June 1 TEXAS: Court turns down appeal by woman on death row---Newton was convicted of killing 3 family members in '87 A Harris County woman on death row for murdering her husband and 2 children in 1987 lost what likely was her final appeal last week. Frances Newton, 39, has been on death row for 16 years for shooting her 3 family members with plans to claim $100,000 in life insurance money. Newton would be only the 3rd woman to be executed in Texas since 1863. The other women were Karla Faye Tucker, who was executed in 1998 for killing a Houston couple with a pickax, and Betty Lou Beets, executed in 2000 for murdering her husband outside Dallas. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, denied Newton's appeal on Thursday, rejecting her claim that her trial was unfair because the judge refused to postpone it so her newly hired lawyers could prepare. Newton complained about her original attorney, Ron Mock, whom she said "had no contact with her and had taken no action to research" her case, according to court documents. Mock has been criticized for his poor handling of other capital murder cases. Several months before the trial began, then-state District Judge Charles Hearn refused to remove Mock, but ordered a second attorney, Catherine Coulter, to assist in representing Newton. Just hours before the capital murder trial was set to begin in October 1988, Newton told the judge she had just obtained money to hire her own attorneys. Newton asked Hearn to postpone the trial so her new attorneys could review the case and prepare. But Hearn refused to grant her a delay, known as a continuance. The trial began as scheduled with Mock and Coulter representing Newton. In the decision last week, Judge W. Eugene Davis of the U.S. Circuit Court wrote, "Newton cannot show that failure to grant the continuance harmed the defense." The federal court's decision last week leaves Newton with no more legal options except to request a review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is rarely granted. Meanwhile, prosecutors are expected to ask a Harris County judge to set an execution date. Mock is eligible to practice law but he is no longer permitted to serve as court-appointed counsel on capital murder cases in Harris County. The state Bar Association has publicly reprimanded him twice and suspended him 3 times for misconduct. (source: Houston Chronicle, May 24) ****************** DELUSIONAL----Treat mentally ill before they commit a capital crime The U.S. Supreme Court has outlawed capital punishment for the mentally retarded, but executions of mentally ill inmates on Texas' death row go on apace. Gov. Rick Perry recently disregarded a parole board recommendation for clemency and allowed the execution of a defendant who was severely mentally ill and delusional before, during and after his crime. When it comes to the mentally ill, the Texas criminal justice system has several problems that cry out to be fixed, not only for the sake of the mentally ill, but also for the public's safety. First, in Texas a jury is instructed to acquit on grounds of insanity only when the defendant does not know right from wrong, no matter how helpless he is to resist the demons of his illness and choose right over wrong. There is no reason for the Legislature to wait until the U.S. Supreme Court outlaws executing delusional defendants. In the meantime, the criminal code should be changed to take into account modern understanding of severe mental illness and broaden the legal definition of insanity. There is also the problem of what to do with dangerous, insane offenders who are not sentenced to death. Texas needs to adopt a life sentence without parole, allowing treatment for mentally ill inmates while protecting the public. Since few if any inmates survive 40 years in a Texas prison, a sentence of 60 years is tantamount to life in prison without parole. Violent offenders sentenced to 60 years must serve at least 40 years to be eligible for release, and parole can be denied if the offender poses a danger. In case after case in Texas, a mentally ill patient is ineligible for state care; exhausts, disrupts and bankrupts his family; stops taking his medication; and eventually, with tragic consequences, becomes a danger to himself and others. Even proponents of capital punishment must admit that it would be better to spend millions of dollars more on treating the mentally ill, thus preventing some of the crimes they commit, than to have to spend those millions on capital prosecutions and decades of appeals after the loss of innocent life. Before an execution, family members of both murderer and victim are received in a hospitality room near the execution chamber in Huntsville. There they are greeted by a grotesque wall of pictures of executed defendants. As long as Texas denies treatment to seriously ill citizens before they commit a crime and executes delusional offenders after they kill, the pictures on that wall will increase inexorably. (source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle, May 29) *************************** Texas lacking standards on retardation in capital cases Nearly 2 years after the U.S. Supreme Court barred states from executing the mentally retarded, Texas has no standardized procedure for accused and convicted killers to formally claim retardation, attorneys and legal experts say. Methods of determining who is retarded vary from court to court, making it uncertain who can receive an exemption from capital punishment. "We're feeling blindly through the mist," said defense attorney Terry Gaiser, who represents a capital murder suspect claiming retardation. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2002 that executing the mentally retarded amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. But the justices left it up to each state to define mental retardation and to set rules for who meets that definition. Texas and 11 other death-penalty states have not enacted laws or issued statewide guidelines. "I think Texas is behind the curve," said Morris Overstreet, a retired Texas Criminal Court of Appeals judge who teaches at the Texas Southern University law school. "It's problematic because there needs to be some consistency as to how these issues are handled." It remains unclear whether a judge or jury must make the final determination on retardation and whether that decision should be made before or during trial. One option is for a judge to give the question to a jury during the punishment phase of a trial, as State District Judge Jeannine Barr did in February in the case of Tomas Gallo. After convicting Gallo of the rape and murder of his girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter, a Harris County jury heard evidence that he might have mental retardation. Jurors were asked during deliberations whether they thought him retarded; they voted he was not. State District Judge Belinda Hill said recently that she may use a similar method in July during the trial of Gaiser's client, Calvin Hunter. But Gallo's attorney, Robert Morrow, questions the method's fairness and is citing the issue on appeal. After hearing about a horrific crime, he said, jurors are biased on the question of mental retardation, which could result in a more lenient sentence. A judge may opt to convene a separate jury, before the trial, to decide the retardation question without hearing about the crime, Morrow said. A third option is for a judge to hold a hearing and make a ruling on the issue. Several states have adopted that approach. Retardation claims usually involve school records, past IQ tests and testimony from former teachers, employers and others. "With a judge, you get more of a focus on the match between the clinical evaluation of this guy's disability and the state's definition of mental retardation," said James W. Ellis, a University of New Mexico law professor who specializes in issues of capital punishment and mental retardation. Asking jurors to decide the question during a trial's penalty phase is "awfully vulnerable" to reversal by the Supreme Court, Ellis said. "The advantage to doing it that way is so you don't have to call the same witnesses down twice," said Assistant District Attorney Marie Primm, who is prosecuting Hunter's case. Primm said that position was strengthened this month by a decision from the Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest court. Assistant District Attorney Alan Curry, the lead attorney for appeals in Harris County, said he expects most judges to give the question to juries during the punishment phase. Curry said he believes decisions about retardation made by juries, rather than a judge, are safer on appeal because the Supreme Court has said that all death penalty-related facts must be decided by juries. The Court of Criminal Appeals has addressed retardation questions cautiously. In February, for the first time, it handed down guidelines telling courts to use the traditional definition of mental retardation from the state's Health and Safety Code, which puts in that category anyone with an IQ below 70 who also has adaptive problems. But the court also appeared to urge the Legislature to clarify the matter. "We must act during the legislative interregnum to provide the bench and bar with temporary judicial guidelines for handling claims of mental retardation," Judge Cathy Cochran wrote. A bill addressing questions of retardation stalled last year in the state Senate. Meanwhile, courts at all levels are struggling with identifying criminals who are retarded, particularly with death row inmates who were convicted years ago and who have exhausted their traditional avenues for appeal before the Supreme Court ruling in 2002. The Court of Criminal Appeals has agreed to let several death row inmates have new hearings on their retardation claims, but that requires they first prove their claims have merit. Critics say not all death row inmates still have lawyers, and it is unrealistic to think potentially retarded death-row inmates can successfully win a new hearing without legal assistance. For now, the state does not systematically appoint lawyers for condemned inmates who say they have mental retardation. Attorneys who work for free or for nonprofit groups such as the Texas Defender Service are representing inmates claiming retardation. "It shouldn't be falling to some private entity to keep the state from executing people that it's not allowed to execute," said Executive Director Jim Marcus of the defender service. Marcus and another defender service attorney, Morris Moon, argued last week before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that federal courts should appoint attorneys to handle these cases. Lawyers for the Texas attorney general have opposed such appointments, saying they must be careful of potentially meritless claims. "Allowing automatic appointment of counsel and stay of execution ... anytime an inmate merely mentions mental retardation ... would be tantamount to a moratorium on all executions until each and every inmate is able to investigate, prepare and litigate" a retardation claim, the attorney general's office said in court papers. For now, some ambiguity in the law is to be expected. Nevertheless, prosecutors expect current convictions to stand up on appeal, and there is no reason to believe that mentally retarded people will be executed, said Assistant District Attorney Roe Wilson. Wilson represents the state in the final stage in the capital appeals process. "Anytime you have a Supreme Court case that doesn't set out a clear-cut procedure, and they leave it up to the states," she said, "it is going to take a while to get totally resolved." (source: Houston Chronicle, May 30) VIRGINIA: You Only Die Once How many times can convicted Washington area sniper John Allen Muhammad be executed? Mr. Muhammad has been sentenced to death in a Prince William County court for the killing of Dean H. Meyers -- one of the murders that terrorized the D.C. area in 2002. Now, however, Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr. has announced that he will bring Mr. Muhammad to trial on a 2nd capital indictment for the killing in his jurisdiction of Linda Franklin. Meanwhile, Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas Gansler has charged Mr. Muhammad with capital murder, and prosecutors in Alabama and Louisiana are seeking to put him to death in their states as well. All of which represents a potentially substantial waste of resources. A 2nd trial will be expensive, a 3rd or 4th more so. The 1st trials of Mr. Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo cost nearly $3 million. Witnesses will be forced to relive horrible events again, courts to spend hundreds of hours trying redundant cases. What exactly is the point? Mr. Horan has described this second case as an insurance policy against any problems the 1st death sentence or conviction might run into on appeal. And there are tricky legal issues in that case: the application of a previously unused state counterterrorism law and the question of whether Mr. Muhammad, who appears not to have been the triggerman, nonetheless satisfies a state law requirement that only immediate perpetrators of murders are eligible for death. Yet these same problems could affect any Fairfax case, so it's not clear how much insurance a 2nd conviction would buy. Some relatives might find some peace of mind in seeing the snipers tried, convicted and sentenced for killing their loved ones, rather than allowing some other victim's death to serve as a proxy for all of the killings. But solicitude for the relatives should not carry the day here. Timothy McVeigh was never tried for each of the 168 deaths in the Oklahoma City bombing case; the federal conviction for only a few of those deaths was allowed to stand for them all. Oklahoma retried Mr. McVeigh's accomplice, Terry Lynn Nichols, only when the federal case against him failed to yield a death sentence. That seems an appropriate way to proceed here. We oppose the death penalty even for Mr. Muhammad, but clearly many local residents will not feel that justice has been done if he is not eventually executed. His case, however, should not turn into an exercise of seeing how many times he can be sentenced to that fate. (source: Editorial, Washington Post) OHIO: Area Death Row Inmate Awaits Tuesday's Clemency Hearing---Man Killed Officer In 1984 A man who's been waiting on death row for nearly 2 decades will find out Tuesday if the Ohio Parole Board will recommend that his life be spared. William Zuern, 45, stabbed an officer at the Hamilton County Justice Center in 1984. That officer, Philip Pence, later died, WLWT Eyewitness News 5 reported. Gov. Robert Taft will have the final say on whether Zuern will get clemency. (source: ChannelCincinnati) ILLINOIS: A new death penalty for killer----Ryan commuted earlier sentence A Livingston County jury on Monday sentenced convicted serial killer Andrew Urdiales to die, making him the 1st person sent back to death row after being spared by former Gov. George Ryan's mass commutation in 2003. Urdiales, who sat with his wrists handcuffed to a wooden table, only blinked when Judge Harold Frobish read the sentence as Urdiales' parents Alfred, 80, and Margaret, 78, held hands 3 rows behind him. One juror blotted tears from her cheeks. "This case has been crying out for the death penalty," said Livingston County State's Atty. Thomas Brown after the announcement. Still, he said he was surprised that the jury reached its decision after deliberating only 65 minutes. A Cook County jury gave Urdiales, 39, his first death sentence in 2002 for the 1996 stabbing and shooting deaths of Lynn Huber, 22, of Chicago, and Lori Uylaki, 25, of Hammond. Their bodies were found in Wolf Lake. But clemency hearings for each of the state's Death Row inmates soon followed and at the end of his term, Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 Death Row inmates to life in prison and pardoned four others. Urdiales allegedly had confessed to eight murders in Illinois and California, however, and soon after his commutation Brown was pledging a vigorous prosecution in the 1996 slaying of Cassandra Corum, a mother in her twenties, of Hammond. Urdiales duct-taped Corum's mouth and ankles before driving her to rural Livingston County, shooting and stabbing her, Brown said. Boys fishing on the Vermilion River mistook her naked body for a mannequin when they reeled it in, Brown said. Urdiales initially had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, but in April changed his plea to guilty but mentally ill. Frobish rejected both pleas and 2 weeks ago convicted Urdiales of 1st degree murder in a bench trial. But Bloomington defense attorney Steve Skelton hammered at the issue of Urdiales' mental capacity in his closing argument Monday, showing the jury magnified magnetic resonance imaging scans of Urdiales' brain and describing crimes he argued were the "product of a sick mind." "There was so much turmoil in addition to the anger that resides in that man that even he was confounded, confused, perplexed and tortured by what he was doing," Skelton told the jury, asking instead for life sentence without possibility of parole. Among the mitigating evidence juries may mull in determining capital punishment are whether a murder is committed under the influence of mental disturbance or whether a murder's perpetrator suffers from "reduced mental capacity." In the fall 2002 clemency hearings before the Illinois Prisoner Review Board, prosecutors pointed to Urdiales' case as a prime example for why capital punishment should exist in Illinois. Brown sought to convey a similar point to the jury, propping photographs of each of Urdiales' nine alleged victims--8 murdered and one who was kidnapped, raped and later testified at trial--on wheeled carts rolled directly in front of the jury box. As he recounted the grisly details of each killing, he placed crime-scene photographs in front of the women's portraits. He described Urdiales as a "sexual sadist" with a methodical mind who took pleasure in harming women. "Is he really worthy of your mercy?" Brown told the jury. Death-penalty reforms enacted last year gave the jury more leeway to consider emotional and physical abuse in a defendant's background, points Skelton emphasized by saying Urdiales had been picked on as a youth, sexually abused by his older sister and raised away from his mother. The reforms also altered the jury's instructions slightly, allowing jurors to consider whether death is "the appropriate sentence," and not whether there are "no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude" a death sentence. But the 9 women and 5 men on the jury in the home of the Pontiac Correctional Center quickly gave their answer. Urdiales automatically will be granted an appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court. Also, a moratorium on executions first imposed by Ryan still remains in place. Brown said it's too soon to tell whether the state ever will take Urdiales' life. "I have no idea when or if the defendant will ever be executed," Brown said. (source: Chicago Tribune) ARIZONA: Former Pima County prosecutor disbarred for eliciting false testimony The Arizona Supreme Court on Friday disbarred a former Pima County prosecutor, siding with a commission that found he had violated ethics rules by knowingly eliciting false testimony in a capital murder case. The Supreme Court ordered the disbarment after reviewing its Disciplinary Commission's recommendation in the case of Kenneth Peasley. The commission recommended the former assistant Pima County attorney be disbarred for intentionally eliciting false testimony in a capital murder case in 1993 and in a retrial in 1997. The testimony came from a detective with whom Peasley was good friends. The use of false testimony in the trial of two men accused in a 1992 triple-slaying at a market in Tucson "could not have been more harmful to the justice system," wrote Justice Michael D. Ryan for the unanimous court. "A prosecutor who deliberately presents false testimony, especially in a capital case, has caused incalculable injury to the integrity of the legal profession and the justice system." Peasley, a two-time prosecutor of the year, retired in January 2003 after the commission said he should be disbarred. Peasley was admitted to the state bar in 1974 and conducted about 250 felony cases, 140 of which were homicides, the court said. 60 of the cases were capital murder trials. In a ruling overturning the conviction of one of the defendants in 2002, the Supreme Court said Peasley intentionally deceived the jury to paper over weaknesses in his case. Peasley has 20 days to ask for a reconsideration of the decision. A call to his lawyer wasn't immediately returned Friday, and directory assistance said Peasley's number was non-published. (source: Arizona Republic, May 28) CALIFORNIA: Peterson trial expected to last 5 months---Opening statements today; witness list remains sealed With Scott Peterson's trial set to begin this week, prosecutors have shown no murder weapon, no cause of death and no direct evidence that flatly proves Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci. Opening statements in the highly publicized case are scheduled for today. Jury selection lasted 12 weeks, and the trial is expected to last an additional five months or more. If convicted, the former fertilizer salesman from Modesto could face the death penalty or life without parole. It is unclear what witnesses will be called because the list is sealed and attorneys are working under a sweeping gag order. But it is clear that defense attorney Mark Geragos is working to create reasonable doubt in a case that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer early on described as a "slam dunk" for the prosecution. Some observers now say the outcome is too close to call. Prosecutors plan to call hundreds of witnesses in what experts say is a circumstantial case. Defense attorneys have presented a list of just 18 witnesses, according to a prosecution filing last week. Geragos recently accused authorities of withholding evidence. In a motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct, Geragos claims authorities have known since days after Laci Peterson disappeared just before Christmas 2002 of a witness who saw the woman being shoved into a van by at least 2 men. "The witness confirmed his sighting of a woman he identified as Laci and her two abductors," Geragos wrote. It is likely Geragos will call the witness, a former reserve police officer, to testify. (source: Associated Press) OKLAHOMA/USA: Is Oklahoma A New Human Rights Hot Spot?: -- Why The State's Judges and Governor Were Right To Stop An Execution that Nearly Violated International Law Last week, Oklahoma judges considered a fundamental question - the status of international law in state courts in the U.S. And they made a paradigm- shifting decision. Not only did they properly treat a U.S. treaty as binding law, they also relied on a March decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. (The ICJ, the U.N.'s highest tribunal, is also often referred to as the World Court.) The result was to halt an execution that would have taken place May 18--the execution of Mexican national Osbaldo Torres, whose right to assistance from the Mexican consulate was not honored by the U.S. Torres's case is important because it illustrates the increasing recognition that international law is enforceable in the United States. It is also important because it brings into sharp focus how the U.S.'s actions against non-citizens at home can have a potentially major effect on the treatment of Americans overseas, and on our global image. Even as the Abu Ghraib prison photos tarnish the U.S.'s image abroad, the Oklahoma decision is a candle in the darkness, showing the U.S.'s ability to respect international law and the rights of non-citizens. Background: International Court of Justice Holdings on Vienna Convention Rights To explain how the Oklahoma court reached the decision it did, it is necessary first to go over some background. In 2001, in the LaGrand Case, the ICJ held that two German nationals sentenced to death in the United States had the right to be informed of their right of access to their consulate. The right, the ICJ noted, was established by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), which the U.S. has ratified. By the time of the decision, the German citizens had already been executed. Accordingly, the ICJ found the United States in breach of its treaty obligations and ordered the State Department to devise a remedy consistent with U.S. law. It noted specifically that the U.S.'s apology for failing to inform the Germans of their rights was hardly a sufficient remedy. Subsequently, another Vienna Convention case came before the ICJ. In the Avena litigation, 52 Mexican nationals - including Mr. Osbaldo Torres -- alleged that the U.S. had failed to inform them of their right to consular access. At its core, Avena points out the fundamental unfairness of putting someone on death row who should have been given due process, but wasn't. The difference between being a foreign citizen alone, and one with consular help, can literally make the difference between life and death. But despite the force of this argument, Torres had no luck presenting a similar claim before the U.S. Supreme Court. As I discussed in an earlier column, in November 2003, the Court declined to hear his case. On March 31 of this year, the ICJ issued a decision upholding the claims of Torres and the other foreign nationals in the same situation. As a result, the ICJ ordered the U.S. to provide "by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans. What counted as "meaningful review"? The presiding judges said that generally, the normal appeals process in the U.S. would suffice. However, for three men who had already exhausted their appeals, the ICJ said the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time. One of the 3 men whose cases the Court ordered specially reviewed was Torres. Developments in the Torres Case: Oklahoma Institutions Respect International Law On May 7, less than 2 weeks before Torres was scheduled to be executed, Mexico asked the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board to recommend to Governor Brad Henry that Torres' sentence be reduced to life imprisonment. The Board, by a 3-2 vote, did so. The Board's members found that the VCCR violation undermined the state's charges against Torres. They found the ICJ's ruling helpful on two issues: Did the U.S. ignore its obligations? The ICJ answered yes, and so did the Board. And if it did, should someone be executed because of the U.S.'s failure? The ICJ answered no, and so did the Board. On May 10, at a convention of lawyers and judges in Chicago, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who had written a stinging dissent in the Court's refusal to hear Torres' appeal in November, stated that the U.S. would be better off if we did not have capital punishment. He said that he would feel "much, much better" if more states would consider deeply whether the benefits of executions outweigh the "very serious potential injustice," as the stakes are very high, and there is the "special potential" for error. On May 13, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals granted an indefinite stay of Torres' execution, saying that his conviction may have violated international law. The Court requested an evidentiary hearing on whether Oklahoma violated the VCCR by failing to give Torres access to the Mexican consulate after arrest. In his concurrence, Judge Charles S. Chapel said the court was obligated to comply with the ICJ's ruling, given the United States' treaty obligations, and suggested that Torres's trial might have come out differently had the Mexican government been informed of his arrest, and been able to provide him with assistance. Less than a day later, Governor Henry granted the clemency request in part because of the ICJ's ruling. In his public statement, the Governor said the ICJ ruling is binding