Obama tries to stop execution in Texas of Mexican killer

[construct]

It seems to me that Gov. Perry has almost always played politics with the legal system. This one is no exception. He may very well be looking for a job in Washington, and this would sit well with his supporters.

 

[TX-Beau]

Legal loophole? We've got 5th and 6th Amendment issues going in this case, specifically the freedom from self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. The confession was made when he was not in custody and without counsel. I'm presuming he wasn't informed of his rights. I would say that on its face that looks like it could very well be harmful error. And if the trial attorney didn't preserve it, there may be a case of inadequate counsel, which I believe is what his present attorney is saying. That, too, could very well be harmful error.

Yes, I think if any of these things are proved, he should be granted a new trial.

Which makes me wonder, does anyone in here know the actual specifics, or are we all talking blind?

See what I got from that article is that what the Supreme Court actually did, was kick responsibility for things like this to congress to resolve (it did not assert that states didn't have to pay attention to international treaties), which congress failed to do, meaning Perry isn't obligated to listen to anyone.

 

[construct]

Which makes me wonder, does anyone in here know the actual specifics, or are we all talking blind?

See what I got from that article is that what the Supreme Court actually did, was kick responsibility for things like this to congress to resolve (it did not assert that states didn't have to pay attention to international treaties), which congress failed to do, meaning Perry isn't obligated to listen to anyone.

Yes. I think we're talking blind on some of this stuff. I haven't looked at the timeline for raising these issues, and I'm making some assumptions in the area of inadequate counsel. But assuming all that is in order . . . and that any of it can be proved . . . a new trial would be an appropriate remedy.

Congress kicked the international law issue back to Congress, but that doesn't negate the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over Texas law.

And you're right that Perry doesn't have to listen to anyone. And neither does the Supreme Court.




Oh, and lest anyone get bent out of shape, the issues I was describing are really 14th Amendment due process issues because the 5th and 6th Amendments were incorporated into the due process clause so that they apply to the states as well as to the federal government.

 

[Ninja108]

I have no problem with the sentence he got. If you want to commit a crime here, than you are subject to the laws and punishments of that we can give out.
However, the U.S. signed a treaty that would require them to notify a country if we arrest their citizen for a crime committed here.
Again and again, Texas and other states have failed to do that.
IF we don't follow the obiligations of the treaties we signed when it comes to citizens of other countries, why should we expect them to do the same?

 

[laikaNYC]

If he's guilty let him die. Obama needs to worry about other things.

Actually he does need to worry about this. He's been losing support among Hispanics.

"Never let a good tragedy go to waste"

- Rahm Emanuel

 

[JB3]

Yes. I think we're talking blind on some of this stuff. I haven't looked at the timeline for raising these issues, and I'm making some assumptions in the area of inadequate counsel. But assuming all that is in order . . . and that any of it can be proved . . . a new trial would be an appropriate remedy.

Congress kicked the international law issue back to Congress, but that doesn't negate the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over Texas law.

And you're right that Perry doesn't have to listen to anyone. And neither does the Supreme Court.




Oh, and lest anyone get bent out of shape, the issues I was describing are really 14th Amendment due process issues because the 5th and 6th Amendments were incorporated into the due process clause so that they apply to the states as well as to the federal government.

Does congress have the constitutional authority to pass a law that would very likely violate state sovereignty, though? They no more have the ability to dictate to Texas who they can and cannot execute than Texas has the right to interfere in federal business.

That and precedence is clearly on Texas' side.

 

[construct]

Does congress have the constitutional authority to pass a law that would very likely violate state sovereignty, though? They no more have the ability to dictate to Texas who they can and cannot execute than Texas has the right to interfere in federal business.

That and precedence is clearly on Texas' side.

I think they could pass a law that requires the states to abide by federal treaties. That would do it. And I think it would stick. So the law would be broader than just addressing executions of foreigners.

Or perhaps the better way would be to enact the provisions of the Vienna Conventions. I'm sure that would do it.

 

[JB3]

I think they could pass a law that requires the states to abide by federal treaties. That would do it. And I think it would stick. So the law would be broader than just addressing executions of foreigners.

They could. But they're not. They're addressing it specifically at this individual and others like him.

Also, the Supreme Court already ruled that the Federal government could not force states to abide by it:

But in 2008 the supreme court ruled that while the US government was obliged to comply with the ICJ ruling it did not have the power to force individual American states to do so.

 

[construct]

They could. But they're not. They're addressing it specifically at this individual and others like him.

Also, the Supreme Court already ruled that the Federal government could not force states to abide by it:

If it were written with wording that specified all treaties to that effect it would probably work, but the best way would be to enact the provisions of this particular treaty and/or the ICJ ruling.

The relevant case is Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008). It held that treaties do not become domestic law unless Congress enacts their provisions, and that the President does not have the authority to enforce them as such.

Here's a link.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-984.ZS.html

 

[White Eagle]

This isn't about whether Leal gets to live or die, it's about whether the United States should adhere to international treaties. If the United States fails to abide by international agreements in the treatment of foreign nationals accused of a crime in this country, why should other countries abide by them in their treatment of American citizens accused of crimes in those countries?

Texas is just a barbaric state. Luckily, whites are now in the minority, so soon the combination of younger white voters and minority voters may one day soon elect politicians who will bring Texas up to the standards and norms of modern, civilized, democratic countries.

I should be offended, but I'm not!

 

[White Eagle]

Perry must have a REALLY small penis.

