Criminal – Page 112 – Turtle Talk

Tenth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Indian Gaming Player Who Embezzled Funds from Choctaw

January 9, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the available materials in United States v. Bryant:

Here is a description of the crime:

On June 20, 2010, Ms. Bryant played a $1 slot machine at the Choctaw Casino and Resort, an Indian gaming establishment. She won 90 cents and took the ticket to her sister, who worked as a cashier. Her sister, and later codefendant, paid Ms. Bryant $4,000.91. They later split the proceeds. R. 1, 26. The casino noticed the missing $4,000 and saw the transaction as recorded by cameras. On appeal, Ms. Bryant contends that no federal law was violated. Her two-step argument is as follows: the statute upon which she was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 1168, prohibits theft by “an officer, employee, or individual licensee of a gaming establishment operated by or for or licensed by an Indian tribe.” But
she was not a casino employee, which, for purposes of this appeal, we take as true.

Is a Tribal Officer a Federal Officer under the Major Crimes Act?

January 5, 2012January 5, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

The question here is whether an assault on a tribal officer can be prosecuted as an assault on a federal officer under the Major Crimes Act. The court concluded that whether the tribal cop is a federal cop must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is the Court’s opinion in United States v. Danley.

Rainbird Sentencing (Conviction for Selling Smokes in N.M. without a Tax Stamp)

January 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Paul Rainbird Sentencing

The sentencing memoranda are here.

Tenth Circuit Vacates Sentence in Major Crimes Act Conviction

December 28, 2011December 28, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Cert Petition in In re Beaulieu: Chance for SCT to Clarify PL280 Confusion in Minnesota and Wisconsin

December 23, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

In re Beaulieu Cert Petition

Here are the questions presented:

1. Does Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. § 1162 and 28 U.S.C. (1360) give the State of Wisconsin jurisdiction to involuntarily civilly commit a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe who is a legal resident of his tribal reservation under Minnesota’s Commitment and Treatment Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 253B?)

2. Was Minnesota’s involuntary civil commitment of Beaulieu contrary to, and/or an unreasonable application of this Court’s clearly established law limiting Public Law 280’s grant of civil jurisdiction to private civil matters?

Lower court decision here.

Ninth Circuit Denies Fourth Amendment Challenge to Search on Crow Reservation

December 19, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Littlebird.

An excerpt:

More importantly, significant intervening circumstances exist to sufficiently purge the taint of the illegal stop. First, prior to the interview, Littlebird was arraigned in the Crow Tribal Court and received appointed counsel. Second, the record reflects that Littlebird himself likely initiated the interview with the investigating officers. Third, before the interview he spoke with his Tribal counsel—a crucial factor in attenuation. United States v. Wellins, 654 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir. 1981). And finally, his counsel was present during the entire interview.

Hawaii Supreme Court Affirms State Law Prosecution for Trafficking in American Indian Artifacts

December 19, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Taylor. Also, a concurring and dissenting opinion. And the COA opinion.

Cavanaugh and Shavanaux Cert Petitions: Challenges to Use of Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions in Federal Sentencing

December 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here they are:

11-7379 Cavanaugh Cert Petition

11-7731 Shavanaux Cert Petition

The Cavanaugh question presented (Cavanaugh is now represented by Alex Reichart of United States v. Lara fame):

Whether the United States Constitution precludes the use of prior, uncounseled, tribal court misdemeanor convictions as predicate convictions to establish the habitual offender element of Section 117?

The Shavanaux question presented:

Does the Constitution prevent the use of a prior, uncounseled tribal court conviction that received a term of imprisonment to establish an element of the offense?

Here are the Cavanaugh lower court materials. And here are the Shavanaux lower court materials.

There is no circuit split, as far as we can tell. As such, it seems pretty unlikely these petitions will be granted. As we’ve said here, the Ninth Circuit does not appear to have weighed in on the question. Both petitions argue that the CA9 decision in United States v. Ant (882_F.2d_1389) furnishes the desired circuit split. It’s not clean, in that Ant’s tribal court conviction was a guilty plea used as a confession in federal court, not a conviction in a prior case used under Section 117 to establish facts for a habitual offender sentence enhancement. That said, who knows? We’ll see how the government handles it.

H/t Indianz.