Here is the opinion in Gillette v. North Dakota Disciplinary Board Counsel.
Lower federal court materials here.
Here is the opinion in Gillette v. North Dakota Disciplinary Board Counsel.
Lower federal court materials here.
Here are the materials in Attorney’s Process and Investigation Services v. Sac and Fox Tribe:
APIS v. Sac and Fox Tribe opinion
Brian L. Lewis has published his excellent paper, “Do You Know What You Are? You Are What You Is; You Is What You Am: Indian Status for the Purpose of Federal Criminal Jurisdiction and the Current Split in the Court of Appeals,” in the Harvard Journal on Racial and Ethnic Justice (formerly the Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal).
Paper here: Lewis
The paper delves into the recent cases involving Indian status of criminal defendants prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act; and recent cases such as Cruz and Stymiest, where the Ninth and Eighth Circuits, respectively, reached conflicting conclusions on whether nonenrolled Indians are “Indian” under the statute.
Apparently, this is only the second time in the history of the federal courts that there has been a person convicted of neonatcide. Thank you Major Crimes Act. 😦
The facts in this case are beyond horrible, and we usually don’t post criminal cases like this, but the dissent is so passionate in this case.
Here is the opinion: US v Deegan.
From the dissent (Judge Bright):
In the view of this judge, the procedure followed and the imposition of a ten-year-plus prison sentence on Ms. Deegan, a young American Indian woman, represents the most clear sentencing error that this dissenting judge has ever seen.
* * *
Ms. Deegan’s crime of neonaticide was a unique sort of homicide and completely unlike the usual and ordinary killings that constitute second-degree murder under federal law. As I have already observed, federal courts do not ordinarily deal with these types of cases, which may be grist for the mills of state courts. Only because this neonaticide occurred on an Indian reservation does this case become one of federal jurisdiction. There exists no basis in the statements of the Sentencing Commission or in reviewing federal appellate second-degree murder cases to conclude that the crime of neonaticide comes within the federal second-degree murder sentencing guidelines.
Here: Fortune Bay Voluntary Dismissal.
The Bois Fort Band will proceed through the administrative process first.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials:
Amended opinion–081441P
CA8 Order Granting Rehearing [explains the amendments to the earlier opinion]
South Dakota Petition for En Banc Review
Charles Mix County Petition for En Banc Review
Federal Response to En Banc Petitions
Yankton Opposition to En Banc Review
Rosebud Sioux Opposition to En Banc Petition
Earlier opinion and briefs are here.
Here are the materials (no decision from the Eighth Circuit yet):
As Indianz reported, the Eighth Circuit sitting en banc reversed a decision favoring the Indian plaintiffs in a Section 2 vote dilution case. Of note, the en banc panel reversed the decision of a prior panel establishing the law of the case, and allowed the City to file a late petition for en banc review. Where is the rule of law?
Here are the en banc materials. The merits briefs are here.
City of Martin En Banc Petition
Cottier Response to Motion for More Time to File En Banc Petition
Here: Fond du Lac Opening CA8 Brief
Lower court materials are here.
Here is the opinion in United States Azure (or Wind)–US v. Wind
You must be logged in to post a comment.