UN Says US Execution Of Mexican National Was Illegal

[General Mung Beans]

BTW had to change title for the thread due to lack of space

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/americas/ ... ?hpt=hp_t2

U.S. broke international law by executing Mexican national, says U.N.
By the CNN Wire Staff
July 8, 2011 4:13 p.m. EDT
Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., 38, was convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl.
Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., 38, was convicted of raping and killing a 16-year-old girl.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS

* The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights says U.S. breached international law
* Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican national, was not granted consular access
* The U.S. Supreme Court denied a stay of execution
* Leal was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican consulate upon his arrest

(CNN) -- The United States breached international law by executing a Mexican national without having granted him consular access, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said Friday.

Navi Pillay, in a statement, said she deeply regrets 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 execution of Mr. Leal Garcia places the U.S. in breach of international law," said Pillay, who is on an official mission in Mexico. "What the state of Texas has done in this case is imputable in law to the U.S. and engages the United States' international responsibility."

Pillay said Leal was not granted consular access, which -- as a foreign national -- was his right under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

The denial of access raises concerns about whether Leal got a fair trial, Pillay said.

Leal, who was convicted for the 1994 rape and murder of a 16-year-old girl, was executed Thursday evening by lethal injection in Texas.

Federal officials, including the Obama administration, had tried to persuade Texas Gov. Rick Perry to delay the execution. "The secretary herself is quite disappointed in the outcome in this case," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Neuland about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"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."
Mexican national executed in Texas
RELATED TOPICS

* Capital Punishment
* Texas

Neuland said the case underscores the importance of the act's passage. "If we don't protect the rights of non-Americans in the United States, we seriously risk reciprocal lack of access to our own citizens overseas," she said.

"I am sorry for everything I have done," Leal said at the Huntsville facility before he was executed. "I have hurt a lot of people. Let this be final and be done. I take the full blame for this."

Leal then shouted "Viva Mexico," followed by "I'm ready warden, let's get the show on the road."

Mexico condemned the execution, saying it violated an International Court of Justice ruling ordering the United States to review capital convictions of Mexican nationals.

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 an unsigned opinion by the majority, the court refused to delay the execution until Congress could pass pending legislation giving federal courts the authority to hear similar claims from foreign inmates.

"We decline to follow the United States' suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based on hypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has any prospect of success," said the majority.

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.

Sandra Babcock, lead appellate attorney, said, "It is shameful that Mr. Leal will pay the price for our inaction. The need for congressional action to restore our reputation and protect our citizens is more urgent than ever."

"This case was not just about one Mexican national on death row in Texas," Babcock said in a statement. "The execution of Mr. Leal violates the United States' treaty commitments, threatens the nation's foreign policy interests, and undermines the safety of all Americans abroad."

The state's Board of Pardons and Parole ruled that Leal did not deserve to have his death sentence commuted to life in prison without parole.

The victim's mother, Rachel Terry, had called for the execution to go ahead as planned.

"A technicality doesn't give anyone a right to come to this country and rape, torture and murder anyone, in this case my daughter," she told CNN affiliate KSAT in San Antonio. "It's been difficult for myself and her family members," she added. "She certainly was taken away from us at a very young age. We just want closure."

Leal's lawyers argued the consulate access violation was more than a technicality. Babcock told CNN that Mexican officials would have ensured Leal would have had the most competent trial defense possible had they been able to speak with him immediately after he was arrested.

"I think in most of these cases it was not a deliberate thing," Babcock said. "Local police lack training" on the Vienna Convention, she added, referring to the international agreement that mandates consular access.

Leal's backers say he had learning disabilities and brain damage and had been sexually abused by his parish priest. They say those factors should have been considered at his sentencing.

The Mexican government had filed a supporting appeal with the high court in Washington, asking the justices to block Leal's execution.

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

"This case implicates United States foreign policy interests of the highest order," including protecting U.S. citizens abroad and promoting good relations with other countries, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said.

Congress has also weighed in. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, introduced a bill in June to grant federal courts the power to review such appeals.

"This case is not an isolated instance; the issue of consular notification remains a serious diplomatic and legal concern," Leahy said Thursday.

In Texas, Perry's office countered that a federal appeals court had already given Leal the judicial scrutiny the Obama administration and the United Nations were seeking.

