1. Save-the-Date SWO VAWA (PDF)
Criminal
Cert Stage Briefs in Zepeda v. United States
Lezmond Mitchell v. U.S. Cert Petition
Here:
Questions presented:
Petitioner, a Navajo, is a federal prisoner sentenced to death under the
Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591-3599. Petitioner’s statements to the
FBI constituted the primary evidence at his capital trial. The FBI took these
statements while petitioner spent twenty-five days in tribal custody, with no right
to the assistance of counsel. In a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255, petitioner presented evidence that a working arrangement between federal
and tribal authorities resulted in his arrest on a minor tribal charge, and kept him
in prolonged custody not authorized under Navajo Nation law, to deprive him of his
federal procedural rights. Petitioner also alleged ineffective assistance at the guilt
and penalty phases of his trial, and the depositions of his three trial attorneys
revealed serious contradictions regarding the investigations undertaken and
defenses pursued.
An evidentiary hearing is required in a Section 2255 case “[u]nless the
motion and the files and records of the cases conclusively show that the prisoner is
entitled to no relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). In this case, the district court denied the
Section 2255 motion without a hearing, and a divided court of appeals affirmed.
The questions presented are:1. Whether the court of appeals, in conflict with the Eighth and Tenth Circuits’
grants of a hearing on similar records, erroneously concluded that petitioner
could not establish, under any circumstances, that his attorneys had
performed deficiently at the penalty phase of his trial.2. Whether the court of appeals clearly misapprehended Section 2255(b)’s
standards by viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the government,
weighing the evidence, and silently resolving factual disputes to conclude
that no evidentiary hearing was required.3. Whether the court of appeals erroneously concluded that reasonable jurists
could not debate whether an evidentiary hearing was warranted on
petitioner’s claim of federal-tribal collusion to deprive him of his rights to
prompt presentment and assistance of counsel.
Lower court decision.
Defendant Pleads Guilty to NAGPRA Crime
Here are the materials in United States v. Thacker (S.D. Ohio):
An excerpt:
Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty of knowingly selling and using for profit the human remains of a Native American.
White Plume Family Prevails in Industrial Hemp Claim
Here are the materials in United States v. White Plume (D.S.D.):
140 Oglala Sioux Tribe Amicus Brief
An excerpt:
What is material to the court’s analysis is the shifting national focus on industrial hemp as a viable agricultural crop and the decision of the Attorney General of the United States to engage in a dialogue with the various tribes on the relationship between the CSA and the Agricultural Act of 2014. The government did not challenge Mr. White Plume’s assertion that “[w]ith the Agricultural Act of 2014, the Federal government joined the twenty-two states that have enacted legislation on industrial hemp.” (Docket 125 at p. 7) (reference omitted). Nor did the government challenge the representation that seven states have ventured into the area of agricultural or academic research of industrial hemp.
US Cert Opposition Brief in Zepeda
Here:
An excerpt:
Petitioner contends (Pet. 11-22) that the Ninth Circuit’s definition of an “Indian” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1153 violates equal protection. Petitioner further asserts (Pet. 22-23) that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with a decision from the Utah Supreme Court. Those claims lack merit. The court of appeals’ decision – which follows this Court’s precedent – is fully consistent with the Constitution, and no conflict exists on the question presented. Moreover, this case would be a poor vehicle to consider the meaning of “Indian” in Section 1153 because petitioner qualifies under any conceivable definition, including the one he proposes. Further review is not warranted.
Cert petition is here.
NHBP Media Release: Violence Against Women Act’s Jurisdictional Provisions
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi Asserts Authority to Prosecute All Persons, including Non-Indians, for Domestic Violence
Local Tribe to Implement Violence Against Women Act Jurisdictional Provisions
Pine Creek Indian Reservation, Athens, MI – Today, the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi announces implementation of a new tribal government law that enables tribal police and justice officials to investigate and prosecute certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian country. Non-Indians who live or work on the reservation or have a marriage or dating relationship with a Native person may now be subject to tribal jurisdiction for domestic and dating violence crimes and criminal violations of certain protection orders. Individuals who commit these crimes in Indian country can be arrested by tribal police, prosecuted in tribal court, and sentenced to prison. Individuals prosecuted under the new tribal law will have a right to an attorney. If the defendant cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided by the tribe.
