UN Says US Execution Of Mexican National Was Illegal

[Big Phil]

The fucker CONFESSED to the crimes prior to his execution... bitching about procedure and international treaties and legal technicalities when he was straight up guilty is in bad taste. And the thing is, if you're in Texas and searching for examples of prosecutor misconduct, denial of a defendants constitutional rights, abuse of power, and other egregious violations of the Constitution, you don't have to look too far. There are literally scores of examples of such behavior, including several that resulted in death penalty convictions. This case, however, isn't one of those, and its tasteless and tacky to hang your hat on this case as an example of a flaw in the system.

Just because the conviction was "right" doesn't mean it was done right. A broken clock that is right twice a day is still broken[/i]. That the conviction matched the guilt has no bearing on the argument.

I'll quote the victim's mother, since she said it better than anyone: “A technicality doesn’t give anyone a right to come to this country and rape, torture and murder anyone."

My challenge to you is to demonstrate that Humberto Leal's defense was somehow incompetent or that the prosecution engaged in misconduct... in other words, prove that he was wrongly convicted or that the outcome would have been different with consular access. Hypothetically, if he had received consular access and still been put to death, would you still be okay with the death penalty conviction?

[Big Phil]

I'm going to use an analogy because it may illustrate the point better.

Two teams are playing a basketball game, and Team A ends up winning 145-13. Team B then goes whining to the officials claiming that Team A should have been called for a double dribble in the first quarter. Since the refs didn't call it, Team B says the entire game should be played over.

Does that seem reasonable to anyone?

[Simon_Jester]

Just because the conviction was "right" doesn't mean it was done right. A broken clock that is right twice a day is still broken[/i]. That the conviction matched the guilt has no bearing on the argument.

I'll quote the victim's mother, since she said it better than anyone: “A technicality doesn’t give anyone a right to come to this country and rape, torture and murder anyone."

Leal was brought to this country when he was two years old, so this statement strikes me as being a little off-key. It also strikes me as a blatant attempt on your part to dodge the question of whether judicial procedure matters.

We could extend your argument to any right the defendant in a criminal case has: "Can you prove a jury wouldn't have convicted him? If not, why does it matter that he wasn't given a jury trial?" "Can you prove the defense would have been able to exonerate him if they'd seen the evidence? If not, why does it matter that the defense wasn't allowed to look at the evidence?" And so it goes.

It's totally irrelevant whether Leal "would have been convicted" if he'd had consular access.

What does matter is that Leal attempted to conceal the fact that he even had a right to consular access, and that his background was such that no one in the Texas judiciary found out that he was a foreign national until after he'd been sentenced to death. That changes the equation, and I can accept that it changes things enough to mean that Leal's lack of consular access doesn't affect the quality of the trail- since if he'd wanted consular access, he could presumably have gotten it, or at least tried to, and since no one was in a position to know he should have consular access.

But you're not arguing that. You're engaged in some rank bullshitting here- you seem to think it's OK to ignore the defendant's rights as long as we're extra-sure they're guilty. Which is backwards.

The entire point of having rights is that they're there for your protection even when the public or the state don't think you need or deserve them. Due process (and the more general concept of judicial procedure, of dotting the I's and crossing the T's) becomes more important in cases where we naturally assume it's a slam-dunk, where the defendant is already convicted in the court of public opinion and where the judges and jurors despise them. Because that's the kind of case where people get wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted, and wrongfully punished or persecuted.

You don't need laws against lynching to protect popular men; you need laws to keep unpopular men from being lynched. The same principle extends to the judiciary- citizens have rights to protect the sort of people the judiciary is most likely to persecute unjustly, not just to protect designated "good people" who will probably never need to fear persecution in the first place.

[SVPD]

While I agree strongly with your points regarding the importance of due process rights, I think there's a legitimate question as to whether consular access is a due process right, or more of an administrative right (for lack of a better term.)

Consular access is a right afforded only to foreign nationals, for obvious reasons, it serves no purpose for them. That said, citizens have no substantially equivalent right, either. There's no right to contact a Congressman, state representative, or city councilperson or anyone that would bear the same general relationship to a citizen that a consular officer does to an alien. There's only the right to an attorney, and that's a right that aliens have as well.

