Criminal – Page 82 – Turtle Talk

N.C. Trial Court Concludes First Generation Eastern Band Cherokee Descedent a Non-Indian for Criminal Jurisdiction Purposes

December 3, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State v. Nobles:

Nobles Order Final 112613

Briefs are here.

Eighth Circuit Affirms Criminal Sentence in Red Lake Reservation Robbery

December 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Downwind.

VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice

December 2, 2013December 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

VAWA Pilot Project Final Notice November 29 2013

Summary:

This final notice establishes procedures for Indian tribes to request designation as participating tribes under section 204 of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended, on an accelerated basis, under the voluntary pilot project described in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; establishes procedures for the Attorney General to act on such requests; and solicits such requests from Indian tribes.

Federal Judge Agrees with Minnesota Ojibwe Members to Dismiss Lacey Act Prosecutions for Fishing at Red Lake

November 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

This sets up an unusual circumstance — conflicting federal district court opinions arising from the same federal investigation. Our post on the prior order from a different judge, who rejected the motion to dismiss in United States v. Holthusen is here. News coverage here.

Here are the materials in United States v. Good (D. Minn.):

43 MJ R&R

46 Objections to MJ R&R

52 Government Response

56 DCT Order Rejecting MJ R&R

Here are the materials in United States v. Brown (D. Minn.):

71 MJ R&R

90 DCT Order Rejecting MJ R&R

Illinois Law Review Student Note on Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions and ICRA

November 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The University of Illinois law Review has published “Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions: The Sixth Amendment, Tribal Sovereignty, and the Indian Civil Rights Act.”

Here is the abstract:

Tribal courts tasked with the prosecution of Native American defendants are not constrained by many Constitutional provisions, including the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings. Currently, the Indian Civil Rights Act only requires representation in tribal court prosecutions of indigent defendants that may lead to incarceration of more than one year. State and federal courts require the opportunity of representation for all defendants in criminal proceedings. This discrepancy between the rights afforded in tribal courts and in state and federal courts lead to unique legal issues for Native American defendants indicted in federal court after being convicted without counsel in a tribal court.
Native Americans prosecuted under federal re-peat-offender statues could be exposed to harsher penalties based on prior uncounseled tribal con-victions. Thus, even if a Native American lacked representation in tribal court, those convictions might be used as predicate offenses for the purposes of federal repeat-offender laws. Different approaches to this issue are presented from the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. This Note ad-dresses the reasoning of each Circuit and offers a Recommendation that balances tribal sovereignty concerns, Sixth Amendment ramifications, and justice implications for both victims and defendants in the tribal court system.

Federal Court Rejects Motions to Suppress Evidence in Red Lake Kidnapping Case

November 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Benais (D. Minn.):

70 MJ R&R re Smith

71 MJ R&R re Benais

75 DCT Order Adoting No. 70

76 DCT Order Adopting No. 71

Alaska AG Debates Indian Law and Order Commission Chair on Radio

November 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

New Mexico COA Holds State Not Obligated to Defend Tribal Officer who Unlawfully Arrested Someone at Pojoaque Pueblo

November 15, 2013November 15, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Loya v. Gutierrez (N.M. App.).

An excerpt:

In this case, the issue before us is whether the County of Santa Fe (the County) has a duty to defend or indemnify a tribal police officer who, while exercising his authority as a commissioned County sheriff’s deputy, unlawfully arrested a non-Indian person within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Pojoaque (the Pueblo). The district court concluded that the County did not have a duty to defend and/or indemnify Officer Glen Gutierrez because he was not a “public employee” or “law enforcement officer” of a “governmental entity” as those terms are defined by the New Mexico Tort Claims Act (the TCA), NMSA 1978, §§ 41-4-1 to -30 (1976, as amended through 2013). See § 41-4-3. We agree with the district court and affirm.