The LaGrands' unsuccessful appeals took fifteen years, and the men were scheduled for execution just nine days apart in 1999. Karl had new representation at each appellate stage and claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Walter's trial counsel served him throughout, and he waived his right to claim ineffective assistance.  In several proceedings their appeals were consolidated in judgments rejecting common allegations of error such as aggravating circumstances and the felony murder rule.  The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed their convictions in 1987 and denied post-conviction review in 1990. The U.S. Supreme Court also denied review despite objections to the death penalty by dissenting Justices Marshall and Brennan

The LaGrands then filed habeas corpus petitions in U.S. District Court.  After learning of the brothers' nationality, the German consulate in Los Angeles assisted appellate counsel in challenging Arizona's failure to provide the LaGrands notice of their right to consular assistance provided under Vienna Convention Article 36(1):

With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State ... (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. . . . . The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph.... 

c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. [7]

  The federal court rejected the international law claim by applying a procedural default rule:  the U.S. courts will not review a claim unless it was presented in prior state court appeals.  That U.S. procedure was deemed consistent with Vienna Convention Article 36(2):

  The rights referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be exercised in conformity with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, subject to the proviso, however, that the said laws and regulations must enable full effect to be given to the purposes for which the rights accorded under this Article are intended. Although the LaGrands' state appeals were completed before the brothers learned of the treaty violation, ignorance did not justify a waiver of the procedural default rule. [8]   The U.S. 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed their death sentences in 1998 in an opinion upholding the procedural default rule. [9]

The appeals court refused to rule on the LaGrands' claim that both lethal injection and lethal gas were cruel and unusual punishment, because the brothers had not yet made the choice allowed under Arizona law.  After the U.S. Supreme Court declined review, Arizona set execution dates for Karl of Wednesday February 24 and Walter on March 3, 1999.  The men chose death in the gas chamber rather than by lethal injection, and then challenged asphyxiation as "cruel and unusual punishment."  On each execution date, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a stay of execution to consider that 8^th Amendment claim; each time the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay.

Contents