Yesterday, the state of Texas executed Humberto Leal Garcia, 38 for raping and murdering a 16-year-old girl in San Antonio in 1994. It was not just any execution. Leal was technically a Mexican citizen, and at the time of his arrest, Mexican consular authorities were not notified as the law requires. This led to an outcry to spare his life from Mexico, the UN, the usual activists, and even the White House.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/07/08/2011-07-08_texas_executes_mexican_national_humberto_leal_garcia_despite_white_house_efforts.html?r=news/politics
A few observations.
Last night, I watched the Univision (Spanish language report) which was highly sympathetic to the argument that Leal should not have been executed. It barely paid any attention to the crime and the victim.
It is true that there is an international agreement among nations that when a foreign citizen is arrested in another country, a consular officer from that person's country shall be notified. There was a violation here, but did that violate Leal's right to a fair trial? Did it result in him being executed? I say no.
As a DEA agent staioned in Thailand and Italy, I have personal experience in these matters. Let's be clear; when consular officials are notified that one of their citizens has been arrested, they are limited in what they can do. They are required to notify the person's family in the home country. They are required to visit the prisoner once a month. They are required to ensure that the prisoner is treated equally as the arresting nation's own citizens while in custody and enjoy the same rights under local law as every one else. They can assist the family in arranging visits. They can facilitate mail.
However, consular officials have no power to demand the prisoner's release. An exception is the recent case when the US State Department took up the cause of an American official employee arrested for murder by Pakistan because the person held diplomatic status and appeared to be acting in self defense.
On the other hand, consular officials have no obligation to assist in the prisoner's legal representation. They can provide the prisoner and his family with a list of local attorneys that are known to be of good repute.
I appears that Leal was brought to this country by his family at the age of two. Were the police informed by Leal that he was actually a Mexican citizen? I don't know. (Maybe he fell into Dick Durban's DREAM Act.)
I also take note that Leal's last words (after he apologized for his crime) were, "Viva Mexico!" Oh well.
Of course, the Obama administration took up Leal's cause. That's not surprising. Also not surprising is the fact that the usual 4 Supreme Court liberals took up his side as well. Fortunately, Anthony Kennedy woke up on the right side of bed that morning.
The proper remedy in this matter would be for someone to punish in some administrative manner those who were negligent in notifying Mexico of Leal's arrest. What is not clear is when Mexsico was eventually notified. It would seem natural that once he was represented by a lawyer, that would have been addressed. Did his lawyers also forget-or were they aware that he was not an American citizen? The argument that Mexico could have helped Leal prove his innocence is absurd since that is outside their jurisdiction.
So I applaud the execution. And for all you human rights and Mexican-American activists out there who say this was a racist human rights abuse, I point out to you the name of the victim, Adria Sauceda. I also tell you that I care much more about Adria and her family than any of you do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't think most here in Texas or anywhere else in the U.S. for that matter give a whit about any UN authority.
Problem is that many do.
Sounds about right, but you didn't specify what administrative punishment should be administered.
This is similar to the conundrum of the exclusionary rule. Nobody should get away with murder because the police executed an unlawful search. But there has to be some measure that makes the police hurt enough, when they violate the Fourth Amendment, that they refrain, more often from not, from doing so.
My favorite alternative would be, IF you are innocent, and the police trampled on your rights, they go to prison for five years, and you can sue each officer involved and their supervisors for half their income for ten years after they get out.
The problem with that is, agents of the government would get the benefit of reasonable doubt, and innocent citizens who have been violated would have the burden of proof. Cops would laugh. Juries would refuse to convict. So, the only thing the police pay attention to is, if they enter my house without a warrant, and I happen to be guilty, they will lose their case, therefore, they will NOT come into my innocent space without a warrant "just checking" because without probably cause, and a warrant, or exigent circumstances, they wouldn't get a conviction.
Cops are quite imaginative about inventing "exigent circumstances" to give themselves carte blanche. Google "Calabretta v. Floyd" -- a case where I applaud the work of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
In the Leal case, failure to notify the consul doesn't rate as a free pass for murder, but in another case, it could be significant in lost chances to prove innocence. This isn't about the UN. This is about what American citizens arrested in Mexico expect, and we therefore have to reciprocate.
Post a Comment