U.S. court to decide case of Mexican on death row
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1029053113.jpg|width="130" height="98" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether President George W. Bush had the authority to direct a state court to comply with an international tribunal's ruling in the case of a Mexican on death row in Texas. The justices agreed to review a decision by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that concluded Bush had exceeded his constitutional authority by intruding into the independent powers of the judiciary.
The case involved Jose Medellin, who was denied the right to meet with a consular officer from Mexico after his arrest for murder.
The World Court in The Hague in 2004 ordered the United States to review the cases of Medellin and 50 other Mexican death row inmates because U.S. officials failed to tell them of their right under the Vienna Convention to talk to consular officers immediately after their arrests.
Bush in 2005 decided to comply with the World Court's ruling and he directed state courts to review the 51 cases to determine whether the violation of their rights caused the defendants any harm at trial or at sentencing.
Bush's action caused the Supreme Court to dismiss an earlier appeal by Medellin without deciding the merits of the dispute and to send the case back to the Texas courts.
After losing before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, Medellin's attorneys again appealed to the Supreme Court. They said the Texas court has put the United States in violation of its undisputed treaty obligations.
Bush administration attorneys supported Medellin's appeal. They said Bush acted within his authority and that the Texas court invalidated a presidential action "on a matter of international importance."
Medellin, a gang member, was sentenced to death in state court for the 1993 rape and murder of two teenage girls in Houston. The brutal killings stemmed from a gang initiation.
Lawyers for the state opposed the appeal. They said Bush exceeded his authority and that he cannot pre-empt Texas criminal law.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments and decide the case during its upcoming term that begins in October.
Related listings
-
UGA settles harassment lawsuit involving athletes
Lawyer Blogs 04/28/2007The University of Georgia reached an out-of-court settlement with a former student who filed a 25 million dollar sexual harassment lawsuit.The woman -- Tiffany Williams -- claimed U-G-A officials were slow to respond to an alleged assault involving t...
-
Bush Vows to Veto Iraq Troop Withdrawal
Lawyer Blogs 04/28/2007President Bush warned Congress Friday that he will continue vetoing war spending bills as long as they contain a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Speaking a day after the Democratic-controlled Congress approved legislation t...
-
Monroe County pays $440,000 in jail corruption suit
Lawyer Blogs 04/28/2007A Monroe County Sheriff’s deputy, who alleged in a lawsuit that the jail operation was beset by corruption, has received a $200,000 settlement to resolve the lawsuit.The county paid another $240,000 to an outside law firm which handled the litigation...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.