federal declinations

Federal Prosecutors Decline Half of Indian Country Cases in Arizona

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the news article.

An excerpt:

The Arizona letters provide a window into a much larger government study of Department of Justice records in which 50 percent of the 9,000 cases filed from tribal lands during fiscal years 2005-2009 were declined.

In the study, 42 percent of rejections were attributed to weak or insufficient admissible evidence; 18 percent to “no federal offense evident;” and another 12 percent to witness problems.

In the AP’s Arizona review, the reasons – many cases cite more than one – were:

– 59 percent cited insufficient or inadmissible evidence. That could mean anything from inferior investigations by law enforcement to inadequate crime scene preservation.

– 27 percent cited witness problems, which can include witnesses recanting, being viewed as not credible, or simply disappearing.

– 16 percent cited a lack of jurisdiction, which can speak to the level of a crime. For example, the injuries of a detention sergeant beaten by an inmate weren’t serious enough to be a federal crime.

Continue reading →

The US Attorneys Report Commentary

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The release of the DOJ Office of Inspector General Report on the firing of the nine US Attorneys for improper (maybe illegal) reasons is a bit of a let-down for Indian Country observers. The report demonstrates the limits of the OIG’s investigation, and perhaps other investigations like it.

However, a close reading of the document demonstrates that Indian Country work may in fact have been a significant contributor to the downfall of at least one US Attorney, Margaret Chiara, but not exactly in the way we previously thought.

Two areas of concern about the report:

First, other than a brief mention in the chapter about Paul Charlton (D. Ariz), there is very little information about the import of Indian Country in these firings. More than half of the fired US Attorneys had significant responsibilities in Indian Country, from federal prosecutions to investigations of voter fraud to compliance with the Adam Walsh Act to US-Mexico and US-Canada border questions. These fired US Attorneys also represented the forefront of modern US Attorney practice in terms of cooperation with Indian tribes, extending respect and dignity to Indian victims and violent crime, and raising federal awareness of the criminal jurisdictional problems in Indian Country.

This report fails to address the very real and very obvious concerns of Indian Country by virtually ignoring these questions. There seems little doubt that AG Gonzales and the politically-charged Executive Office of US Attorneys saw no value whatsoever in the development of US-tribal law enforcement gains. While the OIG could not prove that these Indian Country US Attorneys were fired because of their positive and progressive work in Indian Country, the implication remains.

Continue reading →