Thursday, 14 August 2008

Texas Man Who Didn't Kill May Be Executed

Texas Man Who Didn't Kill May Be Executed

Jeff Wood Didn't Kill Kris Keeran, but He Is Set to Be Executed for Keeran's Death

Texas is scheduled to put a man to death this month even though he never killed anyone, in what would apparently be the first execution of its kind in more than a decade.

wood
Texas death row inmate Jeff Wood and his wife Kristin. Wood is scheduled to be executed Aug. 21, even though he did not kill anyone.
(Courtesy of Kristen Wood)

Jeff Wood was sentenced to death in 1998 for his role in the murder of Kris Keeran, a gas station attendant who was killed during a 1996 robbery.

But Wood did not kill Keeran. Danny Reneau, Wood's former roommate, was convicted of shooting Keeran between the eyes during the robbery Jan. 2, 1996. Reneau was executed in 2002.

Barring a commutation from the governor, Wood, 35, will be put to death Aug. 21.

Wood was the getaway driver while Reneau robbed the Kerrvill, Texas, gas station where Keeran worked. Reneau shot and killed Keeran after he refused to go along with a plan to fake a robbery and split the proceeds, according to court documents.

Wood, who told police Keeran was a friend, later admitted that he came into the store after hearing the gunshot that killed Keeran, court opinions in the case say. Wood then helped Reneau take the store VCR and surveillance tapes -- he claimed only after Reneau forced him to do so at gunpoint.

Related

Wood was convicted under a Texas law known as the law of parties, which makes Wood equally responsible for crimes committed by his accomplices that "should have been anticipated" during the course of the robbery -- even if he did not commit the crimes.

Though most states have similar laws, often called felony murder statutes, they are rarely used in death penalty cases. The last execution under a similar law was in 1996, in Oklahoma, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. There have been seven such executions, excluding murder-for-hire cases, since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, according to the center.

Texas' law of parties statute is also broader than similar laws in most other states, said Robert Owen, director of the Capital Punishment Clinic at the University of Texas Law School.

"It's terribly risky to allow the death penalty to be imposed where the jury has to draw inferences about what was in the defendant's mind," said Owen. "There are serious questions about whether a getaway driver who might have anticipated that a death would take place should be death penalty eligible."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a person may be executed for a murder he or she did not commit or intend to commit if they were a "major participant" in the crime or acted with "reckless indifference to the value of human life."

wood

Wood's appeals have been rejected by Texas and federal courts, and he has appealed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Gov. Rick Perry for clemency. A spokeswoman for the Pardons Board declined to comment. It will review Wood's case Aug. 19 and make a recommendation to Perry.

One of the few death sentences Perry has commuted came last year in the case of Kenneth Foster, who was also sentenced to death for acting as a getaway driver during a robbery that ended in murder.

Related

Prosecutors in Wood's trial and appeals did not return calls for comment. Kerr County Assistant District Attorney Lucy Wilke, in a letter to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, called Wood "the mastermind of this senseless murder," noting that Wood told his brother to destroy the surveillance tape after watching it together, according to the San Antonio Express.

After initially denying involvement in the robbery, Wood admitted in a statement to police that he knew Reneau was going to rob the gas station, that Reneau planned to bring a gun and might use it if Keeran didn't cooperate, according to court opinions.

Wood's family says the statement was coerced and point to testimony from a witness at Reneau's trial who said that Wood didn't know Reneau was bringing a gun. That testimony was not admitted at Wood's trial, according to his clemency petition.

His wife and father say Wood, who was initially found mentally incompetent to stand trial, is eager to please and has trouble understanding information.

"He had a very strong need to be accepted," his wife, Kristin, said. "He very easily went along with whoever wanted to accept him. That's why he ended up in bad company."

"He didn't know how to process information the way other people do," said Wood's father, Daniel. "He didn't know how to plan, he didn't know how to put things together. He loved to fish, but he couldn't plan for freshwater versus saltwater. His solution was to bring everything."

A jury found Wood guilty after deliberating for about 90 minutes. During the penalty phase of the trial, during which defense lawyers try to persuade the jury to spare the defendant's life, Wood told his lawyers not to call any witnesses or cross-examine any prosecution witnesses.

His trial lawyer said he was morally opposed to Wood's decision, calling it "a gesture of suicide," court papers say. Wood's clemency petition, filed earlier this week, called the penalty portion of the trial "a complete breakdown of the adversarial process."

Wood's family has organized a small grass-roots campaign to persuade the governor to spare his life. "He was always compassionate and involved with making things easier for other people," Daniel Wood said of his son. "He wanted to be important."

Save Jeff Wood - music video



Rativist Capital-"X" advocates for Jeff Wood, an innocent man set to die by lethal injection on August 21, 2008 in Texas:

Check it out and please pass it on:

New petition site for Jeff Wood


New petition site for Jeff Wood

We closed Jeff's original petition in order to get the majority of signatures to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. We have people still interested in signing so we created another one. Here is the web address:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/save-jeff-wood-from-the-executioner


Please pass this to everyone you know who has not signed the original petition. Thank you!

Terri Been B.S., M.Ed
Athletic Director
mystrus@hotmail.com

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley should lead the way


http://www.al.com/images/birminghamnews/logo262x34.gif

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley should lead the way in trying to figure out what happened to rape evidence in the capital murder case against Thomas Arthur.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

THE ISSUE: Gov. Bob Riley should lead the way in trying to figure out what happened to rape evidence in the capital murder case against Thomas Arthur.

Gov. Bob Riley never has been inclined to order DNA tests requested by inmates on Death Row. Their stories are never compelling enough, or the timing is wrong, or maybe the dog ate Riley's homework. There's always a reason to say no.

But Riley should grant at least some requests made on behalf of Death Row inmate Thomas Arthur, whose backers still want DNA tests but also want the governor to help find out what happened to rape evidence in the case.

Prosecutors recently acknowledged they couldn't find the evidence, which includes semen and saliva. While they contend the evidence is irrelevant to Arthur's case, it could certainly be used to verify or debunk another inmate's recent confession to the murder that put Arthur on Death Row. Between the inmate's confession and news of the missing rape evidence, the Alabama Supreme Court called off Arthur's July 31 execution.