He sure behaves like a microphallic.

He carries a gun when he jogs. He shot a coyote once just cuz it was on his arunnin trail.

 

[TX-Beau]

Also, the Supreme Court already ruled that the Federal government could not force states to abide by it:

No that's not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President could not enforce the provisions UNLESS there was a law in place, which there wasn't - putting the responsibility on congress to create such a law. Which it didn't, and which it's in process of doing now.

The Fed certainly can force states to abide by the provisions, and I suspect the Supreme Court expected precisely that.

The SC did not rule that the Fed could not require states to abide by the terms of foreign treaties period. Which would be frikkin' silly anyway. The fed constitutionally has the right to make treaties with foreign powers and there's nothing unconstitutional about requiring that the states abide by those agreements.

They were ratified by the people the states elected to go to congress anyway.

 

[AntiCoyote]

Texas is bloodthirsty. Since 1976, Texas has executed 470 people.

Doesn't seen to stop crime as Texas has a high crime rate.

But it could've been higher. At least there are 470 who can never do it again

 

[TX-Beau]

Which means what precisely? Not executing 470 people over a forty year time period would significantly increase the Texas crime rates?

 

[Críostóir]

I have seen nothing so far that would question his guilt in this matter.

You haven't? You haven't heard that there is NO DNA evidence supporting the idea that he raped her, or that she was gang-raped at a party and he was taking her home (not exactly kidnapping), or that under Texas law at least one of those things must be true to make it a capital case?

There's SIGNIFICANT doubt about his guilt. What's not in doubt is that he killed her; what IS in doubt is that he did so deliberately OR with callous disregard OR that the enhancing circumstances (needed for the death penalty) apply.

All of which is actually irrelevant, because his rights under international law were violated, and executing him even if he's completely guilty is a criminal act. But of course one doesn't expect Texas to pay any mind to international law; that would be like expecting Texas to regard the US Constitution as anything other than toilet paper, or to have any sense of human decency at all.

No, Texas (not all Texans, but the electorate in aggregate, who keep electing slimetrolls like Perry) is so thirsty for the blood of brown people that it kills them whenever possible, not much caring whether they did anything wrong or not.

 

[laikaNYC]

You haven't? You haven't heard that there is NO DNA evidence supporting the idea that he raped her, or that she was gang-raped at a party and he was taking her home (not exactly kidnapping), or that under Texas law at least one of those things must be true to make it a capital case?

There's SIGNIFICANT doubt about his guilt. What's not in doubt is that he killed her; what IS in doubt is that he did so deliberately OR with callous disregard OR that the enhancing circumstances (needed for the death penalty) apply.

All of which is actually irrelevant, because his rights under international law were violated, and executing him even if he's completely guilty is a criminal act. But of course one doesn't expect Texas to pay any mind to international law; that would be like expecting Texas to regard the US Constitution as anything other than toilet paper, or to have any sense of human decency at all.

No, Texas (not all Texans, but the electorate in aggregate, who keep electing slimetrolls like Perry) is so thirsty for the blood of brown people that it kills them whenever possible, not much caring whether they did anything wrong or not.

Wow, significant doubt you say? Is that why he actually admitted to the girl's rape and murder during his interrogation?

But by all means, whip out that race card.

 

[Críostóir]

Wow, significant doubt you say? Is that why he actually admitted to the girl's rape and murder during his interrogation?

Since you're known to just outright make shit up, I need to see evidence beyond your bald statement that he did any such thing. And btw Fox News? They don't count as a source either, since they're on record as believing it's OK for them to lie whenever they want.

 

[laikaNYC]

Since you're known to just outright make shit up, I need to see evidence beyond your bald statement that he did any such thing. And btw Fox News? They don't count as a source either, since they're on record as believing it's OK for them to lie whenever they want.

He arrived home soaked in blood and told his brother that he killed a girl.

There was blood evidence in his car.

DNA evidence from his clothing.

A bloody shirt belonging to the victim was found at his home.

And bite marks on the poor girl's body matching his dental impressions.

Actual legal documents (pages 14 and 15)

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-03/justice/texas.death.row_1_mexican-consulate-death-row-mexican-officials/2?_s=PM:CRIME

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

There's SIGNIFICANT doubt about his guilt. What's not in doubt is that he killed her; what IS in doubt is that he did so deliberately OR with callous disregard OR that the enhancing circumstances (needed for the death penalty) apply.

Because apparently she just got in the way of weapons on accident? Sorry, not really understanding how you figure her death was apparently accidental, or that he meant to do as to possibly avoid a witness. Also, rape usually acts as an enhancement for murder....

So....What precisely is your logic on this...?

RG

 

[chuck10x]

The murder was committed in 1994.

Here is a link to the story and some facts that were neglected to be mentioned.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...|76142&icid=main|verizon|dl1|sec3_lnk2|218222



Leal moved with his family from Monterrey, Mexico, to the U.S. as a toddler. His appeals contended police never told him he could seek legal assistance from the Mexican government under an international treaty, and that such assistance would have helped his defense.

The argument is not new. Texas, the nation's most active death penalty state, has executed other condemned foreign nationals who raised similar challenges, most recently in 2008.

Leal's appeals, however, focused on legislation introduced last month in the U.S. Senate by Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy. Leahy's measure would bring the U.S. into compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations provision regarding the arrests of foreign nationals, and ensure court reviews for condemned foreigners to determine if a lack of consular help made a significant difference in the outcome of their cases