Here is the opinion in Hooper v. City of Tulsa.
Tenth Circuit Decides Hooper v. City of Tulsa . . . Hooper 7, Tulsa 0
Criminal
Tenth Circuit Reverses Jimcy McGirt’s Conviction, Orders New Trial
Here is the opinion:
Briefs:
Second Circuit Affirms Conviction of Conspirator in Wakpamni Frauds
Oklahoma v. Hill Materials [the guy in the NYTs article]
Tenth Circuit Rejects Habeas Petition from Prisoner Asserting McGirt-Type Claims
Here is the opinion in McGill v. Rankin.
Available brief here:
We don’t post many of these post-McGirt prisoner cases, but this is exemplary of the numerous rejected habeas petitions filed by prisoners claiming to be Indian and convicted of crimes inside of Indian country. This person was convicted of a crime in 2001. This was his fifth habeas petition, filed in 2023, and the first raising McGirt-related claims. This footnote is as close as these late habeas petitioners get to relief:
We note that another Oklahoma prisoner also successfully made the same argument as Mr. McGirt, which the Supreme Court recognized in its decision. See McGirt, 140 S. Ct. at 2460 (“While Oklahoma state courts have rejected any suggestion that the lands in question remain a reservation, the Tenth Circuit has reached the opposite conclusion.” (citing Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896, 907-09, 966 (10th Cir. 2017)). In Murphy, we issued a writ of habeas corpus after agreeing with the petitioner that he should not have been tried in state court but instead “should have been tried in federal court because he is an Indian and the offense occurred in Indian country.” 875 F.3d at 903.
It’s not much, eh? Remember Oklahoma in 2017-18?
Maybe yes (maybe?) on the pending prosecutions, but not so much the existing convictions, eh? Hmmmm.
Ninth Circuit Briefs in Constitutional Challenge to MCA as Unjustified Racial Classification
Here are the briefs in United States v. Gordon:
Ok, so there’s only that brief so far. Also, since the defendant stipulated to tribal membership with Nez Perce, I doubt this has legs, but it’s the kind of full-throated attack on the Indian status cases arising under the Indian country criminal jurisdiction statutes that we should expect more regularly — i.e., the kind that relies a LOT on single-authored concurrences and dissents from a certain SCT Justice that tends to rely on discredited historical research.
Here’s the lower court judgment (nothing terribly helpful here since the defendant stipulated to tribal membership):
Supplemental Briefs on Standing in Hooper v. Tulsa
Oklahoma Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Civil Rights Suit Brought by Cherokee Prisoners
Here are the materials in Hogshooter v. Cherokee Nation (E.D. Okla.):
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Finds Ottawa and Miami Reservations Remain Extant
Here are the materials in State of Oklahoma v. Brester:
South Dakota Federal Court Dismisses Federal Gun Possession Indictment Relying on Rosebud’s D.V. Conviction
Here are the available materials in United States v. Peneaux (D.S.D.):
An excerpt from the order:
Federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm by a person “who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Defendant Hunter Peneaux pleaded guilty to domestic abuse in Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court on three separate occasions. He was later indicted by a grand jury for violating § 922(g)(9). Peneaux now moves to dismiss the indictment, arguing that his tribal court convictions do not qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence because they did not have” as an element, the user attempted use of physical force.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). Under the sometimes-frustrating analys is required by the Supreme Court, this Court must dismiss Peneaux’s indictment.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.