The Innocence Project, which has pushed for DNA testing in the Arthur case, is asking Riley to order a thorough search for the missing rape kit, saying that redoubled efforts in other states often located evidence that initially had been given up as lost. In any case, the nonprofit organization is asking the governor to document what happened to the evidence, if it indeed no longer exists.

"Wholly apart from Mr. Arthur's case, it is deeply disturbing that evidence in a capital case could simply disappear," the Innocence Project wrote. "We request that you immediately order a close review of the state's system of preserving and organizing evidence in criminal cases, particularly in capital cases."

This, in particular, is a reasonable request. Governors in other states have stepped forward and provided key leadership when questions about capital punishment were raised. A former Illinois governor, troubled by the exoneration of some Death Row inmates, launched a study of capital punishment in his state that led to sweeping reforms and even commutations of all death sentences.

The scope of what is being asked of Riley is much more limited: Make finding the evidence in the Arthur case a priority and undertake a larger effort to ensure evidence in capital cases is properly preserved.

The effort certainly has implications for Arthur, who was convicted of killing Troy Wicker in Muscle Shoals. The rape evidence was collected from Wicker's wife, Judy, who initially claimed an intruder killed her husband and assaulted her. She later admitted she paid Arthur to kill her husband. Now, another state inmate claims he committed the murder at Mrs. Wicker's request and then had sex with the new widow. That rape kit could help prove or disprove his claims.

But there is another issue at stake here, too. Evidence in capital cases shouldn't go missing. This is a campaign worthy of Riley's attention.

Wednesday, 13 August 2008

Church leaders ask Blunt to commute death sentence



Church leaders ask Blunt to commute death sentence

August 12, 2008 | 11:08 p.m. CDT
BY CHRIS BLANK, The Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY — Several religious leaders have asked Gov. Matt Blunt to grant clemency to a convicted killer scheduled to be executed Aug. 27, saying the inmate has "turned his life around" in prison.

Dennis Skillicorn would be the first inmate executed in Missouri since 2005 unless, as the clergy members urged in a letter Tuesday, Blunt reduces his sentence to life in prison without parole.

A spokeswoman for Blunt, Jessica Robinson, said the governor has received several clemency requests for Skillicorn, including some focused on a general opposition to the death penalty. She said Blunt would review the requests but supports the death penalty.
"He believes it's a highly effective deterrent to crime," Robinson said.

Skillicorn and another man, Allen Nicklasson, were both charged with murder in Missouri and Arizona as part of a multistate crime rampage in 1994.

Skillicorn was convicted in 1996 of murdering Richard Drummond, an Excelsior Springs businessman who stopped to help Skillicorn and Nicklasson when their car broke down on Interstate 70 in Callaway County.

Prosecutors said Drummond was forced to drive the two, along with a teenager who accompanied them, west toward Kansas City. In Lafayette County, Drummond was forced out of the car and was shot to death in a field.

Skillicorn and Nicklasson then drove southwest when their vehicle broke down in the Arizona desert. They approached the home of Joseph Babcock, who was killed after driving the pair back to their vehicle. The victim's wife, Charlene Babcock, was then killed at the couple's home.

In 1998, Skillicorn pleaded guilty to murder charges in Arizona after prosecutors agreed to waive the possibility of the death penalty.
An attorney representing Skillicorn has denied that he killed Drummond. Attorney Jennifer Merrigan has said that Nicklasson repeatedly confessed from the beginning that he was responsible for the murder.

In their letter to Blunt, the religious leaders said Skillicorn "has turned his life around, becoming a model of rehabilitation and service to others."

The letter is signed by Missouri church leaders from several different denominations, including Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Baptist and Church of the Brethren. The St. Louis Religious Society of Friends, Dominican Sisters of Sparkhill, N.Y., and the Institute for Peace and Justice also joined the request.

According to the letter, Skillicorn has compiled a book of firsthand accounts from death row inmates that is distributed to juvenile centers aimed at helping young offenders develop skills and not commit crimes. He also is the editor of a newsletter for death row inmates that focuses on healing between the families of crime victims and prison inmates.

The religious leaders also said Skillicorn has been a leader in prison, helping to found a family strengthening program for inmates and serving as a facilitator for a life skills program.

Skillicorn and his wife, Paula, are part of a lawsuit filed last month by nearly 30 inmates, family, clergy members and legislators. The suit claims Missouri's method of lethal injection violates state law and asks for a temporary halt on executions.

Should murder accomplices face execution?

Should murder accomplices face execution?



An execution last month in Mississippi and another scheduled for this month in Texas have reignited a debate over whether the death penalty should be given to those who participate in killings — but do not personally carry them out.

Dale Bishop was executed July 23 in Mississippi for his role in the 1998 murder of an acquaintance who was beaten to death with a claw hammer along a rural road near Tupelo. But Bishop did not strike the fatal blows. According to uncontested trial testimony, Bishop held and kicked the victim while another man, Jessie Johnson, fatally attacked him with the hammer. Johnson is serving a life sentence without parole.

Photo courtesy of Gloria Rubac, Texas Death Penalty Abolition Movement
Demonstrators outside the Alamo in San Antonio protest the scheduled Aug. 21 execution of Texas death-row inmate Jeffery Wood, who faces the death penalty for a 1996 murder despite not carrying it out himself. Wood was convicted under the state’s “felony murder rule,” which allows some accomplices to be prosecuted for first-degree murder.
In Texas, death-row inmate Jeffery Wood this month also could be executed for a murder he did not commit. Wood is scheduled to die Aug. 21 in connection with the 1996 shooting of a convenience store clerk about 100 miles west of Austin, but according to undisputed court testimony, he was sitting in a pickup truck outside the store when the murder occurred. Daniel Reneau, who shot and killed the clerk, was executed by Texas in 2002 for the murder.
Bishop and Wood both were convicted under little-known state laws that allow accomplices in some felonies that result in murder to be prosecuted as killers — even if they were not directly responsible for killing anyone.

The laws are part of a broader legal principle in the United States known as the “felony murder rule,” which also allows those who unintentionally kill someone during serious felonies to be charged with first-degree murder, instead of the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter. All but four states — Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan and Ohio — have some version of the felony murder rule, according to a February analysis commissioned by the Connecticut General Assembly.