"If you commit the most heinous of crimes in Texas, you can expect to face the ultimate penalty under our laws," Katherine Cesinger, spokeswoman for the governor, told CNN. "Congress has had the opportunity to consider and pass legislation for the federal courts' review of such cases since 2008, and has not done so each time a bill was filed."

Ted Cruz, the state's former solicitor general who argued the 2008 Supreme Court case for Texas, said Leal waited too long to raise these issues.

"The question is not should a foreign national have the right to contact their consulate," Cruz told CNN. "The question is, years later, after they have been tried, after they have been convicted, after it has been clear like Humberto Leal that they are a vicious child rapist and murderer, should you come in and set aside that conviction. You can't come back years later and try and set aside your trial with some additional claim you wish you had raised."

Cruz is running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican candidate.

[Thanas]

I am sure if Iran would capture some Americans, deny him access to consular support and then execute him there would be a huge stink about this. But the USA has done similar things in the past and gotten away with it (LaGrange) so clearly nobody cares about that.

[Simon_Jester]

Here we run into a fundamental problem with the US. The great popular masses of the country never had to really buy into the Westphalian system's full implications. There are a lot of Americans who simply do not grasp the idea that you are obliged to honor the rights of other nations' citizens the same way they should honor the rights of yours. They tend to revert, by default, to the assumption that 'only good people have rights.'

That can and does include non-Americans, usually, but it doesn't include bad non-Americans. Once Leal was viewed as "bad," his right to consular access became irrelevant in these people's eyes, and those like Cruz who speak for them.

[Eulogy]

And another card falls from the house.

I am sure if Iran would capture some Americans, deny him access to consular support and then execute him there would be a huge stink about this. But the USA has done similar things in the past and gotten away with it (LaGrange) so clearly nobody cares about that.

Give it time, the US isn't hated quite enough yet.

[Master of Ossus]

Honestly, this is a pretty tortured case to play up as some grand American abuse of another country. The suspect in question had lived illegally in the US since he was two, never told the arresting officers that he was a foreign national, never mentioned it to the trial attorneys for either side, the judge, or jury, and the fact that he was a foreign national only came to light during the appeals process.

Mexico's own position is quite hypocritical, since they're always pushing for immigrants (legal or not) to be treated the same way that American citizens are. Here, the local officers were (at the time of arrest) forbidden from inquiring into any arrestee's nationality/legal status within the US specifically because Mexican authorities had pressured their local government not to ask these types of questions. As a result, they had no way of knowing that he was a Mexican national unless he volunteered that information of his own accord.

Further, there's no claim that access to consul would have assisted in his defense or materially altered any aspect of his trial or appeals process up to the point where it was discovered he was a Mexican citizen and it became the central issue of appeal (because he was unambiguously guilty and the trial was by all accounts procedurally fair).

Here we run into a fundamental problem with the US. The great popular masses of the country never had to really buy into the Westphalian system's full implications. There are a lot of Americans who simply do not grasp the idea that you are obliged to honor the rights of other nations' citizens the same way they should honor the rights of yours. They tend to revert, by default, to the assumption that 'only good people have rights.'

That can and does include non-Americans, usually, but it doesn't include bad non-Americans. Once Leal was viewed as "bad," his right to consular access became irrelevant in these people's eyes, and those like Cruz who speak for them.

Thing is, the US did honor his rights precisely the same way that they would have honored the rights of a US citizen--he had access to competent counsel, a trial with all of the rights and procedures that an American citizen accused of the same crime would have received (including, in his case, the massive appellate protections reserved for capital cases). Their issue was that no one recognized that he was an illegal alien until after his trial was over, and that this would have affected any legal procedures which had gone on. The issue isn't so much that he's a bad guy (although he is), it's a question of how law enforcement can possibly be expected to identify foreign nationals who don't identify themselves as such to law enforcement (and, it seems in this case although it's not proven) take active steps to conceal their nationality from law enforcement. How can law enforcement be expected to notify the relevant consulate, in such circumstances?

I am sure if Iran would capture some Americans, deny him access to consular support and then execute him there would be a huge stink about this. But the USA has done similar things in the past and gotten away with it (LaGrange) so clearly nobody cares about that.

Pretty sure that whatever stink was raised would diminish after it was made clear by both the suspect's confession and undisputed DNA, fingerprint, and other forensic evidence that the American citizen in question had raped and murdered a teenager, and that Iran had given the accused all rights (substantive and procedural) that it provides to its own citizens, and that the American in question had refused to state that he was an American until well after he'd been sentenced to death.

