Texas COA Reinstates State Court Jurisdiction over Indian Child Custody Dispute

Here is the opinion in Villarreal v. Villarreal (Tex. Ct. App.):

Opinion

Puyallup Tribe Staff Attorney Job Opening

Download announcement here.  Open until filled.

Association of Village Council Presidents Seeks CEO

Link to job announcement (PDF) here.

Link to employment site here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Conviction for Strangulation (VAWA)

Here is the opinion in United States v. Lamott.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Reply Brief

US Brief

An excerpt:

In 2013, Congress added the offense of assault by strangulation to the federal assault statute, 18 U.S.C. § 113. The following year a jury convicted Jordan Lamott under this provision for nonfatally strangling his girlfriend. We must decide whether the jury was properly instructed to disregard Lamott’s voluntary intoxication, which requires us to determine whether § 113(a)(8) is a general or specific intent crime. We also must decide whether the court’s instruction to the jury on assault by strangulation violated Lamott’s due process rights. We hold that assault by strangulation under § 113(a)(8) is a general intent crime, and Lamott’s intoxication was therefore irrelevant. We find no plain error in the court’s instruction on the elements of the offense. Accordingly, we affirm Lamott’s conviction.

A lengthier excerpt:

Violence against Native American women in Indian Country has reached alarming rates in the past few decades. See United States v. Bryant, 136 S. Ct. 1954, 1959 (2016). Recent studies suggest that Native American women experience certain violent crimes at two and a half times the national average. Id. (citing Dept. of Justice, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence, Ending Violence So Children Can Thrive 38 (Nov. 2014)). Particularly pervasive among violent crime is nonfatal strangulation by domestic partners. See Nancy Glass et al., Non-Fatal Strangulation Is an Important Risk Factor for Homicide of Women, 35 J. Emergency Med. 329, 333 (2008).

Nearly half of domestic violence victims report being choked. Id. at 330, 333. Recent studies show that although nonfatal strangulation often leaves few visible signs of injury, it can cause severe physical, neurological, and psychological complications and often forebodes future domestic homicide. See Donald J. Smith, Jr. et al., Frequency and Relationship of Reported Symptomology in Victims of Intimate Partner Violence: The Effect of Multiple Strangulation Attacks, 21 J. Emergency Med. 323, 327–28 (2001); see also Glass, supra, at 329–33 (concluding that women who have been nonfatally strangled are over seven times more likely to become a victim of homicide with the same partner). The recent increased focus on the dangers of nonfatal strangulation confirms what “[s]urvivors of non-fatal strangulation have known for years”: “Many domestic violence offenders and rapists do not strangle their partners to kill them; they strangle them to let them know they can kill them—any time they wish.” Casey Gwinn, Strangulation and the Law, in The Investigation and Prosecution of Strangulation Cases 5, 5 (2013).

These concerns helped motivate the reauthorization in 2013 of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). 159 Cong. Rec. S480-02, S488 (daily ed. Feb. 7, 2013) (statement of Sen. Udall). In relevant part, the Act amended the federal assault statute to add a provision directed toward victims of nonfatal strangulation by a domestic partner. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54. The newly added section (a)(8) criminalizes “[a]ssault of a spouse, intimate partner, or dating partner by strangling, suffocating, or attempting to strangle or suffocate.” 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(8).

Ninth Circuit Reverses Major Crimes Act Conviction on Indian Status Grounds

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.

 

Federal Court Enjoins North Dakota Voter ID Law

Here is the opinion in Brakebill v. Jaeger (D.N.D.):

Doc. 50 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Prior materials here.

NARF press release here.

NYTs coverage here.

Union Action against Shingle Springs Proceeds

Here are the pleadings so far in UNITE HERE International Union v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (E.D. Cal.):

6-1 Motion to Dismiss

7 Opposition

9 Reply

14 DCT Order

Deputy Prosecutor Opportunity with Gila River Indian Comm.

