Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction (Out of Yakama)

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Gomez.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Tribal Court Consecutive Sentencing under ICRA

Here is the opinion in Miranda v. Anchando:

Miranda CA9 Decision

The briefs are here and here and here and here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Crimes Act Conviction (Out of Montana)

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. White.

Eastern Band Cherokee Tribal Court Order Incarcerating Non-Indian for Criminal Contempt of Court (1 Day in Jail)

Here is the order in In re Russell:

In re Russell

Manitoba Aboriginal Man Charged With Second Degree Murder Forwards Bizarre Defense

Here’s an interesting case concerning the criminal defense by an Aboriginal man in Manitoba charged with second degree murder and conspiracy to commit robbery.  Though his argument (Canada has no jurisdiction over him because he’s aboriginal) is certainly not novel, the manner in which it is presented is actually quite bizarre.  It’s worth a quick read – R. v. Campbell.

Continue reading

Ninth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction (2d Degree Murder) Out of Montana

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Goodbear.

Federal Court Indicts Man for Assault and Witness Tampering at Saginaw Chippewa

Man Indicted for Assault and Witness Tampering on Indian Reservation (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan)

Travis Jay Kendall, 24, was indicted by a federal grand jury in Bay City, Mich., for assault causing serious bodily injury and witness tampering. The indictment charges that Kendall assaulted his girlfriend on the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Reservation in Isabella County, Mich. The indictment also charges that Kendall attempted to intimidate, threaten, or corruptly persuade the victim with the intent to influence her testimony at a grand jury proceeding.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/news/2011/2011_8_10_tkendall.html

Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act/SORNA Convictions

Here is the opinion in United States v. Poitra:

US v Poitra

Fletcher at ACSBlog on the DOJ Legislative Proposal to Combat Violence against Indian Women

Here is the link to the post, titled “DOJ Takes Step Toward Addressing Violent Crime Against American Indian Women.”

An excerpt:

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has, for the first time, proposed a dramatic expansion of American Indian tribal criminal jurisdiction in its recommendations to Congress on the reauthorization of the Violence against Women Act. After decades of declining to support expanded tribal criminal jurisdiction, this proposal is a major watershed in the fight against Indian country crime. DOJ finally supports the reaffirmation of at least limited authority to prosecute such crime by the first responders in Indian country – Indian tribes.

In its narrative proposal (available here), DOJ acknowledges the epidemic of violence against American Indian women occurring daily in the United States, and especially in Indian country. Recent studies by university researchers and Amnesty International, among others, conclude that American Indian women suffer possibly the highest rates of violent crime – most notably, sexual assaults – of any demographic in the United States.

The proposal is a limited one, given the political climate, but symbolically important. It recognizes inherent tribal jurisdiction to enforce civil protection orders against all persons, Indian and non-Indian, an open question in current law. It also recognizes limited tribal criminal jurisdiction authority over non-Indians who commit domestic violence-related crimes. Sexual assaults are not included in the proposal. Despite these limitations, DOJ’s recommendations – coming on the heels of 2010’s Tribal Law and Order Act, which was the first significant expansion of tribal sentencing authority since 1986 – may pave the way toward greater ability of Indian tribes to respond to violent crime against Indian women in the future.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act — Domestic Violence — Sentencing

The court relied at least in part on prior tribal court convictions, but didn’t note whether they were counseled or uncounseled.

Here is the opinion:

US v Strong CA8 Opinion