Mexico City -
A five judge panel of Mexico's Supreme Judicial Court, the highest appellate tribunal in the nation, today rejected a bid by Florence Cassez to overturn her conviction and 60 year prison sentence. The ruling is the end of the immediate legal road for the 37 year old French national, but she still has remedies available. Attorneys for Cassez vowed they'll continue the fight, saying their client is innocent and that her substantial legal rights were violated when she was arrested over six years ago.
Cassez traveled to Mexico in 2005 to pursue a romantic relationship and ended up in jail a few months later. She was convicted of kidnapping and other serious crimes. The Mexican government claims she was a willing member of a vicious gang known as Los Zodiaco (the Zodiacs), a group which specialized in kidnapping for ransom. No one disputes that her Mexican boyfriend (who is in jail and not challenging his conviction) was the leader of the group, although he insists that Cassez had no knowledge of his activities. There is strong circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Controversy flares in Florence Cassez case.
Two technical factors which had nothing to do with the factual evidence were at the heart of today's appeal. First, 24 hours after Cassez was detained (Dec. 8, 2005), federal police staged a "re-arrest" of her and her boyfriend, and put on a full scale media show for local reporters whom they had tipped off to their big bust of Los Zodiaco. That prevented Cassez from promptly being brought before a judicial officer, which was her right under Mexican law. Second, French consular officials were not timely notified of her arrest. The latter was a violation of treaties between Mexico and France, as well as international law.
A three member majority of the Supreme Court panel to which the case was assigned ruled this afternoon that one or both factors relied upon by Cassez are valid complaints, but two of them said the procedural errors did not warrant a reversal of her conviction or sentence. A critical problem for the defense was demonstrating how the technical mistakes brought about a miscarriage of justice. This is a challenge often encountered by criminal defendants when they appeal their convictions. Not only must a substantial legal error be shown, but a causal relationship between that error and the ultimate verdict or decision in the case. The defense was unable to do that. But the court left the door ajar, which will enable them to return later with new legal arguments or "projects," as they're called here.
One judge voted to reject all of the arguments raised, while another would have sent the case back to a lower court for reconsideration. There are 11 judges, known as ministers, on the full court, but in some cases they sit in smaller panels. The same "panel practice" is common in most intermediate level American appellate courts, although never in the United States Supreme Court, where nine justices consider and decide every case which comes before them.
The lone dissenter found no substantial errors in the government's handling of the case. That minister noted that from the moment of her arrest Cassez had always proclaimed her innocence, and that purely technical errors could not and did not undermine the evidence presented against her in the lower courts, or her ability to fully defend herself. He argued that she had received a fundamentally fair trial as measured by international standards, including the presumption of innocence, the assistance of defense counsel, access to advisers and translators and a sufficient period of time in which to prepare her defense. The minister said he would not review the sufficiency of the evidence, since that is rarely the proper function of an appellate court. Guilt was firmly established in the trial courts, he argued, noting "our job is not to reweigh the facts." On that point other ministers agreed.
Olga Sanchez Cordero, argued for the complete and unconditional release of Cassez due to the failure of Mexican authorities to notify the French government of her arrest. But it was to no avail. In the end Cassez simply could not muster the three votes she needed to walk free. Each minister read his or her decision aloud to the hushed courtroom, which is the custom in Mexican judicial proceedings. The hearing lasted about two hours, twice as long as most U.S. Supreme Court proceedings.
The procedural remedy which the Mexican Supreme Court considered in the Cassez case is called amparo, and is designed to test the lawfulness of a defendant's conviction and detention. It's a rough approximation of Anglo-American habeas corpus, although far broader and more powerful. Criminal defendants frequently seek writs of amparo in this country, on all sorts of legal grounds. Amparo is not routinely granted, but neither is it rare. Ultimately it's awarded to far more Mexican prisoners than is habeas corpus in Anglo-American courts.
The closely followed case has caused a considerable divide in public opinion here. An overnight Milenio network telephone poll showed that 65% of Mexicans surveyed believe Cassez is guilty. A week ago it was 58%, attesting to the power of mass media persuasion, perhaps. With a presidential election just over 100 days away, the three major political parties and candidates have also weighed in on the case, with predictable commentary designed for sound-bite consumption. In a country plagued by thousands of kidnappings annually (many of which end tragically), all three have urged firm adherence to the rule of law . But at the same time they've emphasized respect for human rights and adherence to prevailing international legal standards.
