Here are the materials in United States v. Watchman, out of the District of Arizona. The case involves a SORNA/Adam Walsh Act violation by a Navajo Nation member. The defendant made an interesting argument that may recur in Indian Country, which is that the tribe had not yet implemented its sex offender registration statute.
Tribal Codes
U.S. v. Perez — Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel when Tribe Appoints Lay Advocate Defender
Here are the materials in U.S. v. Perez:
dct-order-denying-perez-motion-to-suppress
The interesting excerpt from the district court’s denial of the motion is here:
After a careful review of the parties’ arguments, the facts, and relevant caselaw, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and finds that Perez’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated. While Perez is correct that United States v. Red Bird, 287 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 2002), would likely require this court to find a Sixth Amendment violation if he had been represented by an attorney on his tribal charges, the court agrees with Magistrate Judge Duffy and other judges in the District of South Dakota that Red Bird is distinguishable when it is lay counsel, not an attorney, who represented the defendant in tribal court. Red Bird, 287 F.3d at 716; see also Docket 54, page 25-27; United States v. Tools, CR 07-30109-01-KES, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49490 (D.S.D. June 27, 2008); United States v. Killeaney, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92763, 2007 WL 4459348, *5-*8 (D.S.D. Dec. 17, 2007) (stating that “[t]here is a clear distinction between licensed legal counsel and lay representation under the Sixth Amendment” and concluding that “the appointment of ‘counsel’ pursuant to the Rosebud Constitution does not in all circumstances cause Sixth Amendment protections to attach” when that “counsel” is lay counsel); United States v. Dupris, 2006 DSD 4, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1068 (D.S.D. 2006); see also United States v. Whitefeather, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17237, 2006 WL 763204, *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 24, 2006). Because Perez’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had not “attached” as discussed in McNeil, statements made during Agent Cresalia’s conversation with Perez on January 11, 2008, are admissible. Perez’s motion is denied.
Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority Cert Petition
marceau-v-blackfeet-housing-authority-cert-petition
The SCT Project’s materials on this case are here.
Attorney’s Process and Investigation Services v. Sac and Fox Tribe — Case Reopened
This case arises out of alleged tortious nonmember conduct during the leadership dispute at Meskawki a few years back. In 2005, the Northern District of Iowa applied the tribal court exhaustion doctrine as justification for staying the case (nov-2005-dct-order). The tribal court’s processes have run (motion-to-reopen-case [includes tribal court decision]), and now the case has been reopened (dct-order-reopening-case).
This will be a very interesting application of the Montana test, if the court reaches the merits.
Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians — Tribal Court Jurisdiction — Updated
The Southern District of Mississippi granted a TRO against the tribal court in a case brought by tribal members against the owner of a Dollar General on tribal trust land. How this case doesn’t meet the Montana 1 test is beyond me.
Here are the materials:
Indian Law-Related Panels at AALS
Thursday, January 8, 2009, 8:30-10:15
Section on Indian Nations and Indigenous Peoples
Columbia 3, North Tower/Lobby Level, San Diego Marriott Hotel & Marina
New Directions for International Law and Indigenous Peoples
(Program to be published in Idaho Law Review)
The United Nations’ adoption of the “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” in September 2007 marked an historic moment for the world’s 300 million indigenous peoples. The Declaration is the first time that the United Nations has formally recognized indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and control over their lands and natural resources. This year’s program will address the following issues related to the Declaration: How can the Declaration be used to improve the lives of indigenous peoples; What national laws and policies violate the Declaration, and what are the most effective remedial measures to address these violations?; and, How will the Declaration influence Congress, the administration and the courts?
Business Meeting at Program Conclusion.
Robert T. Coulter – Speaker
Angelique A. Eaglewoman – Speaker
G. W. Rice – Speaker
Wenona T. Singel – Moderator
Anishinaabek Leader on the Canadian Indian Act
From the North Bay Nugget:
Message from Grand Council Chief John Beaucage–
Prior to contact, the Anishinaabe lived in peace and harmony with each other, living off the bounty of our Mother Earth. We acknowledged each other- our distinct bands and traditional territories. We respected our boundaries — not borders — out of respect for our neighbours. We harvested only what was needed, always mindful of sacred law and ensuring our food sources — the plants, animals, birds and fish — would remain abundant for seven generations into the future.
We governed ourselves according to that same sacred law. The Creator gave us the Clan System as a means to govern our day-to-day affairs, set priorities, and look after the needs of the community as a whole.
Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction under VAWA
The Western District of Washington rejected a claim that the Violence Against Women Act confers tribal court jurisdiction over personal protection orders issued against non-Indians. In this case, Martinez v. Martinez, the Suquamish Tribal Court had issued a PPO against a non-Indian man in favor of an Alaskan Native woman. They both lived on non-Indian-owned land on the Port Madison Reservation. The court also ruled that the tribal court exhaustion doctrine does not apply in this case.
Here are the materials:
defendant-martinez-motion-to-dismiss
suquamish-tribe-motion-to-dismiss
plaintiff-martinez-response-to-motions
Timbisha Shoshone Leadership Dispute
Two rival factions of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe have been duking it out in federal court. One band sought a TRO preventing the enforcement of a BIA decision to recognize the other, but the Eastern District of California denied the motion on Dec. 23, on the grounds that adequate remedies at law remain, including administrative remedies. Here are the materials:
timbisha-v-kempthorne-complaint [includes BIA materials]
motion for TRO [includes Timbisha tribal constitution]
State v. Beasley — Idaho Court of Appeals Affirms Conviction at Fort Hall
Here is the opinion. An excerpt:
The district court did not err by denying Beasley’s motion to dismiss. Trooper Winans was not outside his jurisdiction when he arrested Beasley, as the state and the Shoshone-Bannock tribes share concurrent jurisdiction over Interstate 15 where it crosses the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Furthermore, the tribal extradition code does not apply to arrests by state agents in areas of concurrent jurisdiction. Therefore, the arrest was not illegal and the district court was not required to relinquish jurisdiction over Beasley. Beasley’s judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.