Here.
News Coverage of Yakama-DOJ-FBI Agreement
Here.
Criminal
Yakama Nation Reaches Settlement with DOJ/FBI re: 2011 Reservation Raid
YAKAMA NATION STRIKES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH DOJ, FBI TO SETTLE LITIGATION OVER 2011 RESERVATION RAID (FBI RECITALS AGREEMENT PRESS RELEASE PDF)
FBI AGREES TO COMMUNICATE WITH YAKAMA POLICE BEFORE ENTERING YAKAMA INDIAN COUNTRY
Toppenish, WA– The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation have reached an unprecedented, out-of-court settlement with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), principally the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
The settlement fully and finally resolves Yakama’s lawsuit against the FBI and several of its sister law enforcement agencies, as well as various county and municipal police agencies from Washington State, Mississippi and Virginia. That suit arose from a federal task force raid of Yakama Reservation trust lands that commenced at dawn on February 16, 2011. Upon reported word of the settlement on August 15, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Rosanna Peterson closed the case.
“Today is historic. The United States has agreed to honor the law enforcement protocols set forth in the Yakama Treaty of 1855. That is unprecedented.” said Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman and former police chief Harry Smiskin. “From today forward the FBI will communicate with Tribal Police before they enter Yakama Indian Country. I am confident that the resulting cooperation between federal and tribal cops will greatly improve public safety throughout our territories.”
Through Article II of the Yakama Treaty of 1855, the Yakama Reservation was set apart for the exclusive use and benefit of the Yakama Nation. To that end, the Yakama Treaty makes clear that no “white man” shall be permitted to reside upon Yakama Indian Country without permission from the Yakama Nation. Federal Treaty negotiators explained to the Yakama that Article II meant that no one – not even United States agents, with the lone exception of today’s Bureau of Indian Affairs agents – would be permitted to step onto Yakama Reservation lands without the Yakamas’ consent.
Also, in Article VIII of the Yakama Treaty, the United States and Yakama Nation set forth a process for delivering Yakama criminals or suspects who are in Yakama Indian Country to federal authorities. Federal Treaty negotiators also explained to the Yakama that Article VIII meant there would be a consultation process between the Head Chief or all of the Yakama Chiefs, and the United States, relative to any Yakama alleged to have committed a wrong, before they might be delivered up to federal authorities.
The settlement agreement between Yakama and DOJ is called, “Recitals of Joint Law Enforcement Goals.” It recites that:
Federal Court Affirms Conviction for Stealing from Vendors at Tribal Event
Here are the materials in United States v. Spoonhunter (D. Mont.):
DCT Order Denying Motion for Acquittal
An excerpt:
Defendant attacks only one issue in challenging her conviction: whether the government proved that she acted with intent to defraud the vendors with whom she worked in connection with North American Indian Days. Defendant argues no evidence was presented at trial to prove that she contemplated harm to her victims, or that her actions were done in bad faith.
Ninth Circuit Withdraws Zepeda Opinion
Here. The order:
The opinion in this case filed on January 18, 2013, and reported at 705 F.3d 1052 is hereby withdrawn. The opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. The court will file a new opinion in due course. As the court’s opinion is withdrawn, the government’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is moot.
Materials in this case and related cases are here.
Federal Indictment of 18 Individuals for Smuggling Smokes to Seneca Cayuga Tobacco, Ho-Chunk Inc., Etc.
Here is the indictment in United States v. Sheffler (W.D. Mo.):
News coverage here.
New Student Scholarship on the Tribal Law and Order Act
Seth J. Fortin has published “The Two-Tiered Program of the Tribal Law and Order Act” (PDF) in the UCLA Law Review Discourse.
Here is the abstract:
The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 was intended to significantly expand the sentencing powers of tribal courts, raising the maximum sentence for a given offense from one year to three. But the Act requires courts that would take advantage of these new powers to provide significant procedural protections to criminal defendants, while failing to provide the funding most tribal courts would need to make those protections a reality. Moreover, the Act leaves vague and open to interpretation the precise form those protections should take, which is an open invitation to federal courts to scrutinize tribal court procedure; this, in turn, may put tribal courts in the position of choosing between longer sentences and retaining their traditional character. These two obstacles—lack of funding, and the danger to tribal courts’ unique character— mean that the Act is likely to sort tribes into two “tiers”: wealthier or more assimilated tribes will be able to take advantage of the longer sentences, while tribes that cannot afford (whether financially or culturally) to change their practices will be left unable to adequately sentence serious offenders. And because of the way the Act resolves a longstanding ambiguity in Indian law, some tribes in the latter group may be left with less sentencing power than they had previously.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Former Chukchansi CEO for Fraud and Theft from a Tribal Gaming Establishment
Here is the opinion in United States v. Livingston. An excerpt:
The panel affirmed convictions for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands (18 U.S.C. § 1168(b)).
The panel held that the location of the gaming establishment is not an element of the offense under § 1168(b), and that the allegations in the indictment were sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the specific offenses with which he was charged.
The panel also held that the district court’s jury instructions correctly defined “intent to defraud,” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting prior acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).
Here are the materials:
Lower court materials here, here, here, and here.
Jeff Livingston was also the gaming manager at Grand Traverse Band.
Fourth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Murder Conviction Arising on Eastern Band Cherokee Reservation
Here is the opinion in United States v. Lespier.
Federal Indictment of Sault Tribe Casino Cheaters
Here is the indictment in United States v. Koster (W.D. Mich.):
News coverage here.
All Things Considered on Prosecuting in Tribal Court
“We live here. We engage the community here. We have an understanding of the crimes and the crime scenes, and we have Hopi juries here, and it gives us an advantage in that there are some cases I believe the tribal courts can more effectively prosecute,” she [Jill Engel] says.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.