Breard v. Greene

Supreme Court of the United States · 1998 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusTreatiesProcedural DefaultEleventh AmendmentSection 1983Vienna Convention on Consular Relationsprocedural default

Facts

Breard, a Paraguayan citizen, was convicted in Virginia of attempted rape and capital murder and sentenced to death. In his federal habeas petition, filed years after his conviction became final, he argued for the first time that arresting authorities violated the Vienna Convention by failing to inform him of his right to contact the Paraguayan Consulate. Paraguay and its officials also sued Virginia officials, alleging violations of treaty-based consular notification rights and seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice issued an order requesting that the United States take measures to ensure Breard was not executed pending further proceedings.

Issue

Whether Breard could obtain federal habeas or other relief based on an alleged Vienna Convention violation despite not raising that claim in state court, and whether Paraguay or its consul could sue Virginia officials in federal court or under § 1983 to block the execution. The Court also had to decide whether the ICJ order required the Supreme Court to grant a stay.

Rule

Absent a clear and express statement to the contrary, the procedural rules of the forum state govern implementation of a treaty in that state, and treaty-based claims in criminal cases are subject to ordinary state procedural default rules on federal habeas review. Treaties are on parity with federal statutes, so a later-enacted statute such as AEDPA may limit treaty-based habeas relief. A foreign nation has no clearly established private right under the Vienna Convention to set aside a state criminal conviction in United States courts, and suits by a foreign state against a state are barred by the Eleventh Amendment absent a valid exception; Paraguay and its consul acting only officially are not proper plaintiffs under § 1983.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Mateo Ibarra, a citizen of Chile, was convicted of murder in Ohio state court. Years later, in his first federal habeas petition, he argues for the first time that Cleveland police violated the Vienna Convention by never informing him that he could contact the Chilean consulate.

How should the federal court treat Mateo's treaty claim?

Explanation. The majority held that, absent a clear and express statement to the contrary, forum-state procedural rules govern treaty implementation. Because criminal claims must first be raised in state court to be preserved for federal habeas review, a Vienna Convention claim first asserted in federal habeas is procedurally defaulted.