Thread: Treaty Doesn't Give Foreign Defendants Special Status in U.S

http://www.nytimes.com

June 29, 2006
Supreme Court Roundup
Treaty Doesn't Give Foreign Defendants Special Status in U.S. Courts, Justices Rule
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
WASHINGTON, June 28 — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that foreign criminal defendants who have not been notified of their right under an international treaty to contact one of their country's diplomats are nonetheless not entitled to any special accommodation from courts in the United States.

The 6-to-3 decision left foreign defendants with little practical recourse for violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty the United States ratified in 1969.

Article 36 of the treaty, also ratified by 169 other countries, provides that when a foreigner is arrested, officials must inform him of his right under the treaty and then, on his request, must contact his consulate "without delay."

An opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. resolved two cases that presented different aspects of the problem of how courts should deal with violations of the treaty. Courts in the United States have been wrestling with the issue in recent years as the International Court of Justice has become increasingly assertive about enforcing individual rights under the treaty in cases that other governments have brought against the United States.

The question in one case before the justices, brought to the Supreme Court by a Mexican man who was convicted in Oregon of attempted murder, was whether incriminating statements he had made to the police should be suppressed because he had not received notice of his right to consult with a representative of the Mexican consulate.

Lawyers for the defendant, Moíses Sánchez-Llamas, argued that the exclusionary rule should apply in state court, as it would if the police had violated the Constitution in extracting a confession from a defendant.

But that analogy was wrong, Chief Justice Roberts said. "It would be startling if the Convention were read to require suppression," he said, because "the exclusionary rule as we know it is an entirely American legal creation."

The chief justice said "it is implausible that other signatories to the Convention thought it to require a remedy that nearly all refuse to recognize as a matter of domestic law."

In the other case, brought by a Honduran man convicted of murder in Virginia, the question was whether courts must bend their usual rules against entertaining arguments on appeal that were not raised at trial. It was not until after his conviction was upheld on appeal that the defendant, Mario A. Bustillo, went back into court to argue that he had not been advised of his right to confer with the Honduran consulate.

Under Virginia's rule of "procedural default," the argument was raised too late. But Mr. Bustillo's lawyers argued that the rule should be set aside under two recent interpretations of the Vienna Convention issued by the International Court of Justice, often referred to as the World Court.

That court has ruled that American courts should "review and reconsider" convictions in cases where the Vienna Convention was violated, without respect to procedural rules if the failure of notification prevented the defendant from raising the Vienna Convention issue at the appropriate time.

Chief Justice Roberts said these rulings were "entitled only to the respectful consideration due an interpretation of an international agreement by an international court," but were not binding as precedent on American courts.

"If treaties are to be given effect as federal law under our legal system," the chief justice said, they are for the Supreme Court to interpret as it would interpret any other law. He said that in contrast to most European legal systems, under the American adversary system "the responsibility for failing to raise an issue generally rests with the parties themselves."

Rules of procedural default play an important role in the system and should be respected, the chief justice said.

The decision upheld rulings by the Supreme Courts of Oregon and Virginia.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the decision "leaves states free to deny effective relief for convention violations, despite America's promise to provide just such relief."

He added that the decision "risks weakening respect abroad for the rights of foreign nationals, a respect that America, in 1969, sought to make effective throughout the world." Justices John Paul Stevens and David H. Souter joined the dissent.

Another question in the case, Sánchez-Llamas v. Oregon, No. 04-10566, was whether the Vienna Convention conveys rights that are enforceable by individuals in the first place, as opposed to nation-to-nation diplomacy.

The court avoided deciding that issue last year, in a case concerning a Mexican citizen on death row in Texas, and it avoided the question on Wednesday as well. Chief Justice Roberts said that since neither defendant had a valid claim, it was unnecessary to decide whether individual relief was theoretically available under the Vienna Convention.

The majority opinion was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred only in the result. She joined Justice Breyer in concluding that foreign citizens have individual rights under the treaty. But she agreed with the majority that neither of the defendants was entitled to relief. She noted that the decision left open the possibility that a defendant in Mr. Bustillo's position could get into court with a claim that his lawyer had been constitutionally ineffective in failing to raise the issue at the proper time.

In a second decision on Wednesday, the court voted 6 to 2 to uphold a Pennsylvania prison policy of denying access to newspapers and magazines to the system's most incorrigible inmates.

The decision, Beard v. Banks, No. 04-1739, overturned a ruling by the federal appeals court in Philadelphia, which had declared that the policy violated the First Amendment. Justice Alito, who dissented when he was on the federal court, did not vote in the case.

Justice Breyer wrote the opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Souter. He said the prison officials had offered a sufficient justification for the policy to be entitled to deference. Justices Thomas and Scalia concurred in the result. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented.

What's up with the supreme court? This is the second thing they have gottten right

Yeah, Supreme Court!!