since mr. leal received a fair trial under american law and there was no question concerning his guilt, his request should have been rejected and rejected unanimously. but that is not what happened. he was executed, but the supreme court's ruling was shockingly close by default. the department of justice, through the solicitor general verrilli asked the supreme court to grant the stay. his brief was truly astonishing. it did not argue there was any doubt about mr. leal was guilty. it did not say mr. leal was harmed in any way by the vienna convention. it cited no case that provided an example where a stay had issue -- had been issued in similar circumstances. it raised no arguments for the stay that were based on american law because american law did not support a stay. instead the department of justice relied on international law and made policy arguments. it argued that mr. leal's execution would create negative effects on america's international relations. it argued that his execution would viola

the lawyers for this man, mr. lealhave got to the supreme court and say we have a stay of execution. we also want you to look at this broader issue. it's really a states' rights issue. does the president have a right to tell a state that they have to enforce an international treaty, that that president has signed on to? that's a question that was decided a while ago in another case. but now there are different circumstances. the congress might pass a law that would make it more possible to put them in the federal courts. so there's a lot of legal maneuvering right now as the time ticks away. >> i certainly understand the states' rights issue with this, but you said they already had one case, but it was slightly different. what did they determine in that one? was it the international law that ruled or the state law? >> the state law, that the president of the united states could not tell a state what to do. but there's a hitch. if the congress were to come up with a law and in this case there is a pending bill from sena

this is to allow some consideration of the fact that mr. leal was not afforded a visit by mexican consular officials at inappropriate moments in the trial proceedings. to allow that to be taken into account. as you know, this is an issue of reciprocity for the united states because we are very concerned about being in compliance ourselves with our obligations under the icj, because it is critical to get ability for consular access and protection for our own citizens when they are arrested or detained by foreign governments. it sends a strong signal to the international community about our commitment. i don't have any comments for you on the mexican arrest. obviously, we support steps by the mexican government to enforce the law and to see justice done. >> was there any word as to why the consular was not -- was there anybody that would answer for that failure? >> i do not want to get too deeply into the legal issues from this podium but my understanding eis it has to do with state's rights versus federal policy and the current policy of the stat