DEATH FOR NON-KILLERS?
Source: Death Penalty
Information Center

Of the 46 states with the felony murder rule, 24 allow prosecutors to use it to seek the death penalty for those not directly responsible for murder, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit organization that opposes capital punishment.

But the center says it is very rare for states to execute accomplices: by its tally, Bishop became only the eighth person in the past 30 years — and the first since 1996 — to be put to death for a murder he did not commit or order (such as commissioned killings, which are counted separately). Wood, in Texas, would become the ninth.

Civil libertarians, trial lawyers and others have attacked the felony murder rule as an egregious example of unequal justice — particularly when it involves the ultimate punishment for accomplices. While the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1980s upheld the death penalty for accomplices if they intended their crimes to result in death or displayed “reckless indifference to human life,” critics of the rule say it is often impossible to know the intentions of criminals and that it can result in overly tough sentences. Murder accomplices like Bishop, they say, should never receive tougher penalties than those actually responsible for murder.

But supporters of the rule say states should be authorized to execute felons who knowingly participated in dangerous crimes in which death is a likely and often foreseeable outcome, such as burglary, robbery and rape. Many backers say it can serve as a deterrent to committing such crimes.

In Texas, lawyers are frantically trying to persuade the state Board of Pardons and Paroles and Gov. Rick Perry (R) to spare Wood, who had no prior criminal record. His legal team contends that he has “emotional and psychological impairments” that prevented him from receiving a fair sentence, noting that he did not challenge the death penalty during the punishment phase of his trial.

RELATED: Click here to read Texas death-row inmate Jeffery Wood’s application to the state to be spared from his scheduled execution Aug. 21.

Wood’s lawyers also are comparing his case to that of Kenneth Foster, another Texas murder accomplice who was scheduled to be executed last year. In that case, Perry took the highly unusual step of commuting Foster’s sentence to life without parole, expressing concern that Foster had been tried simultaneously with his co-defendant, who actually committed the murder.

Scott Cobb, director of the anti-death penalty Texas Moratorium Network and an organizer of public rallies in support of Wood and against the state’s felony murder rule, said he hopes authorities will spare the inmate. He said he is encouraged because Perry has proven to be “in tune with public opinion, and he’s aware that public opinion doesn’t support killing someone who has such a diminished role as an accomplice.”

But others are pushing for the execution to proceed. The prosecutor who won the capital conviction against Wood, Kerr County Assistant District Attorney Lucy Wilke, has petitioned the state Board of Pardons and Paroles to deny his request for commutation, calling Wood the “mastermind” of the convenience store robbery and murder.

In Mississippi, the debate over the felony murder rule reached a new pitch last month ahead of Bishop’s execution, particularly as critics of the law pointed out that the actual murderer in the case was spared from the death chamber. Bishop’s execution drew national attention for that reason, and even crime-novel author John Grisham weighed in.

“He should be given life without parole in a maximum-security unit, and perhaps he could serve his time with the man who pulled the trigger,” Grisham said in a statement on his Web site.

The debate in Mississippi was further complicated by Gov. Haley Barbour’s (R) highly controversial decision last month to release a convicted killer, Michael Graham, whose good behavior behind bars earned him the right to work as a “trustee” at the governor’s mansion. Capital punishment opponents and others lambasted Barbour for granting a reprieve to Graham — who shot his wife to death in 1989 — while refusing one for Bishop.

“The juxtaposition of one man who did not kill being executed and another man who did kill being pardoned just stuck in people’s craw,” said Warren Yoder, executive director of the Public Policy Center of Mississippi.

But Pete Smith, a spokesman for Barbour, stressed that the governor neither pardoned Graham nor commuted his sentence. “What he did,” Smith said in a telephone interview with Stateline.org, “was issue an indefinite suspension of the sentence” that can be revoked anytime Graham violates the conditions of his release. Smith said the governor, a capital punishment supporter, had no comment on his refusal to spare Bishop.

Beyond Mississippi and Texas, disagreement over the felony murder rule persists, with grassroots organizations calling for changes in the law, especially after tough sentences draw public attention.

In Florida, for example, the case of 25-year-old Ryan Holle has served as a rallying cry for opponents of the rule. Holle is serving a life sentence without parole for loaning his car to a friend in 2003; along with three other men, the friend drove the car to a house where one of them murdered an 18-year-old girl.

But many prosecutors and victims’ advocates say cases like Holle’s are far from the norm, and they argue that the felony murder rule is an important tool allowing prosecutors to punish criminals who participate in exceptionally dangerous crimes.

“What do you think is going to happen when a guy goes into a convenience store to rob it and he’s armed with a gun, and your job is to help him commit that crime?” said Mary Lou Leary, executive director of the National Center for Victims of Crime. “It’s a very high-risk activity.”

See Related Stories:
No end in sight to death penalty wrangling (7/31/2008)
Fairness of death penalty panels questioned (5/2/2008)
Supreme Court upholds lethal injection (4/17/2008)
Justices weigh lethal injection (1/7/2008)

High court to hear lethal injection case (1/5/2008)
N.J. latest to try death penalty repeal (12/11/2007)
Supreme Court stops Mississippi execution (10/31/2007)
Lethal injection moratorium inches closer (10/18/2007)
Lethal injection goes on trial, but goes on (9/26/2007)
Neb. legislator fights death penalty to the end (8/17/2007)
Executions halted as doctors balk (3/21/2007)

Contact John Gramlich at jgramlich@stateline.org.


The letter from Ramsey Clark to Governor Perry


RAMSEY CLARK
TH
LAWRENCE W. SCHILLING 37 WEST 12 STREET
NEW YORK, N.Y. 10011

212-989-6613
212-979-1583 FAX

August 12, 2008

The Honorable Rick Perry
Governor, State of Texas
State Capitol, Room 2S.I
Austin, Texas 78701


Ms. Rissie Owens, Chair
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
8610 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78757


