Discussion Questions

U.S. Policy Interests:

Was LaGrand’s execution a judicious defense of state sovereignty or an unfortunate precedent enabling other governments to deny consular assistance to U.S. nationals prosecuted abroad?

Should foreign nationals afforded the same Miranda warnings as local citizens enjoy additional rights under international treaties and universal human rights?  If not, would U.S. nationals convicted abroad become more subject to summary executions after sham trials and to Shariah penalties of amputation and stoning to death?

International law:

Were the ICJ provisional measures calling for a stay of execution binding and enforceable?

In addition to the German government--a state party to the treaty--does a convicted individual such as LaGrand also have standing to claim a denial of rights under the Vienna Convention?

U.S. Constitutional law:

Does the 11^th Amendment grant Arizona immunity from Germany’s claim of a treaty violation?

Given compelling evidence of LaGrand’s guilt, was Arizona’s failure to provide the required consular notice “harmless error,” or should the sentence be vacated pending a new trial?

If LaGrand and his lawyers only discovered the treaty violation after exhausting all other appeals, should his consular notice claim be dismissed under established rules of “procedural default” or should a new appeal be allowed based on international comity?

If the 1996 U.S. Death Penalty Act restrictions on federal appeals conflict with U.S. obligations under the 1963 Vienna Convention, which should control--the statute as “last in time” or the earlier treaty that remains in force?

Contents