Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Decides Indian Status Case

Here are the materials in Wadkins v. State of Oklahoma (Okla. Cr. Crim. App.):

Motion to Vacate

Appellant Brief

State Brief

OCCA Opinion

An excerpt:

The State’s evidence did not refute Wadkins’s evidence of recognition in any meaningful way. The State called one witness, namely Michael Williams, a special agent with the Department of Corrections with expert knowledge of the current prison gangs. Williams testified that the UAB is a white supremacist gang. While there are presently five to ten Native American gangs, he admitted the only Indian gang in existence when Wadkins first went to prison was the Indian Brotherhood. He was unaware of any present affiliation between the UAB and Indian Brotherhood gangs, but admitted gangs sometimes align. He confirmed that DOC records reflected that Wadkins is a former member of the UAB and that Wadkins’s UAB tattoos have been defaced. His testimony neither refuted Wadkins’s evidence of tribal recognition nor showed Wadkins’s membership in the UAB was a renouncement of his Indian status.
The district court’s conclusion–that Wadkins failed to establish recognition–is not supported by the record. While eligibility for tribal membership alone is insufficient to prove recognition, Wadkins’s subsequent enrollment coupled with the other factors, specifically his possession of a CDIB card since childhood and receipt of Indian health services, showed he was recognized as Indian by the Choctaw Nation. Because he is an Indian for purposes of federal criminal law and the charged crimes occurred in Indian Country, the State lacked jurisdiction over this matter.

SCOTUS Grants Oklahoma Petition to Consider Whether the State Can Prosecute Non-Indian – on – Indian Crime in Indian Country

Here is today’s order.

The grant is limited to question 1 — here are the questions presented:

  1. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non- Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
  2. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.

Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:

Lower court materials:

Arizona Federal Judge Acquits Border Wall Protester after Assertion of Religious Freedom Restoration Act Defense [Tohono O’Odham Lands]

Here are the materials in United States v. Ortega (D. Ariz.):

Quitobaquito Springs (NPS)

News coverage of the acquittal here.

Minnesota SCT Rules McGirt Inapplicable in Minnesota

It’s ‘cuz of PL280 (and, yeah, I know you’re out there Red Lakers, so chill). Here is the opinion in Martin v. State of Minnesota:

Fifth Circuit Affirms 3-Year Prison Term for Theft of $18K from Choctaw Casino

Here are the materials in United States v. Nickey:

Unpublished opinion:

Briefs:

Mississippi Federal Court Declines to Disqualify AUSA Who Once Worked in Choctaw Tribal Court and Stood for Criminal Defendant at Tribal Arraignment

Here are the materials in United States v. Anderson (S.D. Miss.):

1 Complaint

15 Motion to Recuse

29 Response

31 Reply

34 Magistrate Order Denying Motion to Recuse

35 Motion to Revoke

39 DCT Order

Oklahoma Federal Court Declines to Suppress Gun Evidence Obtained by Tribal Police at Comanche Casino

Here are the relevant materials in United States v. Portillo (W.D. Okla.):

1 Indictment

27 Motion to Suppress

29 Opposition

33 DCT Order

State Court Dismisses Charges Against Hazen Shopbell, Anthony Paul On Treaty Grounds

Here are the materials in State v. Shopbell (Wash. Super. Ct.):

7. CrR 8.3(b) Motion to Dismiss for Governmental Misconduct

11. Memo In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Bad Faith

13. CrR 8.3(c) Motion to Dismiss

29. Memorandum in Opposition to Motions to Suppress Evidence and or Dismiss

30. Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss

38. Supplemental Reply in Support of Motions to Dismiss

42. Motion for Bill of Particulars

46. Response to Motion for Bill of Particulars

52. Joint Reply In Support of Motion for Bill of Particulars

63. Supplemental Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CrR 8.3(c)

66. Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss and Renewed Motion to Dismiss per CrR 8.3

68. Defendants’ Supplemental Motion to Dismiss

69. Response to Pretrial Dismissal Motions

70. Reply on Pretrial Dismissal Motions

There was no written ruling, but from the bench the Judge explained:

“My decision is consistent with the heart of the Treaty & Rafeedie Consent Decree, preserving Treaty rights that were gained many years ago.  This court shouldn’t be involved in those issues.”

Native America Calling Show on Post-McGirt Oklahoma Tuesday January 4

Here.

Liz Reese and Abby Abinanti on Tribal Criminal Laws

From Stanford, here is “Imagining Justice: American Indian Tribal Laws of Criminal Responsibility.”