Vienna Convention claim in California

7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Breard v. Greenegreen scotus · 1998 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 2007–2020 2 sentences 2020If a defendant is unable to make “some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial,” the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that even with a “properly raised and proved” Vienna Convention claim, “it is extremely doubtful that [a] violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction.” (Breard v. Greene, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 377 .) “ ‘In most circumstances, there is likely to be little connection between an Article 36 violation and evidence or statements obtained by police.’ (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) 548 U.S. 331, 349 , [165 54 PEOPLE v. VARGAS Opinion of 2020(See Leon, at p. 846; see also Breard v. Greene, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 377 [speculative Vienna Convention claim rejected where it could not “arguably” be shown that the treaty’s 55 PEOPLE v. VARGAS Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J. “violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction without some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial”].) Defendant made no incriminating statements but argues his “uncounseled” “misstatements” to law enforcement rendered testifying an impossibility.	3	3
People v. Vargasgreen cal · 2020 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025 2 sentences 2025“If a defendant is unable to make ‘some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial,’ the United States Supreme Court has explained that even with a ‘properly raised and proved’ Vienna Convention claim, ‘it is extremely doubtful that [a] violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction.’ ” (Vargas, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 832.) The defendant must show not only that the consulate would have provided some specific assistance, but also that he could not have obtained that assistance from other sources. 2020If a defendant is unable to make ‘some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial,’ the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that even with a ‘properly raised and proven’ Vienna Convention claim, ‘it is extremely doubtful that [a] violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction.’ [Citation.] ‘ “In most circumstances, 16 there is likely to be little connection between an Article 36 violation and evidence or statements obtained by police.” [Citation.] Accordingly, the “failure to notify a suspect of his or her consular rights does not, in itself, render a conf	1	2
Medellin v. Dretkegreen scotus · 2005 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009(Medellin v. Dretke, supra, 544 U.S. 660, 662 (per curiam).) 2. 2009Observing that the "state-court proceeding may provide Medellin with the very reconsideration of his Vienna Convention claim that he now seeks in the present proceeding," the high court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted. ( Medellin v. Dretke, supra, 544 U.S. 660, 662 ( per curiam ).) 2.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon green scotus · 2006 2 sentences 2020If a defendant is unable to make “some showing that the violation had an effect on the trial,” the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that even with a “properly raised and proved” Vienna Convention claim, “it is extremely doubtful that [a] violation should result in the overturning of a final judgment of conviction.” (Breard v. Greene, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 377 .) “ ‘In most circumstances, there is likely to be little connection between an Article 36 violation and evidence or statements obtained by police.’ (Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) 548 U.S. 331, 349 , [165 54 PEOPLE v. VARGAS Opinion of 2009Nonetheless, petitioner purports to discern within the Medellin decision elements that "support a finding that Petitioner's present petition is based on previously unavailable facts and law." First, petitioner refers to the court's discussion in Medellin of its earlier Vienna Convention claim decision, Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006) 548 U.S. 331 [ 165 L.Ed.2d 557 , 126 S.Ct. 2669 ] for the proposition "that a petitioner may request `appropriate accommodations' from the trial court to secure `the benefits of consular assistance.'" From this language, petitioner argues he was deprived of such a	3	2009–2022
People v. Mendoza green cal · 2007 2 sentences 2025(See People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 711 .) Here, defendant asserts only that he might possibly have obtained some unspecified “mitigation evidence” from Canadian records concerning his paternal grandfather, who, he represents, was a native of British Colombia. 2020(See People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 917 ; People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 710 .) The Attorney General argued defendant would be barred from habeas corpus relief because he had an opportunity to present evidence before the trial court that he suffered prejudice due to a violation of the Vienna Convention when he 50 PEOPLE v. VARGAS Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J. no prejudice, and although law enforcement officials involved in questioning Vargas technically violated the Vienna Convention, reversal is not warranted. 1.	2	2020–2025
People v. Mendoza green cal · 2016 2 sentences 2020(See People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 917 ; People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 710 .) The Attorney General argued defendant would be barred from habeas corpus relief because he had an opportunity to present evidence before the trial court that he suffered prejudice due to a violation of the Vienna Convention when he 50 PEOPLE v. VARGAS Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J. no prejudice, and although law enforcement officials involved in questioning Vargas technically violated the Vienna Convention, reversal is not warranted. 1. 2020(See People v. Mendoza (2016) 62 Cal.4th 856, 917 ; People v. Mendoza (2007) 42 Cal.4th 686, 710 .) The Attorney General argued defendant would be barred from habeas corpus relief because he had an opportunity to present evidence before the trial court that he suffered prejudice due to a violation of the Vienna Convention when he 50 PEOPLE v. VARGAS Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J. no prejudice, and although law enforcement officials involved in questioning Vargas technically violated the Vienna Convention, reversal is not warranted. 1.	1	2020–2020
Colorado v. Connelly green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 2020He points out that “ ‘[e]xclusionary rules are very much aimed at deterring lawless conduct by police’ ” (Colorado v. Connelly (1986) 479 U.S. 157, 169 ), including “recurring or systemic negligence” on the part of the police.	1	2020–2020
Medellin v. Texas green scotus · 2008 2 sentences 2009Medellin The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellin's habeas corpus petitionhis secondbecause in its view neither the Avena decision nor the Presidential Memorandum constituted binding federal law that could displace a state procedural limitation on successive petitions. ( Ex parte Medellin (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 223 S.W.3d 315, 352 .) The Supreme Court again granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Texas court. ( Medellin v. Texas, supra, 552 U.S. ___ [ 128 S.Ct. at p. 1353 ].) The Supreme Court specifically rejected Medellin's argument that the Avena decision and/or th 2009Medellin The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellin's habeas corpus petitionhis secondbecause in its view neither the Avena decision nor the Presidential Memorandum constituted binding federal law that could displace a state procedural limitation on successive petitions. ( Ex parte Medellin (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 223 S.W.3d 315, 352 .) The Supreme Court again granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Texas court. ( Medellin v. Texas, supra, 552 U.S. ___ [ 128 S.Ct. at p. 1353 ].) The Supreme Court specifically rejected Medellin's argument that the Avena decision and/or th	1	2009–2009
Ex Parte Medellin green texcrimapp · 2006 1 sentence 2009Medellin The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medellin's habeas corpus petitionhis secondbecause in its view neither the Avena decision nor the Presidential Memorandum constituted binding federal law that could displace a state procedural limitation on successive petitions. ( Ex parte Medellin (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) 223 S.W.3d 315, 352 .) The Supreme Court again granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Texas court. ( Medellin v. Texas, supra, 552 U.S. ___ [ 128 S.Ct. at p. 1353 ].) The Supreme Court specifically rejected Medellin's argument that the Avena decision and/or th	1	2009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CA § Cal. Evidence Code § 352 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 13 (2000–2018) CA 7 (2007–2025) IL 4 (2001–2007) FL 3 (2005–2017) OH 3 (2001–2013) MN 2 (2000–2001)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check