Post by falcon66 on Nov 18, 2006 1:29:37 GMT -5
Verdict: kibitzing
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals made no bones about rejecting President Bush's attempt to give a death row inmate's appeal another review in light of international law.
"We hold that the President has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary," Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the court in a decision released Wednesday.
The breadth of the ruling makes it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.
The immediate result was to again uphold the capital sentence of Jose Ernesto Medellin, 1 of 6 gang members convicted in the gruesome 1993 rape and slaying of Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena.
Medellin was among 51 Mexican nationals on Death Row in the United States who challenged their sentences in the International Court of Justice on grounds that they weren't notified immediately after their arrests that they had the right, under an international treaty, to seek help from the Mexican consul.
In 2004, the ICJ, which sits in The Hague, ruled that the United States must comply with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Bush then sent a memo to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales saying that state courts should follow the ICJ decision and reconsider whether any of the defendants were harmed by not being told about contacting consul officials. But Texas officials argued that the ICJ ruling didn't trump Texas criminal law and that Bush couldn't force the courts to follow the international decision.
Relying on a June Supreme Court ruling, the Court of Criminal Appeals said that the ICJ decision wasn't binding law and that Bush didn't have congressional authority or constitutional power, express or implied, to force compliance. Because Medellin didn't raise the treaty issue until far into the appeals process, state law prevented the courts from considering it.
Though all 9 members of the court agreed with the outcome, 4 felt compelled to write separately.
Judge Cathy Cochran, in a concurrence joined by Judges Cheryl Johnson and Charles Holcomb, said the court didn't need to get into separation of powers because Bush's memo was so informal that it didn't legally bind the states.
Presiding Judge Sharon Keller was less subtle: "The President has made an admirable attempt to resolve a complicated issue involving the United States' international obligations. But this unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution."
And Judge Barbara Hervey sounded simply injudicious.
"This international cause célèbre centers around this applicant who makes no claim that he did not brutally rape and murder 2 teenage girls (ages 14 and 16) with fellow gang members over 13 years ago in the summer of 1993," she wrote, offering explicit trial details.
"This case has dragged on for an amount of time equal to almost the entirety of the lives of these 2 girls," with Medellin receiving "almost unparalleled due process protections," she said.
"Now, from half-way around the world, the International Court of Justice ... has ordered our state courts to review applicant's Article 36 Vienna Convention claim. ... The President of the United States has made a similar request," she said. "But, all of this is really much ado about nothing because applicant received essentially the review mandated" by the ICJ and the president.
She noted that, according to the trial record, Medellin has lived in the United States since he was 3, appears to speak fluent English and didn't tell police he wasn't a citizen.
"The Court's 60-plus page opinion disposing of applicant's current ... application provides applicant with much more than he deserves," she wrote.
It might be difficult to find sympathy for a convicted killer whose crime shocks the conscience. But that wasn't what the court was asked to consider.
It undermines the notion of fair and impartial judicial review when a judge sounds as if she's ready to complete the execution herself.
(source: Opinion, Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals made no bones about rejecting President Bush's attempt to give a death row inmate's appeal another review in light of international law.
"We hold that the President has exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary," Judge Michael Keasler wrote for the court in a decision released Wednesday.
The breadth of the ruling makes it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.
The immediate result was to again uphold the capital sentence of Jose Ernesto Medellin, 1 of 6 gang members convicted in the gruesome 1993 rape and slaying of Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena.
Medellin was among 51 Mexican nationals on Death Row in the United States who challenged their sentences in the International Court of Justice on grounds that they weren't notified immediately after their arrests that they had the right, under an international treaty, to seek help from the Mexican consul.
In 2004, the ICJ, which sits in The Hague, ruled that the United States must comply with its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
Bush then sent a memo to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales saying that state courts should follow the ICJ decision and reconsider whether any of the defendants were harmed by not being told about contacting consul officials. But Texas officials argued that the ICJ ruling didn't trump Texas criminal law and that Bush couldn't force the courts to follow the international decision.
Relying on a June Supreme Court ruling, the Court of Criminal Appeals said that the ICJ decision wasn't binding law and that Bush didn't have congressional authority or constitutional power, express or implied, to force compliance. Because Medellin didn't raise the treaty issue until far into the appeals process, state law prevented the courts from considering it.
Though all 9 members of the court agreed with the outcome, 4 felt compelled to write separately.
Judge Cathy Cochran, in a concurrence joined by Judges Cheryl Johnson and Charles Holcomb, said the court didn't need to get into separation of powers because Bush's memo was so informal that it didn't legally bind the states.
Presiding Judge Sharon Keller was less subtle: "The President has made an admirable attempt to resolve a complicated issue involving the United States' international obligations. But this unprecedented, unnecessary, and intrusive exercise of power over the Texas court system cannot be supported by the foreign policy authority conferred on him by the United States Constitution."
And Judge Barbara Hervey sounded simply injudicious.
"This international cause célèbre centers around this applicant who makes no claim that he did not brutally rape and murder 2 teenage girls (ages 14 and 16) with fellow gang members over 13 years ago in the summer of 1993," she wrote, offering explicit trial details.
"This case has dragged on for an amount of time equal to almost the entirety of the lives of these 2 girls," with Medellin receiving "almost unparalleled due process protections," she said.
"Now, from half-way around the world, the International Court of Justice ... has ordered our state courts to review applicant's Article 36 Vienna Convention claim. ... The President of the United States has made a similar request," she said. "But, all of this is really much ado about nothing because applicant received essentially the review mandated" by the ICJ and the president.
She noted that, according to the trial record, Medellin has lived in the United States since he was 3, appears to speak fluent English and didn't tell police he wasn't a citizen.
"The Court's 60-plus page opinion disposing of applicant's current ... application provides applicant with much more than he deserves," she wrote.
It might be difficult to find sympathy for a convicted killer whose crime shocks the conscience. But that wasn't what the court was asked to consider.
It undermines the notion of fair and impartial judicial review when a judge sounds as if she's ready to complete the execution herself.
(source: Opinion, Fort Worth Star-Telegram)