[Steven Snyder]

Further, there's no claim that access to consul would have assisted in his defense or materially altered any aspect of his trial or appeals process up to the point where it was discovered he was a Mexican citizen and it became the central issue of appeal (because he was unambiguously guilty and the trial was by all accounts procedurally fair).

That isn't entirely accurate. Texas is notoriously bad for giving people on murder trials extremely bad counsel, and this case is no different. In this case his lawyer couldn't even be bothered to stay awake during the trial.
Linky

The lack of DNA evidence from the rape was also unusual, and without convincing the jury she was rape they couldn't have sentenced him to death.

I have a feeling that if the Mexican government had given him a lawyer that was a little more interested in the case, things may have gone differently.

[Winston Blake]

Here, the local officers were (at the time of arrest) forbidden from inquiring into any arrestee's nationality/legal status within the US specifically because Mexican authorities had pressured their local government not to ask these types of questions. As a result, they had no way of knowing that he was a Mexican national unless he volunteered that information of his own accord.

[...]

The issue isn't so much that he's a bad guy (although he is), it's a question of how law enforcement can possibly be expected to identify foreign nationals who don't identify themselves as such to law enforcement (and, it seems in this case although it's not proven) take active steps to conceal their nationality from law enforcement. How can law enforcement be expected to notify the relevant consulate, in such circumstances?"

Sounds like a question of deciding which has priority - international treaty obligations, or, 'pressure' to not ask what his nationality is. The former seems like the obvious answer, and once the question can be asked, all this evaporates.

Further, the entire question of nationality can by bypassed by asking him 'Do you wish to notify the government of your nationality of your situation?'

NO / AMERICAN - no problem.
NO / MEXICAN - has refused consular access.
YES /AMERICAN - can let him write a letter to the local government if he really wants to.
YES / MEXICAN - must indirectly reveal that he is a Mexican national, at some point.

[Knife]

You realize that Mexico actively lobbies the US so that local law enforcement does not have to ask nationality. Mexico is asking us not to ask their citizens if they are Mexican citizens, oddly enough, blocking access to consular actions in this isolated case. So you're question is bogus. What takes priority? What your nation wants, added to what your neighboring nation wants, or some loaded question you made up?

[Simon_Jester]

Interesting. Why do they do that, Knife? I'm not sure I understand.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because they don't want police finding out who is illegal; so they prefer that the question of nationality just doesn’t come up if at all possible.

[Master of Ossus]

That isn't entirely accurate. Texas is notoriously bad for giving people on murder trials extremely bad counsel, and this case is no different. In this case his lawyer couldn't even be bothered to stay awake during the trial.
Linky

Check again, that refers to another case. The most that the article alleges about this particular guy's defense attorney is that "the state of Texas gave Garcia a lousy defense lawyer who failed to investigate the case or challenge the most problematic evidence." That's entirely unsourced, doesn't explain what evidence the defense attorney failed to investigate, doesn't explain what evidence was problematic, or why that evidence is material as compared to all the other evidence against him (numerous witnesses, confession, very strong circumstantial evidence like the location of the victim's body and the ridiculous "she fell and hit her head" excuse)..

The lack of DNA evidence from the rape was also unusual, and without convincing the jury she was rape they couldn't have sentenced him to death.

No, they could have convinced the jury that he was kidnapping her, as well, which he was independently convicted of by the same jury.

I have a feeling that if the Mexican government had given him a lawyer that was a little more interested in the case, things may have gone differently.

Your feeling runs counter to the opinions of the US Solicitor General, the US Court of Appeals, the District Court, and the Supreme Court, all of which viewed this as a purely procedural issue after the District Court's express finding that it was harmless error.

Here, the United States studiously refuses to argue that Leal was prejudiced by the Vienna Conventionviolation, contending instead that the Court should issue a stay simply in light of the possibility that Leal might be able to bring a Vienna Convention claim in federal court,regardless of whether his conviction will be found to beinvalid. We decline to follow the United States’ suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based onhypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has anyprospect of success. We may note that in a portion of its opinion vacated by the Fifth Circuit on procedural grounds, the District Court found that any violation of the Vienna Convention would have been harmless.

Similarly, the dissent conceded this point, arguing only:

That being so, a domestic court’s guesses as to the results of that procedure are, as far as our treaty obligations are concerned, irrelevant.