Seeing as the only real role of a consular officer is to inquire as to the defendant's treatment, this would appear to create a special safeguard for aliens that does not pertain to citizens, thus giving them more rights than citizens,w hich not only is nonsensical in itself but rather violates the idea of equal treatment under the law.

Therefore, I'd say that a judicial criminal proceeding should not be impugned even if consular access is denied unfairly; if there is later found to ahve been judicial impropriety, that should vacate any conviction just as for a citizen. Rather, denial of consular access should predjudice any later deportation or other immigration proceeding based on the conviction.

In other words, while consular access is a right, it is not a due process right, much like Freedom of Speech is not a due process right, and therefore should not be an issue in determining the propriety of criminal conviction.

[Big Phil]

Just because the conviction was "right" doesn't mean it was done right. A broken clock that is right twice a day is still broken[/i]. That the conviction matched the guilt has no bearing on the argument.

I'll quote the victim's mother, since she said it better than anyone: “A technicality doesn’t give anyone a right to come to this country and rape, torture and murder anyone."

Leal was brought to this country when he was two years old, so this statement strikes me as being a little off-key. It also strikes me as a blatant attempt on your part to dodge the question of whether judicial procedure matters.

We could extend your argument to any right the defendant in a criminal case has: "Can you prove a jury wouldn't have convicted him? If not, why does it matter that he wasn't given a jury trial?" "Can you prove the defense would have been able to exonerate him if they'd seen the evidence? If not, why does it matter that the defense wasn't allowed to look at the evidence?" And so it goes.

It's totally irrelevant whether Leal "would have been convicted" if he'd had consular access.

What does matter is that Leal attempted to conceal the fact that he even had a right to consular access, and that his background was such that no one in the Texas judiciary found out that he was a foreign national until after he'd been sentenced to death. That changes the equation, and I can accept that it changes things enough to mean that Leal's lack of consular access doesn't affect the quality of the trail- since if he'd wanted consular access, he could presumably have gotten it, or at least tried to, and since no one was in a position to know he should have consular access.

But you're not arguing that. You're engaged in some rank bullshitting here- you seem to think it's OK to ignore the defendant's rights as long as we're extra-sure they're guilty. Which is backwards.

The entire point of having rights is that they're there for your protection even when the public or the state don't think you need or deserve them. Due process (and the more general concept of judicial procedure, of dotting the I's and crossing the T's) becomes more important in cases where we naturally assume it's a slam-dunk, where the defendant is already convicted in the court of public opinion and where the judges and jurors despise them. Because that's the kind of case where people get wrongfully accused, wrongfully convicted, and wrongfully punished or persecuted.

You don't need laws against lynching to protect popular men; you need laws to keep unpopular men from being lynched. The same principle extends to the judiciary- citizens have rights to protect the sort of people the judiciary is most likely to persecute unjustly, not just to protect designated "good people" who will probably never need to fear persecution in the first place.

Look, what happens if a suspect confesses without being read his Miranda rights? Or if interrogation after a request for a lawyer continues? That confession should be excluded, right? If the suspect is still convicted based on other evidence, he doesn't get to retroactively insist on a retrial or that he be set free based on the police screwing one thing up. Maybe Leal should have been granted access to the Mexican counsel... AFTER he requested it. But that doesn't mean the conviction should be overturned.

[Alyeska]

I'll quote the victim's mother, since she said it better than anyone: “A technicality doesn’t give anyone a right to come to this country and rape, torture and murder anyone."

Worthless emotional statement with no meaning. Its analogous to "Think of the Children!". I have seen victims families angry about DNA exonerations. Their desire for vengance is so great that they ignore the truth in front of them.

The law is technical for a reason. When police and prosecutors are given wide discretion, they abuse it. A legal technicality is what keeps the system honest. We would rather let guilty people go free than put an innocent man in prison. Its a foundation of a judicial system and the reason why we have reasonable doubt as a standard.

My challenge to you is to demonstrate that Humberto Leal's defense was somehow incompetent or that the prosecution engaged in misconduct... in other words, prove that he was wrongly convicted or that the outcome would have been different with consular access.

His lawyer was acknowledged to not be the most competent of the bunch. Access to consular legal resources would undoubtedly have had an impact on the case. He was denied access to legal resources even after it became known of his status. Just going by statistics alone, access to more legal resources will improve his defense. He is statistically more likely to get a lesser sentence.

Hypothetically, if he had received consular access and still been put to death, would you still be okay with the death penalty conviction?

No, but for non legal reasons. Had he received consular access and been put to death after the legal proceedings were completed, I would have no serious objection. I disagree with the death penalty, but that has no bearing on the legality and procedural elements of the case. My primary concern is following legal proceedings correctly AND following treaty obligations, especially international agreements on how criminal proceedings are handled. If he was put to death after having access to consular resources, so be it. If the country (ie Mexico) opted to deny access to consular resources, so be it.

Just because the defendant makes it difficult doesn't make it right to ignore the law. Criminals are well known for making it difficult to convict them. We should be willing to expend the resources to properly identify a criminal depending on the severity of the crime. Murder would certainly qualify. If the concern is about the criminal manipulating the court, you can easily remedy the situation. Charge the suspect with evading identification. Hell, make it a felony to evade identification in a capital case. Its already illegal to tamper with a jury. There are legal remedies that do not involve trampling over international treaties or proclaiming "But its too hard!!! (whiney kids voice)"

[Alyeska]

Look, what happens if a suspect confesses without being read his Miranda rights? Or if interrogation after a request for a lawyer continues? That confession should be excluded, right? If the suspect is still convicted based on other evidence, he doesn't get to retroactively insist on a retrial or that he be set free based on the police screwing one thing up. Maybe Leal should have been granted access to the Mexican counsel... AFTER he requested it. But that doesn't mean the conviction should be overturned.

I can start tossing out more what ifs that involved interesting little dilemmas. You retry the case with the resources he is entitled to see how it goes. Retrials are ordered all the time. Frequently they still return guilty verdicts. Some times they even return even harsher sentences.

Lets take your same argument and change it slightly and see what you think of the meaning.

Maybe Leal should have been granted access to the DNA Testing... AFTER he requested it. But that doesn't mean the conviction should be overturned.

And what if the results are unexpected? Sorry, you stay in prison, tough shit! Its easy to be a Tough Guy when you know the suspect is guilty.

Do you wear a seat belt? Are you a safe driver? So why wear a seat belt? Because the unexpected can happen. You follow procedures and rules because even when you are damned sure someone is guilty as sin, it protects the system. Police and prosecutors have been damned sure someone is guilty and they manufacture evidence in order to ensure this criminal scum will spend the rest of their lives behind bars. And guess what, the DNA testing 30 years later showed this criminal scum was innocent. Even people who admitted to murder, who confessed, have been exonerated by DNA testing.

So don't give me this emotional tripe. You follow the laws and the procedures to protect the integrity of the system. And yes, people will get off on a technicality. Thats how the system is supposed to work. And frequently even when a new trial is ordered, the guilty get punished again.

[Winston Blake]

But that doesn't mean the conviction should be overturned.

Maybe this is why no-one in reality was actually trying to get the conviction overturned. You're attacking a strawman. Essentially, the point was to delay the execution by a matter of weeks (after a conviction 16 years ago) just to get the paperwork in order. A temporary stay of execution would give enough time to get the paperwork fixed up, such that America could avoid technically breaking international law. This would thus avoid setting an awkward precedent that might be used as an excuse by unfriendly countries to mess with American citizens abroad.

(Now, according to Ossus, Congress could have acted earlier and failed to, but hey, governments screw stuff up all the time. Apparently at least a few people within the government finally took the issue seriously and decided to fix the problem.)

In the end, he was fully expected to be executed anyway.

Or in the absolute worst case scenario, life without parole. Your assertion that his conviction would have been actually overturned seems to be based entirely on the mother's emotional comments and Leal's futile hopes, rather than the actual substance of the article:

Federal officials, including the Obama administration, had tried to persuade Texas Gov. Rick Perry to delay the execution.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier denied a stay of execution by 5-4, despite pleas from the Obama administration and the Mexican government to delay the execution.

