Consequences of a Defendant Filing a Writ of Mandamus Based on the State's Violation of the Vienna Convection
In People v. Madej, 193 Ill. 2d 395, 739 N.E.2d 423, 250 Ill. Dec. 660 (2000), the defendant based a petition for writ of mandamus and a petition for relief under section 2-- 1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2--1401 (West 1998)) on the State's admitted violation of the Vienna Convention. Madej, 193 Ill. 2d at 398-99.
The majority found that the section 2--1401 petition was not timely filed and that the failure to inform the defendant of his Vienna Convention rights did not toll the state's procedural time limitations period. Madej, 193 Ill. 2d at 404.
Three justices dissented.
Justice McMorrow, who dissented in part and concurred in part, believed that the unique circumstances of the case and the fact that the defendant was sentenced to death warranted a remedy for the violation of the Vienna Convention and recommended remanding for a new sentencing hearing. Madej, 193 Ill. 2d at 410 (McMorrow, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part).
Chief Justice Harrison joined Justice Heiple in asserting that the remedy for the violation of the Vienna Convention was to remand for a new trial. Madej, 193 Ill. 2d at 412 (Heiple, J., dissenting, joined by Harrison, C.J.).
None of the dissenters asserted that relief for a violation of the Vienna Convention was suppression of evidence.