Here is the opinion in US v. Gabrion. It raises an interesting question whether there is federal criminal jurisdiction in national forests. The court, 2-1, found that the US does have criminal jurisdiction over national forest lands, in this case, the Manistee National Forest. Judge Moore’s concurring opinion delved into federal Indian law in response to the appellant’s claim that state and federal concurrent jurisdiction over national forest lands was a violation of equal protection (it isn’t — just ask an Indian):
Criminal
Davis v. Florida (Fla. App. 2d Dist) — Assault on Tribal Police
This case vacates the conviction of a non-Indian in state court for assaulting Seminole police at the Hard Rock Hotel.
Seattle Times Editorial Supporting State Bill to Expand Tribal Law Enforcement Authority
From the Seattle Times:
Expand tribal police authority
As more and more non-Indians work, play and shop on tribal land, there is a serious imbalance in the legal ability to maintain law and order.
House Bill 2476, and a companion measure in the Senate, would give tribal police departments the authority to arrest non-Indians on tribal land. The legislation deals with the reality of skyrocketing contacts across economic and sovereign boundaries.The intent is straightforward. Tribal police officers would have the powers of any other Washington peace officer to enforce state laws and make arrests.
NYTs Feature on Indian Country Murder and Iraq War Vets
From the NYTs:
“This is really a tale of two places,” James Gregg’s lawyer said during his opening statement in 2005 in the federal courthouse in Pierre, S.D.: the Crow Creek Indian Reservation where the killing took place and “a very, very faraway” place, “a place called Iraq.”
By framing the case this way from the start, the lawyer, Timothy J. Rensch, made it clear that Mr. Gregg’s explanation for the “murder in Indian country,” as the charge read, would be inextricably bound to his year as a National Guardsman in Iraq.
U.S. v. Hunter et al. — IGRA Criminal Case — Coyote Valley
United States v. Hunter, No. 06-565 (N.D. Cal.), is an unusual case. In 2001, it appears that the National Indian Gaming Commission investigated the improper expenditure of Indian gaming revenues by tribal council members at Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians. They reached a settlement and consent decree (attached as Exh. A to Deft. Crabtree’s Motion to Dismiss below).
In short, tribal council members allegedly continued their bad behavior — using gaming revenues to buy first class plane tickets, donate to political causes, and other uses. The US then brought a criminal case, alleging violation of IGRA (as a criminal matter) when these council members (Hunter et al.) spent gaming revenues on political causes and first class tickets.
What?!?!
U.S. v. Gonzales et al. — Makah Whalers — Hearing re Pre Trial Motions
In response to the pre-trial motions that have been filed, the district court will hear these motions on February 19 and 20, 2008. There will be a full evidentiary hearing on these motions. The court also granted the Makah Tribe’s motion for leave to appear as amicus in this case.
Report on Public Law 280 and Sexual Assault on Native Women
From Sarah Deer:
On August 15 – 16, 2007 the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) hosted a focus group in Green Bay, Wisconsin to discuss challenges to, and opportunities for, collaboration between states and tribes in Public Law 280 jurisdictions to address sexual assault in Indian country. The Tribal Law and Policy Institute (TLPI) provided technical assistance and collaborated with OVW on the design and delivery of the session. This final report details the event.
Moses v. State of Michigan (Mich. App.) Materials
As we blogged before, the Michigan Court of Appeals recently decided Moses v. State, in which an Indian sought to overturn his conviction on the basis that the land upon which the crime was committed with Indian Country; specifically, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Country.
Here are the briefs:
Future Per Cap Income as Restitution in Criminal Case
In United States v. Roach et al., the Western District of North Carolina used future, expected tribal per cap to calculate restitution in a murder case.
Turtle Talk 