Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon & Bustillo v. Johnson
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:
Sanchez-Llamas, a Mexican national, was convicted of attempted murder, attempted aggravated murder, and other felonies in Oregon state court. Sanchez-Llamas was arrested for shooting at a police
officer, and although the police read him his Miranda warnings, the police did not inform him that he had a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) to contact the
Mexican Consulate or have the consulate notified of his arrest. Sachez-Llames subsequently made incriminating statements to the police. At trial, Sanchez-Llamas filed a motion to suppress his
post-arrest statements, arguing that the police violated his rights of consular notification and access under Article 36 of the VCCR. The trial court denied his motion, the court of appeals
affirmed, and Sanchez-Llamas appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon. The supreme court held that Article 36 of the VCCR does not create any rights that can be asserted in a judicial proceeding and
therefore affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress.
Bustillo v. Johnson:
Bustillo, a Honduran national, was convicted of murder in Virginia state court. When Bustillo was arrested, the police did not contact the Honduran Consulate or inform Bustillo of his right to
communicate with the consulate. At trial, Bustillo argued that another Honduran national, identified as Sirena, committed the murder. However, Bustillo was unable to provide the man's true name or
surname, and the jury subsequently found him guilty. Bustillo appealed his conviction, and while his appeal was pending, the Honduran Consulate contacted Bustillo and informed him that had it been
contacted about his arrest, it would have been able to provide information about the man identified as Sirena, whose real name was Julio Osorto. Bustillo filed a motion to remand the case to trial
in light of the consulate's statement, but the court of appeals denied the motion and affirmed his conviction. The Virginia Supreme Court denied his appeal. Bustillo then filed a petition for
habeas relief based on violations of Article 36 of the VCCR. The circuit court denied the petition because Bustillo had not raised the issue at trial. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court
affirmed, stating only that there was no reversible error.
Questions Presented:
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon:
1. Does the Vienna Convention convey individual rights of consular notification and access to a foreign detainee enforceable in the Courts of the United States?
2. Does the state's failure to notify a foreign detainee of his rights under the Vienna Convention result in the suppression of his statements to police?
Bustillo v. Johnson:
1. Whether, contrary to the International Court of Justice's interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963,21 U.S.T. 77, 100-101, state courts may refuse to consider
violations of Article 36 of that treaty because of a procedural bar or because the treaty does not create individually enforceable rights.
Decisions under Review:
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon
Bustillo v. Johnson (unpublished opinion)
