The district court concluded that while the terms of the Vienna Convention had been violated, Miranda failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising as a result. It denied Miranda's motion to suppress his statement. Miranda contends that even without a showing of prejudice, the failure of the police to notify him of his right to speak with his consular representative requires a reversal of his conviction and a new trial. Alternatively, he argues that, even if a showing of prejudice is required, the district court erred in concluding that Miranda failed to demonstrate prejudice. The state contends that Miranda must make a showing of prejudice to be entitled to any relief for the violation of his right to consult his consulate and that the district court correctly concluded that Miranda failed to make such a showing.
State courts have jurisdiction to enforce rights that arise under federal law.
Great Western Ry. Whether a showing of prejudice is required when seeking a judicial remedy for violation of the Vienna Convention is an issue of first impression for this court. The Minnesota Supreme Court has declined to interpret the requirements of the treaty. This issue is currently being reviewed in several courts throughout the United States. The Vienna Convention itself does not prescribe any recourse for violation of its requirement that a foreign national be informed of the right to consult with a consular representative upon being arrested.