Vienna Convention, the Court held that neither the ruling from the International Court of Justice in Avena nor the President's Memorandum indicating that United States would discharge its obligations under the Vienna Convention, pre-empts a state from imposing a procedural default and dismissing a petiton as successive and abuse of the writ. The Court stated: "While a treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or the treaty itself conveys an intention that it be 'self-executing' and is ratified on that basis." The opinion is an 89-page monster.
|
|
|
|
