Here are the materials in United States v. Chase Alone (D. S.D.):
Apparently under the Red Bird case, a tribal lay advocate is not “counsel” under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, so any statements made to the FBI after a tribal criminal defendant is represented by a lay advocate are not required to be suppressed.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Blind. And here is the related unpublished opinion in United States v. Sankey.
An excerpt:
William Blind appeals his conviction of eight counts of embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 and his resulting sentence. He argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions and that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss for the purposes of sentencing, including restitution. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court AFFIRMS the judgment of conviction and AFFIRMS the sentence except as to restitution. The order of restitution is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for resentencing only as to restitution.
Here is the opinion: Sun Bear v. United States CA8 Opinion
The court split 6-5, possibly inspiring Supreme Court review.
Here is an excerpt from the majority:
Marlon Dale Sun Bear pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of his uncle in Indian country. At sentencing, the district court departed upward three levels based upon Sun Bear’s extensive and violent criminal history, resulting in a sentencing range of 292 to 365 months in prison under the then-mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. The court further ruled that Sun Bear’s prior felony convictions for attempted escape, attempted theft of a vehicle, and attempted burglary of a commercial building were “crimes of violence” under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a), resulting in a career offender enhancement that increased the guidelines range to 360 months to life. The court sentenced Sun Bear as a career offender to 360 months in prison. Sun Bear appealed, arguing that he should not have been sentenced as a career offender because his three prior felonies were not crimes of violence. We affirmed, concluding that he was properly sentenced as a career offender because, although the attempted escape offense was not proved to be a felony, the felony convictions for attempted auto theft and attempted burglary constituted two crimes of violence
warranting the career offender enhancement. United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 753 (8th Cir. 2002) (Sun Bear I), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 916 (2003).
Here is the opinion in United States v. Newell.
Here is an excerpt:
This case stems from extensive financial mismanagement at the Passamaquoddy Tribe Indian Township Reservation (the “Tribe”) in Down East Maine. Defendants Robert Newell, the former governor of the Tribe, and James Parisi, Jr., the Tribe’s former finance director, were convicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371, as well as violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 666 and 669, involving the misuse of federal grant and tribal monies. On appeal, Newell and Parisi raise a host of issues related to the federal court’s jurisdiction over “internal tribal matters,” the sufficiency of the evidence, the lower court’s jury instructions, sentencing, and the restitution order entered against them. For the reasons explained below, we vacate Parisi’s conviction on count five and remand for clarification of certain issues related to the restitution order, but otherwise affirm.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Smith.
An excerpt on blood quantum:
The government presented sufficient evidence of Smith’s Indian blood to satisfy Bruce’s first prong. We have held this requirement satisfied by as little as 1/8 (12.5%) Indian blood. See Maggi, 598 F.3d at 1080; Bruce, 394 F.3d at 1223. Here, the government presented evidence that Smith has 25/128 (19.5%) Assiniboine and Sioux blood, well in excess of the 1/8 we approved in Bruce and Maggi. We acknowledge that Smith’s § 2255 motion attached a letter from the Fort Peck Tribes Enrollment Office stating that Smith “does not meet the required blood quantum of 1/8 for Associate Membership [in the Fort Peck tribes], nor 1/4 Full Enrollment.” But this evidence was not presented at trial, and even if it had been, a rational trier of fact could have chosen to credit the more specific, higher figure established by the government’s evidence.
An excerpt on the defendant’s relinquishment of tribal membership:
We recognize that Smith relinquished his tribal enrollment in 1996. This decision does not definitively show, however, that Smith or the tribe ceased to consider Smith an Indian person. See Cruz, 554 F.3d at 850 (holding that Bruce requires an analysis of Indian status from the perspective of the individual as well as from the perspective of the tribe). A tribal investigator, Tom Atkinson, testified he had known Smith for most of his life, that Smith had lived on the reservation that entire time and that, as far as Atkinson knew, Smith held himself out to be an Indian person. A rational jury could have concluded that because Smith was once formally enrolled in the tribe and continued to hold himself out as an Indian even after his enrollment ended, both Smith and the tribe continued to view Smith as an Indian despite his unexplained decision to relinquish his formal enrolled status.
Here is the opinion:
Here is the opinion in United States v. Cavanaugh: CA8 Opinion in Cavanaugh.
Briefs are here.
Here is last week’s unpublished opinion in United States v. LaBuff.
Here is an excerpt:
At trial, the government presented the testimony of Helen Butterfly (“Butterfly”), a health records lab technician at the Blackfeet Community Hospital. Butterfly testified that on the basis of LaBuff’s classification as an Indian descendant of a tribal member, he was eligible to receive healthcare services at the hospital, which is operated by the federal government and whose non-emergency services are limited to enrolled tribal members and other non-member Indians. Butterfly further testified that since May 1979, LaBuff received healthcare services from the Blackfeet Community Hospital. Because the evidence showed that LaBuff repeatedly accessed healthcare services “reserved only to Indians,” we conclude that the government sufficiently established the second Bruce factor.
Similarly, we conclude that because LaBff frequently received healthcare services on the basis of his descendent status of an enrolled member, he enjoyed the “benefits” of his tribal affiliation, as required by Bruce’s third factor.
In addition to establishing the second and third Bruce factors, the government also presented evidence that on multiple occasions, LaBuff was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted under the jurisdiction of the tribal courts. As we observed in Bruce, the assumption and exercise of tribal criminal jurisdiction is strong evidence of tribal recognition. 394 F.3d at 1227. At the time he was prosecuted, LaBuff did not challenge the authority of tribal authorities to arrest him or the exercise of tribal criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that, contrary to LaBuff’s contention, the evidence was sufficient for any rational fact-finder to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is an “Indian person.”
Here is the opinion of the court in United States v. Evanston. Here is a related unpublished opinion on the same conviction.
The crime occurred on the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation.
Here’s the news story, and here’s the bill.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.