In their dissent, the four justices, led by Stephen Breyer, urged that Leal's execution be delayed.

"It is difficult to see how the state's interest in the immediate execution of an individual convicted of capital murder 16 years ago can outweigh the considerations that support additional delay, perhaps only until the end of the summer," said Breyer, who was supported by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

In an unsigned opinion by the majority, the court refused to delay the execution

And on Friday, the Obama administration asked Texas to delay the execution.

the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, after a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court denied him a stay of execution Thursday night.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier denied a stay of execution by 5-4, despite pleas from the Obama administration and the Mexican government to delay the execution.

"We decline to follow the United States' suggestion of granting a stay

"The U.S. government sought a stay of Leal's execution in order to give the Congress time to act on the Consular Notification Compliance Act, which would have provided Leal the judicial review required by international law."

This is the meaning I got from the article. I am open to this interpretation being corrected by any Americans with a better understanding of the American legal system.

[Alyeska]

Winston, you hit the nail on the head. People seem to think that I and others who argued the same point that we wanted Leal to be exonerated. It was nothing of the sort. We wanted the law to be followed and the treaties to be honored. And when it was time for Leal to die for his crimes, he would do so.

Could Leal have been exonerated? Possibly, but highly unlikely. Even still, there were obligations that fundamentally had to be done in the circumstances which were not. Even when you know the results will not change, you still follow procedures. Especially when its an international treaty that has drastic consequences on the US. Even if things didn't change one whit and Leal was still executed, we needed to abide the treaty.

[Master of Ossus]

His lawyer was acknowledged to not be the most competent of the bunch.

By whom? Who acknowledged this, other than some random website and the desperate appellate defense? Had any court agreed with this sentiment then he would have received a new trial.

Access to consular legal resources would undoubtedly have had an impact on the case. He was denied access to legal resources even after it became known of his status. Just going by statistics alone, access to more legal resources will improve his defense. He is statistically more likely to get a lesser sentence.

That was not the finding of the Federal district court that specifically examined that issue, and their judgment wasn't questioned by either the Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Supreme Court.

Just because the defendant makes it difficult doesn't make it right to ignore the law.

Ummm... actually, when parties in judicial proceedings fail to assert their legal rights it often serves as a waiver of those rights.

Criminals are well known for making it difficult to convict them. We should be willing to expend the resources to properly identify a criminal depending on the severity of the crime. Murder would certainly qualify. If the concern is about the criminal manipulating the court, you can easily remedy the situation. Charge the suspect with evading identification. Hell, make it a felony to evade identification in a capital case. Its already illegal to tamper with a jury.

That'll discourage capital defendants. "Yeah, I raped, murdered, and cannibalized six people, but I'll be damned if I have to pay a fine for concealing my identity!"

There are legal remedies that do not involve trampling over international treaties or proclaiming "But its too hard!!! (whiney kids voice)"

Actually, even the ICJ recognizes that the treaty obligation is extremely difficult for the benefit it confers, and only asked for a Texas court ruling (as opposed to the Federal court which did explicitly rule on this issue) that the alleged breach of rights did not prejudicially influence the trial.

Do you wear a seat belt? Are you a safe driver? So why wear a seat belt? Because the unexpected can happen. You follow procedures and rules because even when you are damned sure someone is guilty as sin, it protects the system. Police and prosecutors have been damned sure someone is guilty and they manufacture evidence in order to ensure this criminal scum will spend the rest of their lives behind bars. And guess what, the DNA testing 30 years later showed this criminal scum was innocent. Even people who admitted to murder, who confessed, have been exonerated by DNA testing.

Alyeska, in what possible way would it "protect the system" to require state law enforcement with no expertise (indeed, no ability) to evaluate immigration to have to leap through additional hurdles in a capital case? The guy was treated in precisely the same way that an American citizen would have been--the alleged failure was in not providing him an additional right that he never asserted and that law enforcement reasonably did not recognize that he had.

