Here are the materials in United States v. Pego (E.D. Mich.):
Criminal
Prisoner Habeas Challenges to State of Utah Jurisdiction over Indian Country Fail
Here are the opinions in Reber v. Payne and Atkins v. Payne (D. Utah):
United States v. Fast Horse — Constitutional Challenge to Major Crimes Act Fails
Here is the opinion:
Third Consecutive Sentencing Decision from Arizona Federal Courts — Alvarez v. Tracey
Here are the materials:
Order on Motion for Partial SJ 03-31-11
An excerpt:
The Court concludes that, for purposes of § 1302(7), two charges are differentoffenses if each “requires proof of a fact which the other does not,” regardless of whetherthey arise from the same transaction. See Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304. Applying thisdefinition to Petitioner’s case, § 1302(7) has not been violated by his convictions andpunishment. Petitioner’s own description suggests that each offense required proof of a factthat the others did not. The Court will accept the R&R and deny Petitioner’s motion forpartial summary judgment.
Tenth Circuit Reinstates Conviction of Non-Indian for Violation of Eagle Act
Here is today’s decision in United States v. Wilgus.
The conclusion:
We are sensitive to the sincerity of Wilgus’ religious beliefs, and we do not question either the authenticity or the weight of his religious experience among Native Americans. We recognize that this litigation has now been pending for more than a decade, and that both sides have put forward many meritorious arguments and reams of evidence. The district court performed yeoman’s service in sorting through that evidence in an attempt to determine whether the Eagle Act permitting requirements are the least restrictive means of forwarding the government’s dual compelling interests. The district court concluded in the negative, and we respect the work that went into it, but we cannot agree. We are convinced that, in light of the options before the federal government, the regulations at issue are the least restrictive means available to advance its compelling interests. We therefore REVERSE the conclusion of the district court to the contrary and hold that Wilgus’ conviction did not violate RFRA.
Dog Eat Dog World In Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench
Norman Bevis Many Fingers, of the Blood Reserve in southern Alberta, shot and killed two dogs engaged in a dogfight. Witnesses estimate that there were 15-30 people, mostly children, in the immediate vicinity of the shooting. Interestingly, Many Fingers attempted to claim that his aboriginal and treaty rights were violated after he was charged with unsafe use of a firearm under ss. 86(1) and 88(1) of the Criminal Code and failure to register a firearm under s. 91(1). He was found guilty under s. 91(1) and appealed.
Oregon Supreme Court Holds Assault on Tribal Police Officer is Crime under State Law
Here is the opinion in State v. Kurtz. The tribal amicus brief is here: Kurtz Amicus Brief (final as filed)
From the court’s press release:
Today, in a criminal case involving tribal police officers in Oregon and their status under state law, the Oregon Supreme Court held that, with regard to the crimes of attempting to elude a police officer, ORS 811.540, and resisting arrest by a peace officer, ORS 162.315, the legislature intended the statutory terms “police officer” and “peace officer” to include members of tribal law enforcement departments.
Owen v. Weber — Eighth Circuit Briefing in Jurisdictional Appeal re: State Criminal Conviction for Crime Committed at Tribal Housing
Here are the materials on Owen v. Weber:
A statement of the case from the appellant:
This appeal arrives from the district court’s order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Lance George Owen, who is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole in the South Dakota State Penitentiary. The central question is whether the state court that convicted Owen of committing a murder and aggravated assault at a tribal government housing unit — leased and operated by the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate Indian Tribe — had proper jurisdiction to do so, or whether only the federal government had jurisdiction to prosecute the crime under the Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153.
The district court concluded that the state court had proper jurisdiction over Owen. This conclusion was incorrect, and an unreasonable application of federal law to the record below, because the tribal government housing project qualified as a dependent Indian community and therefore fit within the definition of “Indian country” set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1151. As a result, Owen’s habeas petition was incorrectly denied and the district court’s order sealing a contrary fate accordingly should be reversed.
U.S. v. Has the Eagle — Ninth Circuit Affirms Murder Conviction
Here.
Ontario Human Rights Tribunal Finds Oji-Cree Man A Victim of Police Racial Profiling – AKA “You Rode That Bike How Far?”
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has determined that Garry McKay, 51, an Oji-Cree man living in Toronto, was the victim of racial profiling. He was stopped by police in a laneway because he was riding a new-looking bicycle. He was then arrested for possession of stolen property, patted down for weapons, handcuffed, and placed in a cruiser for 19 minutes.
However, the color and bicycle type did not match the description of the one he was accused of stealing, which was listed in the police computer as stolen in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The distance between Toronto and Winnipeg is almost 1400 miles (2253 km).
A hearing will be held in the future to determine whether police will be fined.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.