Re: Jeffrey Wood, TDJC No. 999256

Dear Governor Perry and Chair Owens,

Jeffrey Wood is scheduled to be executed on August 21, 2008. I write you to request the
commutation of Mr. Woods sentence from death to a period of imprisonment for the number of years
you find the facts of the case warrant.
As the records before you show, Daniel Reneau was executed on June 13, 2002 as the
person who committed the murder of Kris Keiran. He was alone with the victim in the store when he
fired the fatal shot.
There are three major reasons why the death penalty imposed on Mr. Wood is improper on
the facts of this case.
1. Mr. Wood was not present in the store in which the victim was murdered at the time of
the murder. He had no reason to believe Mr. Reneau intended to murder Mr. Keiran because he
understood the original plan to fake a robbery of the store with the participation of its manager had
been abandoned the day before. Mr. Wood believed Mr. Reneau was not armed when he entered the
store and that he had no intention of committing any crime.
2. Mr. Wood has suffered from severe mental, emotional and learning disabilities all his life
either caused by or resulting from beatings by his parents from earliest childhood, or both. He was
initially found not fit to stand trial and hospitalized. The jury never heard testimony concerning his
mental condition, because during the penalty phase of this trial, after the Court refused to let him
represent himself, he ordered his lawyers not to call any witnesses who would have testified about
his mental handicap and severe beatings as a child.
1


3. Mr. Wood, over 30 at the time of his trial, had no previous criminal record.
I am an 80 year old third generation Texan on my mothers side, second generation Texan on
my fathers side, whose children are multi generation Texans on both their mothers and fathers side
with relatives still resident in Dallas, Corpus Christi, Beaumont and Houston. I have opposed the
death penalty in all cases since before I entered the University of Texas. I was licensed to practice
law in Texas in 1951. Though I left Texas in 1961 to join the Kennedy Administration, I retain a
deep concern for the quality of justice in Texas and its reputation in the nation.
Texas should act now to restrict its death penalty to the individual who personally commits
the act of killing. I represented Carlos Santana in his last appeals before his execution on April 23,
1993. Carlos, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, was one of the seven persons executed in Texas
since 1976 under a charge of felony murder, or law of parties. He left a young widow and two
orphaned children. Carlos raised his head from the gurney moments before his death to face his
audience and said “Violence is not the way, love is the way.” For me, at the time, this confirmed his
profound moral character. His execution was a tragic miscarriage of justice. He killed no one.
The execution of Jeffrey Wood on the facts of his case, mentality impaired, outside,
unarmed, not expecting any crime to be committed, would be the most extreme execution in Texas
of a person who had killed no one, and could not have anticipated that anyone would be killed, of all
the unfortunate executions under legal theories of felony murder, or law of parties.
I urge you to commute this death sentence and limit application of the death sentence to the
actual killer.

Sincerely,
Ramsey Clark
2


Urge Governor Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles to Stop the Execution of Jeff Wood and Grant Him Clemency





Urge Governor Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles to Stop the Execution of Jeff Wood and Grant Him Clemency

Jeff Wood is waiting to die on Texas Death Row with an execution date of August 21st, 2008. This page allows you to directly contact Governor Perry and the Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles via E-mail, on behalf of Jeff. Please scroll down to the bottom of this page and fill out the form to send your E-mail.Urge Governor Perry and the Board of Pardons and Paroles to Stop the Execution of Jeff Wood and Grant Him


http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/223/t/7156/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=25043

Petition for Jeff Woods closed with 2467 signatures





http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-jeff-wood-from-the-texas-executioner

Wood seeks reprieve


Wood seeks reprieve



Published August 9, 2008

Jeffery Lee Wood does not deserve to die.

That’s the plea made in an application to the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole seeking clemency for the man sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of a Kerrville convenience store clerk, Kriss Keeran.

“I think he is the ideal candidate for clemency,” said San Antonio Attorney Scott Sullivan, who has represented Wood since 1999. “We are asking for a sentence less than death.”

Wood is scheduled to die by lethal injection Aug. 21.

Wood’s roommate, Daniel Reneau, also was convicted of Keeran’s death. Reneau was executed in 2002.

Evidence showed that Reneau entered the store at Texas 16 and Interstate 10 just before dawn on Jan. 2, 1996 and shot Keeran.

Records show Wood was waiting outside the store and came in after Keeran was shot.

Wood and Reneau then robbed the store of a video recorder with a tape showing the incident, a safe and more than $11,000 in cash and checks, according to reports.

The appeal to the state board points out that Keeran and William “Bill” Bunker, the assistant manager of the convenience store, were involved in discussions with Wood and Reneau prior to the robbery. Apparently on the day of the incident, Keeran changed his mind and did not cooperate.

“Reneau — the only person inside the store and who carried a weapon — alone made the decision to take Keeran’s life,” the application stated. “Mr. Wood’s culpability for Kriss Keeran’s death lies somewhere between Daniel Reneau’s and Bill Bunker’s.”

Sullivan claims that because Wood did not pull the trigger, he is as liable of the murder as Bunker, who was never charged in the case. He said the prosecution wrongly accused Wood of being the mastermind behind the robbery-turned-murder.

“He is a party (to the murder) in every sense of the word,” Sullivan said. “We take issue with the prosecution calling him a mastermind. I don’t think he is capable of being a mastermind.”

Sullivan said Wood’s unstable mental state most likely had a lot to do with his death sentence. Wood refused to defend himself during his trial.

“Having worked with him the last nine years, I know he can’t put things together. He is not capable of that,” Sullivan said. “His emotional history and mental history are real poor.”

Lucy Wilke, assistant district attorney for the 216th Judicial District, said the verdict and sentence should stand.

“I think it is important that we honor the verdict of the jury who heard all of the evidence — under oath. They were a very conscientious jury,” Wilke said. “What the Parole Board has before it on a petition is not under oath.”

Sullivan said he holds out hope the board will grant clemency because of the low number of people who have been executed who were “just parties to a murder.”

“When it comes to the governor, the only thing I can do is hope and pray for the best,” Sullivan said. “I am very hopeful.”

Mike Farrell Writes Letter Asking for Clemency for Jeff Wood


Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Mike Farrell Writes Letter Asking for Clemency for Jeff Wood

From: Mike Farrell

August 11, 2008

Ms. Rissie Owens, Chair
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
8610 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78757

Dear Ms. Owens,

I write in support of clemency for Jeff Wood, who is scheduled to be executed in your state in ten days. Mr. Wood’s death sentence, as I‘m sure you’re aware, was based on an interpretation of your state’s “law of parties” that allows a death sentence in a situation where the individual in question not only was not directly responsible for a murder, but in fact may not even have been aware that such a thing would take place.

It’s my understanding that the Board you chair found reason to recommend clemency in a recent case, that of Kenneth Foster, for many of the reasons that now pertain in Mr. Wood’s case and I ask that you find it in your heart to handle this one in the same manner.