You're also completely ignoring the flipside of the argument: if procedure is so crucially important to you, then why do you assign no weight at all to its expediency? Surely speed and practicability should have some influence on what rights we choose to extend, and in this case the state has an obligation to pursue a speedy execution.

[SVPD]

His lawyer was acknowledged to not be the most competent of the bunch. Access to consular legal resources would undoubtedly have had an impact on the case. He was denied access to legal resources even after it became known of his status. Just going by statistics alone, access to more legal resources will improve his defense. He is statistically more likely to get a lesser sentence.

What consular legal resources? Consulates are not in the habit of providing legal representation to those accused of crimes in the host nation. They certainly do not keep criminal defense lawyers on retainer just in case of something like this. Amanda Knox, for example, was not represented by an Embassy lawyer; she had an Italian lawyer from anything I can determine.

Claiming that the trial counsel is incompetent is part and parcel of death penalty defense; I imagine it is raised in almost every death penalty appeal simply as a matter of raising every possible defense. Had he had access to counsel provided by the Mexican embassy, this would almost certainly still be raised.

[Alyeska]

MoO. I asked you a question earlier in the thread that you seem to have missed the entire post. If you don't mind, would you please address that?

[Master of Ossus]

MoO. I asked you a question earlier in the thread that you seem to have missed the entire post. If you don't mind, would you please address that?

What was the question?

[Alyeska]

Link

[Master of Ossus]

Link

Thank you.

Fully identifying the individual being charged with a capital crime is something I consider self explanatory. Immigration status checks are apparently considered extremely cheap seeing the laws being put into place by states right now. That this level of identification and time cannot even be considered in a capital case, I consider highly suspect.

I don't consider it "self explanatory," particularly since you haven't defined what it is to be a "full" identification. Immigration checks are not inexpensive--particularly for state governments that have no expertise in doing so (and, in many cases, no ability to do them at all). I don't know which laws you think are being enacted by states right now which implicate this discussion, but if (for example) you are referring to the controversial Arizona law about immigrants it would never have identified Garcia as an illegal immigrant since he had a valid state driver's license, among other documents, and so even under that law he would have been conclusively presumed to be in the state legally, and law enforcement would still have had no reason to believe that he was a foreign national.

The US already declared its intent to withdraw from the optional portion of the treaty (which this falls under), but in any case, Congress obviously doesn't think that this is important.

Would you mind showing me evidence of this?

No.

They didn't "gleefully withhold consular access." They honestly had no clue that he was a Mexican national--again, probably because Mexico (and other countries) have successfully lobbied US states not to ask these sorts of questions. He seems to have deliberately concealed this information from them after he gleefully raped and murdered an underage kid.

Had Texas known he was a Mexican national, he would have been given consular access, which wouldn't have changed anything (in the view of the District Court which specifically made findings on this, and in the view of the federal appellate courts which reexamined the case).

If Texas is so willing to follow pro-forma law, why did they withhold it once his nationality became known?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Texas is not obligated to follow the Vienna Convention in this way. Therefore, it has no duty (pro forma or otherwise) to stay the execution--Texas believes (quite reasonably, IMO), that he procedurally defaulted on this right. Had Congress thought it necessary, they have known that they needed to pass a law for years to change the existing situation and they haven't.

That seems to contradict their supposed willingness. If he's guilty as sin, he is going to be re-convicted without a shadow of a doubt and he will be dully sent to his eternal damnation.

Why would he have to be retried? The only issue is whether or not the lack of consular access unduly prejudiced the trial, and the Federal District Court that examined the issue found that it did not.

And please don't bring up cost. I've heard of judges refuse DNA tests on the claims of cost and it makes me want to tear my hair out.

What are you even talking about? Why isn't avoidance of cost a valid reason for a state not to do something? In any case, Texas doesn't believe that he has any such right, because he waived it when he didn't raise it at or before trial when he was represented by counsel.

[Alyeska]

I don't consider it "self explanatory," particularly since you haven't defined what it is to be a "full" identification. Immigration checks are not inexpensive--particularly for state governments that have no expertise in doing so (and, in many cases, no ability to do them at all). I don't know which laws you think are being enacted by states right now which implicate this discussion, but if (for example) you are referring to the controversial Arizona law about immigrants it would never have identified Garcia as an illegal immigrant since he had a valid state driver's license, among other documents, and so even under that law he would have been conclusively presumed to be in the state legally, and law enforcement would still have had no reason to believe that he was a foreign national.

