Criminal

US v. Sandcrane — Equal Protection Challenge to Major Crimes Act Rejected

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion. An excerpt:

Section 2241(c), as applied to Sandcrane, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it does not discriminatorily classify Native Americans on its face. See City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985). Nor does any disproportionate impact of Section 2241 on Native Americans result from discrimination. See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 241 (1976). Any disproportionate impact Section 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 (9th Cir. 2001). The federal government’s exercise of special jurisdiction over Native American affairs through the Major Crimes Act also cannot form a basis for an Equal Protection Clause violation. See United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 646 (1977). Therefore, we apply rational basis review to Section 2241, to determine whether “it bears a reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental interest.” Le May, 260 F.3d at 1031. The deterrence of sexual crimes against children is certainly a legitimate governmental interest. Section 2241 is reasonably related to furthering that goal through the imposition of
an increased penalty for such crimes.

United States v. Graham — CA8 Appellant Brief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The government is appealing the dismissal of an indictment against one of the alleged conspirators who murdered Anna Mae Aquash, John Graham. Here is the opening brief — us-v-graham-appellant-brief

South Dakota Supreme Court Suppresses Evidence Taken by Tribal Law Enforcement under the Indian Civil Rights Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Maybe I’m missing something, but HOLY COW! Now state courts have jurisdiction under the Indian Civil Rights Act?!?!? I thought Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez settled the question, holding that tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over ICRA claims.

This case, State v. Madsen, decided two days ago by the South Dakota Supreme Court, has no discussion of the court’s jurisdiction to apply ICRA to tribal law enforcement, so maybe there’s some agreement or something in which the tribe (Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe) agreed to state court adjudication of ICRA claims arising out of police activities at the tribe’s casino.

United States v. Menominee Tribal Enters. — False Claims Act Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion — us-v-menominee-tribal-enters-dct-order

An excerpt:

The United States brought this action against Menominee Tribal Enterprises (“MTE”) and two of its employees. The Government alleges that the Defendants submitted invoices seeking payment that contained false information, in violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729. It further alleges that MTE breached contracts it had with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) when it made several large purchases without receiving prior approval. All parties have moved for summary judgment, at least as to some of the claims. For the reasons given herein, I conclude that all claims should be dismissed as to Defendant MTE; False Claims Act claims brought against the individual Defendants will remain.

Section 1303 Tribal Court Exhaustion — Bercier v. Turtle Mountain Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

bercier-v-turtle-mountain-tribal-court

Bressi v. Ford Update — FTCA and Sovereign Immunity Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Bressi v. Ford, a claim pending in the Ninth Circuit against Tohono O’odham Nation police officers.

The lower court opinion and the opening brief were posted earlier here.

ford-defendants-answering-brief

united-states-answering-brief

bressi-reply-brief

Unsolved Murders at Yakama to be Reopened

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From the Yakima Herald (H/T Teresa):

More than 15 years has passed since Shari Dee Sampson Elwell’s strangled and sexually mutilated body was found in a remote area of the Yakama reservation, but the family is still awaiting closure in the case.

Her homicide capped a decade-long string of more than a dozen mysterious deaths of women on the
1.2 million-acre reservation, which not only stymied authorities but instilled fear in this otherwise close-knit community.

Speculation of a serial killer targeting Indian women worried many, and two investigators revealed they saw links in some of the deaths. But other investigators said inconsistencies in the manner of deaths ruled out any serial killer.

“Nobody knew what was going on, and even today we don’t know,” said Yakama Tribal Council Vice Chairwoman Lavina Washines. “Nothing was ever resolved.”

Now, nearly three years after the U.S. Justice Department promised to review all unsolved cases on the reservation, a number of the victims’ families may see some closure.

Continue reading →

United States v. Hunter Update — IGRA Criminal Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

We posted about this case involving tribal leaders at Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians earlier this year. The government has been able to convict one of the tribal leaders — Michelle Campbell — for failing to file a tax return (campbell-conviction). Priscilla Hunter’s trial is scheduled for April 2009.

Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction under VAWA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Western District of Washington rejected a claim that the Violence Against Women Act confers tribal court jurisdiction over personal protection orders issued against non-Indians. In this case, Martinez v. Martinez, the Suquamish Tribal Court had issued a PPO against a non-Indian man in favor of an Alaskan Native woman. They both lived on non-Indian-owned land on the Port Madison Reservation. The court also ruled that the tribal court exhaustion doctrine does not apply in this case.

Here are the materials:

defendant-martinez-motion-to-dismiss

suquamish-tribe-motion-to-dismiss

plaintiff-martinez-response-to-motions

defendant-martinez-reply-brief

suquamish-tribe-reply-brief

dct-order-rejecting-tribal-court-jurisdiction

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Fake Indians for Immigration Violations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in United States v. Stowbunenko-Saitschenko. Here is a summary of the case from the opinion:

Oleh Rostylaw Stowbunenko-Saitschenko (“Stowbunenko”) appeals his conviction and sentence for Bringing in Illegal Aliens to the United States … and his conviction for Encouraging Illegal Aliens to Enter the United States …. These convictions resulted from an incident in which Stowbunenko, a naturalized American citizen who claims to be a member of an Indian tribe known as the Little Shell Pembina Band of North America (“PNLSB”), issued certificates of PNLSB membership to two Mexican nationals and then attempted to cross the border from Mexico to the United States with the Mexican nationals. At Stowbunenko’s urging, the Mexican nationals tried to use their tribal membership documents to secure entry to the United States. Stowbunenko was convicted of the above counts following a jury trial and sentenced principally to time served.

Here are the briefs in which the appellant’s make some startling (and frivolous) Jay Treaty and Indian law claims:

Continue reading →