Season 1 | Episode 4: What’s New In Blue: Policing in Indian Country feat. Chief Francis Bradley Sr.
In this episode of What’s New in Blue, Chief Francis Bradley Sr. discusses the importance of culture in policing in Indian Country. Francis Bradley is the Chief of Police for the Hualapai Nation in Peach Springs, AZ. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy Session 232 and retired as a commander with the Navajo Nation Police Department where he served from 1980 to 2002.
Here are the materials so far in Smith v. United States (D. Ariz.):
1 Motion to Vacate
8 Government Response
14 Magistrate Report
Here is the opinion in United States v. Alvirez.
The court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed a conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury on an Indian reservation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(6), and remanded.
The panel held that the district court abused its discretion when it determined that a Certificate of Indian Blood offered into evidence by the government in order to establish Indian status, an essential element of § 1153, was a self-authenticating document under Fed. R. Evid. 902(1). The panel held that this error was not harmless.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude references to polygraph evidence, where the defendant, who elected not to present his multiple-interrogation defense as a legal strategy, was not denied the opportunity to present his defense.
The panel held that the district court cannot show plain error in the district court’s application of enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2 for infliction of permanent or life-threatening injury.
The panel held that double jeopardy does not bar retrial after reversal in this case because the erroneously-admitted Certificate of Indian Blood was nevertheless sufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Download ruling here.
Link to news coverage here.
Maricopa County Superior Court found that sovereign immunity bars contractor’s suit for breach of contract. The contractor’s tribal court case is still pending in the Hualapai Court of Appeals.
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development v. Cieslak (D. Nev.) & Grand Canyon Skywalk Development v. Steele (D. Ariz.):
1 Motion to Quash in 15-663 D. Ariz.
15 Reply re Motion to Quash in 15-663 D. Ariz.
125 DCT Order Denying Motion to Quash
Here are additional materials in WD at the Canyon v. Hwal’Bay Ba:J Enterprises Inc. (Hualapai Tribal Court):
Order setting telephonic hearing
Respondents’ Supplementary Brief Disclosure
Plaintiffs’ Disclosure Statement
Prior posts are here and here.
Here is the complaint in WD at the Canyon LLC v. Hwal’bay Ba:J Enterprises Inc. (D. Ariz.):
Verified Complaint (00135025xC01F0)
Exhibits to Complaint (00135026xC01F0)
Here is the brief in State v. Mahone (Ariz. App.):
Mahone Opening Brief
Here. Or just go to Google news and enter “hualapai grand canyon”.
The legal battle is testing the limits of business partnerships between tribes and non-Indians and is pitting tribal government leaders against one another. At stake are future profits of the lucrative Skywalk and at least $10 million in profits that the bridge has accumulated—now locked in an escrow account while the tribe fights with Mr. Jin.
“Our business is being destroyed by a handful of self-interested [tribal] government officials who are stealing our business and trampling our rights” said Troy Eid, a lawyer for Mr. Jin and former U.S. attorney for Colorado.
The tribe argues that it is Mr. Jin who “makes a promise, breaks it, then changes his story,” said Paul Charlton, the tribe’s lawyer and former U.S. attorney in Arizona.