Texas Treats Illegal Alien, Humberto Leal, as a Genuine Citizen of the United States and Executes Him for Murder

By: Jim Byrd

The state of Texas executed Humberto Leal for the 1994 brutal rape and murder of a 16-year-old Texas girl. The fact that Leal was living in this country illegally since 1975 was irrelevant. Dismissing pressure from the United Nations, foreign and American diplomats, former President George W. Bush, Barack Obama, the Department of State, Mexico, and the International Court of Justice, Texas executed its laws and Leal. The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, refused to exercise his discretion to grant Humberto Leal a 30-day delay of execution, which was congruent with the rejection by the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles of Leal’s request for a reprieve. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons stood on solid legal ground, the Supreme Court agreed with the State of Texas, and Humberto Leal left Texas for good on July 7, 2011, at precisely 6:21 pm.
The crime:

Humberto Leal was brought to the U.S. illegally in 1975 at the age of two. He had presented himself as an American citizen his entire life. In 1994, he raped and killed 16-year-old Adria Sauceda. She was found naked by authorities. Leal had sexually violated her with a 15-inch long stick with a screw at the end. The stick was used while she was alive. Leal then bashed in her skull with a 40-pound rock twice the size of her head, then fled, leaving the bloody and broken stick inside her. Leal confessed before he was formally arrested.

This isn’t Texas’ first rodeo with executing illegal aliens for killing its citizens, and having to deal with a meddlesome President, the International Court of Justice, or a foreign country attempting to obstruct the Texas judicial system. The spurious attempts by the International Court of Justice and a U.S. President have been repeatedly repelled by the Supreme Court from interfering with a state carrying out its criminal process over an impotent and extraneous treaty.

The International Court of Justice derives its jurisdiction from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, and the Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes to the Vienna Convention of April 24, 1963. Disputes “shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” according to the Vienna Convention. The International Court of Justice is the judicial arm of one of the most unethical, corrupt, and knavish organizations in the world, the United Nations. Liberals and progressives would prefer nothing more than to transfer our judicial sovereignty to the U.N. and in a judicial capacity, be under the control of an organization pregnant with nefarious third world countries that dominate the U.N. The consequences would be innumerable. Our federal and state laws would be subjected and subordinated to the malignant ideology that infects the U.N. and its various tentacles, including the International Court of Justice.

The “compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice” was tested against the United States with the case The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America. The court held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra guerrillas in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua’s harbors. The court awarded judgment against the U.S. and ordered it to pay reparations to Nicaragua. The United States objected, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated that the court is a “semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don’t.” The court countered that the United States was subject to its jurisdiction. Then Ronald Reagan took action. The United States then announced that it had “decided not to participate in further proceedings in this case.” Then, on January 18, 1985, the United States withdrew from the International Court of Justice with these parting words: “the court lacks jurisdiction and competence.” And in 2005, the United States withdrew from the Optional Protocol, neutering the International Court of Justice of jurisdiction in consular cases.

The issue is that Humberto Leal was never given the chance to speak with a Mexican consul. The police never asked if he wanted to speak with one. But, perhaps the arresting officers were afraid or forbidden to ask if he is a Mexican national. If he looks Mexican, and they ask, they are racists. This would be, in the world of liberals, progressives, the U.N., etc., racial profiling and not only illegal, but offensive. This is the foundation of every lawsuit filed by Mexico and Barack Obama against states, such as Arizona’s immigration laws giving law enforcement the ability to ascertain someone’s legal status. To follow the illogical logic of Mexico and the liberals, asking if one is a Mexican national is racist and considered profiling, and not asking by virtue of law, and thus denying a Mexican national the right to speak with the Mexican consulate, is a violation of international law. This is very apropos for liberal logic.

Barack Obama, being severely constitutionally challenged, and in the habit of abhorring states’ rights, decided to intervene in Texas’ criminal law and the pending execution of Humberto Leal by sending his Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. to join Leal’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The plea before the court was as bizarre, unorthodox, and sophomoric as Barack Obama’s leadership adroitness. Obama’s Justice Department did not ask for a legal ruling, did not present a constitutional claim, but requested that the court stay the execution of Humberto Leal until Congress could actually pass a law that would presumably give them legal justification to argue this case in front of the Supreme Court. Congress has failed to pass the legislation twice, and the prospect of Congress handing over a substantial piece of our judicial sovereignty to the U.N. is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future.

