"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no
deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute
murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have
allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk
the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on
deterrence
CASE UPDATE.....
CJLF
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
05-07
PRESS RELEASE
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 23, 2005
Michael Rushford, President
(916) 446-0345
SUPREME COURT
TO CONSIDER RIGHTS OF FOREIGN MURDERERS Oral argument in Medellin v.
Dretke set for Monday, March 28
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in a
controversial case which will determine what additional
rights (if any) a foreign national is entitled to when
police fail to notify his government of his arrest, as
required by an international treaty.
The case of Medellin v. Dretke involves the 1993
conviction and death sentence of Ernesto Medellin for
the gang rape and murder of two young girls in Houston,
Texas 12 years ago. Medellin is a Mexican citizen who
has lived in Texas most of his life. According to an
international treaty signed in 1963, police were
required to notify the Mexican government of Medellin’s
arrest. Last year, in a case involving 51 Mexican
nationals convicted of murder in the United States, the
International Court of Justice ruled that when a foreign
national’s government has not been notified, the
defendant is entitled to a hearing to determine if the
failure to notify had a prejudicial effect on his case.
“This is an important case because it will determine how
much disruption the World Court decision will cause in
the American system of justice,” said Kent Scheidegger,
author of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation’s
amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the
case.
The facts found by the jury in this case describe a
particularly brutal crime. At about 11:00 p.m. on June
24, 1993, Medellin was hanging out in a remote Houston
neighborhood with several fellow street gang members
when they spotted two young girls. Fourteen-year-old
Jennifer Ertman and her sixteen-year-old friend,
Elizabeth Pena, were walking home from another friend’s
house. As they passed the gang, Medellin grabbed
Elizabeth and threw her to the ground as Jennifer ran.
When Elizabeth called for help, Jennifer returned to
help her and was thrown to the ground by other gang
members. Over the next hour, both girls were subjected
to what investigating officers called the most brutal
gang rapes they had ever encountered. Following the
rapes, the men dragged the bleeding girls to a wooded
area as they begged for their lives. Two men initially
tried to strangle Jennifer with a belt wrapped around
her neck with one pulling at each end. When the belt
broke, they strangled her to death with a shoelace.
Medellin later complained, “the bitch wouldn’t die,” and
it would have been “easier with a gun.” Elizabeth was
also strangled to death with her shoelaces. The
murderers then divided money and jewelry taken from the
girls and several joined Medellin at the home of one of
the men’s brother and sister-in-law. There they bragged
about the rapes and murders. Medellin explained to the
sister-in-law that the girls had been killed to prevent
them from identifying him and his accomplices. A few
days later, the couple reported the crime to police.
Following his arrest and after waiving his Miranda
rights, Medellin confessed his participation in the
rapes and murders in a written statement. Several hours
after his confession, he disclosed that he had been born
in Mexico. After learning this, but apparently unaware
of a requirement of the 1963 Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, the Houston police failed to notify
the Mexican Consul that Medellin was under arrest for
murder.
Following his trial, Medellin’s conviction and death
sentence were upheld by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. At that point, the Mexican consular
authorities learned about the case and actively
participated in the review on state habeas corpus. They
argued that, had they been notified, they would have
advised Medellin to refuse to talk to police without an
attorney. The consulate did not suggest that they would
have arranged for a more effective defense at Medellin’s
trial, or that he suffered any other harm because the
Mexican government was not notified following his
arrest.
The state habeas judge reviewed Medellin’s claim and
ruled that the “failure to notify” had no effect on the
validity of Medellin’s conviction or sentence, in
addition to holding that the claim was too late. The
state appellate court later affirmed that ruling. On
federal habeas corpus, Medellin made several claims of
trial and sentencing error in addition to the Vienna
Convention issue. After reviewing the Vienna Convention
claim, the district judge found it meritless, as well as
procedurally defaulted (improperly raised). In 2004,
the International Court of Justice (World Court) ruled,
in a case including Medellin and 50 other murderers,
that the United States should provide a hearing for
foreign nationals convicted of crimes whose home
government was not notified prior to the trial in
accordance with the Vienna Convention. Even so, the
federal appeals court upheld the District Court’s ruling
and denied Medellin the right to appeal his Vienna
Convention claim, based upon U. S. Supreme Court
precedent. Last December, the Supreme Court agreed to
consider Medellin’s claim that the lower court wrongly
denied him any further opportunity to appeal his Vienna
Convention claim.
At the request of the Texas Solicitor General, the
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation has filed an amicus
curiae brief to encourage a decision which does not
disrupt the American legal process. The CJLF brief
points out that Medellin has already had two hearings on
the merits of his Vienna Convention claim and, under
American law, it should not cause any further delay of
his execution. CJLF argues that any decision to
accommodate the World Court ruling should allow one
hearing in state court, which can be appealed only to a
state appellate court and the U. S. Supreme Court, not
the lower federal courts. At such a hearing, the burden
would be on the defendant to prove that a failure to
notify his government had a prejudicial effect on his
trial or sentencing. “This murderer has already
received the process he is due, and the United States
has already complied with its treaty obligations,” said
Scheidegger. “There is no need for any further delay of
justice in this case.”
CJLF Legal Director
Kent Scheidegger is available for comment at (916)
446-0345. Foundation arguments have helped win three United
States Supreme Court decisions benefitting law
enforcement and public safety during the current term.
The Foundation’s brief in this case is available at:
http://www.cjlf.org/briefs/Medellin.pdf
Cary Ann Medlin
"Jesus loves you,
Jesus loves you."
Said over and over to her rapist just
before he murdered her.
Visit theLinkspage and check the resources listed near the top of that page.
The Issues page outlines the major issues in the
capital punishment debate.
Type or Paste text or
Web address beginning with http://
Translate from:
Powered by Systran
This site is being developed as
a resource for those searching the internet for pro-death penalty information
and resources. Capital punishment is a topic that brings up deep emotional
reactions for those on both sides of the issue and conflict for those who are
undecided how they feel.
If you search the internet via search
engines for "death penalty", you are likely to find thousands, if not tens
of thousands of "hits" to web sites related to the topic. With very few
exceptions, these sites are anti-death penalty. Is this because the
majority of people are against the death penalty? Not according to recent
surveys. It is simply because people who are adamantly opposed to the
death penalty tend to take an activist stance and become involved in
working to stop the death penalty. For the most part, people who support
the death penalty do so quietly, in their own minds and feel no need to do
so in any public fashion. It is the law and they expect it to be carried
out.
We have developed a database of the victims of
death row inmates. Most similar databases list the inmate, with very little, if
any, information about their victims. Our database is indexed by the name of the
victim. Currently, it contains over 1800 names of victims. There are over 3500
inmates currently on death row, and many have multiple victims so the database
will eventually contain about five times as many names as it currently has. If
you have information about the victim of a death row inmate, please send us an
email at info@prodeathpenalty.com.
If you are seeking information about the
victims of a particular death row inmate, send an email to info@prodeathpenalty.com
and we will research your question.