I was under the impression that Law Enforcement was actually conducting the immigration check themselves. After further reading I concede the issue. Law Enforcement was asking questions, but not doing the fundamental immigration check. Similar, but not the same and with a clear difference in resources.

Would you mind showing me evidence of this?

No.

Reading that, I see similarities... The wording to me says that protocol gives the ICJ final say in discussions of consular access disputes between two countries. Country A and Country B are arguing over whether or not Country A denied access to consular resources from Country B. ICJ becomes the final arbiter of this dispute. By this protocol.

It would be my understanding that even without being in this protocol, there are still treaty requirements on consular access. Country A would not be bound by an ICJ decision on the dispute, but could still be in violation.

Either way, its largely irrelevant at the moment. According to SCOTUS, that entire element of the treaty is unenforceable because Congress did not act according to constitutional requirements. Regardless of the US having denied access (or not), there is no practical means to enforce the issue without the consent of the state.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Texas is not obligated to follow the Vienna Convention in this way. Therefore, it has no pro forma duty to stay the execution.

He would have been given consular access had he been forthright, but because he was not and the request was made post conviction, the access is denied because Texas is not obligated to follow the Vienna Convention.

Is Texas obligated to grant consular access if the suspect immediately states their immigration status?

Why would he have to be retried? The only issue is whether or not the lack of consular access unduly prejudiced the trial, and the Federal District Court that examined the issue found that it did not.

From a purely statistically position, I would disagree. It is my understanding that more legal resources tend to affect cases to the benefit of the defendant.

What are you even talking about? Why isn't avoidance of cost a valid reason for a state not to do something?

Then its not a discussion about whats right or who is guilty. When you are willing to forgo attempts to address a suspect or convicted persons guilt, you are no longer concerned about justice.

Now, I will step back and say there is a limit. Using resources purely to delay is unacceptable. There is reasonable and unreasonable. A person demanding DNA testing in a case that involved no DNA would be unreasonable. But when the only argument made against a retrial is that of cost, I become highly suspect. However, I am not arguing that is the case with Leal.

[Master of Ossus]

He would have been given consular access had he been forthright, but because he was not and the request was made post conviction, the access is denied because Texas is not obligated to follow the Vienna Convention.

Is Texas obligated to grant consular access if the suspect immediately states their immigration status?

I'm not sure if they're legally obligated to do so, but in practice they do extend this right. I even heard recently from someone who has some experience in Texas prisons that they have signs up in several languages informing people that if they are foreign citizens they are permitted consular access if they request it.

From a purely statistically position, I would disagree. It is my understanding that more legal resources tend to affect cases to the benefit of the defendant.

What kind of bullshit is this? Statistically it might help across lots of cases, some of which are borderline and some of which are not. But this is not necessarily a borderline case. The Federal District Court (which evidently can't possibly be aware of such statistical studies) specifically examined the issue and concluded that consular access would not have changed the outcome here. You cannot dispute that by saying that across some huge volume of cases it makes a statistically significant difference, so therefore the Federal court's finding was erroneous. There's actually a more accurate finding on the matter which responds to the particular situation into which Garcia placed himself when he brutally raped, kidnapped, and murdered a teenager.

Moreover, as SVPD pointed out, it's not remotely clear that Mexico would have provided additional resources to assist in his defense.

Then its not a discussion about whats right or who is guilty. When you are willing to forgo attempts to address a suspect or convicted persons guilt, you are no longer concerned about justice.

Excuse me? A jury weighed the evidence and found that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even his strongest supporters seem to concede that his guilt isn't an issue (funny thing about confessions in cases with overwhelming evidence against you).

Now, I will step back and say there is a limit. Using resources purely to delay is unacceptable. There is reasonable and unreasonable. A person demanding DNA testing in a case that involved no DNA would be unreasonable. But when the only argument made against a retrial is that of cost, I become highly suspect. However, I am not arguing that is the case with Leal.

