tribal courts

Iowa Court of Appeals Decides Insurance Coverage Matter related to Sac and Fox Leadership Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Attys. Process & Investigation Servs. An excerpt:

Attorneys Process & Investigation Services, Inc. (APIS), appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Scottsdale Insurance Company on its petition seeking a declaratory judgment that an insurance policy it had issued to APIS provided no coverage for acts alleged in a lawsuit filed by the Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa (Tribe) against APIS in tribal court. APIS also appeals the district court‟s dismissal of its counterclaims against Scottsdale. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Profile on Criminal Justice at Colville

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Wenatchee News:

NESPELEM — Charlene Bearcub looks out her office window in Nespelem and does not see justice.

A probation officer for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Bearcub lost her son to a gun nearly five years ago.

A few blocks away, she can see the small, gray house where her oldest son, Ronald D. Thomas Jr., was shot and killed Jan. 12, 2005.

Next to her office sit two pale yellow prefabricated buildings which house Colville Tribal Court, where a tribal jury acquitted the teenager arrested and charged with her son’s homicide.

They were both 18, and best friends.

Even if he had been convicted, the boy would have spent only a year in jail for the crime, at most, because he was tried in tribal court. Under terms of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, no tribe may impose punishment greater than one year imprisonment. Serious crimes — like rape and murder — are supposed to fall to federal agents to investigate, and the U.S. Attorney for prosecution. But when the U.S. Attorney declines to prosecute, the only other option is tribal court.

Continue reading →

Navajo District Court Decision Striking Down Law that Ousted Chairman Shirley

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion from the Window Rock District Court in Office of the Navajo Nation President and Vice President v. Navajo Nation Council:

Shirley decision

Miranda v. Nielson — Tribal Court Authority to Stack Consecutive Sentences

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

A federal magistrate has issued a report and recommendation (something not yet binding until the federal judge signs it) holding that Indian tribes do not have authority to sentence convicted criminals to consecutive sentences amounting to more than 1 year (the limit set by the Indian Civil Rights Act).

Here is the report and recommendation — Magistrate Report

DOJ Indian Country Jails Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Highlights:

• The number of inmates confined in Indian country jails declined by 1.3% at midyear 2008, dropping to 2,135
inmates.
• The number of inmates admitted into Indian country jails during June 2008 was about 6 times the size of the average
daily population.
• Since midyear 2004, jail bed space for admissions expanded faster than the growth in the inmate population (37% compared to 22%).
• Thirty-six facilities were operating above their rated capacity on their most crowded day in June 2008. Of these facilities, 17 were operating above their rated capacity at midyear 2008 and 16 were operating above their rated capacity on an average day in June 2008.
• Sixteen jails (a fifth of all facilities) held 53% of the inmates confined at midyear 2008.
• Inmates held for aggravated and simple assault increased at midyear 2008; domestic violence declined.
• The number of inmates confined in Indian country jails declined by 1.3% at midyear 2008, dropping to 2,135inmates.
• The number of inmates admitted into Indian country jails during June 2008 was about 6 times the size of the average daily population.

Tenth Circuit Seeks to Conclude San Juan County Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the latest and perhaps last in Dickson v. San Juan County from the Tenth Circuit. Materials are here.

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs-Appellants Dickson, Riggs and Singer (hereafter “Appellants”) appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from this court’s final judgment. The district court ruled that the law-of-the-case doctrine prohibited it from considering Appellants’ new legal theories that a Navajo Nation tribal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over defendants, notwithstanding this court’s decision to the contrary. The court’s order also granted defendants’ motion to enjoin Appellants from initiating any further proceedings against them. We affirm.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Dickson, Riggs and Singer (hereafter “Appellants”)appeal from the district court’s order denying their motion for relief from thiscourt’s final judgment. The district court ruled that the law-of-the-case doctrineprohibited it from considering Appellants’ new legal theories that a NavajoNation tribal court had subject-matter jurisdiction over defendants,notwithstanding this court’s decision to the contrary. The court’s order alsogranted defendants’ motion to enjoin Appellants from initiating any furtherproceedings against them. We affirm.

House Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing on the Tribal Law and Order Act — Prepared Statements

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Witness List

Panel I
Hon. Herseth Sandlin
U.S. House of Representatives
At-Large, SD
Panel II
Hon. Tom Perrelli
Associate Attorney General
Washington, DC
Panel III
Marcus Levings
Great Plains Area Vice-President
Native American Justice Committee
New Town, ND
Tova Indritz
Chair
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
Native American Justice Committee
Albuquerque, NM
Scott Burns
Executive Director
National District Attorneys Association
Alexandria, VA
Barbara Creel
Associate Professor
Southwest Indian Law Clinic
University of New Mexico School of Law
Albuquerque, NM

Federal Court Dismisses ICRA Habeas Case for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in this unremarkable case (Acosta-Vigil DCT Order).

What is remarkable, though I could be wrong, is why the tribal judge is literally defending the petition. Shouldn’t the tribal prosecutor be doing this?

Here is the response: Delorme-Gaines Response

Federal Court Weighs Prior Tribal Court Convictions in Sentencing

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Latone — US v Latone

An excerpt:

The Court has carefully considered the arguments of counsel and the record before the Court. Latone’s record does not appear substantially different from that of other offenders off the state’s reservations with a criminal history category of 1, and so the Court will deny the upward departure that the United States requests. The [Zuni] tribal court gave a few days or community service as punishment for the tribal convictions, and the tribal court did not treat those offenses as seriously as the United States now requests the Court to do. The Court is reluctant to treat the prior offenses more seriously than did the tribal court. The Court thinks these prior convictions provide little indication how Latone will act in the future, because he has not received a sentence of long duration before this case. With the sentence in this case, he may act very differently in the future. Further, only two of his prior convictions — both simple assaults — were crimes of violence. See PSR PP 35, 37, at 10-11. Moreover, the Court is reluctant to treat the juvenile offenses before the tribal court more seriously than it does non-tribal juvenile counts. There does not appear to be a good reason in this case to vary from the Guidelines’ good judgment that the Court generally should not consider juvenile and tribal convictions in sentencing. There is little or no information about some of the tribal convictions, and therefore there is no reliable information to indicate that Latone’s criminal history is substantially underrepresented.

Book Announcement: Raymond Austin’s “Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Former Navajo Nation Supreme Court Justice Raymond D. Austin just published his incredible work, “Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law: A Tradition of Tribal Self-Governance” with the University of Minnesota Press.

Here is the blurb from the Press’s website:

The only book on the world’s largest tribal court system and Navajo common law

The Navajo Nation court system is the largest and most established tribal legal system in the world. Since the landmark 1959 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Williams v. Lee that affirmed tribal court authority over reservation-based claims, the Navajo Nation has been at the vanguard of a far-reaching, transformative jurisprudential movement among Indian tribes in North America and indigenous peoples around the world to retrieve and use traditional values to address contemporary legal issues.

A justice on the Navajo Nation Supreme Court for sixteen years, Justice Raymond D. Austin has been deeply involved in the movement to develop tribal courts and tribal law as effective means of modern self-government. He has written foundational opinions that have established Navajo common law and, throughout his legal career, has recognized the benefit of tribal customs and traditions as tools of restorative justice.

In Navajo Courts and Navajo Common Law, Justice Austin considers the history and implications of how the Navajo Nation courts apply foundational Navajo doctrines to modern legal issues. He explains key Navajo foundational concepts like Hózhó (harmony), K’é (peacefulness and solidarity), and K’éí (kinship) both within the Navajo cultural context and, using the case method of legal analysis, as they are adapted and applied by Navajo judges in virtually every important area of legal life in the tribe.

In addition to detailed case studies, Justice Austin provides a broad view of tribal law, documenting the development of tribal courts as important institutions of indigenous self-governance and outlining how other indigenous peoples, both in North America and elsewhere around the world, can draw on traditional precepts to achieve self-determination and self-government, solve community problems, and control their own futures.

Continue reading →