Here is the opinion in Hackford v. State of Utah.
Briefs:
Criminal
Tulalip Member/Company Seek Mandamus to Bar Searches by Fish and Wildlife Officers
Here is the petition in Paul v. Gain (Wash. S. Ct.):
An excerpt:
The novel twist in this case is the “gag order” in the Search Warrant. Because recipients of the Search Warrants risk violating a court order if they disclose the Search Warrants, their silence is secured. The Order sealing in perpetuity the Search Warrants Files guarantees that no public scrutiny can ever occur. The “gag-order” and the Order, in combination, create a Star Chamber within which law enforcement officers can operate without accountability, to the extreme detriment of their targets and the public, who may never know who invades their personal affairs, or why. This is particularly true here where Petitioners have already successfully sued the law enforcement agency to secure return of personal property seized via an earlier search warrant arising from the same investigation.
Leonard Peltier Denied Clemency
AG Nominee Jeff Sessions Testifies on VAWA 2015 Tribal Court Jurisdiction(Sorta)
Here is the CSPAN transcript and video link.
Here are excerpts (taken from uncorrected closed captioning) from the testimony at 1:41:48:
SO, WHEN WE VOTED IN THE COMMITTEE, EIGHT OF THE NINE REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST THE BILL. ONE OF THE MORE CONCERNINGPROVISIONS WAS A PROVISION THAT GAVE TRIBAL COURTS JURISDICTION TO TRY PERSONS WHO WERE NOT TRIBAL MEMBERS. AS CONTRARY, I BELIEVE THE ONLY TIMEHAT GAVE TRIBAL COURTS JURISDICTION TO TRY PERSONS WHO WERE NOT TRIBAL MEMBERS. AS CONTRARY, I BELIEVE THE ONLY TIME THAT’S EVER HAPPENED, THAT WAS A BIG CONCERN THAT I RAISED I BELIEVE PRIMARILY. ON THE LEGISLATION, SO I VOTED WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND THE LEGISLATION HE HAD THAT I THOUGHT DID THE JOB FOR PROTECTING WOMEN, TO REAUTHORIZE THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, DID NOT HAVE OTHER THINGS ATTACHED TO IT THAT I THOUGHT WERE CONCERNING.
At 1:43:31:
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THAT. BUT IN OTHER RESULT, OF IT SO FAR, I’M INTERESTED FIRST TIME I’VE HEARD IT COMING ON. LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU DIRECTLY. IN MEETING WITH SENATORS PRIOR TO THIS HEAR, I’VE HAD QUITE A NUMBER, PERHAPS MORE THAN ANY OTHER ISSUE THAT NONINDIANS THAT HAVE GONE ON TO TRIBAL LANDS THAT HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES INCLUDING RAPE HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVELY PROOS CUTED. THEY HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENING SUFFICIENTLY. I AM NOT CONVINCED, SO I DO THINK THE FBI PARTICULARLY MAYBE THE BUREAU OF THE INDIAN AFFAIRS INVESTIGATEORS SHOULD BE BEEFED UP AND THE U.S. ATTORNEYS NEED TO DO PROBABLY A BETTER JOB OF PROSINGING CASES THAT NEED TO BE PROSECUTED IN FEDERAL FORTCOURT.
And at 1:44:58:
I WOULD DEFEND THE STATUTE IF IT’S REASONABLY DEFENSIBLE. YES, IT’S PASSED BY CONGRESS. IT WOULD BE THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. WHETHER THEY VOTED FOR IT OR SUPPORTED IT, TO DEFEND IT.
Federal Indictment against Former Paskenta Band Leaders Alleging $6M in Embezzlement
Here is the indictment in United States v. Crosby (E.D. Cal.):
News coverage here.
Federal Court Refuses to Vacate Sentence of Man Convicted of Bribing Ho-Chunk Nation Leaders
Here are the materials in Whiteagle v. United States (W.D. Wis.):
An excerpt:
In August 2012, after an 8-day trial, a jury found petitioner Timothy Whiteagle guilty of twelve counts relating to bribing and conspiring to bribe a Ho-Chunk Nation legislator to secure favorable treatment for three different vendors wishing to do business with the Nation. United States v. Whiteagle, Case No. 11-cr-65-wmc-1. On October 24, 2012, this court sentenced him to serve 120 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. Petitioner filed and lost motions for acquittal, a new trial, resentencing, and a direct appeal. He has now filed a motion for post-conviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, arguing that his conviction should be vacated for numerous reasons. Because none of petitioner’s challenges support overturning his conviction, the court will deny the motion.
Eighth Circuit Rejects Challenge to North Dakota Jury Selection Process (No Native Jurors, Usually)
Here is the opinion in United States v. Garcia.
The syllabus:
Defendant failed to avail himself of the right to inspect jury selection records, and the district court did not err in failing to order sua sponte that those records be made available to him; claim that the jury did not represent a fair cross section of the community and that the jury selection process used by the district court improperly excluded Native Americans from the venire is rejected; this court has previously upheld North Dakota's jury selection plan, which draws its pools of prospective jurors randomly from lists of persons who voted in the last presidential election; jury administrator's testimony that there were not usually one or two Native Americans on the potential jury panel did not constitute a prima facie showing that Native Americans have been substantially under-represented on venires over a significant period of time.
Eighth Circuit Holds New Town is “Indian Country”
Here is the opinion in United States v. Bear.
The court’s syllabus:
Defendant's argument that New Town, where his crime occurred, is not part of the Fort Berthold Reservation is rejected, and the district court did not err in determining that defendant was properly subject to federal prosecution.
538 Profile: “Police Violence Against Native Americans Goes Far Beyond Standing Rock”
Here.
Federal Claims Court Dismisses Menominee Sex Offender Claim
Here are the materials in Zhuckkahosee v. United States (Fed. Cl.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.