The Supreme Court unceremoniously rejected the case in a per curiam 5-4 decision.

The majority opinion of the court regarding Obama’s kooky request:

Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be. We decline to follow the United States’ suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based on hypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has any prospect of success. The United States studiously refuses to argue that Leal was prejudiced by the Vienna Convention violation. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President, “presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.

The foundation of Barack Obama’s Justice Department’s argument was thus: hey, perhaps sometime in the future, maybe around January 2012, or maybe even before, heck who knows, Congress might pass legislation, that it has refused to pass twice before, that would give us “future jurisdiction to review the judgment in a proceeding.” But even though we haven’t really thought about the fact that if this legislation passed, it probably would not have any effect on his conviction anyway since the violation did not prejudice the verdict, we feel we should waste the court’s time with possible laws of the future we may want to argue, sort of the same principle with law as with cryonic science and medicine, let’s just freeze it until there is a plausible remedy, then resurrect it.

Leal’s attorney, Sandra Babcock, argued that with the assistance of a Mexican consul, her client could prove his innocence. Even if protocol had been followed and Leal had been in contact with the Mexican consulate, he had already incriminated himself before being arrested and read his Miranda Rights, and the consulate could not have made, as in Mexico, the evidence that convicted Leal disappear. The Supreme Court made clear that speaking with a Mexican consul would not have stopped his being convicted, and the Justice Department never broached that argument. Humberto Leal’s due process was never questioned, nor the evidence against him, and he was afforded every legal remedy available after his conviction, including 16 years of appeals and legal wrangling. One Federal District Court judge called it “one of the most procedurally convoluted and complex habeas corpus proceedings” he ever reviewed.

Preceding the appeal to the Supreme Court, the court had ruled on two very similar cases. Medellín v. Texas was a United Supreme Court Case regarding Texas’ pending execution of José Ernesto Medellín. Medellín took part in the gang rape and murder of two Texas girls, a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old. President George Bush wanted to enforce a decision by the International Court of Justice that found the conviction of Medellín had violated his rights. Justice Roberts wrote for the court, “Neither a World Court decision requiring U.S. states to provide new review of criminal cases involving foreign nationals, nor a memo by President Bush seeking to enforce the World Court ruling, preempts state law restrictions on challenges to convictions.” Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon in 2006 weighed strongly on the Medellín case because the State of Oregon did not have to exclude evidence in violation of the Vienna Convention.

As in the plead to the Supreme Court regarding foreign policy consequences, if Leal’s execution was not stayed, the Obama administration, in its continuance of fear mongering, fears other nations may retaliate against U.S. citizens by denying their rights to an American consul in retaliation if Texas is allowed to follow its laws. The same argument was employed with Sanchez-Llama v. Oregon in 2006 by the Bush administration, and again with Medellín v. Texas in 2008. Not one retaliatory act by a foreign government has been committed against an American citizen as the result of either state executing its laws. In a statement that is as detached from reality as Obama’s Supreme Court plea, Ricardo Alday from the Mexican Embassy stated, “Another execution of a Mexican national in direct violation of international law would undoubtedly affect public opinion in Mexico, undermining support for a constructive and forward-leaning bilateral relationship.” Perhaps it will have such an impact on public opinion in Mexico that the citizens of Mexico will abstain from sneaking across the border in to the U.S. Perhaps, also, Mr. Alday is unaware of the travel warning issued April 22, 2011 by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, stating, “The Department of State has issued this Travel Warning to inform U.S. citizens traveling to and living in Mexico about the security situation in Mexico….the security situation poses serious risks for U.S. citizens…” et cetera. Clarified: Go to Mexico and the probability of being kidnapped and losing your head are relatively high.

Illegal aliens, their apologists, and the liberals who believe that illegals deserve the right to be treated the same as United States citizens just got their wish. Humberto Leal was treated explicitly as any United States citizen would have been treated who was convicted of murder, sentenced to death, and exhausted his appeals.

Humberto Leal confessed before his arrest, and just before he died. His last words were, “I have hurt a lot of people. Let this be final and be done. I take the full blame for this. I am sorry and forgive me, I am truly sorry.” He then blurted, “Viva Mexico!” But Texas’ justice had the last words: “Don’t Mess With Texas” and “Viva Texas!”

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.