Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Ex Parte Medellin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided November 15, 2006No. AP-75207Published

1Concurrence

COCHRAN,

J.,concurring, in which JOHNSON, and HOLCOMB, JJ., joined.

I join all of the Court’s opinion except for Section IIIB dealing with the Presidential Memorandum. I am unable to conclude that a memorandum from the President to his Attorney General constitutes the enactment of federal law that is binding on all state courts. This memorandum, discussing compliance with the decision of the International Court of Justice in Avena, looks much more like a memo than a law. The Solicitor General, in his amicus brief, has attached a copy of the President’s memo, entitled “Memorandum for the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ex Parte SimpsonCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2004
  2. Mosqueda v. Albright Transfer & Storage CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1958
  3. Ex Parte SchoenCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1970
  4. Plaster v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
  5. Surety Insurance Co. of California v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API