[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26909-26910]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             JOSE MEDELLIN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight to talk to you, the House, about 
the murder of 2 girls. In 1993, 2 teenage girls were walking home, 
making sure they got there in time for the curfew. Their names were 
Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena.
  As they were headed home, they took a shortcut through the woods, and 
that mistake cost them their lives. They came in contact with a person 
by the name of Jose Medellin, who was the gang leader of a group called 
the Black and Whites. He, along with his fellow gangsters, kidnapped 
these 2 girls and brutalized them, sexually assaulted them, tortured 
them, and then, when they were through having their way after gang 
raping them, they murdered them, these 2 teenage girls, Jennifer 
Ertman, Elizabeth Pena.
  The Houston Police Department finally caught up with Jose Medellin 
and his gangsters. They were all tried lawfully in Texas courts. Jose 
Medellin received the death penalty, along with 1 other individual 
who's already been executed. A third individual's on death row waiting 
to be executed, and 2 more are serving life sentences in Texas 
penitentiaries.
  Jose Medellin, when he was captured, he had in his possession, Mr. 
Speaker, a watch. It was a Mickey Mouse watch that Jennifer Ertman 
wore. And he was proud to carry this token of his murder. He bragged 
about the murder. He confessed to the murder, and a jury of 12 Texans 
convicted him and gave him the death penalty, which he earned and which 
he deserved.
  His case was appealed. It worked its way all the way to the Supreme 
Court.

[[Page 26910]]

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based upon a complaint about 
the confession.
  But during all of this process, 10 years after the conviction, in 
2003, the Mexican Government filed a lawsuit against the United States 
in the World Court. You see, Medellin was illegally in the United 
States from Mexico. And the Mexican Government claimed that he should 
have been told by the arresting police officers that he had the right 
to talk to the Mexican Consulate.
  Now, the Houston police officers didn't tell him he had the right. 
They certainly wouldn't have prevented him from having permission to 
talk to the Mexican Consulate, and he never, at the trial, objected to 
not being able to talk to the Mexican Consulate. He waited some 10 
years until he got to the World Court before his government complained.
  The World Court ruled in favor of Mexico, and here's where all of the 
irony begins. After the World Court ruled that the Texas court, or the 
Texas peace officers should have told him that he had the right to talk 
to the Mexican Consulate, the President of the United States intervened 
in this case and told the Texas courts they ought to review this 
matter; they ought to uphold the ruling of the World Court. And last 
year, the Texas courts, in all due respect to the administration, told 
the President he didn't have any authority to tell Texas courts what to 
do about anything, and they upheld this conviction and ordered him to 
be executed, this defendant.
  Tomorrow the Supreme Court of the United States is going to hear this 
case. They're going to hear this case and have to decide this issue. 
Does the World Court, when it issues an opinion about a trial that 
takes place in the State of Texas, or any other State, have authority 
to tell a court of law in this country that they must overturn a 
conviction or not?
  This is a big deal, Mr. Speaker, because, you see, Texas courts, like 
most courts in the United States, all courts in the United States, are 
beholden to the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the 
land. The supreme law of the land is not the World Court in the Hague. 
So that's the first decision the Supreme Court's going to have to make; 
whether or not this is a lawful order by the World Court or whether the 
Constitution is to be held supreme.
  Second, they're going to have to decide, does the President of the 
United States have the authority to order any court to review any case?
  I hope they rule that he does not because as Ted Cruz said, the 
lawyer representing the State of Texas tomorrow in this death penalty 
case, it is not the province of the President to say what the law is or 
is not. If this President's assertion of authority is upheld in this 
case, it opens the door for enormous mischief from Presidents of either 
party. What might these Presidents be inclined to do if they had the 
power to flick State laws off the books?
  It's a big deal. Separation of powers. The judicial branch is 
independent of the administration, of the executive branch. The 
executive branch has no authority over the judicial branch.
  And the third issue, and most importantly, is should this case be 
reversed because the defendant, according to the World Court, should 
have had the ability to talk to his consulate or not?
  Texas courts, and even Federal courts have found that he gave up that 
right if he had a right by not ever objecting at the trial.
  Meanwhile, this defendant has been on death row longer than these two 
girls were alive. Justice must be provided for the victims of this 
crime, and this horrible case should be upheld by the Supreme Court.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________