Here is today’s order.
The grant is limited to question 1 — here are the questions presented:
Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
Lower court materials:
Here are the materials in United States v. Ortega (D. Ariz.):
News coverage of the acquittal here.
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:
Here are the materials in United States v. Nickey:
Unpublished opinion:
Briefs:
Here are the materials in United States v. Anderson (S.D. Miss.):
Here are the relevant materials in United States v. Portillo (W.D. Okla.):
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.”
Here.
From Stanford, here is “Imagining Justice: American Indian Tribal Laws of Criminal Responsibility.”
Here are the materials in Martinez v. State (Okla. Ct. Crim. App.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.