Here is the opinion in State v. Jim.
An excerpt:
Lester R. Jim, an enrolled member of the Yakama Nation, appeals a superior court decision reversing the district court’s dismissal of his fishing citations for lack of jurisdiction over the Maryhill Treaty Fishing Access Site (MTFAS). This court granted Mr. Jim discretionary review. We reverse the superior court because the State of Washington lacks jurisdiction to cite Mr. Jim at the MTFAS.
The opinion is State v. Maybee.
An excerpt:
In sum: The trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over those aspects of defendant’s activities that occur in Oregon. The court did not err in concluding that ORS 180.440(1)(b) applies to those activities and that, therefore, defendant cannot lawfully offer for sale or sell unlisted cigarettes to consumers in Oregon.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Jim, a case arising on the Navajo Reservation.
From the Escanaba Daily Press vie Pechanga:
ESCANABA – Three members of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, accused of illegal commercial fishing in Little Bay de Noc in 2009, will appear in tribal court this month, officials said.
Five tribal members and one Delta County man were arrested in early 2009 for allegedly illegally catching and selling walleye from Little Bay de Noc. The tribe has legal jurisdiction over the five tribal members, while Delta County has legal jurisdiction over the non-tribal member.
In March of this year, the tribe announced three of the accused tribal members were cited with approximately 100 civil infractions including illegally setting nets and selling thousands of pounds of walleye for profit.
The fish were allegedly being sold through a tribal commercial fishing operation consisting of two tribal members and a state-licensed wholesaler. Investigation continues regarding these three individuals who have not yet been officially charged.
According to Brenda Browning, a clerk at the tribal court in Sault Ste. Marie, the citations have been issued against the three tribal members accused of illegally poaching and selling walleye. Their pretrial hearings are scheduled in tribal court in mid-May. The court is not releasing their names because the case is in the pretrial phase, Browning explained Friday.
Browning also said these three cases are considered civil matters, which are being handled by Special Prosecutor Monica Lubiarz-Quigley.
When contacted Monday, Lubiarz-Quigley referred the Daily Press to the tribe’s general counselor, Thomas Dorwin. Dorwin did not return a call from the newspaper prior to press time.
The Daily Press also left a message with the tribe’s attorney, Aaron Schlehuber, on Monday.
The case is Eagle v. Yerington Paiute Tribe, and involves an interesting question: whether tribal prosecutors have to prove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt. The answer appears to be no.
[Appellant opening brief unavailable.]
Here are the materials (no decision from the Eighth Circuit yet):
From PR Newswire (with additional local coverage):
WASHINGTON, May 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the allocation of 33 new Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) positions to 21 judicial districts that contain Indian Country. The department has also launched three Indian Country Community Prosecution Teams. These new resources will enable the Justice Department to work with tribal and state law enforcement partners to improve public safety in tribal communities.
“Violent crimes, and particularly crimes against women and girls, continue to devastate tribal communities across the country, and the U.S. Attorney community is crucial to the Department of Justice’s response,” Attorney General Holder said. “With 33 more federal prosecutors headed to Indian Country, and the launch of three new Community Prosecution Pilot Projects, we have made significant progress finding and implementing solutions to the public safety challenges confronting tribal communities. This Administration is committed to reducing the level of violent crime in tribal communities.”
The new AUSA allocation is the result of $6 million provided in the department’s FY2010 budget for the hiring of prosecutors in Indian Country. Districts were asked to submit requests for additional prosecutors, which were reviewed with relevant statistical data by a team of U.S. Attorneys and staff from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys. Thirty AUSAs will be distributed to districts as follows:
Here is the court’s decision in State v. Cruz from last October (and it appears the New Mexico Supreme Court will hear this one), rejecting t a non-Indian’s claim that her crimes allegedly occurred on Indian lands.
An excerpt:
Defendant contends that the district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over her because the alleged crimes were committed against Indians in Indian country. It is undisputed that Defendant is not a member of an Indian tribe; however, she notes that Mulvaney delivered the checks to the laborers/payees on Indian land and argues that, because the crimes occurred on Indian land, prosecution is within the jurisdiction of the tribal court. See generally Dick, 1999 NMCA 62, P 7 (recognizing the general principle that a state has no jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against an Indian in “Indian country” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We disagree because the evidence does not establish that all of the elements of the crime took place on Indian land. See State v. Clark, 2000 NMCA 52, PP 5-7, 129 N.M. 194, 3 P.3d 689 (holding that the district court had jurisdiction to try a Native American defendant for the crimes of larceny and conspiracy when the crimes were initiated within Indian country but continued outside the boundaries of Indian country into New Mexico). Milo’s is located in McKinley County. In addition, the checks were initially signed by Defendant in Albuquerque and delivered to Mulvaney at some point approximately halfway between Albuquerque and the construction site on the Zuni Indian Reservation. This evidence shows that at least some of the elements of the crimes took [**6] place in either Bernalillo County or McKinley County in locations that were not in Indian country. Therefore, New Mexico had jurisdiction to prosecute Defendant for these crimes.
Here is the opinion in Murgia v. United States (D. Ariz.), on remand from the Ninth Circuit: Order on MSJ 04-28-10.
Here are the Ninth Circuit materials.
Here it comes — the case is captioned Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. Granholm (E.D. Mich.):
Federal Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Michigan Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Federal Response to State Motion for Summary Judgment
Michigan Response to Federal Motion for Summary Judgment
SCIT Response to Federal Motion
Previous posts:
Materials on the Expert Witnesses
Materials on the “Rosebud Sioux” defenses
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.