Here is the unpublished order in Nawls v. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Gaming Enterprise – Mystic Lake Casino.
Briefs here:
Eighth Circuit
Eighth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Conviction; Judge Bright Dissents on Race Discrepancy in Sentencing Issue
Here is the opinion in United States v. Lasley.
Briefs:
An excerpt from Judge Bright’s dissent:
I write to protest the sentencing disparity in this case and the heavy disparity in sentences for other similarly-situated individuals based purely on their race and residence. Appellant-defendant Gordon Lasley (Lasley), an Indian and twenty-six-years old at the time of sentencing, will spend the rest of his life in prison for a conviction of two counts of second-degree murder, but a sentence imposed as though the conviction was for two counts of first-degree murder. This result comes about because our precedent: (1) purports to allow the imposition of the federal sentencing regime to cases under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153 without consideration of sentences imposed and actual time served for similar state-law crimes; and (2) authorizes federal district courts to find a defendant committed a greater offense for the purpose of sentencing when a jury expressly convicts a defendant of the lesser-included offense. The consequence of both precedents is a high probability Lasley will serve a longer sentence than a white citizen because Lasley is an Indian who committed a crime in Indian Country. This disparity resting on Lasley’s status as an Indian is unjust, unfair, and improper for the reasons set forth herein. Thus, Lasley’s sentence should be reversed and remanded.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Criminal Conviction
Here is the opinion in United States v. Running Shield.
Eighth Circuit Affirms DV Recidivist Conviction
Eight Circuit Decides Wolfchild Appeal
Here is the opinion in Wolfchild v. Redwood County.
An excerpt:
Appellants-plaintiffs filed this purported class action claiming the right to title and possession of twelve square miles of land in southern Minnesota (“twelve square miles”). Specifically, Appellants allege they are lineal descendants of the Mdewakanton band of the Sioux tribe who were loyal to the United States during the 1862 uprising (“loyal Mdewakanton”). Appellants claim the Secretary of the Interior set apart the twelve square miles for the loyal Mdewakanton and their descendants and, thereby, the loyal Mdewakanton have the exclusive right to title, use, and possession of the twelve square miles. Appellees physically possess or claim a property interest in the twelve square miles. The issues underlying this case are complex, requiring interpretation of over 150-year-old statutes, regulations, and legislative history, understanding of past mistreatment of Indian tribes by the United States, and a complicated area of the law. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s grant of Appellees’ motions to dismiss. But we conclude the district court abused its discretion when imposing sanctions and vacate the district court’s sanctions order. We, further, hold issues relating to the appellate-cost bond are moot. But we remand to the district court for the limited purpose of assessing whether the municipal government Appellees (“Municipal Appellees”) are entitled to costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Briefs here.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Assault Convictions
Here is the opinion in United States v. Rainbow.
An excerpt:
Christopher Rainbow (Christopher) and Jordan Rainbow (Jordan) were found guilty of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury, both in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 113, and 1153. On appeal, they argue that the district court erred in admitting into evidence certifications of Indian blood and 1 in denying their requests to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses. Jordan also argues that the district court erred in asking certain questions of a doctor who treated the victim and that the evidence isinsufficient to support his convictions. We affirm
Eighth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Habitual DV Offender Conviction
Here is the opinion in United States v. Harlan.
Eighth Circuit Affirms $5M Fine against Bettor Racing
Here is the opinion in Bettor Racing Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission.
Briefs here.
8th Circuit Finds Tribal Cop Working under BIA Contract was Federal Officer when Assaulted
Link to memorandum in re U.S. v. Janis (Jan. 15 2016) here.
Defendant’s brief here and reply brief here.
United States’ brief here.
Previous coverage here.
Defendant raised two questions on appeal: (1) whether officers in the Dept. of Public Safety on the Pine Ridge Reservation are federal officers authorized to carry out tribal law and (2) whether the court erred in instructing the jury to find Officer Mousseau a federal officer as a matter of law.
The Eighth Circuit held that through the Indian Law Enforcement Reform Act a “638 contract” between the BIA and the Oglala Sioux Tribe explicitly required officers to enforce both tribal and federal laws.
However, it decided that the district court erred on jury instructions because although it was correct to rule as a matter-of-law that Oglala Sioux’s Public Safety officers were federal officers for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 111, it should have been up to the jury to determine whether Officer Mousseau was a Dept. of Public Safety officer at the time of the assault. The Court determined the error was harmless, though, since evidence on record made it clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would find Mousseau an officer when she responded to a complaint of illegal alcohol consumption at a home on the Reservation.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.