Here are the materials in United States v. Yankton:
From the court’s syllabus:
Evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization.
Criminal
North Dakota Rejects Aboriginal Title Challenge to Criminal Conviction
Here is the opinion in State v. Delorme. An excerpt:
Delorme was charged with two counts of guiding or outfitting without a license in Eddy County in violation of N.D.C.C. § 20.1-03-40 after guiding two undercover North Dakota Game and Fish Wardens to multiple hunting sites. The guiding expedition took place both on and off the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation. Delorme moved to dismiss the charges because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the alleged crime took place on land reserved for the Pembina Band of Chippewa, where his aboriginal rights to hunt, fish, and gather are preserved by an 1863 treaty. The State opposed Delorme’s motion, arguing Delorme was charged with guiding or outfitting only on land outside the reservation and subject matter jurisdiction was not in dispute. The district court denied Delorme’s motion to dismiss, concluding Delorme failed to show how his offense fell outside of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court noted, “When the veneer is scraped from his argument, what Mr. Delorme seeks is unequal protection of the law based on his race, something inimical to North Dakota law.”
Briefs:
South Dakota “Sovereign Citizens”/Fake Indians Indicted by Feds
Here are the indictments of Ted Nelson, Steve Nelson, and Jerome Adrian for tax evasion. All claimed to be members of the fake “Pembina National Little Shell Band of North America.”
News coverage here. Arrested via predator drone…..
Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction for Destroying Nez Perce Pictographs
Ninth Circuit Reverses Manslaughter Conviction on Colville for Improper Jury Instruction
Here is the opinion in United States v. Garcia.
UNM Symposium on United States v. Sandoval
Here is the notice:
UNM symposium on United States v Sandoval
The description:
On October 20, 1913, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Sandoval, a case that addressed whether Congress could prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquor into Santa Clara Pueblo lands notwithstanding the admission of New Mexico to statehood. The Court validated Congress’s power by virtue of the “Indian” status of the Pueblo people and their homelands, establishing an immensely important precedent asserting broad federal authority in Indian affairs generally. This symposium highlights three themes tied to Sandoval ’s legacy: Federal Authority in Indian Country, Indian Identity and Status, and the Rights of Defendants in Tribal Court. An additional related theme, Liquor in Indian Country, will be explored in the associated conference for tribal public defenders and Indian law clinicians, which will interweave with the symposium. This symposium is the third in a series of anniversary symposia commemorating landmark Indian law cases and legislation.
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals Recognizes Authority of Tribal Officers Cross-Deputized under State Law to Enforce State Law Off-Reservation
Here is the summary opinion in State v. Ferguson:
An excerpt:
“All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, by statute or by this Code.” 12 O.S.2011, § 2402. The appeal record in this case shows that Salkil and Murphy are CLEET certified deputies in Ottawa County. Nothing in the constitution or laws of this State provides that evidence obtained by deputies is inadmissible. Id. Even if they had been outside their jurisdiction, information from and observations made by Salkil and Murphy may be used in establishing probable cause to issue a search warrant. See Staller v. State, 1996 OK CR 48, ~ 12, 932 P.2d 1136, 1140. Judges Culver and Maxey erred by sustaining the Appellees’ motions to suppress relevant evidence in these cases.
New Study on Impact of Public Law 280 on Umatilla Reservation (+ 160 Other Reservations)
Sarah N. Cline’s study, “Sovereignty Under Arrest? Public Law 280 and its Discontents” is available here (PDF).
The abstract:
Law enforcement in Indian Country has been characterized as a “maze of injustice”—one in which offenders too easily escape and victims are too easily lost (Amnesty International, 2007). Tribal, state, and federal governments have recently sought to amend this through the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) in 2010 and the expansion of cross-deputization agreements. Positioning itself amid these developments, this study seeks to determine the administrative impact of Public Law 280 (P.L. 280), which creates a concurrent jurisdictional regime between states and tribes. Taking a mixed-methodological approach, the law’s effect on the sovereignty and resource capacity of tribal justice systems is first analyzed using existing data for 162 American Indian reservations. Through a series of logistic regressions, hypotheses are tested to determine whether a statistically significant difference emerges between policy treatments under P.L. 280. This quantitative analysis is then grounded in a case study of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, who are unique for their 1981 retrocession of criminal jurisdiction in the mandatory P.L. 280 state of Oregon. Both content analysis of archival records and semi-structured interviews with tribal, state, and federal public officials shed light on experiences of the criminal justice system before, during, and after P.L. 280. This research contributes to the overarching objectives of TLOA, which seek to locate best practices and administrative models in reducing crime and victimization on reservations.
Prisoner Challenge to Major Crimes Act under 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie Fails
Minnesota COA Decision Critical of Minn. SCT Precedent on Indian Country Jurisdiction, But Complies
Here is the opinion in State v. Saros:
SAROS JAY CT APP DECISION 7.13
The issue involves state civil regulatory jurisdiction (in this case, traffic offenses) over on-reservation Indians who are members of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe where a member of one band (say White Earth) is cited on the reservation of another band (say Leech Lake). The Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Davis held that the White Earth member may be civilly cited by the state because he/she is not on his/her own reservation.
The Saros court writes:
We acknowledge, however, that the restriction on inter-reservation prosecution makes little sense. It is undisputed that the MCT is a federally recognized tribe, and that the six bands that make up the MCT are not individual federally recognized tribes, but are “component reservations.” Davis, 773 N.W.2d at 75 (Page, J., dissenting) (citing Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 73 Fed. Reg. 18,553, 18,555 (Apr. 4, 2008)). As Gary Frazier, the executive director of the MCT testified, it is impossible to be a member of one of the individual bands but not a member of the MCT. Nonetheless, the Davis decision holds that the differentiation between bands is dispositive as to whether tribal court has jurisdiction over the matter. In other words, under Davis, despite the fact that appellant is an enrolled member of the MCT, resides on Leech Lake, and the offenses occurred there, the tribe’s interest in self-governance is not applicable to his case because his reservation of registration is White Earth. This conclusion seems to conflict with Stone, which recognizes that “Indian tribes retain ‘attributes of sovereignty over both their members and their territory.’” 572 N.W.2d at 728 (quoting Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. at 207, 107 S. Ct. at 1087).
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.