• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama asks Scotus to stay Texas execution of Mexican

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/obama-asks-stay-execution-texas-165829939.html

"President Obama is asking the Supreme Court to stay tomorrow's planned execution of a Mexican citizen in Texas, arguing it could do "irreparable harm" to U.S. interests abroad. In 1994, Humberto Leal Garcia Jr. was convicted of rape and murder and sentenced to death. Few are contesting his guilt, but an omission in the handling of his case may make things tough for American citizens arrested abroad: Leal wasn't told that he could contact the Mexican Consulate."




Sounds right. (read the whole article).
 
So what's the solution? Let him go? Or will they settle for just life in prison?

BTW, this "Mexican national" has been in the United States since he was 2.
 
Interesting. The SCOTUS' position on this issue in 2004 (in response to 53 such death penalty executions of Mexican citizens) is that the treaty requiring informing the accused that he can contact his consulate isn't binding on Texas, but would be if Congress passed a lawing saying so.

Seems like an easy enough fix, but for political will. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the treaty that makes the requirement Texas ignores, is already signed and ratified by the U.S., so it already is U.S. law. Given the SCOTUS' ruling, it seems to me that Congress is bound by the treaty to pass the law that would make the treaty binding on the states.

This isn't one of those treaties that leaves it up to the signatory nations to pass their own laws to codify it, though.

Here's the treaty (PDF file):
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_2_1963.pdf
 
Brainster said:
So what's the solution? Let him go? Or will they settle for just life in prison?

BTW, this "Mexican national" has been in the United States since he was 2.
Click to expand...
I suspect they would be OK with life in prison, but I think the real issue is that Mexico would like us to live up to the treaty and require Texas to abide by it.
 
Wait, can't the president resolve this without asking anyone? Can he pardon or grant clemency?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Wait, can't the president resolve this without asking anyone? Can he pardon or grant clemency?
Click to expand...
No, only for federal criminals. Only the Governor of Texas can pardon or grant clemency to a criminal convicted under Texas law.
 
WildCat said:
No, only for federal criminals. Only the Governor of Texas can pardon or grant clemency to a criminal convicted under Texas law.
Click to expand...

Even if he could...Pardon a murderer-rapist, over an international diplomatic spat? Political suicide. The GOP would have their campaign commercials airing before you could say "Willie Horton."
 
WildCat said:
No, only for federal criminals. Only the Governor of Texas can pardon or grant clemency to a criminal convicted under Texas law.
Click to expand...

And even if Obama could, I don't think it is the right solution to this issue. As stated, the guilt and the death sentence are not really in dispute. Obama requested a stay, not clemency, to allow time for what seems to be something of a technicality to be resolved in order to smooth things diplomatically with Mexico.

Considering that the guilt is not in dispute, a pardon is definitely not the right way to correct this and even a clemency (if allowed) might be overstepping too much and create problems between the Feds and TX just to solve things between the Feds and Mexico.
 
cwalner said:
And even if Obama could, I don't think it is the right solution to this issue. As stated, the guilt and the death sentence are not really in dispute.
Click to expand...

I was listening to the radio this morning and they were discussing this case. Apparently, there's no question that Garcia killed the girl in question (either by accident or on purpose), however, there is a question as to whether he actually raped the girl before killing her. According to the reporter, some witnesses had told the police the girl had been gang raped at a party before Garcia killed her and Garcia was not present. This wasn't shown to the jury (allegedly due to a piss-poor defender), and could throw that part of his guilt in doubt, which, according to the reporter, would mean he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
I was listening to the radio this morning and they were discussing this case. Apparently, there's no question that Garcia killed the girl in question (either by accident or on purpose), however, there is a question as to whether he actually raped the girl before killing her. According to the reporter, some witnesses had told the police the girl had been gang raped at a party before Garcia killed her and Garcia was not present. This wasn't shown to the jury (allegedly due to a piss-poor defender), and could throw that part of his guilt in doubt, which, according to the reporter, would mean he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but still, as Cleon stated, Obama making an issue of this would get the States Rights crowds up in arms and be political suicide.