Because Texas now has enacted a sentence of life without parole into law, what is clear is that clemency for Mr. Wood could, if your recommendation to Governor Perry so suggested, simply exchange the death sentence for permanent imprisonment, ensuring that he would never be a threat of any kind to the people of your state.

Please, therefore, urge your Board to recommend clemency for Jeff Wood. Killing him will neither solve anything nor serve society in any way.

Sincerely,

Mike Farrell

http://stopexecutions.blogspot.com/2008/08/mike-farrell-writes-letter-asking-for.html

Sunday, 10 August 2008

Medellin death penalty case exposes hollow Texas brand of gunslinger politics


Excellent piece by the Austin CEDP's Bryan McCann...

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/07/medellin-death-penalty-case-exposes.php

HOTLINE BUZZ
Real-time perspectives on legal news by newsmakers, activists, legal experts and special guests...

Friday, July 25, 2008

Medellin death penalty case exposes hollow Texas brand of gunslinger politics
10:30 AM ET

Bryan McCann [Campaign to End the Death Penalty, Austin, TX Chapter]:

"Two years ago, a fellow anti-death penalty activist and I participated in a public debate on the University of Texas
campus with the Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT). No one was surprised when the YCT's first plan of attack was to
read - verbatim - a detailed account of the particularly gruesome gang rape and murder of Jennifer Ertman and
Elizabeth Pena. Their strategy represents an all too familiar method of arguing in favor of the death penalty. Who
would have the audacity to argue race, class, or international law when confronted with the ghastly killings of two
beautiful teenage girls? Where there is mourning and outrage, there is often little room for analysis.

The death of those two girls in 1993 was no doubt a traumatic affair for their families and Houston community. But
just as the YCT used the tragedy that befell Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena at our public debate to ignore
fundamental structural problems with the death penalty, Texas Governor Rick Perry is using it, coupled with his usual
brand of Lone Star ethos, to ignore international law. As courageous groups like Murder Victims' Families for Human
Rights have long attested, such manipulation does little to ease the pain of devastated families.

If Texas gets its way, Jose Medellin will be the second of the five men sentenced to death for the Ertman and Pena
murders to be executed. However, his pending execution date of August 5 has become a topic of considerable
international controversy. Though Derrick O’Brien, who was executed in 2006 for the crimes, was a native of Texas,
Joe Medellin is a Mexican national. He was denied access to a Mexican consulate for legal assistance during his original
trial. This flagrant affront to international law enshrined in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations prompted the
International Court of Justice to issue a 2004 order to stay Medellin's execution. This prompted none other than
President Bush to issue a memorandum ordering Texas to halt the executions and review the convictions of the
Mexican nationals, including Medellin, mentioned in the ICJ order. When George W. Bush, former Governor of Texas,
is issuing orders to honor international law and halt executions, the stakes are clearly very high.

Yet, in March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Bush had overstepped his boundaries and Texas may proceed with
the execution of Medellin and other inmates forced to navigate Texas criminal law without consular advice. In
response to a more recent order by the ICJ, Perry’s office responded with its typical frontier zeal:

The world court [ICJ] has no standing in Texas and Texas is not bound by a ruling or edict from a foreign court. It is
easy to get caught up in discussions of international law and justice and treaties. It's very important to remember that
these individuals are on death row for killing our citizens.

This is familiar language from Perry's office. When the European Union issued a declaration on the eve of Texas’
400th execution since 1982, encouraging the state to place a moratorium on executions, the Office of the Governor
replied:

230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of
self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most
horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in
our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.

"These individuals are on death row for killing our citizens." "Texans are doing just fine governing Texas." It seems the
Lone Star State’s busy death row is nothing less than an homage to the spirit of American and Texas independence,
international law be damned. Such populist appeals resonate all too well with what I believe to be one of the finest
articulations of how capital punishment operates in American society. Legal scholar Austin Sarat writes, "State killing is
part of a strategy of governance that makes us fearful and dependent on the illusion of state protection, that divides
rather than unites, that promises simple solutions to complex problems."

The death penalty in Texas and elsewhere requires simplicity. There is no need to get "caught up in discussions of
international law and justice and treaties" when we can view the poisoning of convicted criminals as a testament to
our rugged collective identity. As we quickly learned at our public debate two years ago, the death penalty cannot
withstand the slightest amount of complexity. The closer one looks, the more unsightly this depraved institution
becomes. Whether it be the risk of making Americans abroad more vulnerable to prosecution because of their
government's disdain for international law or the well documented socio-economic disparities that permeate the
nation's death rows, the complexities of capital punishment are ultimately its undoing. Thus, Rick Perry's usual brand
of gunslinger politics – all too similar to that of his predecessor – is about much more than his own Texan roots. It is
the lifeblood of a cruel and ineffective state sanction that allows him to convince ordinary Texans that he is on our
side. When Texas ranks 37th in spending on public education, it is little surprise that Perry and his colleagues cling so
dearly to this irreparably broken strategy of governance."

Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the
views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.

Texas's Disdain


The Washington Post - Editorial

Texas's Disdain
In carrying out two executions, the state endangers Americans
detained abroad.

Friday, August 8, 2008; A16

THE STATE of Texas had an opportunity this week to display a victor's
grace. Instead, it rebuffed pleas by the U.S. secretary of state and
the U.S. attorney general for help in resolving an international
dispute and in the process gave the back of its hand to the country
and its obligations.

The issue involved two foreign nationals on Texas's death row. The
leading case involved José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national whom
the state executed Tuesday for his part in the 1993 gang rape and
murder of two Texas girls. There is little doubt that Mr. Medellín
was guilty: He confessed to the crimes just hours after his arrest,
and his conviction was upheld by state and federal appeals courts.
But Mr. Medellín, who spoke fluent English and had lived in the
United States since he was a child, later challenged his conviction
because Texas law enforcement officials failed to inform him of his
right under the Vienna Convention for Consular Affairs to speak with
the Mexican consulate. The state, which admitted the error, became
the subject of a dispute with Mexico before the International Court
of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations.

