Here are (some of) the materials in this Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prosecution:
Criminal
Minnesota Files Opposition to PL280-Related Cert Petition
Here: Minnesota Cert Opposition.
The petition and other materials are here.
DCT Affirms Tribal Authority to Impose Consecutive Sentences More than One Year
Here is the order in Bustamante v. Valenzuela: Bustamante Order.
The district court judge rejected a magistrate recommendation (here).
Cayuga Indian Nation Tax Case Oral Argument Video in N.Y. Court of Appeals
Habeas Case on Consecutive Sentences out of Gila River
These cases are all going badly for tribal governments. It’ll be interesting to see if the appellate courts really get into the question.
This is Alvarez v. Tracey (D. Ariz.) — Alvarez-Gila River Case
U.S. v. Maggi — Ninth Circuit Further Refines Who is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act
Here are the materials:
Government Brief in US v Maggi
An excerpt:
Gordon Mann and Shane Maggi appeal from unrelated convictions on the same basis, namely that they are not “Indians” for purposes of prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. Because there is no evidence that Mann has any blood from a federally recognized Indian tribe, his conviction must be vacated. Maggi’s documented blood from a federally recognized tribe is scant-1/64. However, we do not decide the novel question whether Maggi’s Indian blood degree is adequate; rather, because Maggi lacks sufficient government or tribal recognition as an Indian, his conviction must also be vacated. In light of this disposition, we need not consider Maggi’s additional challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment and the reasonableness of the sentence.
The real question here is whether the government thinks this is the right vehicle to test the Ninth Circuit on the means by which it defines “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act. I’d say definitely not Mann (with no Indian blood from a federally recognized tribe), but maybe Maggi (still only 1/64 blood from a federally recognized tribe). I bet they wait for another case (assuming they want one at all).
UPDATED (5/10/10): Romero v. Goodrich — Another Case re: Tribal Court Authority to Order Consecutive Sentences
Here are the materials so far in Romero v. Goodrich (D. N.M.), case out of the Pueblo of Nambé:
Nambé Pueblo Motion to Dismiss
Romero v Goodrich Magistrate Report
Apparently, this case was dismissed when the Pueblo of Nambé commuted the sentence of Ronald Romero: Motion to Reconsider — Commuted Sentences
Petitioner’s Brief in Dolan v. U.S. — Criminal Case Involving Mescalero Apache Indian in Supreme Court
Sarah Deer on Sex Trafficking of Native Women
Sarah Deer has published her paper, “Relocation Revisited: Sex Trafficking of Native Women in the United States,” in the William Mitchell Law Review (Sarah Deer Sex Trafficking Article) (SSRN link).
Briones v. U.S. Cert Petition
This involves crimes committed on and around the Gila River Indian Community, prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act. Here is the petition: Briones v US Cert Petition.
It looks like a pair of interesting questions. There may be a decent shot for review if the petition’s representations are correct.
Questions presented:
1. Whether the District Court and the Circuit Court erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of Arlo Eschief to the jury by the prosecution through testimony of a law enforcement agent constituting hearsay testimony in violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause?
2. Whether the District Court had the jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1152 and the Major Crimes Act 18 U.S.C. § 1153, to apply federal statutes of crimes on Indian land not expressly authorized by Federal statute?
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.