Delgamuukw v. British Columbia

New Student Scholarship Proposing Rule of Evidence re: American Indian Oral Tradition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Penn State Law Review has published “Native American Oral Traditional Evidence in American Courts: Reliable Evidence or Useless Myth?” by Rachel Awan.

Here is the abstract:

American history is rife with conflict between Native American cultures and the Anglo-American legal system. When Native American groups bring claims in federal court, they face a host of biases that fail to consider their distinctive cultural background. One such bias concerns the use of oral traditional evidence as testimony at trial. Because Native American groups were largely non-literate prior to European contact, Native Americans often use oral traditional evidence as testimony if the matter requires evidence extending centuries into the past. Unfortunately, the law regarding Native Americans’ use of oral traditional evidence as testimony has been particularly problematic because the existing jurisprudence has created uncertainty and inconsistency. This generates negative consequences because without the use of oral traditional evidence, Native American groups may lack the means to contend with opposing parties.

American courts have attempted to handle this genre of evidence for almost a century. Their efforts, however, have resulted in an array of cases that are nearly impossible for future claimants and litigants to follow. Specifically, cases from both the U.S. claims court and circuit courts do not detail the methods used in rejecting or admitting the oral traditional evidence. This creates harmful uncertainty for potential claimants who wish to use oral traditional evidence.

This Comment discusses American and Canadian jurisprudence, as the Supreme Court of Canada has explicitly created an evidentiary exception to accommodate aboriginal oral traditional evidence. This Comment then proposes a rule of evidence to guide American courts in making informed decisions regarding Native American oral traditional evidence.

Bob Anderson on Delgamuukw

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Robert Anderson has posted “Aboriginal Title in the Canadian Legal System: Delgamuukw v. British Columbia” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Canada is grappling with legal issues surrounding indigenous property rights on a scale not seen in the United States since the mid-nineteenth century. Fundamental questions of fairness and justice related to indigenous peoples’ property rights are in flux in the province of British Columbia (B.C.) – an area the size of the states of California, Oregon, and Washington combined. The recognition of aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution in 1982 and recent judicial developments made it clear to the provincial government that nearly the entire province may be subject to aboriginal title claims. Consequently, the aboriginal nations and B.C. government have embarked on a treaty process to resolve conflicting interests, but not in the fashion utilized in the United States. In the U.S., treaties and agreements with Indian tribes generally resulted in the extinguishment of all indigenous property rights in sweeping terms. In addition, payment of compensation pursuant to the Indian Claims Commission process extinguished legal claims to lands taken previously without payment of compensation. To be sure, most of the roughly 300 tribes in the contiguous forty-eight states reserved homelands, or were moved to other areas set aside for their use and occupancy, and some retained extensive rights to access off-reservation wildlife resources. In British Columbia, however, no earlier treaties ceded aboriginal lands, and the provincial government has recognized that the “extinguishment” of aboriginal title is unacceptable to aboriginal nations. There are over sixty aboriginal nations engaged in forty-nine sets of negotiations with a stated goal of reconciling aboriginal rights and title with the fact the non-aboriginal people and governments are in Canada to stay. This chapter explores the foundation beneath the current negotiations.