The ICJ found that Mr. Medellín and 50 other Mexican nationals on
death row in the United States were entitled to "review and
reconsideration" of their cases because of Vienna Convention
violations. President Bush ordered Texas to comply, but the state
balked, citing state laws that prevented reopening the matter. In
March, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Texas, concluding that the
ICJ ruling was not binding domestically and that the president
overstepped his bounds in trying to force the state's compliance. The
court, however, acknowledged that the United States had breached its
duties under the Vienna Convention. Justice John Paul Stevens, who
was part of the majority, urged the state to voluntarily comply or to
work toward a reasonable resolution so as to mend the breach.
Instead, Texas set this week's execution date for Mr. Medellín, which
all but foreclosed the possibility of a legislative or diplomatic
solution. In refusing to give the federal government more time, Texas
has now increased the possibility that foreign countries will not
recognize in a robust way the rights of U.S. citizens detained
abroad. Yesterday, Texas executed a second foreign national,
Heliberto Chi, a Honduran whose lawyers made arguments about his lack
of consular access.

Texas should be commended for agreeing to support federal court
review for some of the other Mexican nationals on death row. The
state must be held to that promise. And all states and municipalities
must be conscientious in the future to ensure that foreign nationals
are informed of their right to consular access.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/07/AR2008080702989.html?nav=rss_opinions


Medellin execution highlights flaw in international law: experts


Medellin execution highlights flaw in international law: experts

August 8, 2008

THE HAGUE (AFP) — The execution of a Mexican citizen by the United
States against the orders of the UN's highest court highlights a flaw
in international law that enables countries to snub rulings without
repercussions, experts say.

While the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) orders are binding,
their execution are left up to states who consent voluntarily to the
court's jurisdiction, they told AFP.

And while such a system theoretically enables states to act with
impunity, it could never be altered for the risk of encroaching upon
state sovereignty.

"International law cannot bind a state against its will, simply
because we don't have a world government, a world legislature, or a
world judicial system," said Jann Kleffner, international law
professor at the University of Amsterdam.

"The will of the international community cannot be imposed on states
just like that."

The US state of Texas on Tuesday put to death a Mexican convicted of
murder in defiance of an order of the ICJ and ignoring a last-minute
appeal from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Jose Ernesto Medellin, 33, was killed by lethal injection for the
1993 rape and murder of two girls, aged 14 and 16, in Houston.

In 2004, the ICJ ruled that Medellin's conviction and those of other
Mexicans facing execution in the United States violated the Vienna
Convention because authorities failed to inform the foreigners of
their right to consular access and assistance during trial.

US President George Bush subsequently ordered that the cases be
reviewed, but the US Supreme Court ruled in March that the
constitution did not allow for this to happen.

Last month, the ICJ ordered the United States to do all it can to
stay the imminent execution of five Mexicans on death row, including
Medellin, pending its final ruling in another Mexican bid to have the
men's cases reviewed.

Annemarieke Vermeer, international law lecturer at the University of
Leiden, said the ICJ would continue finding itself in difficult
terrain in matters so close to the essence of state sovereignty as
domestic justice.

"The court cannot order a state to change its systems," she said.

Analysts agreed that Medellin's execution was a blow to the ICJ as it
brought its relevance into question.

And it may lead other states to emulate the United States when it
suited them.

But while the tribunal has no enforcement powers of its own, states
that ignore its judgments risk their international reputation and
endanger reciprocal agreements with other states.

In another famous snub of the ICJ, Israel ignored a 2004 ruling that
parts of a barrier it had built on Palestinian land were illegal and
should be torn down.

"If for no other reason, governments need to respect the judgments of
the ICJ out of long-term self-interest," said David Fathi, director
of the US programme of lobby group Human Rights Watch.

"Even if a state does not like a ruling of the ICJ, it is in
everybody's long-term interest that we have an international system
governed by the rule of law."

The ICJ was by no means a worthless institution, argued Kleffner, as
illustrated by the fact that most of its rulings were complied with
-- even unpopular ones.

And while it was too late for Medellin, the ruling in this case will
undoubtedly force the United States to adhere to the Geneva
Convention more closely in similar trials in future.

"Most countries are sensitive to negative international judgments,
they don't want to be shamed," said Vermeer.

And the ICJ will remain a viable means of settling disputes "because
it is apolitical and a relatively cheap alternative to international
arbitration."

Since the 2004 ruling, some US states have agreed to review their
death row cases.

Texas has refused, arguing that its state courts were not bound by
the ICJ treaty, a contention rubbished by experts.

The US Congress, meanwhile, has indicated it may pass legislation
allowing states to comply with ICJ orders.

"I don't think this would ever have happened without the ICJ
judgment," said Vermeer.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jB4nm0sNPN3-lAhMrew_WS0A8zlA

USSC order in Heliberto Chi

(ORDER LIST: 554 U.S.)

THURSDAY, AUGUST 7, 2008

CERTIORARI DENIED

08-5652 Chi, Heliberto V. Texas

(O8A112)

The application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court is denied. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

The Chi Execution


The Chi Execution

In the New York Times, David Stout reports, "Texas Executes Inmate After High Court Steps Aside."

An Honduran immigrant convicted of murder was put to death in Texas on Thursday evening after the Supreme Court declined to block the execution, despite his lawyers’ complaints that he should have been told that he could get assistance early on from Honduran diplomats.

The court’s ruling came without dissent and without comment.

The immigrant, Heliberto Chi, 29, was executed in Huntsville, Tex., for shooting to death his former boss during a robbery at a men’s store in Arlington in 2001.

Mr. Chi’s execution is the second one this week with diplomatic implications. On Tuesday night, Texas executed José Medellín, a Mexican national, in defiance of an international court ruling and despite pleas from the Bush administration that he be given a new hearing. The Supreme Court declined to block that execution earlier on Tuesday.

"Illegal immigrant from Honduras executed in Texas," is Mike Graczyk's AP filing.

On Thursday, the high court rejected Chi's appeal without dissent, ruling about 2 1/2 hours before his scheduled execution time.

Unlike Medellin, executed for participating in the gruesome gang rape and murders of two teenage Houston girls 15 years ago, Chi was not among some 50 death row inmates around the country, all Mexican-born, whom the International Court of Justice said should have new hearings in U.S. courts to determine whether the 1963 Vienna Convention treaty was violated during their arrests.

President Bush asked states to review those cases and legislation to implement the process was introduced recently in Congress, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this year neither the president nor the international court could force Texas to wait.

