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
Here.
Highlights:
• 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 averagedaily 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.
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.
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 |
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
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.
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.
Chief Tribal Judge – Attorney licensed to practice before the state courts of any state in the U.S. Tribal Court, management experience preferred. Duties primarily include acting as the Chief Tribal Judge for a variety of civil and criminal mattes in the context of Federal Indian Law and Tribal Law. Detailed knowledge of Federal Indian Law required. At least 10 years of post JD experience in the practice of law. Native American preference will apply. Salary is negotiable. Submit cover letter, resume and references to John Petoskey, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians, 2605 NW Bay Shore Drive, Suttons Bay, MI 49682, (231) 534-7279, fax (231) 534-7600 or email John Petoskey@gtbindians.com.
From the Escanaba Daily Press:
ESCANABA – Sentences will be handed down within the next six weeks for two men arrested in connection with illegal gill netting on Big Bay de Noc earlier this month, according to Delta County District Court officials.
Kerry Todd Johnson, 27, Cooks, and Daryl John Tatrow, 48, Garden, each pleaded no contest to a charge of using illegal fishing devices. The misdemeanor carries a maximum punishment of 90 days in jail, $1,000 fine, and revocation of one’s fishing license for three years.
Tatrow, who appeared in district court Wednesday, also pleaded no contest to one count of attempted assaulting/resisting/obstructing a law enforcement officer for fleeing during his arrest. The charge carries a maximum sentencing of one year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Johnson is scheduled to be sentenced in district court on Dec. 21. Tatrow will be sentenced on Jan. 4.
A third man arrested in connection with the alleged illegal gill-netting operation, will be charged in the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians Tribal Court for subsistence fishing without a license, according to officials from the Department of Natural Resources. His name was unavailable.
This case, Geroux v. Assurant, Inc., started as a tribal court complaint against two insurance companies seeking benefits for long-term disability, but was removed by the defendants to federal court. The district court remanded the case back to tribal court under the principles of the tribal court exhaustion doctrine.
Tribal Court Complaint against Assurant
Tribal Court Complaint against Union Security
Union Security Co. Answer and Counterclaim
Geroux Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.