Federal Death Penalty Act

Ninth Circuit Panel Issues Amended Order in Colville Death Penalty Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Well, it’s complicated. Colville has not reinstated the death penalty in accordance with the Federal Death Penalty Act, which removes capital murder from the Major Crimes Act unless the tribe “reinstates” it. But apparently a split panel of the Ninth Circuit held (and holds) that federal prosecutors can still pursue the crime of capital murder under the Major Crimes Act, they just can’t impose the death penalty. And the CA9 panel majority says that therefore the 5-year statute of limitations for capital crimes is therefore waived. Interesting. Here is the opinion (and the earlier opinion).

The majority panel writes:

If we were to limit the federal statute of limitations for murder to five years when a tribe has not opted to permit imposition of the death penalty against its members under the Federal Death Penalty Act, we would in fact be limiting sovereignty by burdening the choice created by the Act. “[T]here is typically no statute of limitations for first-degree murder — for the obvious reason that it would be intolerable to let a cold-blooded murderer escape justice through the mere passage of time . . . .” United States v. Quinones, 196 F. Supp. 2d 416, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), rev’d on other  grounds, 313 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020, 1026-27 (Wyo. 1986) (stating that no state has adopted a limitations period for murder). If the statute of limitations for murder were to shorten so dramatically as a consequence of a tribe’s decision not to reinstate the death penalty, tribal governments would be forced to choose between capital punishment — to which they may have religious or political objections — and justice for the most heinous of crimes.

Judge Tashima disagreed:

Continue reading →

Federal Court Denies Habeas Relief to Navajo Man Sentenced to Death (over Navajo Nation’s Wishes)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Some of you might remember this case — the Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the death sentence was a big part of the discussion at the FBA Indian Law Conference three years back — US v Mitchell CA9 Opinion.

Here is the district court order on habeas review: Order Denying Mitchell Habeas Relief

The Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 USC 3598, requires federal prosecutors to seek tribal concurrence on the death penalty before seeking the sentence for Indian country crime committed by tribal members. So the Ashcroft Dept. of Justice sought the death penalty under a different jurisdictional statute, and successfully avoided the tribal concurrence provision.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Capital Murder Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Kinda, somewhat interesting case arising on the Colville Reservation, where the defendant wasn’t indicted for more than 10 years after the crime — United States v. Gallaher. Here is the court’s take:

The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994 conditionally eliminated the death penalty for Native American defendants prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act or the General Crimes Act, subject to the penalty being reinstated by a tribe’s governing body. See 18 U.S.C. § 3598. In 2005, a federal grand jury indicted defendant-appellant James H. Gallaher, Jr., for first degree murder, more than 14 years after he killed Edwin Pooler on the Colville Indian Reservation in eastern Washington. Because the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation have not reinstated the death penalty, Gallaher argues that he is not subject to the death penalty and thus the five year federal statute of limitations for noncapital crimes applies to his offense. See id. §§ 3281-82. We disagree and hold that first degree murder remains a capital offense, regardless of whether capital punishment can be imposed in a particular case.

There was a dissenter (Judge Tashima), who argued:

In my view, the Federal Death Penalty Act removes first degree murder committed within the boundaries of “Indian country” from the realm of offenses punishable by death and delegates to the tribes the authority to determine the availability of the death penalty. See 18 U.S.C. § 3598. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation has not elected to make the death penalty available for first degree murder on the Colville Reservation. Thus, capital punishment has been clearly eliminated for the crime for which Gallaher was indicted. Because Gallaher has not been indicted for an “offense punishable by death,” see 18 U.S.C. § 3281, the five-year statute of limitations applies, see 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

Here are the materials:

Gallaher Opening Brief

US Appellee Brief in Gallaher

Gallaher Reply Brief

United States v. Mitchell — Death Penalty Case at Navajo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Recently, the Ninth Circuit decided a federal death penalty case arising out the Navajo Nation. The Court rejected an argument that the Navajo Nation hadn’t opted into the death penalty in accordance with the Major Crimes Act on the theory that the federal statute at issue was a different one. In short, the Court ignored tribal sovereignty.

Continue reading →