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.
Criminal
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Saginaw Chippewa Reservation Boundaries Case
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
Amendment to House Tribal Law and Order Act
Here: TLO House Amendment
Pages 48-51 are particularly relevant to those following the consecutive sentences cases in Arizona and New Mexico.
SCT Oral Argument Transcript in Dolan v. United States
One Federal Criminal Count Dismissed Against Indian Smokeshop Supplier…
As a result of the Second Circuit’s recent Golden Feather decision.
Here are the materials in United States v. Morrison (previous post here):
DCT Order Dismissing Count Two
An excerpt:
Based on the Second Circuit’s March 4, 2010 decision in City of New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc., 597 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2010), I have reconsidered, and changed my earlier determinations that defendant’s motions to dismiss Count Two on substantive due process grounds lacked merit. As a result, the conviction under Count Two is vacated, and the Count is dismissed.
Oral Argument Tuesday in Supreme Court Criminal Restitution Case Involving Mescalero Apache Indian
Here are the briefs from the ABA website:
Merit briefs
- Brief for Petitioner Brian Russell Dolan
- Brief for Respondent United States
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Brian Russell Dolan
Amicus briefs
New Scholarship on Sexual Predators in Indian Country
Suzianne D. Painter-Thorne has posted her paper, “Tangled Up in Knots: How Continued Federal Jurisdiction over Sexual Predators on Indian Reservations Hobbles Effective Law Enforcement to the Detriment of Indian Women,” on BEPress.
Here is the abstract:
An Indian woman is two-and-a-half times more likely than any other American woman to be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Nevertheless, because of a confusing tangle of jurisdictional rules, she is four times less likely to see her assailant arrested. She is even less likely to see him stand trial. Because jurisdiction over most sexual assaults is vested in the federal government, Indian tribes are not allowed to arrest or prosecute most of the suspects who commit sexual assaults on tribal lands. Consequently, tribal lands have become safe havens for sexual predators, who can commit their offenses with impunity and with little fear of prosecution.
This article proposes that federal jurisdiction prevents effective law enforcement on Indian reservations and leaves Indian women at a greater risk of sexual assault. While recently proposed congressional legislation seeks to improve reservation law enforcement, that effort largely fails to provide meaningful reform because it perpetuate the current law enforcement scheme that leaves Indian women vulnerable to sexual assault. Remote federal officials are not in the best position—geographically, politically, or culturally—to police reservation lands. Instead, Congress needs to reassess tribal jurisdiction, permitting tribes to arrest and prosecute suspects who commit sexual assaults on tribal lands. For too long, tribes have been left powerless to defend their own people against predators who enter reservation lands and commit unspeakable violence against tribal citizens. At the heart of sovereignty is the responsibility of government to protect its citizens. It is time to permit tribes to rise to this responsibility.
Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Charges in Indian Artifact Theft Case
Here is the opinion on a motion to dismiss in United States v. Smith (D. Utah): US v Smith DCT Order.
An excerpt:
Based on the differences in these statutes, the Court finds the indictment is not multiplicitous. Each charge would require the government to prove an element that is not required in the others. As set forth above, ARPA requires a showing that the item is an archeological resource, that it is over 100 years old, and that its value is more than $500. Under Section 641, the government must show that the property was government property and had a value of over $1,000. Similarly, under Section 1163, the government must show the property belonged to an “Indian tribal organization” and had a value in excess of $1,000. Therefore, because each count requires proof of something the others do not, the indictment is not multiplicitous and the Motion will be denied.
However, even if the Court did find the indictment to be multiplicitous, the government is correct that the discretion in choosing which charge to pursue rests with it. In Jones, the Forest Service officers observed the defendants “digging in Indian ruins located on the federal government land.” The defendants were charged under a general theft statute covered by 18 U.S.C. § 641. The defendants sought to have the charge dismissed, arguing that Congress intended the Antiquities Act to be the only means of prosecuting that type of conduct. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument stating, “[t]he rule we apply is straightforward: where an act violates more than one statute, the Government may elect to prosecute under either unless the congressional history indicates that Congress intended to disallow the use of the more general statute.” As a result, “[w]here the statute applies to the conduct in question and there is no affirmative evidence that Congress intended to limit the application of the more general statute, the prosecutor is free to elect to prosecute under either.” Because the Court has already found there is no clear Congressional intent, the government is not barred from bringing simultaneous charges based on the three statutes.
FBA Letter Supporting Tribal Law and Order Act
Here: FBA letter-H.R. 1924
Gaming Finances Mismanagement Investigation at LTBB
From the Petoskey News-Review via Pechanga:
The Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians’ Gaming Board of Directors is under investigation by tribal police for alleged financial mismanagement.
In the April 2010 issue of “Odawa Trails,” the tribe’s monthly newsletter, tribal chairman Ken Harrington informs tribal citizens that, as a result of a recent ethics complaint filed by a tribal citizen, who was not named, the gaming board of directors is currently under investigation.
Harrington’s letter states: “Tribal police investigated, a warrant was issued and the tribal police acted on the warrant and seized the (gaming board’s) phones and computers.”
Harrington also reported in this letter, that after recently issuing an executive order to have the gaming board’s finances moved to the tribal government building, financial issues were discovered.
“It became apparent the (gaming board’s) budget was $20,000 over and overpayment of stipends became evident.”
Matthew Lesky, tribal prosecutor, confirmed to the New-Review Monday, during a phone interview, that the gaming board, in fact, is under investigation by tribal police for what he described as “financial management” issues.
As of press time today, Tuesday, no charges had yet been filed against the gaming board of directors in tribal court.
According to confidential tribal documents recently provided to the News-Review, it is alleged that on Jan. 25, the three remaining members of the gaming board of directors — Carol McFall, chairperson; Judith Pierzynowski, vice chairperson; and Sheran Patton, treasurer/secretary — acted outside its authority by terminating Denise White, director of human resources for the tribe, and approving a $53,000 severance check to her the following day (Jan. 26), which was stopped shortly after its issuance.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.