Even if this is a valid issue, it is still a state issue, and not a federal one.
 
And I think just the fact that this case presents a thorny problem to resolve indicates that we need to do something to avoid the issue in the future. It'd be great if Texas would simply make it their policy to inform Mexican citizens accused of capital offenses that they have a right to contact the Mexican consulate. I think it'd be OK if Congress does what the Supreme Court implied they could do: pass a law requiring Texas to abide by the treaty. I think it'd be best if the SCOTUS reversed its 2004 decision and simply said that since there is a federal interest, when there is a conflict between state and federal law like this, the federal law is supreme.
 
cwalner said:
Even if this is a valid issue, it is still a state issue, and not a federal one.
Click to expand...

Failing to inform a foreign citizen accused of a capital crime they have a right to contact their consulate is a federal issue in that we have a ratified and signed treaty on the subject matter. There is definitely a legitimate federal interest.

ETA:
Fair enough, but still, as Cleon stated, Obama making an issue of this would get the States Rights crowds up in arms and be political suicide.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to speak for Cleon, but I think you've mischaracterized his comment. He was responding to someone's suggesting a presidential pardon for a state crime. That's not what's at issue.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Failing to inform a foreign citizen accused of a capital crime they have a right to contact their consulate is a federal issue in that we have a ratified and signed treaty on the subject matter. There is definitely a legitimate federal interest.
Click to expand...

But how do they know the person is a foreign citizen? Especially one that has been here since he was a small child and that (because he doesn't want to get deported for being an illegal immigrant) has a reason to lie?
 
I'm curious what form Obama's asking the Supreme Court to intervene took. Is there a lawsuit?
 
Tony said:
But how do they know the person is a foreign citizen? Especially one that has been here since he was a small child and that (because he doesn't want to get deported for being an illegal immigrant) has a reason to lie?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's what's at issue. (I don't think even Texas is making that argument.)

It certainly wouldn't be an unreasonable burden for the state to request immigration status verification from the Fed's system for every person accused of a capital crime who claims to be a foreign citizen.

ETA: Funny--the anti-illegal immigrant, states'-rights crowd want to compel state police to get federal verification of every person they suspect of being an illegal (even when there is no accusation or even suspicion of criminal activity), but now--apparently, they don't want to run such checks on the relatively small number of people who stand accused of a capital offense claiming to be foreign citizens!
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
I was curious about that too. The Supreme Court recently ruled on this issue in Medellin v Texas back in 2008. This case is eerily similar to that case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medellín_v._Texas
Click to expand...

That sounds like the case that the article mentioned (but wrongly said was a 2004 decision).

Strange, the claim is that the treaty is not self executing, but I didn't see any part of the treaty where it required signatory nations to pass implementing laws.

At any rate, if the treaty is indeed non self executing it would put the burden on Congress to pass implementing laws. So one way or another, we're breaching the treaty.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
I was listening to the radio this morning and they were discussing this case. Apparently, there's no question that Garcia killed the girl in question (either by accident or on purpose), however, there is a question as to whether he actually raped the girl before killing her. According to the reporter, some witnesses had told the police the girl had been gang raped at a party before Garcia killed her and Garcia was not present. This wasn't shown to the jury (allegedly due to a piss-poor defender), and could throw that part of his guilt in doubt, which, according to the reporter, would mean he wouldn't have gotten the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Greetings, fellow NPR listener.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Failing to inform a foreign citizen accused of a capital crime they have a right to contact their consulate is a federal issue in that we have a ratified and signed treaty on the subject matter. There is definitely a legitimate federal interest.

ETA:

I don't mean to speak for Cleon, but I think you've mischaracterized his comment. He was responding to someone's suggesting a presidential pardon for a state crime. That's not what's at issue.
Click to expand...

Yes, and staying the execution (as opposed to pardon or clemency) gains time for the feds to resolve the federal issue without trampling over the state on the state issues. The reference to Cleon was that IMO, clemency would raise the same political backlash that pardoning would, and is not necessary to resolve the federal interest in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom