March 9 TEXAS: Bush to order reviews of Mexican death row inmates' cases The Bush administration has told the U.S. Supreme Court that it intends to order states, including Texas, to review the capital convictions of foreign nationals who were not informed of their rights under international law. The surprising change in policy was announced last week without fanfare in a "friend of the court" brief filed in the case of Texas death row inmate Jose Ernesto Medellin. The Mexican national contends that state officials denied him the opportunity to seek help with his case from the Mexican government, as required by international law. Texas officials agreed that the president has the authority to order the hearings but said that the outcome of the cases shouldn't change. Texas has 16 Mexican nationals on its death row, more than any other state. Officials in Mexico hailed the Bush decision but said they recognized that the cases were far from resolved. Last year, the International Court of Justice, acting on a complaint from Mexico, ordered the death sentences of 51 Mexican nationals reviewed. With its filing, the White House - long reluctant to defer to international law - has acknowledged that the ruling is binding. The ruling comes just weeks before Mexican President Vicente Fox visits Texas for a border summit, as well as just before the Supreme Court considers an appeal from one of the convicted killers in question. "Mexico always welcomes it when any country gives proper consideration to international law, and that is the case today," said Arturo Dager, legal counsel for the Foreign Relations Ministry. "It is a very important step that has, without a doubt, great technical complexities." Aides to Texas Gov. Rick Perry said they are reviewing the Bush administration brief and could not immediately comment about how they would respond or how many Texas cases it might affect. In a written statement, state Attorney General Greg Abbott said he disagrees with the Bush administration's position that the condemned Mexican nationals deserve new hearings in state courts. "We respectfully believe the executive determination exceeds the constitutional bounds for federal authority," Abbott's statement says. The state's brief in the Medellin case, however, acknowledges the president's power to order the state court reviews. The Vienna Convention, ratified by the United States in 1969, requires that foreigners who are arrested be allowed the assistance of their country's consul. The treaty specifies that the International Court of Justice should hear and enforce those kinds of claims. The Mexican government complained to the U.S. government, and later to the international court that Mexican nationals have not been informed of their rights under international law. In March 2004, the court agreed and, in effect, ordered the United States to reconsider Vienna Convention claims for the 51 death penalty cases. It said that the U.S. court system was best prepared for the task. The administration's order, in turn, comes in a brief filed in the case of Jose Ernesto Medellin, whose case is scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court later this month. He has been on Texas death row since September 1994, when he was convicted of killing Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16. He and 4 other members of a Houston gang known as the "Black and Whites" raped and murdered the 2 young girls after they stumbled into a gang initiation. Although Medellin had lived in the United States since he was a toddler, he is a Mexican citizen, and Texas authorities has acknowledged that he was never advised that he could seek assistance from the Mexican consul in Houston. Although Medellin's lawyers had not made his citizenship an issue until after he was convicted, his case has become part of on-going debates over international law, capital punishment and diplomatic tensions between the U.S. and Mexico. As a former governor of Texas, President Bush is intimately familiar with Mexican sensitivity on the subject of capital punishment. Mexico does not have the death penalty, except in military courts, and has joined other nations in opposing capital punishment in the United States. In 2002, Fox - a close personal friend of Bush - canceled a Texas visit with the president to protest the state's execution of Javier Suarez Medina, a Mexican national who murdered an undercover Dallas police officer in 1988. The Bush administration has had a reputation for guarding domestic laws and policies from international influences with a jealous eye. And the administration brief, filed by the U.S. Solicitor General, argues that claims of international law violations should be reviewed as a matter of treaty obligation but that no new personal rights should be implied by the order. Joseph Margulies, a professor at the University of Chicago, filed a brief for a group of diplomats and consular officials who were concerned that a White House rejection of international protocols would lead to problems for Americans in trouble overseas. He said his clients were "extremely relieved" by the Bush administration's decision. "This was a cause of great consternation," Margulies said. "They were very worried that they (the Bush administration) were going to take a crabbed approach to this." Carlos Vazquez, a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, said the administration's response is a practical one. "They're saying that they accept international court's ruling as an international treaty obligation, but not as a matter of domestic law," said Vazquez. But with a U.S. Supreme Court case still pending, he said, the matter is far from settled. "The Supreme Court still has to decide the case," Vazquez said. (source: Dallas Morning News) ********************** Bush orders hearings for Mexican nationals----The directive in death row cases sparks challenge from Texas officials In a move that could spawn a fight over presidential powers, the Bush administration has ordered Texas and other states to conduct hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row who claim their rights were violated when local consulates were not notified of their arrests. The directive came after years of criticism from foreign governments and an adverse decision last year by the International Court of Justice, which decreed that U.S. courts should provide "effective review" of each case to determine whether the lack of consular assistance could have affected the outcome. "It's historic. It's a first," said Mark Warren, an international legal analyst who specializes in consular rights. "Whether it will end up providing the rule of decision, as judges like to say, remains to be seen. It is a remarkable development and a very important step toward satisfactory resolution to this issue. But the final chapter has yet to be written." The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1969, provides that "consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention; to converse and correspond with him; and to arrange for his legal representation." The Mexican government has complained loudly for years that these rights are often ignored by U.S. authorities. Legal experts were uncertain precisely how the courts in 8 states holding the 51 inmates would comply with the executive order, or whether all would even try. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott immediately challenged the right of President Bush to tell Texas courts what to do. "We respectfully believe the executive determination exceeds the constitutional bounds for federal authority," Abbott said in a prepared statement. Bush's order covers 15 of the 16 Mexican nationals on death row in Texas. Only admitted serial killer Angel Maturino Resendiz failed to join the case. Houston lawyer Danalynn Recer, who represents Mexican nationals in capital murder cases on behalf of the Mexican government, said Bush's order was significant because it recognizes the importance of U.S. courts complying with established international rights. "When any foreign national is not notified of their right to contact their consulate, they're being denied their government's assistance," Recer said. Bush's order comes 6 weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case of Jose Medellin, who was sentenced to death along with 4 others for the 1993 murders of Houston teenagers Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pea. Medellin, who was born in Mexico but lived most of his life in Houston, has asked the high court to order a new hearing based the violation of his consular rights under the Vienna Convention. "Medellin has the best chance for a new trial he has ever had," said Mike Charlton, one of his attorneys, who claims that better legal representation paid for by the Mexican government could have made a difference during the sentencing portion of his trial. Abbott said Medellin's conviction has been given ample review and he is not entitled to another one based on the decision of the international court. "Medellin voluntarily confessed to the brutal gang rape and murder of two teenage girls," Abbott said. "He was convicted after a fair trial, applying U.S. and Texas law. The state of Texas believes no international court supersedes the laws of Texas or the laws of the United States." As a matter of law, the Bush administration agreed with Abbott's assertion. In a brief filed in connection with Medellin's case by the U.S. solicitor general, the administration said neither the Vienna accord nor the international court ruling was legally binding on U.S. courts. However, it also claimed the president had an absolute right to decide, on the basis of foreign policy interests, if and how the U.S. would comply with its international obligations. "The president, the nation's representative in foreign affairs, has determined that the United States will comply with the ICJ decision," the brief states. "Compliance serves to protect the interests of U.S. citizens abroad, promote the effective conduct of foreign relations, and underscores the United States' commitment in the international community to the rule of law. That presidential determination, like an executive agreement, has independent legal force and effect, and contrary state rules must give way under the Supremacy Clause." Death penalty expert Dudley Sharp said that, barring a similar directive by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state courts likely will decide their previous reviews have been adequate to cover the inmates' claims. "This seems to be an obvious bow to the State Department to put something in there about respecting the ICJ's opinion," Sharp said. "I think the solicitor general recognized that this is not going to have that much impact on their cases." One of the attorneys who argued the cause of the 51 Mexican nationals before the international court disagreed. "The president's order is binding on the Texas courts," said Sandra Babcock, who represented the Mexican government."Each Mexican national whose case was a part of the ICJ opinion has a right to state court review of his Vienna Convention violations." The significance of that review will vary from case to case, she added. If attorneys can show, for instance, that more resources and better legal counsel would have resulted in different information getting to the jury the judge might order a new sentencing trial. ** RESOURCES----MEXICANS ON TEXAS' DEATH ROW Texas has 27 citizens of other countries, including 16 Mexican nationals. 15 of those may be affected by the Bush order. - Convicted in Harris County: Juan Alvarez, Virgilio Maldonado, Jose Medellin, Daniel Plata, Angel Resendiz (did not allege consular violations), Felix Rocha, Edgar Tamayo - Convicted elsewhere in Texas: Ramiro Hernandez, Bandera County Humberto Leal, Bexar County Cesar Fierro, Ignacio Gomez, El Paso County, Ruben Cardenas, Hector Garcia, Robert Ramos, Hidalgo County Ramiro Ibarra, McLennan County, Oswaldo Soriano, Randall County - Convictions elsewhere in the United States: California, 27; Illinois, 3; Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, 1 each (sourec: Houston Chronicle) ************************* Anti-death penalty rally provides alternate activity for students Spring break is almost here, and while most college students will be heading to numerous beaches and ski resorts, some may be headed for an alternative location this year. Austin is the site of a new type of spring break experience this year as the Texas Moratorium Network, in conjunction with the Austin chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, hosts the "Anti-Death Penalty Alternative Spring Break" March 12 -17. The week will include workshops and anti-death penalty rallies designed to inform students about the death penalty and other controversial issues. The lobbying organization was formed in August 2000 with the primary goal of mobilizing statewide support for a moratorium on executions in Texas, according to the Texas Moratorium Network Web site, www.texasmoratorium.org, Last year marked the first year of the alternative spring break, which included students from Rice University and The University of Texas-Austin. Scott Cobb, a board member on the Texas Moratorium Network, said after last year the organization has had a positive response. "The purpose of this program is to work with people who have any questions about the death penalty and to help them become more informed," he said. The first day of the event will include a live telephone conference from California death row inmate Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Founding father of the notorious "Crypts" gang in Los Angeles, Williams was portrayed in a made-for-TV movie by Oscar winner Jamie Foxx. Williams gained national fame after he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2001 for his new series of children's books to help build awareness and stop youth gang violence, according to the Web site. "This will allow anyone there to ask (Williams) any questions about death row or the death penalty that they might be curious about," Cobb said. The event will offer a different experience to any college students who want to do something for spring break, but do not want to stay at home or visit the usual vacation hotspots students will be occupying, Cobb said. Megan Sturdivant, a junior public relations major from Cedar Hill, is in favor of the death penalty, but sees how the event could be informative. "I think your opinion all depends on the case and what happened," she said. "It never hurts to be more informed about an issue, especially one as important as the death penalty." Some workshops will include leaders who have helped fight death penalty issues in America. Attorney Walter Long will host a workshop dealing with the death penalty in Texas. Long was one of many people who led a recent effort in abolishing the death penalty for juvenile offenders in Texas, according to the Web site. Karla Faye Tucker and Napoleon Beazley are among some of the clients Long has represented in the past, the Web site said. March 16 will be the last day of the event, when students protest the scheduled execution of Texas death row inmate Pablo Melendez, Jr. Melendez, who was 18 at the time of his sentencing, was accused of murdering 29-year-old Michael Sanders in 1994 and found guilty in 1996. Participants in Austin will protest in front of the governor's mansion in hopes of bringing attention to his case. Many people, including the victim's mother, believe Melendez was wrongly convicted, the Web site said. Cobb said they are not holding the event necessarily to persuade anyone, but to inform. "Whether you come out of it for the death penalty or against it, hopefully you will at least have some questions answered when you leave," he said. Anyone is welcome to sign up for the week and may do so at the Texas Moratorium Network Web site. Participation is free and a limited amount of student housing is available to students. The cost is $25 for the week. (source: Texas Tech Daily) INDIANA: Daniels to make 11th-hour review of death row case Gov. Mitch Daniels plans to review the case of Donald Ray Wallace Jr. "one more time" before the convicted murderer is put to death, a spokeswoman for the governor said Tuesday. Wallace, convicted in the January 1980 murders of an Evansville family of four, remains on track to become the 1st person executed under Daniels' governorship. Wallace is to be executed by chemical injection at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City early Thursday, just after midnight CST (1 a.m. EST), for killing Patrick and Theresa Gilligan and their 2 children, Lisa, 5, and Gregory, 4. Daniels, who expects to spend tonight at the governor's residence on North Meridian Street, will "read the file 1 more time and have 1 more briefing" about the matter, said his spokeswoman, Jane Jankowski. The governor's residence is equipped with a hotline to the prison. Whether Daniels will commute or delay Wallace's sentence remains unclear. Wallace's Indianapolis lawyer, Sarah Nagy, said she has prepared a 40-page petition for clemency. But Wallace has forbidden Nagy from pursuing clemency, she said. She would not say what was in the petition. "Without his consent," she said, "I am unable to proceed." Should his execution advance, Wallace would be the 1st person to be put to death in Indiana since June 2003 and only the 12th to be executed since capital punishment was restored in 1977. The condemned prisoner is allowed to chose who witnesses his execution. Relatives of victims have no right to watch. Nagy is one of the few people who Wallace has chosen to be present. "It seems he has resigned himself to the ultimate penalty." (source: Indianapolis Star) NORTH CAROLINA----impending execution Execution unfair for unintentional murder----Powell's case shows that sometimes the system simply doesn't work I want to express my sincere sympathy to Mary Gladden's family. Her tragic death should never have occurred. My remarks are in no way intended to minimize the pain and sorrow her family has been forced to endure by the loss of their loved one. My plea, instead, involves our state's responsibility to dispense punishment fairly and evenhandedly -- a responsibility even more demanding when the punishment is the ultimate, irreversible sentence of death. This Friday at 2 a.m. our state is scheduled to execute William Dillard Powell Jr. If the execution proceeds, our state will have the unfortunate distinction of executing a man with no history of violence other than the unintentional killing for which he was sentenced to death. Gov. Mike Easley has the power to stop this execution by granting clemency, a decision that would be entirely consistent with the 2 other occasions when he decided to spare individuals from a death by lethal injection. Powell was sent to death row despite the fact that a seasoned and experienced trial judge ruled that he had no intention of killing Mary Gladden during a convenience store robbery. Only a minority of states even permit the execution of persons who do not intend to kill, and very few states actually execute persons convicted of unintentional murders. That he did not intend to kill is not the only reason a death sentence for Powell is excessive. While every murder is horrific, there have been far worse murders in Cleveland County -- premeditated killings committed by persons with violent histories -- that did not result in a death penalty. In fact, press reports indicate the last execution from Cleveland County occurred in 1935. Justice requires that similar persons committing similar crimes receive similar punishments. That is not so in this case. Powell is the only person on death row in North Carolina for unintentional murder. Why haven't these issues been addressed by the court system? The answer is that in this case the courts have failed. All death penalty cases in our state are subjected to a proportionality review by the N.C. Supreme Court. A comprehensive study of the court's proportionality review process found that Powell's case represents the single most egregious failing of that review. This study was undertaken by a law professor who was attempting to help another inmate, not Powell, but the professor identified Powell's case as the one that stood out among all others as a chilling example of how the criminal justice system can fail in a case involving the ultimate punishment of death. Should North Carolina execute a man whose punishment is so grossly disproportionate to other cases? Central to the U.S. Supreme Court's application of the death penalty is the notion it should be reserved for the worst offenders who commit the worst crimes. Justice Anthony Kennedy, in last week's decision on juveniles, echoed that sentiment when he wrote, "Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit 'a narrow category of the most serious crimes' and whose extreme culpability makes them `the most deserving of execution.'" Powell, a former volunteer firefighter and Army veteran who had no history of violent acts and was the loving, devoted father of a severely autistic and mentally retarded boy, surely does not fit that description. His life spiraled out of control when he became addicted to alcohol and began using crack cocaine. On the night of the crime back in 1991, in a desperate act to obtain money to buy drugs, he entered a Shelby convenience store. He was unarmed. During the robbery he panicked. Prosecutors said he killed the clerk, Mary Gladden, with a heavy tool he found in the store. The trial court judge found that there was no premeditation in the fatal act. There's no question he should be severely punished for her unintended death. But should he be executed? Is Powell really the "worst of the worst"? Sometimes defendants get caught up in a criminal justice system that does not always treat people equally. Sometimes, on second glance, the punishment handed out by a jury or judge just doesn't look