Sounds like a question of deciding which has priority - international treaty obligations, or, 'pressure' to not ask what his nationality is. The former seems like the obvious answer, and once the question can be asked, all this evaporates.

Well, "pressure" in the form of repeated government petitions resulting in state, local and municipal police regulations banning police from asking the question.

[Simon_Jester]

I have a serious problem with a judicial process that simply doesn't find out whether a person is a foreign national. That doesn't sound to me like an exercise of due diligence.

EDIT: Even if their home government is asking people not to ask- I'm not sure that request should be honored. If nothing else, identifying prisoners is an important part of the process, and a sufficiently good identification of the prisoner should reveal that they're not a citizen.

[Master of Ossus]

I have a serious problem with a judicial process that simply doesn't find out whether a person is a foreign national. That doesn't sound to me like an exercise of due diligence.

EDIT: Even if their home government is asking people not to ask- I'm not sure that request should be honored. If nothing else, identifying prisoners is an important part of the process, and a sufficiently good identification of the prisoner should reveal that they're not a citizen.

Why is that material to the case, though? In essence, the US says that if you're arrested in the US, you're subject to American law and will be treated in precisely the same manner in which we treat Americans.

It's all well and good that you think Mexico can go screw itself, but I can't understand why local police should have to engage in a detailed investigation as to the person's nationality (which, btw, they're unqualified to perform--ICE and the federal government are the "experts" in tracking immigrants and identities). Also, the recent Arizona law illustrates the temper tantrum that Mexico has when local law enforcement is instructed to ask questions as to nationality, and even that law was weak on actual determinations and long on presumptions that a driver's license=American citizen.

[Simon_Jester]

Why is that material to the case, though? In essence, the US says that if you're arrested in the US, you're subject to American law and will be treated in precisely the same manner in which we treat Americans.

There are a shitload of countries out there where, if they said that about our citizens, we would not be satisfied. If Sudan said that American citizens arrested in Sudan would be treated under Sudanese law precisely as the Sudanese themselves are treated, we would not be satisfied. We would not be happy, because Sudan's laws are bullshit. We would be especially unhappy if some of our citizens were being tortured or killed under these bullshit Sudanese laws.

For a lot of countries, there are things about the US judicial system that they think are bullshit. For example, our practice of executing people for crimes we consider heinous is seen as bullshit by many other developed nations.

If we have a right to call bullshit and use the diplomatic leverage of a US embassy in Sudan to protect American citizens who are arrested in Sudan, why don't the Mexicans have a right to call bullshit and use the diplomatic leverage of a Mexican embassy in the US to protect Mexican citizens who are arrested in the US?

This is pretty simple. There are strong, long-standing precedents about how you're supposed to treat foreign nationals who commit a crime. They may be in your jurisdiction and tried under your law, perhaps, but they damn well ought to have consular access so their home country knows what's going on and can raise a stink if you're doing anything unjust.

It's all well and good that you think Mexico can go screw itself, but I can't understand why local police should have to engage in a detailed investigation as to the person's nationality (which, btw, they're unqualified to perform--ICE and the federal government are the "experts" in tracking immigrants and identities). Also, the recent Arizona law illustrates the temper tantrum that Mexico has when local law enforcement is instructed to ask questions as to nationality, and even that law was weak on actual determinations and long on presumptions that a driver's license=American citizen.

It's not a question of police asking it on the street. But when you've arrested someone for a crime and chucked them in jail, then you should be asking them very detailed questions about who they are and their identifying information. That should reveal citizenship record.

My objection is that there's something wrong with a judicial system where someone can be tried, convicted, and executed without the system ever actually knowing who the fuck they are. "This person is a foreign national" is a pretty basic element of "who the fuck they are," which the government ought to make sure it works out before putting someone on death row.

I should not put a man on death row when I still don't know elementary stuff like what country he's from. I should find that out first.

[Master of Ossus]

There are a shitload of countries out there where, if they said that about our citizens, we would not be satisfied. If Sudan said that American citizens arrested in Sudan would be treated under Sudanese law precisely as the Sudanese themselves are treated, we would not be satisfied. We would not be happy, because Sudan's laws are bullshit. We would be especially unhappy if some of our citizens were being tortured or killed under these bullshit Sudanese laws.

Maybe, but my passport says that while I'm in other countries I'm subject to their laws--whatever those may be--and that those laws may differ from American law. If this particular chap had looked at his passport, I'm sure he would have seen a similar message. The consulate isn't some fairy wand letting people get out of jail for free--it is also bound to operate within the laws of the host nation.

