Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements
Michigan Bar Journal, Vol. 89, p. 42, February 2010, MSU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-02
Matthew L. M. Fletcher , Kathryn Fort and Wenona Singel
Criminal
Update on Federal Motion re: Indian Status of Defense Counsel in Criminal Trial
Here is the order — US v Diaz Order on Motion in Limine
It reads in relevant part:
Defense Counsel will be permitted to mention his former employment as well as his status as a Native American, during the voir dire process, but not during any other portion of the trial.
The government motion is here.
News coverage from Indianz (and H/T):
A federal judge says an attorney can talk about his status as an Indian and can mention his prior work as a federal prosecutor during jury selection for the trial of a Pueblo leader. Continue reading
U.S. v. Crampton — Former LRB Boxing Commissioner Sentenced for Threatening Tribe
Minnesota COA Reverses Lower Court on Tribal Jurisdiction Issue
Baffles me why this is unpublished….
Here is the opinion in Nason v. 1991 Buick.
The tribal interest in self-governance rests with the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians-both the incident leading to the forfeiture proceeding and the seizure of respondent’s vehicle took place on the Mille Lacs Reservation. Because respondent is enrolled in the Fond du Lac Band, the Mille Lacs Band’s interest in self-governance is not as strong over respondent. We reject respondent’s argument that we should consider the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as a whole when assessing the strength of the interest in self-governance; that argument was considered and rejected by the supreme court in Davis, and we find nothing to distinguish respondent’s case from Davis.
Based on the state’s strong interest of promoting safety on state roads and the weaker tribal interest in self-governance present in this case, we conclude that a forfeiture proceeding against respondent in state court is not preempted by federal or tribal interests. We therefore conclude that the state has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the forfeiture action involving respondent’s vehicle.
Morrison v. Spang — Tribal Court Exhaustion in ICRA Habeas Proceeding
Here are the materials from the District court in Montana:
Bustamante v. Valenzuela Magistrate Report Rejects Consecutive Tribal Court Sentences
Here is the magistrate R&R in this matter, a companion case to Miranda v. Nielson (D. Ariz.), though a different federal judge will review this report, so we’ll see.
Bustamante Report and Recommendation
Briefs are here.
Michigan Bar Journal Special Indian Law Issue — UPDATED!
Here:
State Court Administrative Office – Court Improvement Program: Indian Child Welfare Act Forum Remarks, October 6, 2008
by Justice Michael F. Cavanagh
Indian Children and Termination of Parental Rights: Michigan Supreme Court Takes a Step in the Right Direction in In Re Lee
by Angel Sorrells, Cami Fraser, Thomas Myers, and Aaron Allen
Proceed with Prudence: Advising Clients Doing Business in Indian Country
by R. Lance Boldrey and Jason Hanselman
Indian Gaming and Tribal Self-Determination: Reconsidering the 1993 Tribal-State Gaming Compacts
by Zeke Fletcher
Indian Country Law Enforcement and Cooperative Public Safety Agreements
by Matthew L. M. Fletcher, Kathryn E. Fort, and Wenona T. Singel
And I completely missed this article in the same issue (many apologies to the authors!):
In the Law: Keeping Current with American Indian Legal Resources
by Jan Bissett and Margi Heinen
Aviva Orenstein on How Evidence Rules Disproportionately Affect Indian Sexual Assault Defendants
Aviva Orenstein has published “Propensity or Stereotype? A Misguided Evidence Experiment in Indian Country,” in the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Here is the abstract:
In a significant break with traditional evidence rules and policies, the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning rape and child abuse, Rules 413 and 414, permit the government to admit the accused’s prior sexual misconduct as evidence of character and propensity. Although these rules have been roundly criticized, insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that in allowing propensity evidence for federal sex offenses (as opposed to offenses under state law), these rules disproportionately affect one distinct civilian population: Indians.
Calif. Courts Dismissing Suits against Grand River Six Nations Tobacco Wholesalers
Here are a series of minute orders dismissing claims against Grand River Enterprises’ Native Wholesale Supply brought by the State of California. Many states have been attempting to prosecute this entity for selling tobacco in Indian Country in violation of the Master Settlement Agreement reached by 46 state AG’s and major tobacco companies.
They have a claim pending against the United States under NAFTA (documents here).
Equal Protection Challenge to Major Crimes Act Fails
Here is the Ninth Circuit’s memorandum opinion in United States v. Lyons.
An excerpt:
Lyons contends that the mandatory minimum sentence required by 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c) unconstitutionally violates his right to equal protection. This contention fails because § 2241(c) does not discriminate against Native Americans, either on its face or as applied. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985); see also Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241 (1976). Any disproportionate impact § 2241 has on Native Americans simply reflects the different treatment of criminals under the Major Crimes Act who commit crimes in a federal enclave. See United States v. Lemay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1030-31 (9th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 645, 648-49 (1977) (holding that federal legislation, although relating to Indian tribes, is not based upon impermissible racial classifications; and that it is of no consequence that the federal scheme differs from a state criminal code.)
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.