Assimilative Crimes Act

Milk, who is Native American and an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction because (1) he was convicted of crimes that are not enumerated under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153,4 and (2) under the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, the alleged unlawful acts in this case occurred on the Pine Ridge Reservation and only involved American Indian people. But Milk’s arguments are foreclosed by precedent.

Split Sixth Circuit Vacates Conviction and Sentence of D.V. Perpetrator of Saginaw Chippewa Tribal Citizens

February 1, 2022Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Johnson:

CA6 Opinion

Opening Brief

US Brief

The University of Michigan federal appellate clinic represented the appellant.

Ninth Circuit Confirms Assimilative Crimes Act Applies in Indian Country

May 29, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Smith.

Briefs:

Tenth Circuit Orders Resentencing in Indian Country Child Abuse Matter

April 17, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Jones.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Assimilative Crimes Act Jurisdiction

May 9, 2018May 9, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in United States v. Smith:

Opening Brief

SW Indian Law Clinic Amicus Brief

US Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Yet Another Cert Petition: Indian Country Crime, Lesser-Included Offense Instruction

December 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Decker v. United States:

Decker Cert Petition

Question presented:

In a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §2241, for “aggravated sexual abuse by an Indian in Indian territory,” occurring in Battle Mountain, Nevada, where a victim testifies to unconsented sexual penetration and the defendant denies any sexual contact; and a Nevada case, Crawford v. State, 107 Nev. 345, 351, 811 P.2d 67, 70-71 (1991), mandates that the giving of an attempted sexual assault jury instruction under those circumstances constitutes reversible error; does the Assimilated Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13(a), or 18 U.S.C. § 1153(b) mandate that federal courts are constrained to follow Crawford and either not give the attempt instruction or be reversed if they do?

The question of whether case law viz. state substantive lesser-included offenses must be assimilated into a prosecution where the state case law prohibits the giving of the instruction, was not addressed either in Keeble v. United States, 412 U.S. 205 (1973) or in Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (1998); and United States v. Walkingeagle, 974 F.2d 551 (4th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1019 (1993) presents both sides of the issue. Is the Walkingeagle dissent correct as a matter of law?

Federal Court Dismisses Federal Assault Indictment — Denies Effort to Assimilate State Law

September 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Kydney (D. Neb.):

DCT Order Dismissing Count I of Indictment

An excerpt:

Even if the threatened crime of violence were simple assault under federal law, the same analysis would hold true. The Nebraska third-degree assault crime is the statutory corollary to the common-law crime of simple assault. Under both Nebraska and Federal law, simple assault is a misdemeanor and the elements are similar.