The argument against Leal Garcia getting "a retrial" is that absolutely no one thinks he should get one. Even the ICJ doesn't think that he's entitled to one (unless a Texas court reached the conclusion that the outcome of the trial was unfairly influenced by his lack of consular access). Texas thinks that he waived his right when he failed to assert it, and therefore won't grant the hearing (just like someone who fails to object to evidence cannot demand later to have the case reheard, or how I can't go into another state, have a full hearing, and then later complain that the state in which I had my hearing had no personal jurisdiction over me). The Federal courts concluded that, had he had consular access, nothing would have changed.

Criminal defendants--like parties in general--are not entitled to mulligans when their cases don't turn out the way they wanted. There is no justice system in the world that recognizes a universal right to do-overs when the defendant's defense fails.

So where, precisely, do you conclude that this is "highly suspect?"

[Big Phil]

But that doesn't mean the conviction should be overturned.

Maybe this is why no-one in reality was actually trying to get the conviction overturned. You're attacking a strawman. Essentially, the point was to delay the execution by a matter of weeks (after a conviction 16 years ago) just to get the paperwork in order. A temporary stay of execution would give enough time to get the paperwork fixed up, such that America could avoid technically breaking international law. This would thus avoid setting an awkward precedent that might be used as an excuse by unfriendly countries to mess with American citizens abroad.

(Now, according to Ossus, Congress could have acted earlier and failed to, but hey, governments screw stuff up all the time. Apparently at least a few people within the government finally took the issue seriously and decided to fix the problem.)

In the end, he was fully expected to be executed anyway.

Or in the absolute worst case scenario, life without parole. Your assertion that his conviction would have been actually overturned seems to be based entirely on the mother's emotional comments and Leal's futile hopes, rather than the actual substance of the article:

Federal officials, including the Obama administration, had tried to persuade Texas Gov. Rick Perry to delay the execution.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier denied a stay of execution by 5-4, despite pleas from the Obama administration and the Mexican government to delay the execution.

In their dissent, the four justices, led by Stephen Breyer, urged that Leal's execution be delayed.

"It is difficult to see how the state's interest in the immediate execution of an individual convicted of capital murder 16 years ago can outweigh the considerations that support additional delay, perhaps only until the end of the summer," said Breyer, who was supported by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

In an unsigned opinion by the majority, the court refused to delay the execution

And on Friday, the Obama administration asked Texas to delay the execution.

the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia, after a 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court denied him a stay of execution Thursday night.

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier denied a stay of execution by 5-4, despite pleas from the Obama administration and the Mexican government to delay the execution.

"We decline to follow the United States' suggestion of granting a stay

"The U.S. government sought a stay of Leal's execution in order to give the Congress time to act on the Consular Notification Compliance Act, which would have provided Leal the judicial review required by international law."

This is the meaning I got from the article. I am open to this interpretation being corrected by any Americans with a better understanding of the American legal system.

You're raising a stink because the man's execution wasn't DELAYED by a few weeks? Does that not strike you as absurd?

[Alyeska]

I'm not sure if they're legally obligated to do so, but in practice they do extend this right. I even heard recently from someone who has some experience in Texas prisons that they have signs up in several languages informing people that if they are foreign citizens they are permitted consular access if they request it.

So they are not required to do so at any point, but choose to do so before the trial. Fair enough.

What kind of bullshit is this? Statistically it might help across lots of cases, some of which are borderline and some of which are not. But this is not necessarily a borderline case. The Federal District Court (which evidently can't possibly be aware of such statistical studies) specifically examined the issue and concluded that consular access would not have changed the outcome here. You cannot dispute that by saying that across some huge volume of cases it makes a statistically significant difference, so therefore the Federal court's finding was erroneous. There's actually a more accurate finding on the matter which responds to the particular situation into which Garcia placed himself when he brutally raped, kidnapped, and murdered a teenager.

I do not disagree. I was talking in the broadest possible terms.

Moreover, as SVPD pointed out, it's not remotely clear that Mexico would have provided additional resources to assist in his defense.

I also acknowledged this point earlier.