Gila River Indian Community
Job Description
PROSECUTOR I – DEPUTY COMMUNITY PROSECUTOR

DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF THE CLASS:

The Prosecutor I position involves representing the Community in the litigation of criminal complaints, civil petitions and juvenile offender matters in the Community courts as plaintiff or petitioner; legal research and writing; intimately familiar with professional responsibilities as an Attorney.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS:

  • Conduct legal research, analysis and document production related to the litigation of criminal and civil cases in the Community courts.
  • Represents the Community in Court at arraignments/initial hearings, pretrial/status conferences, review and evidentiary hearings and trials/adjudications in which the Community is the plaintiff or petitioner, as assigned.
  • Draft legal pleadings for the Community courts.
  • Gather and analyze evidence in criminal and civil cases.
  • Maintain case files, calendars and database for criminal and civil cases.
  • Assist in the development, revision and codification of the Community’s laws, resolution and ordinances.
  • Assist in representing the Community at meetings, court proceedings and other functions.
  • Perform other related duties as assigned.

REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, SKILL AND ABILITY:

  • Background and knowledge of criminal law, procedure and appellate process with some practical experience in criminal case preparation and litigation preferred.
  • Knowledge of and experience in application of the principles of jurisprudence and legal analysis, including a background in and knowledge of Federal Indian Law.
  • Ability to work independently and in intensive concert with others.
  • Ability to clearly and succinctly articulate ideas and logical analysis orally and in writing.
  • Ability to maintain effective working relationships with other employees, Community Officials and the general public.
  • Ability to perform all physical requirements of the position; agree to maintain a Drug-free workplace.

REQUIRED EXPERIENCE AND TRAINING:

Juris Doctorate degree from an ABA accredited school of law with current membership in good standing with the Arizona State Bar.

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

  • Submission of an acceptable legal writing sample (5-10 pages).
  • Preference for attorney with specialized experience in Federal Indian Law.
  • Required to qualify for a Tribal driving permit.
  • Must be able to pass a background check and DPS fingerprint clearance.

Classification Code:  PR022                  Approved: 04/24/2015
Grade:48                                     Base Pay: $66,058
Non-Supervisory, Salaried Position           Reports to Chief Prosecutor or designee

Justice Department Investigating Fatal Police Shooting of Loreal Tsingine

Link to Guardian article by Jamiles Lartey here.

Excerpt:

In the video, Tsingine gets up and walks toward Shipley with a small pair of medical scissors in her left hand, and another officer quickly approaches her from behind. Shipley draws his gun and directs it at Tsingine, and the footage is cut off before he fires the fatal shot.

The shooting was ruled justified by the Maricopa County attorney’s office last Friday.

Tsingine’s aunt, Floranda Dempsey, said her niece was 5ft tall and weighed 95lbs. “They should have been able to subdue her with their huge size and weight,” she said. “It wasn’t like she came at them first. I’m sure anyone would be mad if they were thrown around.” She added a question: “Where were the tasers, pepper sprays, batons?”

The family filed a $10.5m wrongful death lawsuit against the city at the beginning of the month, claiming that “the city of Winslow was negligent in hiring, training, retaining, controlling and supervising” the officer who killed Tsingine.

Shipley’s training records show two of his fellow officers had serious concerns that he was too quick to go for his service weapon, that he ignored directives from superiors, and that he was liable to falsify reports and not control his emotions.

A day before Shipley’s training ended, nearly three years ago, a police corporal recommended that the Winslow police department not retain him.

“They were warned he was likely to hurt someone back in 2013 or so, by another commanding officer,” Floranda said. “It’s unbelievable as to why he was still allowed to wear a badge.”

Ninth Circuit Reverses Major Crimes Act Conviction for Crime Arising on Navajo

Here is the opinion in United States v. Benally.

An excerpt:

Joe Arviso Benally appeals a jury conviction for involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1112 and 1153 and for using a firearm in connection with a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). In a separate unpublished memorandum disposition, we address Benally’s challenge to the trial proceedings and sentence. In this opinion, we address whether involuntary manslaughter can be considered a “crime of violence” under § 924(c). We hold that involuntary manslaughter is not a “crime of violence” and reverse the § 924(c) count of conviction.