That's not an easy question to answer, Lawmage.

From an emotional perspective, and my natural instincts that are horrified by his crimes, my immediate answer is that he should not have been afforded a new trial based on the denial of consular access.

However, you can look at it another way. The law is the law. The law is there to protect people. It cannot decide whether the person it is protecting is a good person or a bad person, if that person is a liar, or a cheater, or deceitful about his citizenship. And while it's true that the proecution would not be at fault for Medellin's failure to have consular visitation, if he didn't have it, for any reason at all, it can be argued that he is entitled to another trial.

That being said, there's almost no doubt that he'd be found guilty at the second trial as well, and the sentence would be the same. The question is do we respect the process of the law or don't we?

I am inclined to say we are obligated to respect the law but perhaps that is because I think there is an out that lets me have it both ways...Texas is NOT party to the Vienna Convention, the United States is party to that Convention. Medellin was not "denied" consular access by the United States, he was "denied" consular access by Texas. This is the same distinction the Supreme Court made when it ruled Texas did not have to give Medellin a new trial. While our legal system, with its distinction between the Federal and the State levels of government, may seem foreign to other nations it is our system. They insist we respect their systems when in their countries (something I think we should in fact do) so I think it is reasonable for us to expect the same.

I should take the trouble to point out my issue with Medellin is not the horrific nature of his crimes. I would not care if his crime were something as simple as jay walking. I just do not think he should be rewarded for his deceptions. For instance, if Medellin had pretended to speak no English and instead used a few memorized phrases to convince authorities he spoke German and so had his Miranda rights advisal conducted in German instead of English it would not be appropriate to find his Miranda rights were violated. Similarly, I think given Medellin's complicity in the "denial" of his rights, I think it would be inappropriate to find his rights were atually violated. In amny respects, one could argue he effectively waived his right to consular access by pretending to be an American.

That is what the prosecution would argue.

The defense would ask if there was actual pretense, i.e. did he check "USA" on a form and sign it when asked for citizenship. If so, then indeed, he can be considered to have waived his right to consular access.

If not, if his deception was merely not saying he was a Mexican, it's a different story.

Again, I'm only discussing the law from the viewpoint of a non-lawyer, I'm not suggesting he didn't do what he did, or that he not be punished for it.

I agree that the actual crime is not in question and not the concern of this thread. I think maybe the guy didn't know that by saying he was a Mexican he would have an extra level of protection against a death sentence. However, his attorney should have explored that angle further. The only deception likely would fall to the attorney. I doubt there was any deception in this case at all, just ignorance.

I disagree as to the deception. One does not just jump into gang rape and murder. It is something that follows on a history of law breaking. I am too lazy at the moment to dig into Medellin's legal history but I strongly suspect it is rife with previous encounters with law enforcement. As a noncitizen, Medellin would have been subject to deportation for that litany of criminal offenses. It was therefore in his interest to conceal is Mexican nationality and portray himself has an American. His deception resulted in the horrific death of two young girls, deaths that could have been avoided had he been deported earlier. Again, the nature of his crime is not really the issue here. His deception is the issue. He ought not beneit from it. At least he was deported after death...

Jo, the attorney would have no reason to suspect Medellin was a foreign national, he'd been in this country since age three, so probably spoke good enough English. Looking at his past criminal record, the attorney would make the assumption that he was a US citizen, since he was not deported. So he would really not have a clue that his client was a citizen of Mexico unless Medellin told him so.