Excuse me? A jury weighed the evidence and found that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Even his strongest supporters seem to concede that his guilt isn't an issue (funny thing about confessions in cases with overwhelming evidence against you).

The argument against Leal Garcia getting "a retrial" is that absolutely no one thinks he should get one. Even the ICJ doesn't think that he's entitled to one (unless a Texas court reached the conclusion that the outcome of the trial was unfairly influenced by his lack of consular access). Texas thinks that he waived his right when he failed to assert it, and therefore won't grant the hearing (just like someone who fails to object to evidence cannot demand later to have the case reheard, or how I can't go into another state, have a full hearing, and then later complain that the state in which I had my hearing had no personal jurisdiction over me). The Federal courts concluded that, had he had consular access, nothing would have changed.

Criminal defendants--like parties in general--are not entitled to mulligans when their cases don't turn out the way they wanted. There is no justice system in the world that recognizes a universal right to do-overs when the defendant's defense fails.

So where, precisely, do you conclude that this is "highly suspect?"

My arguments about cost has absolutely nothing to do with Leal or his case, period. That is not and was never my argument. I was simply stating that cost should never be the primary argument against a retrial or re-evaluation of evidence.

Defense Attorney asks appeals the case asking for a new trial for whatever reason. Prosecutor makes the sole argument "No, thats too expensive". That is what I find highly suspect.

[Master of Ossus]

I do not disagree. I was talking in the broadest possible terms.

Well, I'm glad we took care of that red herring.

My arguments about cost has absolutely nothing to do with Leal or his case, period. That is not and was never my argument. I was simply stating that cost should never be the primary argument against a retrial or re-evaluation of evidence.

Defense Attorney asks appeals the case asking for a new trial for whatever reason. Prosecutor makes the sole argument "No, thats too expensive". That is what I find highly suspect.

Well, I'm glad we took care of that red herring.

This has been such a productive discussion. We should do it again.

[Alyeska]

I do not disagree. I was talking in the broadest possible terms.

Well, I'm glad we took care of that red herring.

My arguments about cost has absolutely nothing to do with Leal or his case, period. That is not and was never my argument. I was simply stating that cost should never be the primary argument against a retrial or re-evaluation of evidence.

Defense Attorney asks appeals the case asking for a new trial for whatever reason. Prosecutor makes the sole argument "No, thats too expensive". That is what I find highly suspect.

Well, I'm glad we took care of that red herring.

This has been such a productive discussion. We should do it again.

As it appears I am not able to put forward a coherent argument and that my argument contained logical fallacies and lacked evidence to back up its claims, perhaps not.

[Big Phil]

Dude, for what it's worth, I am opposed to the death penalty and agree that, in general, consular access should be granted. I just don't think consular access should be a red herring for death penalty opposition; neither do I think that it should be put forth as evidence of some grand conspiracy to deny an illegal alien his rights, when in reality he received surprisingly fair treatment for someone accused of the crime he committed.

[Alyeska]

I just don't think consular access should be a red herring for death penalty opposition; neither do I think that it should be put forth as evidence of some grand conspiracy to deny an illegal alien his rights, when in reality he received surprisingly fair treatment for someone accused of the crime he committed.

One, my position on consular access has nothing to do with the death penalty. This could have been a life in prison case and I would make the same argument. Two, I never considered this a grand conspiracy. My opinion would remain the same if this was a Brit facing a life sentence in Texas.

Consular access wasn't a red herring for death penalty. Death penalty is a red herring because it never entered into the equation of my opinion on consular access.

[Master of Ossus]

As it appears I am not able to put forward a coherent argument and that my argument contained logical fallacies and lacked evidence to back up its claims, perhaps not.

Alyeska, I apologize for my conduct in this thread. You're right to point it out to me, and I hope it won't color our relationship too horribly in the future. I do, of course, wish to continue our conversations on this and other topics, if you're willing. I am sorry for offending you, and will try not to engage in similar behavior in the future.

[Winston Blake]

You're raising a stink because the man's execution wasn't DELAYED by a few weeks? Does that not strike you as absurd?

I think it'll be hard for you to find anywhere in this thead where I've 'raised a stink'.