Criminal

Crime News at GTB

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:

Clifford Gould Jr., a member of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan, was sentenced to life in prison for assaulting three children.

Gould, 47, was convicted of four counts of aggravated sexual abuse and one count of abusive sexual conduct. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Michigan said he attacked three girls at his home on the reservation.

Gould will serve out his entire life sentence because there is no parole in the federal system, the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in a press release

Get the Story:

Grand Traverse tribe member gets life for child assaults (The Detroit Free Press 6/29)

Interdepartmental Tribal Justice, Safety, and Wellness Meeting

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the flyer for this training, scheduled for August 10-14, 2009 in Tulsa.

Tribal Justice Safety Save Date Aug09

Case on Authority of Tribal Police to Detain Off-Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The Washington Supreme Court may soon decide whether tribal police (in this case, of the Lummi Tribe) have authority to detain non-Indians off the reservation, where the tribal police have engaged in hot pursuit of the non-Indian suspect (in this case, a drunk driver). The relevant precedent is State v. Schmuck. Here are the briefs in Washington v. Eriksen:

Eriksen Opening Brief

State Response Brief

Eriksen Reply Brief

Lummi Nation Amicus Brief

The case is on direct appeal from the trial court.

Eriksen Petition for Discretionary Review

Answer to Motion for Discretionary Review

Written Testimony in SCIA Hearing on Tribal Law and Order Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

THE HONORABLE TOM PERRELLI
Associate Attorney General, U’S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC

THE HONORABLE LARRY J. ECHO HAWK
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

THE HONORABLE ALONZO A. COBY
Chairman, Fort Hall Business Council, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, Idaho

THE HONORABLE ANTHONY J. BRANDENBURG
Chief Judge of the Intertribal Court of Southern California, Valley Center, CA

MR. TROY EID
Partner, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO

MR. TED QUASULA
President, Quasula Consulting, Henderson, NV

BLT: DOJ Promises Increased Crime-Fighting in Indian Country

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From BLT:

The Justice Department announced today a renewed effort to improve law enforcement on tribal land through a partnership among Native American leaders and the federal government.

Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, addressing more than 500 attendees at the National Congress on American Indians in New York, said the department later this year will convene a Tribal Nationals Listening Conference to address public safety concerns on tribal land. Click here for a copy of Perrelli’s prepared remarks, provided by the Justice Department.

The listening conference and a planned series of regional summits are expected to address, among other topics, federal prosecution in Indian country, development of tribal courts, domestic violence, substance abuse, civil rights and litigation involving tribes. The initiative, Perrelli says, is “tremendously important.”

Continue reading →

Indictments in Grave Robbing Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are two of the indictments in the grave robbing cases reported on Indianz and the NYTs — US v Patterson Indictment 1 and US v Patterson Indictment 2.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Tribal Embezzler

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Oldbear, affirming the conviction of a tribal employee for embezzlement of tribal funds. An excerpt:

Louella Oldbear, a member of the Cheyenne-Arapaho Indian Tribes, used tribal funds to repair one of her personal vehicles and to purchase another. A federal jury convicted her of five counts of embezzling Indian tribal funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 and one count of making a false statement to a government agent in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2).

New Mexico’s Sex Offender Law Not Applicable in Indian Country

Kate Fort

The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that Indians living in Indian Country, not employed or in school outside of Indian Country who were convicted of sex offenses in a court other than a New Mexico court, are not required to register on the New Mexico sex offender list as required by New Mexico law.

The specific question presented then is whether the two statutes [42 U.S.C. § 14071 (1998), as amended by “Megan’s Law” ]can be deemed an express statement by Congress that state sex offender registration laws shall apply in Indian country. We hold that they cannot. The language of the statutes betrays no indication that Congress intended the term “resident” by itself to override historically recognized and accepted limits on the reach of state criminal and regulatory law in Indian country. The type of language specifically referring to Indians and Indian
tribes which would support a conclusion that Congress intended to override tribal sovereignty is simply missing.

New York Times coverage

Opinion

U.S. v. St. Cyr — Sentencing American Indians in Federal Offenses

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is an interesing sentencing memorandum out of the District of Nebraska. Apparently, the court refused to adopt an argument by the United States to sentence American Indians for longer terms than they would otherwise be sentenced under state law, at least in this case. Seems to recall footnote 11 in United States v. Antelope. Luke St Cyr Sentencing Memorandum

An excerpt:

In connection with the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, the court notes that these crimes, if committed by a non-Native American outside a reservation, are prosecuted in state court. The court acknowledges the Sentencing Commission’s finding that the Sentencing Guidelines result in longer sentences for Native Americans than they would otherwise receive. There is no way to compare sentences for non-Native Americans who commit these crimes without reference to state court sentences. The court finds no principled reason to subject this defendant to a substantially longer sentence than his state court non-Native American counterpart would serve. Although state court sentences would not ordinarily be considered in connection with federal court sentencing, such consideration is necessary when it is the only basis on which to assess the sentencing goal of avoiding disparity. Although there are arguably situations in which the disparate impact on a group of defendants could be justified by legitimate sentencing goals that target the shared characteristics that define the group, such as recidivists, it is hard to imagine that any legitimate sentencing purpose would justify the imposition of significantly higher sentences on Native Americans by reason of their status as Native Americans.