L'affaire Cassez has also to some extent pitted Mexico's executive and judicial branches against one another, illustrating the same division-of-powers tensions which frequently accompany controversial legal rulings in the United States. The Calderón government has been fierce in its insistence that the French woman was prosecuted in full accord with the law and convicted on the evidence, while Supreme Court ministers have emphasized in cautious public remarks that their sole obligation is to enforce the law as they determine it, regardless of the ultimate consequences. Today's ruling allowed both branches to save face. The court found that important legal rights had been violated in Cassez' case but kept her in jail for now, perhaps passing the buck to other judges at a later hearing.
The European press has closely monitored the case in recent days, and many reporters from France attended the unusual hearing. There were so many who wanted to watch today's proceeding live that the court had to assemble in larger quarters than it normally uses, to accommodate journalists and camera crews alike.
March 26: News sources report that French president Nicholas Sarkozy spoke with Cassez last night, and encouraged her "not to give up hope" while the legal process continues in Mexico's Supreme Court. The case could be considered again later this year, since four of the five judges found that procedural errors were committed in 2005.
March 27: Ministra Sanchez Cordero told the Milenio network in an interview televised today that she's working on new arguments for Cassez' freedom which she plans to submit to her judicial colleagues at a later date. Cordero said the government's violation of important procedural rights guaranteed to a criminal suspect is far more important than the question of guilt or innocence. The judge is moving ahead with another "project" for reconsideration of the case, which she hopes will eventually secure majority support.
May 22 - Confirma "El Chaparro" participación de Cassez en plagios: http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/c84ec533b3a22e5ff3c71efcd85e9107.
Blind Mexican justice - but for everyone?: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2012/03/blind-mexican-justice-but-for-everyone.html#more.
Cassez debate spotlights Mexico's unique emphasis on crime victims' rights: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2012/03/raging-cassez-debate-spotlights-mexicos.html.
Other legal matters:
Mexico's high court rejects lie detectors, drug tests, psych profiles for political candidates: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2012/02/mexicos-high-court-rejects-lie.html.
Mexico's Supreme Court rules in same sex marriage case: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2012/01/mexicos-highest-court-upholds-right-of.html.
Mexico's Supreme Court fails to overturn state anti-abortion laws: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2011/09/mexicos-supreme-judicial-court-fails-to.html.
Abortion issue likely to be revisited by Mexican courts: http://mexicogulfreporter.blogspot.com/2011/10/abortion-likely-to-be-revisited-in.html.
It is blatantly obvious that Justice and politics are not independent in Mexico. The "Presidente" gives his opinion and then this weighs down upon the judges, who at least do not seem to have thrown away the key to the jailhouse. A new trial with correct legal support is indispensable. In international law the doubt benefits the accused and in this case, the police report delivered its film of events two days after the arrest. If that is not a serious fault, I do not know what is. I shall continue to support Ms Chavez and request that Mexican justice re-examines the "evidence", if it has any solid proof of guilt.
ReplyDeleteas one can see you are a stranger and you have never been kinapped ( or any of your friends or family) it is so easy to fall in (cosas tecnicas) to absolve a criminal.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your notes, both. The Cassez case has been provoking strong emotions for a long time, and likely will continue to do so, whatever its ultimate outcome.
ReplyDeleteMy own opinion -- measured, admittedly, by U.S. legal standards -- is that the evidence in this case is quite sufficient to sustain a conviction. That doesn't mean that Cassez IS guilty, just that there is sufficient evidence to so conclude. If an American jury had found Cassez guilty based upon the evidence which has been widely reported and discussed in the Mexican press, I have little doubt that most U.S. courts would have readily upheld her conviction, even with the technical errors committed by the government. Speaking of which --
I wonder how many U.S. citizens are aware that several foreign nationals, including Mexicans, have been EXECUTED in capital punishment cases in the United States even though their consular officials were not notified after their arrests. This has happened in both Texas and Arizona (in the latter with two convicted German brothers, as I recall, in an infamous 1980s-era murder case).
American courts simply ruled that the failure to contact consular officials in those cases was "no big deal". Today the Mexican Supreme Court paid far more attention to the issue than a U.S. court probably would have, even though it refused to release Cassez based on that error alone.
I should add that I don't know where Mexico comes up with its sentencing guidelines. A criminal sentence, in theory, is supposed to bear some reasonable relation to the offense committed. I have no doubt that Cassez' kidnapping victims (assuming she's guilty) were terrified by their experience. They may yet be suffering. But 60 years is simply too much, and completely off the charts.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before in my first post on the Cassez case, it's a functional death sentence, which purportedly Mexico prohibits. There's a lot of hypocrisy in Mexican criminal sentencing law, and I have little doubt that the brunt of it falls on the poor, uneducated and those unable to defend themselves the way a person with money and connections could.