right. Sometimes a defendant simply needs a safety net to ensure that his case does not slip through the cracks, especially when the penalty is death. Powell's case is a powerful demonstration for the governor and legislators that sometimes the system simply doesn't work. This is precisely the reason the governor was given the power to grant clemency. As his execution draws near, William Powell is standing at the door of death, anxiously awaiting word from the governor. It is my sincere hope and earnest prayer that Gov. Easley will close the door on this terrible tragedy by granting clemency -- a decision that will allow Powell the opportunity to die a natural death in prison, not a death hastened by poison pumped into his veins. (source: David Teddy has practiced law in Shelby since 1988. He was recently appointed to represent William Powell as a result of the death of Powell's former attorney, Tony Lynch, who died of a brain tumor; Charlotte Observer) MICHIGAN: Capturing Life: Photographer displays series on 20 death row juveniles Photographer Toshi Kazamas first picture of a young person on death row was of Michael, a boy convicted of raping, strangling and burning an elderly woman and killing an elderly man in his small hometown in Arkansas. Since then, Kazama has gone on to photograph many young people on death row but it was his meeting with Michael that opened his eyes to the human side of the "monsters" he had imagined. "When he appeared in front of me, I was stunned. He was so young, so normal," Kazama said. Kazama, a professional photographer who started his project nine years ago and displayed it at the Michigan League yesterday, has taken 20 pictures of juveniles sentenced to death, three of which have since been executed. 13 juvenile offenders have been executed in the United States since 1998, 8 of which took place in Texas, according to Amnesty International, an organization which works to end capital punishment. While his simple photos display a disturbing reality, Kazama said his pictures allow him to work as an activist fighting to end the death penalty, a punishment applied to juveniles in only 5 countries, including the United States, according to Amnesty International. Just last Tuesday, the organization as well as opponents of capital punishment like Kazama were afforded a small victory when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that it was illegal to execute criminals under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision, which overturns a 1989 high court ruling, throws out the death sentences of 72 murderers who committed their crimes as juveniles and bars states from seeking to execute others. Nineteen states had allowed death sentences for killers who committed their crimes when they were under 18. While Kazama's work with minors will now end in light of the Supreme Court decision, the photographer would still like to see the death penalty abolished because of the inhumanity in the way he thinks the punishment is executed. His photography collection that profiles the young men and women on death row also portrays the methods that are used to execute inmates. Among these photos are shots of "Yellow Mama," the nickname for the electric chair where the executions of teenagers like Michael took place. The plain photo shows thick, black straps tied to the wooded frame and a permanent brown stain where tailbones have burned into the seat. Kazama told of the stench of burning electrical wire that filled the room. A photograph of an electrical chair at a different prison shows the special bottom of the chair, which collects the bodily fluids that stream out of the body during electrocution. While Kazama hopes ultimately for the end of capital punishment, he, along with like-minded Americans, faces an uphill battle as the death penalty is supported by President Bush and exists in 38 states. Proponents of the death penalty say capital punishment works to deter other crimes, and a paper by three Emory University economists states they have found proof in their research to support this claim. According to their research, each time an execution takes place, there are 18 fewer murders. LSA senior Eric Weiler said he advocates the death penalty in order to punish offenses and discourage other crimes - even for those under 18. He also said he thinks each state should have the right to decide if they want capital punishment or not. "It's an issue of federalism," said Weiler. Although Weiler said he supports the death penalty for crimes committed by teenagers as young as 15, and in some cases 14, he said he thinks cases should be based on high levels of evidence, such as DNA, when deciding who should be punished by death. "I think the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous types of murder," he said. Unlike Weiler, LSA freshman Monica Mendoza said she is against the death penalty. Mendoza said she attended Kazamas presentation because of an interest that was sparked from a criminal psychology class she took last semester that gave her new information and opinions regarding the current criminal system in America. "I always like looking below the surface," she said. Mendoza said she wants the prison system to focus more on rehabilitation rather than harsh punishments - especially in terms of juveniles. "Kids are the least likely to have better influences and the most likely to be able to change in the future," she said. "Cutting their future short is really unfortunate." (source: The Michigan Daily)