Chi's attorneys argued that unlike the Vienna Convention obligations with Mexico, the 1920s-era U.S. Bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Consular Rights with Honduras was specifically between the U.S. and Honduras and was self-executing, meaning it didn't require legislation to have effect. They said the treaty also conferred individual rights and incorporated international law into enforceable domestic law.

Terry O'Rourke, a lawyer on Chi's legal team who teaches international law at Houston's University of St. Thomas, said he was saddened Texas was violating international law to execute Chi.

"It takes you back to a very ugly time in history in Texas when we killed people because of the color of their skin and their poverty," he said.

AP also has, "Honduras laments execution of man in US," filed from Tegucigalpa, Honduras.

Honduras' government protested Thursday's execution in Texas of a Honduran man that the Central American country says was arrested in violation of an international treaty.

Honduras lobbied to stop the execution of Heliberto Chi, saying he was not permitted to contact anyone from his government after he was arrested in California and extradited to Texas.

"We lament that in this case, the arrangements established by the Vienna Convention treaty were not followed," the Honduran government said in a statement.

The argument is similar to the one raised earlier this week by Mexican-born Jose Medellin, who was executed late Tuesday night for his part in a gruesome gang rape-slayings of two teenage Houston girls 15 years ago.

And:

Honduras said it would take all necessary measures to protect the lives of the 12 U.S. prisoners in Honduran prisons after local media reported they could be attacked in revenge.

The U.S. citizens are serving time for murder and drug trafficking offenses, the statement said.

The Honduran government said it would repatriate Chi's remains next week.

John Moritz writes, "Honduran executed for 2001 slaying of Arlington store manager," for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Heliberto Chi, the native Honduran who shot an Arlington store manager in the back during an after-hours robbery in 2001, was executed Thursday after the Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch appeal based on the terms of an international treaty.

Chi, 29, was pronounced dead at 6:25 p.m. as two sons of his victim, Armand Paliotta, silently watched from a tiny room adjacent to the death chamber in Huntsville’s Walls Prison.

"God forgive them and receive my spirit," Chi said, who had a tear in his eye as he lay on the gurney.

In a separate witness room, Chi’s cousin wept uncontrollably and banged a fist against the glass that divided the room from the death chamber.

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal that Chi’s conviction was tainted because authorities did not tell him at the time of his arrest about an international treaty that allowed him to seek help from Honduran consular representatives. Chi was in the country illegally.

"Texas executes Honduran man for 2001 murder," is the Reuters dispatch. Al Jazeera English reports, "Texas executes another foreigner."

Thursday, 7 August 2008

Execution of Honduran Allowed


Execution of Honduran Allowed

That's the title of Lyle Denniston's updated post at SCOTUS Blog. LINK

UPDATE 4:30 p.m. Without recorded dissent, the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon refused to delay the execution in Texas of a Honduran for a 2001 murder in Arlington, Texas. The Court’s order (found here) also denied review of Heliberto Chi’s appeal. Justice Antonin Scalia, as Circuit Justice, referred the case to the full Court. There was no written opinion. The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. Central time.

It will be Texas' sixth execution of 2008; the second execution in the state this week. It will be the 18th execution in the nation this year.

Texas has by far the most active execution chamber in the nation. With Chi's execution Texas will have been responsible for 411 of the country's 1,117 executions since 1977; more than 36% of all the executions in America.

According to TDCJ, 13 more executions have been scheduled in Texas for the remainder of the year, including four more in the month of August. It's possible that more may be ordered before the end of 2008. One execution has already been set for 2009.

A Renewed Focus on Consular Notification and Heliberto Chi


A Renewed Focus on Consular Notification and Heliberto Chi

With the clock ticking toward's a 6:00 p.m. death warrant and legal papers filed at the Supreme Court, there is a new focus on the Chi case.

At The BLT, Tony Mauro posts, "Supreme Court Weighs Another Texas Execution."

What makes Chi's case different from Medellin's, according to lawyer Morris Moon from the Texas Defender Service, is that Chi is covered by a separate treaty between Honduras and the United States, not just the broad-based Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.

The bilateral treaty is self-executing, Moon's brief argues, meaning that once it was ratified, it did not require further action by Congress to enforce its provisions. The Vienna treaty, by contrast, was deemed by the Supreme Court in Medellin v. Texas not to be self-executing, giving it no power to keep Texas from proceeding with its exeuction. "Nonetheless, [Chi] faces execution in a matter of hours without any court having addressed the merits of his interpretation" of the treaty, Moon writes. The plea is before Justice Antonin Scalia, who handles emergency applications from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, but he can bounce the case to the full court.

Ashby Jones posts, "Two Days After Medellin Execution, Similar Issues Back at High Court,"at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.

All those who found the case of Jose Medellin compelling might want to pay attention for the next several hours to the latest death-penalty showdown that’s landed on the U.S. Supreme Court’s doorstep. It involves a Honduran national named Heliberto Chi, who was sentenced to death in Texas for a 2001 killing.

As was the case with Medellin, who was executed by lethal injection on Tuesday, Chi was not notified of his right to seek assistance from his consulate after he was arrested, a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights.

But there exist two main differences between the cases, one which would seem to weigh in Chi’s favor, one against. (Click here, here and here for background on the Medellin case.)

And:

There’s some intuitive appeal to Chi’s argument, at least assuming that the Honduran treaty is, in fact, self-executing. But a stay of his execution is still likely a longshot. Yesterday, in a concurring opinion addressing the argument, a justice on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said Chi “faces an insurmountable burden” in raising his challenge at this stage. Writes Scotusblog: “The burden [Justice Tom] Price cited included the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2006 in Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (another Vienna Convention case) saying that a treaty could override state procedural rules only if the agreement contained a clear statement doing so. Price found no such statement.”

Still, Wes Ball, Chi’s attorney, is hopeful, citing the Court’s 5-4 ruling allowing Medellin’s execution to go forward. “All we need is to persuade one of those five justices,” he told the Law Blog. “I think the argument we have is a good one.”

Earlier coverage is here.

Chi Case at Supreme Court


Chi Case at Supreme Court

Lyle Denniston reports, "New treaty-based challenge to execution," at SCOTUS Blog.

