Consular Relations
Author | International Law Group |
Pages | 122-124 |
Page 122
Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77, 100-101 [1970]; T.I.A.S. No. 6820; 596 U.N.T.S. 261) (VCCR) provides, inter alia, that a member state holding foreign detainees shall notify the prisoners that they may contact their consular oficials.
Supreme Court docket No. 04-10566 involves Moises Sanchez-Llamas (Petitioner 04). He is a Mexican national whom U.S. police arrested after an exchange of gunfi re in Oregon. At the time of his arrest, the police gave him his Miranda warnings in both English and Spanish. They failed to tell him, however, that he could have the Mexican Consulate notifi ed of his detention. During police interrogation, Petitioner 04 made several incriminating statements.
The Oregon authorities charged Petitioner 04 with attempted aggravated murder, attempted murder, and other offenses. Before trial, he moved to suppress the inculpatory statements arguing that he had made them involuntarily and that the authorities had failed to comply with VCCR Article 36. The trial court denied the motion, and the case went to trial.
The court convicted Petitioner 04. On appeal, he argued that the Article 36 violation demanded the suppression of his statements. The Oregon Court of Appeals, however, afirmed and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Docket No. 05-51 involves Mario Bustillo, a Honduran national (Petitioner 05). Virginia authorities charged him with murdering James Merry in Springfi eld, Virginia. At trial, the defense argued that a third party was the true killer. The trial court convicted Petitioner 05 of fi rst-degree murder. A Virginia appellate court afirmed his conviction.
Petitioner 05 then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in a Virginia court, contending for the fi rst time that the state authorities had violated his right to prompt consular notifi cation under VCCR Article 36. He urged that the Honduran Consulate could have helped him fi nd the true culprit prior to trial. The state court dismissed Petitioner 05's VCCR claim for his failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal. Petitioner 05 objected that state procedural default rules should not apply to Article 36 claims.
In these cases, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the following issues: (1) whether suppression of evidence is a proper remedy for a violation of VCCR Article 36; and (2) whether a state court may regard an Article 36 claim as forfeited under state...
To continue reading
Request your trial