Vienna Convention

• Author: International Law Group

A state-court jury in Miami-Dade County, Florida found Krishna Maharaj ("Petitioner") guilty of two counts of first degree murder, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. Sentenced to death for one of the murder counts, life imprisonment without the possibility for parole for twenty-five years for the second murder count, two life sentences for the kidnapping counts, and fifteen years' imprisonment, Maharaj appealed to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences.

Maharaj then petitioned for federal habeas relief and the application was referred to a federal magistrate judge, who recommended denying relief on all claims. Petitioner objected to the Report and Recommendation, the district judge conducted a de novo review of the Petition and denied relief as to each claim.

Petitioner filed a timely appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, alleging violations of the Vienna Convention.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, however, affirms.

After filing his appeal with the Eleventh Circuit, Petitioner asked for a stay pending resolution of a motion he filed in state court seeking post-conviction relief on the ground that his rights under the Vienna Convention were violated when the arresting officers failed to inform him that he could contact the British Consulate.

Article 36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention [21 U.S.T. 77, T.I.A.S. 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 261, effective for U.S. December 24, 1969], to which the United States and the United Kingdom are parties, states that upon arrest, a foreign national has the right to contact the consular post of his home country, and that the arresting authorities must inform the detainee of that right. Once a detainee is informed of this right, the arresting authorities must forward any desired communications to that foreign office. Article I of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention [21 U.S.T. 325, T.I.A.S. 6820, 596 U.N.T.S. 487, effective for U.S. December 24, 1969] further states that "[d]isputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice."

Petitioner argues that a stay would be appropriate because he was never informed of his right in violation of the Vienna Convention and that the state courts should have considered the merits of his claim.

In deciding whether to stay or...