Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
548 U.S. 331, 165 L. Ed. 2d 557, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5177 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations does not create a judicially enforceable right to the suppression of evidence for a violation of its notification requirements, nor does it override a state's evenly applied procedural default rules.
Facts:
- Moisés Sanchez-Llamas, a Mexican national, was involved in a shootout with police in Oregon, during which an officer was wounded.
- Police arrested Sanchez-Llamas, provided him with Miranda warnings in English and Spanish, but did not inform him of his right under the Vienna Convention to have the Mexican Consulate notified.
- Following his arrest, Sanchez-Llamas made several incriminating statements during a police interrogation.
- Mario Bustillo, a Honduran national, was identified by witnesses as the man who fatally struck James Merry with a baseball bat outside a Virginia restaurant.
- Police arrested Bustillo the following morning but never informed him of his right under the Vienna Convention to have the Honduran Consulate notified of his detention.
- At trial, Bustillo's defense centered on the theory that another man, known as 'Sirena,' was the actual perpetrator.
Procedural Posture:
- In Sanchez-Llamas's case, he filed a pretrial motion in an Oregon trial court to suppress his incriminating statements, arguing the Vienna Convention violation. The trial court denied the motion.
- Sanchez-Llamas was convicted, and he appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction.
- The Oregon Supreme Court granted review and also affirmed, holding that the Vienna Convention does not create judicially enforceable rights for individuals.
- In Bustillo's case, he was convicted of murder in a Virginia trial court, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Bustillo later filed a state petition for a writ of habeas corpus, raising the Vienna Convention claim for the first time.
- The state habeas court dismissed the claim as procedurally barred because Bustillo had not raised it at trial or on direct appeal.
- The Supreme Court of Virginia refused Bustillo's petition for appeal, finding no reversible error in the dismissal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations require the suppression of a foreign national's statements to police or override state procedural default rules when authorities fail to inform the national of their consular notification rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Roberts
No. A violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not warrant the suppression of evidence, and states may apply their regular procedural default rules to bar claims not raised in a timely manner. The Convention does not prescribe specific remedies for violations, instead leaving implementation to domestic law. The exclusionary rule is a unique American creation not contemplated by the treaty's signatories, and judicially imposing it would be an overreach of judicial authority. Furthermore, state procedural default rules are essential to the adversarial system and apply to fundamental constitutional rights, so they should apply equally to treaty-based claims. While the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) contrary interpretations in cases like Avena deserve respectful consideration, they are not binding on U.S. courts and are inconsistent with the framework of the American legal system.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. While Article 36 does grant rights that may be invoked by an individual, neither suppression nor an exception to procedural default rules is warranted in these specific cases. For Sanchez-Llamas, suppression is inappropriate because he received Miranda warnings in Spanish and understood them, meaning his rights were adequately protected from coercive interrogation. For Bustillo, an exception to procedural default is unwarranted because his trial counsel was aware of his Vienna Convention rights but failed to raise the issue. Therefore, the state’s failure to inform Bustillo did not cause the procedural default, which distinguishes this case from the scenario envisioned by the ICJ.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. Article 36 creates judicially enforceable rights, and domestic law must give 'full effect' to the treaty's purposes, which can sometimes require overriding state procedural rules or suppressing evidence. A state's procedural default rule should not bar a claim when the state's very failure to inform the defendant of his rights caused the default. Similarly, while suppression is not an automatic remedy, it should be available in cases where it is the only effective way to cure the prejudice from a violation, particularly for a foreign national who does not understand the U.S. legal system. The majority fails to give respectful consideration to the ICJ's interpretation and undermines the United States' commitment to the treaty.
Analysis:
This decision significantly limits the domestic legal impact of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations within the U.S. criminal justice system. It establishes that even self-executing treaties are subject to domestic procedural and remedial rules unless the treaty explicitly dictates otherwise. The ruling reinforces the principle that U.S. courts are not bound by interpretations from the International Court of Justice, affirming the primacy of domestic law and judicial interpretation. This makes it substantially more difficult for foreign nationals to obtain relief for consular notification violations, effectively requiring them to demonstrate prejudice under existing domestic legal standards, such as challenges to the voluntariness of a confession or claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
