Criminal

To’ Kee Skuy’ Soo Ney-Wo-Chek’ Progress Report — Year 1 of Study on M.M.I.W. In Northern California

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Pro Se Prisoner Civil Rights Suit against Tribal Police Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lafley v. Adams (D. Mont.):

2 Complaint

4 Magistrate Report

6 Objection

7 DCT Order

Oklahoma Criminal Appellate Court Asked to Address Impact of McGirt on Crime Committed on Chickasaw Reservation with Chickasaw Victims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials in Bosse v. State (Okla. Ct. Crim. App.):

Bosse Petition

Order Allowing McGirt Briefing

Bosse Brief

State Brief

Marshall Project Profile of Post-McGirt Criminal Jurisdiction in Oklahoma

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

And, yes, we know the Marshall Project headline is inaccurate, but High Country News (publishing in tandem with M.P.) did it better: “How the Supreme Court upended a century of federal Indian law.”

 

United Parcel Service Inc. v. New York Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

UPS Cert Petition

Appendix

New York Brief in Opposition

Questions presented:

1. The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons. 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The first question presented is whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold.
2. The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 exempts UPS by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(3)(B)(ii)(I). The second question presented is whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to this statutory exemption.

Second Circuit materials here:

CA2 Opinion

UPS Brief

New York Opening Brief

UPS Reply

New York Reply

DCT materials here.

Nobles v. North Carolina Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Appendix

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

The Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, grants the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over listed offenses committed by an “Indian.”

The Questions Presented are:
I. How does one determine whether a defendant is an Indian?

II. Is Indian status a jury question?

Lower court materials here.

NYTs: “A Historic Supreme Court Ruling Upends Courts in Oklahoma”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Michigan SCT to Hear Appeal of KBIC Employees Charged with Criminally Violating State Tobacco Transportation Law

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials so far in the cases captioned People v. Davis and People v. Magnant:

Majority Opinion [Mich. COA]

Dissent [Mich. COA]

SCT Order Granting Review

Circuit Court materials:

Defendants Due Process Motion

Defendants Motion to Quash Information

Defendants Motion to Suppress

People Response to Due Process Motion

People Response to Motion to Quash

People Response to Motion to Suppress

 

Federal Government Sets Execution Date for Lezmond Mitchell

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is “Justice Department sets execution date for only Native American on death row.”

Here is the most recent opinion in his case, where two Ninth Circuit judges questioned his sentence.

Below is a statement from counsel for Mr. Mitchell. Deputy Federal Public Defenders Jonathan Aminoff and Celeste Bacchi:
“With the enactment of the Federal Death Penalty Act, Congress made a commitment to the Native American peoples that no Native American would be subjected to the death penalty for a crime committed against a fellow Native American on Native American land unless the tribe consented. In what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred to as a “betrayal of a promise made to the Navajo Nation,” the Department of Justice exploited a legal loophole and sought the death penalty against Mr. Mitchell for the federal crime of carjacking over the objection of the Navajo Nation, the victims’ family, and the local United States Attorney’s Office. The federal government’s announcement that it now plans to execute Lezmond Mitchell demonstrates the ultimate disrespect for the Navajo Nation’s values and sovereignty.
The Government’s contravention of tribal autonomy did not end with the decision to pursue a death sentence against Mr. Mitchell. In addition to the charging decision, the Government committed misconduct in the course of this prosecution by confining Mr. Mitchell in a tribal jail where they continually interrogated him over the course of 25 days without providing him an attorney. Furthermore, the Government systematically excluded Navajos from serving on Mr. Mitchell’s jury, resulting in a jury composed of 11 white people and only one Navajo. Unfortunately, we have been barred from investigating concerns of juror bias amongst Mr. Mitchell’s jury. Under these circumstances, allowing Mr. Mitchell’s execution to go forward would be a grave injustice and an unprecedented affront to tribal sovereignty, and it should not be permitted to proceed. We will continue to pursue all available avenues of relief for Mr. Mitchell from his unconstitutional convictions and death sentence.”

 

-Deputy Federal Public Defenders Jonathan Aminoff and Celeste Bacchi, attorneys for Lezmond Mitchell

-July 29, 2020

Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Arson Conviction Arising at Pine Ridge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Ferguson.