tribal courts – Page 127

Bureau of Indian Affairs – Office of Justice Services — Training Announcement

February 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

TRAINING ANNOUNCEMENT:

Training Program: Tribal Court Trial Advocacy Training Program

Training Date: March 19 – 21, 2013

Training Location: Grand Sierra Resort and Casino

Course Description: Through lecture and practical exercises, the course will provide classroom instruction as well as breakout sessions instructing on Trial Preparation, Direct examination, Opening Statements, Exhibits and Evidentiary Foundations, Cross Examination, Impeachment, Closing Arguments, Opposing Strategies, and Sentencing Considerations. This program’s training emphasis will be on: Trafficking of Illegal Narcotics.

The Target Training Audience is: Tribal Court Judges, Tribal Court Prosecutors, and Tribal Court Public Defenders, and other tribal court personnel include: Former Tribal Prosecutors, University of New Mexico Tribal Public Defender experts, BIA Division of Courts, DOJ U.S. Attorney’s Offices, DOJ Access to Justice Initiative, and United States Office of Defender Services with Federal Public Defenders Office.

Cost: TUITION IS FREE. Participant’s Agency is responsible for Travel, Lodging, and per Diem costs associated with attending this program.

Training Registration Process: All applicants must submit a U.S. Indian Police Academy Training Application via Fax (505-563-3090). Applicants will receive a selection letter from the BIA to confirm the applicant has been registered to attend this training program. Scanned applications may be sent via e-mail to: veronica.toersbijns@bia.gov

Continue reading →

Navajo Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument at Idaho College of Law

February 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The University of Idaho College of Law is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation will be sitting at the Menard Law Building, Law School Courtroom for oral argument on the morning of Thursday, March 21^st from 9:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. The Court, consisting of Chief Justice Herb Yazzie, Associate Justice Eleanor Shirley, and Associate Justice by Designation William Platero, will hear oral argument in the case: Neptune Leasing, Inc. v. Mountain States Petroleum Corporation and Nacogdoches Oil and Gas, Inc., No. SC-CV-24-10. This will be a historic visit by the Navajo Nation Supreme Court which has jurisdiction over the largest tribal land base and population in the United States.

During the afternoon on Thursday, March 21^st the Navajo Nation Justices will discuss “The Operations and Principles Guiding the Navajo Nation Supreme Court” in the Law School Courtroom from 1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Both of these sessions are open to the public. The Menard Law Building is located on the University of Idaho Moscow campus at 875 Perimeter Drive.

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town to Appeal Sovereignty Dispute with Muscogee (Creek) Nation to Tenth Circuit

February 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

News coverage here.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Denies Yakama Motion for Injunction in State-Tribal Fuel Tax Dispute

February 13, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here are the updated materials in State of Washington v. Tribal Court for the Yakama Indian Nation (E.D. Wash.):

Yakama Cross Motion

Washington Opposition to Yakama Motion

Yakama Reply

DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion for PI

The materials from the tribal court portion of this case are here. And the earlier federal court materials on tribal court jurisdiction are here.

Wells Fargo Motion for TRO against Moapa Tribal Court Denied

February 7, 2013February 7, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Advisors v. Kolhoss (D. Nev.):

DCT Order Denying TRO

Wells Fargo Complaint

Wells Fargo Motion for TRO

Moapa Tribal Court Order

Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss — Moapa Tribal Court [corrected]

From the federal court order:

Plaintiffs initiate this declaratory relief action seeking to declare that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because the Tribe has waived sovereign immunity and agreed to arbitration. Plaintiffs seek an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin the tribal court from proceeding with a hearing scheduled for February 7, 2013. However, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion because (1) the Motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the District of Nevada Local Rules; (2) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of an emergency; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm should the Court deny their Motion.

Information Request on Tribal Same-Sex Marriage Laws and Proposals

February 4, 2013Ann Tweedy

I’m researching tribal laws and legislative proposals related to same-sex marriage. If you are interested in helping and have information on actual tribal laws or proposed laws relating to same-sex marriage (either allowing it or prohibiting it), please email me at atweedy01@hamline.edu. I’m interested in proposals that failed as well as those that passed. Any non-confidential information, such as the text of the laws or proposals, legislative history, or anecdotal information on how the process worked or how it was initiated would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Federal Court to Hear ICRA Habeas Claim in Child Custody Case at Absentee Shawnee

February 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Rosser v. Rosser (W.D. Okla.):

DCT Order in Rosser

John Rosser Motion to Dismiss

Jennifer Rosser Opposition to John Rosser Motion

Tribal Judge Motion to Dismiss

Jennifer Rosser Opposition to Judge Motion

Complicated, ugly case, like so many family law cases. An excerpt:

As noted above, Plaintiff seeks two forms of relief. First, a writ of habeas corpus ordering the return of her daughter, K.T., and, second, a declaratory judgment determining the jurisdiction of the tribal court. 25 U.S.C. § 1303 provides that a writ of habeas corpus shall “be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.” Although as a general matter courts will not use this statute to intervene in child custody determinations, the facts as alleged in this case warrant a departure from the usual practice. According to the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the tribal court has ordered custody of K.T. be awarded to a person who has no legal status to her. Thus, this case is distinguishable from the typical child custody dispute where the losing party is simply seeking a different court’s take on a custody determination between two parties. Because Plaintiff has set forth allegations which state a plausible claim for relief under § 1303, Defendant Rosser’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 12(b)(6) will be denied.

Michigan Law Review Note on Uncounseled Tribal Court Convictions

January 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Christiana M. Martenson has published “Uncounseled Tribal Court Guilty Pleas in State and Federal Courts: Individual Rights Versus Tribal Self-Governance” (PDF) in the Michigan Law Review. Here is the abstract:

Indian tribes in the United States are separate sovereigns with inherent self-governing authority. As a result, the Bill of Rights does not directly bind the tribes, and criminal defendants in tribal courts do not enjoy the protection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In United States v. Ant, a defendant—without the legal assistance that a state or federal court would have provided—pled guilty to criminal charges in tribal court. Subsequently, the defendant faced federal charges arising out of the same events that led to the tribal prosecution. The Ninth Circuit in Ant barred the federal prosecutor from using the defendant’s prior uncounseled tribal court guilty plea as evidence in the federal proceeding, explaining that doing so would violate the Sixth Amendment. This Note argues that Ant is no longer good law. First, Ant’s legal foundation is weak, especially in light of subsequent developments in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. Second, Ant is poor policy because excluding tribal court guilty pleas from state and federal proceedings undermines tribal self-governance. Even though governments must protect the rights of individual criminal defendants, supporting tribal authority will ultimately lead to decreased violence on Indian land and increased consistency with federal legislation.