World Court urges U.S. to stay 5 executions

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Appeals reexamine evidence when the appeal is based on the validity of the evidence...

I've heard of that happening, but my understanding is that most higher courts will defer to the lower court in terms of "whodunit" and generally concern themselves with "how well run was the trial."

Is that the case?

[snoopy369]

The appeal will not judge the actual question at hand (whodunit), but they can and will judge the validity of evidence brought to the trial (for example, in a drug case, appeals often will overturn the use of the actual drugs seized as evidence based on police misconduct at the time of the search).

No review is going to overturn the actual question at hand, either, without some basis in procedure, or new evidence brought that was not available at the time; it is not proper to overturn a jury verdict simply because a judge (or reviewer?) doesn't agree with it, without a specific reason. They would have to find that there was not adequate evidence for any reasonable person to convict, which an appeals court could also do.

(Of course, some of our resident lawyers should probably field this question more accurately ...)

[Zkribbler]

The problem is that the World Court has found that Texas has been systematically violating the Vienna Treaty, of which the U.S. is a signatory:

Justices to rule
By David G. Savage
May 01, 2007

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up an unusual death penalty case that puts President Bush, the Mexican government and a rapist and murderer from Houston on the same team in a legal battle against the state of Texas.

At issue is whether Texas must abide by a ruling from the International Court of Justice in the Hague and reconsider a death sentence meted out to a convicted killer who is a native of Mexico.

The lead plaintiff, Jose Medellin, has been on death row since 1994 for raping and strangling two teenage girls in Houston.

The outcome also could affect the fate of 28 Mexican natives who are under death sentences in California.

Three years ago, the Mexican government won a ruling from the international court holding that U.S. officials had violated a treaty requiring that the consulate be notified when Mexican citizens were arrested and held for serious crimes.

American tourists and students studying abroad may be familiar with this treaty, known as the Vienna Convention. It protects the rights of Americans when they are abroad. But police and local prosecutors in this country did not routinely abide by the treaty when they arrested and detained suspects who were not U.S. citizens.

Mexico objected most strongly when the death penalty was at issue because it opposed capital punishment. In its suit before the international court, it cited 51 Mexican nationals who were on death row in the United States and said it had not been notified during their legal proceedings. The Mexican government said it would have, at minimum, supplied lawyers to argue against the imposition of a death sentence.

Two years ago, in something of a surprise, President Bush and the State Department told Texas officials they had to take steps to comply with the decision in the Hague.

Neither Bush nor the international court said what had to be done.

The decision said only that the United States had to “provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals.”

The Texans refused to comply, and the Texas courts ruled that Bush had no authority to interfere with the state’s handling of its criminal cases.

That prompted a new appeal to the Supreme Court, which on Monday agreed to hear the matter in the fall.

California prosecutors, like their counterparts in Texas, have refused to comply with the international court order.

Referring to the state’s 28 Mexican natives under death sentences, David Kravets, a spokesman for California Atty. Gen. Edmund G. Brown Jr., said: “Our position is that they do not deserve a new trial. They were adequately represented at the time of their trials.”

However, the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case on the issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court had first taken up the issue two years ago, but pulled back after Bush told Texas officials they had to comply with the ruling in the Hague.

Now, the justices said they would hear the case of Medellin vs. Texas and rule on whether the president had the authority to order state officials to comply with an international court order.

david.savage@latimes.com

The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that the feds have no standing violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, stating that U.S. laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land.

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The appeal will not judge the actual question at hand (whodunit), but they can and will judge the validity of evidence brought to the trial (for example, in a drug case, appeals often will overturn the use of the actual drugs seized as evidence based on police misconduct at the time of the search).

That's what I was thinking, but you phrased it more accurately.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that the feds have no standing violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, stating that U.S. laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land.

Do you honestly think Texans give a damn?

[snoopy369]

provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals.

Okay... means: Slowwhand.

Slowwy, would you mind taking a look at these cases and reviewing them for reconsideration?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Felch


Do you honestly think Texans give a damn?

I thought I'd made this abundantly clear.
No, we don't. Is that clear?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by snoopy369

provide, by means of its own choosing, review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals.

Okay... means: Slowwhand.

Slowwy, would you mind taking a look at these cases and reviewing them for reconsideration?

Me personally? I have a busy day today, or I would.
I let other people do their job. I don't like people watching me work. If you don't trust people to do their job properly, why keep them? If I have to do it myself, they can hit the bricks.

[snoopy369]

I'm saying that the court is not exactly asking for much here... i'm fairly sure you could look at them for five minutes each and make a fair and balanced ruling, right? For Justice?

[SlowwHand]

It's been reviewed. I'm sure it will be reviewed more between now and then.
The court that matters has spoken. The court that matters will undergo further review as is deemed necessary.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Use any measuring tool you want to use.

Actually, some quick googling would appear to show that Illinois leads in that category.

We agreed to join as a Republic. It was voted on. We weren't absorbed as a territory. We came in on our terms, we stay in on our terms. I wouldn't call it whining, at least not by Texas. Seems to me that it's the U.N. whining.

The point is that only immature, whiny children refuse demands out of hand.

[Zkribbler]

If Texas refuses to comply with the Vienna Treaty, I fear for what may happen to Americans who are arrested in Mexico.

[Asher]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Appeals are a review of particular facts of the case initiated by one party to the case, so in that sense they are a subset of reviews, yes.

Did you do well in math class?

In what way does "subset of" mean the same as "equal to"? Back to Set Theory 101 for teh snoop.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
If Texas refuses to comply with the Vienna Treaty, I fear for what may happen to Americans who are arrested in Mexico.

You mean like Dog the Bounty Hunter, or do you mean all the college students killed just the other side of the border, or do you mean the police fleeing drug cartels in Mexico? We need specifics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
We agreed to join as a Republic. It was voted on. We weren't absorbed as a territory. We came in on our terms, we stay in on our terms.

A little something from 1860-65 put a kibbosh on "we stay in on our terms".