If we have a right to call bullshit and use the diplomatic leverage of a US embassy in Sudan to protect American citizens who are arrested in Sudan, why don't the Mexicans have a right to call bullshit and use the diplomatic leverage of a Mexican embassy in the US to protect Mexican citizens who are arrested in the US?

No one is saying that Mexico doesn't have the ability to bring diplomatic leverage to protect its citizen, here. What we're saying is that their position is absurd, and that the right that they demand would have made no difference in the outcome of the case.

This is pretty simple. There are strong, long-standing precedents about how you're supposed to treat foreign nationals who commit a crime. They may be in your jurisdiction and tried under your law, perhaps, but they damn well ought to have consular access so their home country knows what's going on and can raise a stink if you're doing anything unjust.

And what if the person in question takes active steps to conceal his nationality, believing that he will receive a better defense if he doesn't mention anything? You would assign an affirmative duty on the arresting nation to investigate and determine their true status as a foreign national, even when under the laws of the host nation such an individual could not possibly be inside the country legally (hence, you can't even assume that someone who behaves completely as a citizen and who could not legally be a foreigner is, in fact, a citizen).

It's not a question of police asking it on the street. But when you've arrested someone for a crime and chucked them in jail, then you should be asking them very detailed questions about who they are and their identifying information. That should reveal citizenship record.

Even there, though, Mexico has consistently opposed local law enforcement from asking those sorts of questions.

My objection is that there's something wrong with a judicial system where someone can be tried, convicted, and executed without the system ever actually knowing who the fuck they are. "This person is a foreign national" is a pretty basic element of "who the fuck they are," which the government ought to make sure it works out before putting someone on death row.

I should not put a man on death row when I still don't know elementary stuff like what country he's from. I should find that out first.

And if he refuses to disclose this information? If he takes active steps to conceal it from you? Then what? Then you just release him, or let him rot in prison even when his crimes result in a capital sentence?

[Alyeska]

There is a difference between making immigrant identification on every person arrested and making immigrant identification on significant crimes. I find it interesting that Texas spent practically no effort attempting to identify a murder suspect. All the fuss over illegal immigration, and it was never evaluated for Leal. Because it was inconvenient.

The US signed a treaty which has obligations. Ignoring these obligations will have ramifications. There is a reason why Obama asked Texas to hold off executing him. Even Bush has been involved in this sort of case with Texas before attempting to stop them from trampling over treaties the US signed. Presumably congress is going to be asked to correct the "flaw" in this current treaty that SCOTUS determined to ensure Texas doesn't do this again.

Attacking Mexico over this incident is a red herring. It had no actual bearing on the case or the law. Texas would have come to the exact same conclusion regardless of this individuals country of origin. Unless we want to admit that the Texas justice system was being deliberately racist and selectively working against Mexican or Latin American criminal suspects.

[Master of Ossus]

There is a difference between making immigrant identification on every person arrested and making immigrant identification on significant crimes. I find it interesting that Texas spent practically no effort attempting to identify a murder suspect. All the fuss over illegal immigration, and it was never evaluated for Leal. Because it was inconvenient.

Bullshit. It wasn't done because there was no reason to suspect that he was a Mexican national--not even his own defense attorney knew this about him.

The US signed a treaty which has obligations. Ignoring these obligations will have ramifications. There is a reason why Obama asked Texas to hold off executing him. Even Bush has been involved in this sort of case with Texas before attempting to stop them from trampling over treaties the US signed. Presumably congress is going to be asked to correct the "flaw" in this current treaty that SCOTUS determined to ensure Texas doesn't do this again.

Congress had already been asked to intervene on this issue and it didn't. There's no reason to believe that Congress will bother, now.

Attacking Mexico over this incident is a red herring. It had no actual bearing on the case or the law. Texas would have come to the exact same conclusion regardless of this individuals country of origin. Unless we want to admit that the Texas justice system was being deliberately racist and selectively working against Mexican or Latin American criminal suspects.

Excuse me? We're attacking Mexico's stance on this particular incident, since Mexico is the nation which is complaining about the incident.

Texas would have come to the exact same conclusion regardless of the individual's country of origin, but the same issues would have arisen in identifying his nationality because of Mexico's long-standing (and ultimately successful) policy of pressuring the US not to ask these sorts of questions.