A Honduran national, scheduled to be executed Thursday evening in Texas, asked the Supreme Court Thursday morning to delay that process and hear his claim that Texas violated a U.S.-Honduran treaty in his case. The challenge by lawyers for Heliberto Chi (petition 08-5652, stay application 08A112) came two days after the Supreme Court allowed Texas to execute another foreign national, Mexican Jose Ernesto Medellin.

The cases are similar, in that both Chi and Medellin contend that they were denied access to diplomatic officers from their country as their criminal cases went forward in Texas. Chi’s challenge is not based directly on the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations — the treaty at issue in the Medellin case — but rather on a consular rights treaty between the U.S. and Honduras, dating from 1927. His appeal contends that this bilateral agreement is “self-executing,” unlike the Vienna Convention, and thus is binding within the U.S. and on Texas.

Earlier coverage is here.

From UK's The Independent


From UK's The Independent

David Usborne writes, "The Big Question: Why is the United States still imposing the death penalty?" from New York. Here's an excerpt:

What America does in its own prisons is its own business, most of the time. That was not true on Tuesday night, however, when a lethal injection was administered to a Mexican national in Huntsville prison, Texas, convicted in a case of gang rape and strangulation of two teenage girls in Houston 15 years ago.

The death of Jose Medellin brought an instant diplomatic protest from Mexico, which had demanded that he and 50 other Mexicans on death row in America be allowed consular access, as required by a treaty to which the US is a signatory.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague has twice in the past five years ruled that the US should hold hearings on the status of foreign nationals on death row. The White House had asked Texas at least to delay the execution. But on Tuesday night, Texas defied George Bush and the world after a last-minute appeal to the US Supreme Court on behalf of Medellin was turned down.

Are there other foreign nationals on death row?

As of the end of last year, there were 123 foreign nationals awaiting execution in the US. Although Mexicans make up the largest single contingent, 38 other countries are represented, including Germany and France, but not, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, any currently from the United Kingdom. Most are in California.

Most countries, Britain included, balk at allowing the extradition of prisoners to the US where a possible capital offence is involved and if the state seeking extradition has the death penalty on its books. The British citizen Neil Entwistle was extradited and recently convicted of murdering his wife and daughter in Massachusetts, one of a minority of US states which do not execute prisoners.

So it's not just southern states that have the death penalty?

No. Currently 36 states in the US have the death penalty on their books, including liberal states such as New York and Maryland, while only 14 are without death rows (plus Washington, DC). Since 1976, when a ruling by the US Supreme Court allowed states to begin reintroducing capital punishment, a total of 1,115 people had been executed in the country as of 1 August this year. Of those, 38 per cent were African-Americans, far disproportionate to their share of the population (about 13 per cent). The busiest year for executioners was 1999, when 98 condemned men and women were dispatched.

Texas has executed four times more inmates over the past three decades than any other single state. (The second most assiduous has been Virginia.) It's true that the region loosely termed the South is far more likely to execute than other parts of the country. Not every state that has the option of killing its prisoners actually exercises it. New Hampshire is a capital punishment state but has not executed anyone in decades.

Mexico Protests Medellin Exeuction


Mexico Protests Medellin Exeuction

"Mexican government protests Texas execution," is the CNN report.

The United States violated international law by putting a Mexican national to death in Texas, the Mexican government said Wednesday.

Protesters for and against Jose Ernesto Medellin's execution gathered before he was put to death Tuesday night in Huntsville, Texas, for raping and murdering two teens in 1993.

His death ended 15 years of legal disputes on a sour note.

"The government of Mexico sent the U. S. Department of State a diplomatic note of protest for this violation of international law, expressing its concern for the precedent that it may create for the rights of Mexican nationals who may be detained in that country," the Mexican government said in a written statement.

"The Ministry of Foreign Relations reiterates that the importance of this case fundamentally stems from the respect to the right to consular access and protection provided by consulates of every state to each of its nationals abroad."

And:

In June, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Attorney General Michael Mukasey asked Texas Gov. Rick Perry to delay the execution.

"We continue to seek a practical and timely way to carry out our nation's international legal obligation," wrote the Cabinet officers, "a goal that the United States needs the assistance of Texas to achieve."

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also asked Texas officials this week to delay the capital punishment.

Medellin's lawyers, who argued that Mexican consular officials were not able to meet with the man until after his conviction, condemned the execution.

"With this action, our nation has broken a commitment willingly made by our president and our Senate," the lawyers said in a written statement. "We must now hope that other nations stand stronger in their promises than we do, lest our own citizens be placed at risk elsewhere."

The Guardian has, "Texas ignores treaty to execute Mexican killer."

The Mexican government has now sent a note of protest to the US state department, expressing "its concern for the precedent that [the execution] may create for the rights of Mexican nationals".

In the Houston Chronicle, Rosanna Ruiz files, "Court defied critics in Medellin ruling."

In its rejection of Jose Ernesto Medellin's appeal, the Supreme Court made clear its refusal to bow to international pressure and its unwillingness to await related legislation that had not progressed beyond the "bare introduction of a bill."

Medellin, 33, was executed Tuesday night after an almost four-hour delay as Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials awaited the high court's 5-4 decision.

The majority opinion stated that neither President Bush nor Gov. Rick Perry had made clear to the court that congressional or Texas legislative action was likely that would necessitate a delay. The court also noted that the Department of Justice had not sought to intervene in the case.

And:

The inaction by Congress and the Texas Legislature was consistent, the court said, with Bush's decision to withdraw from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 2005.

Legislation requires more time, and it only became apparent when the High Court ruled in March that such action was necessary to mandate hearings in the death row cases, said Sarah Cleveland, a Columbia Law School professor.

The issue first was raised in 2004, when the United Nations' International Court of Justice ruled that hearings should be held to determine whether the cases of Medellin and 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in the United States were harmed by not being allowed access to their consular officials.

"The majority opinion reads as if there wasn't any expectation that the U.S. would comply with the ICJ's judgment," Cleveland said. "It doesn't put the U.S. in a good light, particularly because the executive branch tried to convey the opposite message."

Earlier coverage is here. Tuesday evening's Supreme Court ruling, and the dissenting opinions, are in Adobe .pdf format here, via SCOTUS Blog. More on Medellin I and Medellin II, via Oyez.org. Earlier coverage of Medellin v. Texas (Medellin II) is here.