Download PDF: Belmont v. Kelly Order Denying Motion to Expand Jurisdiction, Gladstone v. Kelly REJECTED Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Link to previous posts here.
Download PDF: Belmont v. Kelly Order Denying Motion to Expand Jurisdiction, Gladstone v. Kelly REJECTED Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Link to previous posts here.
Here is the opinion in Stoplman v. St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin Tribal Council (St. Croix Tribal Court):
ST CROIX TRIBAL ENROLLMENT DECISION
News coverage here: “Judge orders reinstatement of St. Croix Tribe members.”
Here are new pleadings (stamped rejected) in Belmont v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):
Belmont (Roberts) v Kelly REJECTED Motion to Expand Injunction
Here are the materials in Alexander v. Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde :
Alexander v. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Opinion
Alexander v. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Opening Brief
Alexander v. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Appellees’ Brief
Alexander v. Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Petitioners’ Reply Brief
New materials in Galanda v. Nooksack Tribal Court (as of Aug. 3):
In re Gabriel Galanda v Nooksack Tribal Court Response re Order on Motion to Enforce Contempt Order
Recently, the former tribal attorney on the case is now its Chief Judge (Exhibit C in Declaration) and the Police Chief missed yesterday’s show cause deadline.
Link to court order to show cause by Aug. 3 here.
Link to Bellingham Herald coverage from July 29 here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Alvirez.
The court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed a conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury on an Indian reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6), and remanded.
The panel held that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that a Certificate of Indian Blood offered into evidence by the government in order to establish Indian status, an essential element of § 1153, was a self-authenticating document under Fed. R. Evid. 902(1). The panel held that this error was not harmless.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude references to polygraph evidence, where the defendant, who elected not to present his multiple-interrogation defense as a legal strategy, was not denied the opportunity to present his defense.
The panel held that the district court cannot show plain error in the district court’s application of enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 for infliction of permanent or life-threatening injury.
The panel held that double jeopardy does not bar retrial after reversal in this case because the erroneously-admitted Certificate of Indian Blood was nevertheless sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Briefs here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.