[Alyeska]

Bullshit. It wasn't done because there was no reason to suspect that he was a Mexican national--not even his own defense attorney knew this about him.

It should have been done as a routine part of investigating a capital case. That is the reason it should have been done.

Congress had already been asked to intervene on this issue and it didn't. There's no reason to believe that Congress will bother, now.

I hope you're wrong. Congress needs to intervene because its incredibly stupid we are not following our treaty obligations.

Excuse me? We're attacking Mexico's stance on this particular incident, since Mexico is the nation which is complaining about the incident.

Texas would have come to the exact same conclusion regardless of the individual's country of origin, but the same issues would have arisen in identifying his nationality because of Mexico's long-standing (and ultimately successful) policy of pressuring the US not to ask these sorts of questions.

Meaning what Texas did wasn't a "Fuck You" at Mexico, but that they don't give a shit about international incidents and will gleefully withhold consular access for anyone. Not racist, just assholish.

[Master of Ossus]

It should have been done as a routine part of investigating a capital case. That is the reason it should have been done.

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

I hope you're wrong. Congress needs to intervene because its incredibly stupid we are not following our treaty obligations.

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.

Meaning what Texas did wasn't a "Fuck You" at Mexico, but that they don't give a shit about international incidents and will gleefully withhold consular access for anyone. Not racist, just assholish.

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).

[Alyeska]

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the crime that was committed.

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.

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?

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? 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. 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.

[Simon_Jester]

There are a shitload of countries out there where, if they said that about our citizens, we would not be satisfied. If Sudan said that American citizens arrested in Sudan would be treated under Sudanese law precisely as the Sudanese themselves are treated, we would not be satisfied. We would not be happy, because Sudan's laws are bullshit. We would be especially unhappy if some of our citizens were being tortured or killed under these bullshit Sudanese laws.

Maybe, but my passport says that while I'm in other countries I'm subject to their laws--whatever those may be--and that those laws may differ from American law. If this particular chap had looked at his passport, I'm sure he would have seen a similar message. The consulate isn't some fairy wand letting people get out of jail for free--it is also bound to operate within the laws of the host nation.

Yes- and yet, the man had a right to consular access.

This is especially important in situations where a miscarriage of justice is probable... and to a lot of countries, the Texas execution system miscarries a lot of justice. That doesn't make consular access "get out of jail free-" it's not diplomatic immunity. It does mean that the citizenship status of prisoners should be ascertained, and foreign citizens have a right to get in touch with their government, even if their government does not or cannot do anything to help them in light of the situation.

If we have a right to call bullshit and use the diplomatic leverage of a US embassy in Sudan to protect American citizens who are arrested in Sudan, why don't the Mexicans have a right to call bullshit and use the diplomatic leverage of a Mexican embassy in the US to protect Mexican citizens who are arrested in the US?

No one is saying that Mexico doesn't have the ability to bring diplomatic leverage to protect its citizen, here. What we're saying is that their position is absurd, and that the right that they demand would have made no difference in the outcome of the case.

Due process matters whether it changes the outcome or not.

This is pretty simple. There are strong, long-standing precedents about how you're supposed to treat foreign nationals who commit a crime. They may be in your jurisdiction and tried under your law, perhaps, but they damn well ought to have consular access so their home country knows what's going on and can raise a stink if you're doing anything unjust.

And what if the person in question takes active steps to conceal his nationality, believing that he will receive a better defense if he doesn't mention anything?

Prisoners should be required to identify themselves. That's just common sense. If they're using fake ID, that should be checked and revealed as part of the process, for obvious reasons.

Even an American citizen might use fake ID when in jail, to conceal a prior criminal record, or for other purposes. It shouldn't be possible to get away with that, at least not without a very serious effort to build a false background that will withstand scrutiny.

Exactly how much effort did Leal go to in order to avoid being identified as a Mexican citizen?

You would assign an affirmative duty on the arresting nation to investigate and determine their true status as a foreign national, even when under the laws of the host nation such an individual could not possibly be inside the country legally (hence, you can't even assume that someone who behaves completely as a citizen and who could not legally be a foreigner is, in fact, a citizen).

I would assign an affirmative duty on the arresting nation to identify the person they have arrested. Facts about the person's background may be vitally important evidence, either for the prosecution or the defense. Their home address and other such information matters too. If they're using false ID, that is itself evidence of a crime.

All these things matter- again, you should not throw someone in jail for any extended period of time without knowing who they are.

Even there, though, Mexico has consistently opposed local law enforcement from asking those sorts of questions.

Then we should take that up with Mexico on the nation-to-nation level. Our law enforcement officials have a duty to identify people in their custody; if Mexico chooses to interfere with that process, then we have a legitimate problem with them over the issue.

And if he refuses to disclose this information? If he takes active steps to conceal it from you? Then what? Then you just release him, or let him rot in prison even when his crimes result in a capital sentence?

Why not let him rot in prison? He's hardly more of a threat to you or me inside the prison than he is dead.

And, again, how hard did Leal try to conceal his identity? What, exactly, did he do to withhold this information? Did he give a social security number? An address that could be investigated? Fake ID? Real ID?

[Thanas]

Hey Ossus, the USA has on record denied consular access to foreign nationals even when said nations demanded it, and then executed said nationals. It also had to apologize for that stuff.

[Knife]

Because they don't want police finding out who is illegal; so they prefer that the question of nationality just doesn’t come up if at all possible.

Exactly, which is why his loaded question is bunk. International relations is very much involved, just not in they way he assumes.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes- and yet, the man had a right to consular access.

A right which he never asserted until well after he was convicted and sentenced.

This is especially important in situations where a miscarriage of justice is probable... and to a lot of countries, the Texas execution system miscarries a lot of justice.

There has been no claim or accusation that this is true in this case.

That doesn't make consular access "get out of jail free-" it's not diplomatic immunity. It does mean that the citizenship status of prisoners should be ascertained, and foreign citizens have a right to get in touch with their government, even if their government does not or cannot do anything to help them in light of the situation.

True, but if the ICJ's past interpretations are correct and the right to consular access is personal and not a state right, why is there no onus at all on the individual to assert this right, as the US requires of other personal procedural rights and even some due process rights (e.g., right to remain silent, right to an attorney, right to certain aspects of procedural fairness concerning trial that can be procedurally defaulted, right to require the state to demonstrate in personam jurisdiction, etc.).

Due process matters whether it changes the outcome or not.

This cannot be a due process right because it isn't extended to American citizens arrested in the United States. If you mean that procedural rights in general matter whether or not they change the outcome, that's usually not true because most procedural mistakes are deemed to be harmless error (they have to be shown to have been prejudicial), and it's specifically not true per the ICJ in this case because ICJ asked that a Texas court inquire into whether or not the failure to notify the Mexican consulate was harmless error or not.

Prisoners should be required to identify themselves. That's just common sense. If they're using fake ID, that should be checked and revealed as part of the process, for obvious reasons.

Even an American citizen might use fake ID when in jail, to conceal a prior criminal record, or for other purposes. It shouldn't be possible to get away with that, at least not without a very serious effort to build a false background that will withstand scrutiny.

Exactly how much effort did Leal go to in order to avoid being identified as a Mexican citizen?

So in other words you would put no onus whatsoever on the individual involved to assert the right to consular access, even in instances in which the state has no method of identifying him as a foreign national? He presented a valid driver's license, among other forms of identification that he offered. What do you think should have triggered an investigation into his citizenship? The fact that he looks Hispanic?

I would assign an affirmative duty on the arresting nation to identify the person they have arrested. Facts about the person's background may be vitally important evidence, either for the prosecution or the defense. Their home address and other such information matters too. If they're using false ID, that is itself evidence of a crime.

All these things matter- again, you should not throw someone in jail for any extended period of time without knowing who they are.

The state of Texas did know who he was, it just didn't know which country he was a citizen of--it had no reason to suspect that he was a foreign national. He had, among other things, a valid Texas driver's license, and properly identified himself and his residence. Therefore, even if the state investigated every factor that you cite as necessary (which I rather suspect but do not know that they did), the state still would not have been able to identify him as a foreign national.

Why not let him rot in prison? He's hardly more of a threat to you or me inside the prison than he is dead.

Because that would not be justice, as established by the State of Texas.

Hey Ossus, the USA has on record denied consular access to foreign nationals even when said nations demanded it, and then executed said nationals. It also had to apologize for that stuff.

Right, because this is a personal right. Leal Garcia never asserted it.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Their issue was that no one recognized that he was an illegal alien until after his trial was over, and that this would have affected any legal procedures which had gone on.

Actually he was an American citizen when he committed the crime. Remember he came into America with his parents when he was 2 and he got citizenship when he was 13 from Reagan's amnesty.