on U.S. courts. He also recognized that what goes around, comes around. In the Avena hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right. Echoing that argument, Governor Henry stated "the [Vienna Convention] treaty is important to protecting the rights of Americans abroad." If foreigners in the U.S. may be denied consular aid and executed, then so may Americans abroad, someday. It was the 1st time Governor Henry had granted clemency to any individual on Oklahoma's death row; and even when the Parole Board had recommended clemency, in 3 other cases, the Governor had ignored it. His decision with respect to Torres was courageous because a large sector of Oklahoma voters favors the death penalty. Will Other States - and the U.S. Supreme Court - Follow Oklahoma's Lead? In my earlier column on Torres's claims, I argued that by declining review, the U.S. Supreme Court turned a blind eye to the United States' repeated violations of its obligations under the VCCR, and in so doing, refused to enforce U.S. law. (Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, once ratified, are part of U.S. law.) Now, we have a strange situation. The Oklahoma state court system, the state parole board, and the Governor, are way ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to recognizing and enforcing the U.S.'s international legal obligations, and respecting decisions of the ICJ. The people of Oklahoma, too, seem to appreciate how their actions play out overseas, and see the links between our treatment of prisoners here and our treatment of prisoners - and our image -- abroad. One Oklahoma newspaper's editorial page described how "the specter of Torres' execution additionally triggered protests at the state capital and increasingly widespread and hostile international news reporting." Other states should follow Oklahoma's lead - and so should the federal government. Torres's case should - and may well - be seen as a turning point in the way the U.S. treats both foreign citizens, and international law. Torres's Case As a Turning Point: Recognizing Treaties as U.S. Law In November 2003, before any of the Abu Ghraib photos surfaced, I warned that the U.S. is wrong to believe that its conduct won't come back to haunt it -- whether it's arming Osama bin Laden years ago, supporting Saddam years ago, or violating non-citizens' (and some citizens') rights both years ago, and today. Now, with the release of the horrifying photos of prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, and the international outcry, we know that our conduct can haunt us and harm us. Already, Americans were often seen by the world as violent, barbarous and arrogant; after the photos, we will be seen in a far worse light. But at least some of our political leaders now seem to realize that they need to work fast to repair our image around the world. For instance, look at the expedited court martial of Spec. Jeremy Sivits, who was involved in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal. Sivits received the maximum sentence. And tellingly, the Coalition Provisional Authority spokesman said Sivits' court-martial was an important showcase to Iraqis and the rest of the world of "American democracy, American justice, American accountability at work." Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems to be turning over a new leaf. After ignoring the Geneva Conventions for the past two years, Secretary Rumsfeld has now conceded that they apply may to prisoners held in Iraq. And President Bush has decided that any al-Qaida or Taliban personnel taken prisoner are now to be treated consistent with the Geneva Conventions. This is a dramatic reversal from the Bush Administration's constant denial of prisoner of war status to so many at Guantanamo Bay, precisely to ensure that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. It is still not enough - the Administration continues to deprive U.S. citizens (Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi) and noncitizens (the detainees) alike of crucial rights, and to defend its position all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But perhaps it is a start. Convincing The World We Respect Human Rights Even After Abu Ghraib America is a more just country than the photos from Abu Ghraib suggest. But how can we prove that? One way would be for the U.S. to immediately review the cases of everyone else in the same situation as Osbaldo Torres - that is, every foreign national on any death rows around the country who has raised a Vienna Convention claim. According to recent research, there are at least 119 such people. Almost half of these cases are Mexican nationals like Torres, and the rest come from 30 other countries. This review would comply with the ICJ's decision in Avena. And it would also go further - respecting the general principle Avena set forth, by applying it to every case with the same type of claim. Much of the world now understandably doubts that the U.S. cares at all about the rights of anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. We must prove that we do care. Reviewing these cases before the ICJ further prods us to do so would be a good start. In the Geneva Conventions, and the Vienna Convention, the U.S. has agreed to provide basic due process rights to non-citizens. The Bush administration must honor these promises, as Oklahoma has done, or it risks being seen as a creature not of law, but of pure untrammeled power. (source: FindLaw; May 24--Noah Leavitt, an attorney and author, is the Advocacy Director for the Jewish Council on Urban Affairs. Leavitt assisted the German legal team in the LaGrand Case)
