Criminal

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Here is the Ninth Circuit’s unpublished opinion in United States v. Stowbunenko-Saitschenko.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 →

State v. Beasley — Idaho Court of Appeals Affirms Conviction at Fort Hall

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

The district court did not err by denying Beasley’s motion to dismiss. Trooper Winans was not outside his jurisdiction when he arrested Beasley, as the state and the Shoshone-Bannock tribes share concurrent jurisdiction over Interstate 15 where it crosses the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Furthermore, the tribal extradition code does not apply to arrests by state agents in areas of concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, the arrest was not illegal and the district court was not required to relinquish jurisdiction over Beasley. Beasley’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Review of Barbara Perry’s New Book on Hate Crimes against American Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Law and Politics Book Review (H/T Patrick O’Donnell):

Vol. 18 No. 12 (December, 2008) pp.1087-1090

SILENT VICTIMS: HATE CRIMES AGAINST NATIVE AMERICANS, by Barbara Perry. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2008.  176pp.  Paper $29.95.  ISBN: 9780816525966.

Reviewed by Renee Ann Cramer, Program in Law, Politics, and Society, Drake University.  Email: renee.cramer [at] drake.edu.

Disrespect of American Indians was a normal part of my growing up in rural South Dakota.  Here is an incident I remember from the 1980s:

Continue reading →

Adam Walsh Act: SMART Website Link to Indian Country Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Adam Walsh Act

Pursuant to §127 of the Adam Walsh Act all federally recognized Indian tribes are entitled to elect whether to carry out the requirements of this section or delegate the functions to the state(s) in which the tribal land is located.

Tribal Resources

Michigan Indian Legal Services Fall-Winter 2008 Newsletter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here it is — mils-newsletter-fall-2008

It features an article by Karrie Wichtman, a Sault Tribe member and an MSU law student, called “Cooperative Law Enforcement Agreements: An Indian Country Law Enforcement Solution.”

Article on Tulalip Elder Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

From the Everett Herald:

TULALIP — The young man wore loose jeans slung low on his hips. The hems were worn and frayed, and wet from being trampled on rain-soaked sidewalks. A large black sweatshirt flopped over his shoulders and arms.

It was 7:30 a.m., and he needed help.

Don “Spat-ub-kud” Hatch welcomed the teenager into a courtroom in the Tulalip Tribes’ courthouse, and told him to sit down. Before long, the young man faced Hatch and two other Tulalip elders. The teen seemed hopeful that the elders would do all the talking, but the elders refused to let him slide.

Continue reading →

Eighth Circuit Upholds Major Crimes Act Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

In United States v. Antelope, the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal of a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, who had pled guilty below. He argued on appeal that since he had also been prosecuted in tribal court, the government had violated the double jeopardy clause.

Here is the opinion.

Welch v. United States — Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This unexceptional habeas case (I don’t think the government even responded) highlights an interesting question, one in which I assume there is not a circuit split yet. But it is a bit odd.

The habeas petitioner alleged that the United States hadn’t sufficiently proved that the victim and defendant were Indians, as required under the Major Crimes Act, an argument that hadn’t been raised below. It should have been waived under regular habeas rules. The court in footnote 2 notes that such a question would seem to suggest that perhaps the government hadn’t sufficiently proved subject matter jurisdiction, a question that cannot be waived. However, citing non-Major Crimes Act cases, the court concluded that it did not go toward jurisdiction, but as to the elements of the crime.

I wonder if there have been other Major Crimes Act habeas cases like this. If this one came out the other way, it might be that much harder for federal prosecutors to work in Indian Country.

welch-v-us-dct-opinion

US v. Spotted Elk — Eighth Circuit Reverses Drug Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Eighth Circuit reversed one conviction in U.S. v. Spotted Elk, a case involving convictions in a large drug ring on the Oglala Sioux Tribe.

us-v-spotted-elk

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction over Ontonagon Reservation in the Upper Peninsula

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Kudos to Jeff Davis for this one! The United States Attorney’s Office in Grand Rapids is prosecuting the taking of tribal timber on trust land on the Ontonagon Reservation of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. The defendant argued the reservation was no longer reservation land, but Judge Robert Holmes Bell rejected the motion. Interesting case!

genschow-indictment

genschow-motion-to-dismiss

us-response-to-motion-to-dismiss-genschow

ontonagon-band-constitution

united-states-v-genschow-dct-opinion