This is part of the Tribal Council’s larger effort to take a stand against violence in the community—and domestic violence, in particular—because of the huge toll it has taken on Native families and youth.
“Domestic violence is a uniquely local crime that has long deserved a local solution, and now we have one,” said Tribal Council Chair Homer A. Mandoka. “We will no longer stand by and watch our Native women be victimized with no recourse. I’m here to put the community on notice, perpetrators will be held accountable.”
The federal law that authorizes these recent actions by the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi is the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA 2013). Signed into law on March 7, 2013, VAWA 2013 marked a victory for Native women, tribal leaders, women’s rights advocates, and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere. For the first time since the U.S. Supreme Court stripped tribal governments of their criminal authority over non-Indians in Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978), VAWA 2013 restored tribal inherent authority to investigate, prosecute, convict, and sentence non-Indians who assault their Indian spouses or dating partners in Indian country. This aims to fill a longstanding jurisdictional gap on tribal lands that has for far too long put Native women at risk and kept the hands of tribal law enforcement tied.
Crimes committed outside of Indian country, between two strangers, between two non-Indians, or by a person without sufficient ties to the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi are not covered by this new authority.
This new law is necessary because violence against Native women has reached epidemic proportions*, and the old system of forcing tribes to rely exclusively on far away federal—and in some cases, state—government officials to investigate and prosecute crimes of domestic violence committed by non-Indians against Native women is not working. Prior to VAWA 2013, the Indian woman who was beaten by her non-Indian husband on tribal land had nowhere to turn for protection: tribal law enforcement had no authority to intervene because the perpetrator is a non-Indian; the State had no authority to intervene because the victim was an Indian; and the Federal Government—the body with exclusive jurisdiction—had neither the will nor the resources to intervene in misdemeanor level domestic violence cases. VAWA 2013 is an attempt to remedy this broken system.
As President Obama said when he signed VAWA 2013 into law, “Tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people, and all women deserve the right to live free from fear.” The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi agrees, and it’s doing its part to ensure the safety of native women and of everyone on the reservation.
About the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi
The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi is a federally recognized Tribal government with nearly 1,100 enrolled Tribal members. The Potawatomi name is a derivation of Bodéwadmi, meaning a people of the fire or a people who make or maintain fire, both of which refer to the role of the Potawatomi as the keepers of the Council fire in an earlier alliance with other Tribes in the area. The Tribe’s main offices are located at the Pine Creek Indian Reservation in Athens Township, with additional offices in Grand Rapids, MI, to better serve our Tribal members. The government employs more than 150 employees who work for various departments among the Tribe including Tribal Police, Tribal Court, Housing, Environment, Membership Services, Communications, Human Resources, Finance, Public Works, Planning, Health & Human Services, and the Gaming Commission.
* Compared with other demographic groups, American Indian women have one of the highest rates of domestic violence victimization in the United States. See. e.g.,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Preliminary Report at 3, 39 (Nov. 2011) (finding that 46% of Native American women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.) A significant percentage of residents of Indian reservations are non-Indian. See U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census Briefs, The American Indian and Alaska Native Population: 2010, at pages13- 14 and table 5 (Jan. 2012) (showing that 1.1 million American Indians and 3.5 million non-Indians reside in American Indian areas). Many married Indian women have non- Indian husbands. See U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2010, special tabulation, Census 2010 PHC-T- 19, Hispanic Origin and Race of Coupled Households: 2010, Table 1, Hispanic Origin and Race of Wife and Husband in Married-Couple Households for the United States: 2010 (Apr. 25, 2012) (showing that more than 54% of Indian wives have non-Indian husbands).
United States v. Bryant to be Argued April 19, 2016
9th Circuit Affirms Murder Conviction of Non-Indian Who Killed on Tohono O’odham Reservation
Download opinion in the matter of U.S. v. Reza-Ramos (Mar 9 2016) here.
Pascua Yaqui Review of the Impact of Sentencing Guidelines on Tribal Communities
Download comments here.
The United States Sentencing Commission’s Tribal Issues Advisory Group visited the Reservation last week. The issue they were investigating was whether there was disparity between a tribal member sentenced in federal court, when compared to a similarly situated defendant in state court. The information and data collected over the past year showed no disparity for the Tribe.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.