Indian Country Crimes Act – Page 2

For decades, conflicting judicial decisions and Department of Justice statements have led to uncertainty about whether the United States has concurrent jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153 over Indian-country crimes that fall within an “optional P.L. 280” State’s jurisdiction under Section 7 of Public Law No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588, 590 (1953). The Acting Solicitor General, after reviewing prior positions of the Department and the underlying legal materials, has now concluded that the litigating position of the United States is that the United States does have this concurrent criminal jurisdiction. Your Offices therefore can bring prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153, in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 50.25(a)(2), notwithstanding any contrary view about optional P.L. 280 jurisdiction that the United States or the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) may have previously expressed.

Federal Court Dismisses Federal Assault Indictment — Denies Effort to Assimilate State Law

September 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Kydney (D. Neb.):

DCT Order Dismissing Count I of Indictment

An excerpt:

Even if the threatened crime of violence were simple assault under federal law, the same analysis would hold true. The Nebraska third-degree assault crime is the statutory corollary to the common-law crime of simple assault. Under both Nebraska and Federal law, simple assault is a misdemeanor and the elements are similar.

New Mexico COA Affirms State Conviction of Navajo Member for Crime on Navajo Fee Land (Baca Chapter)

August 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Vandever.

An excerpt:

Defendant Milroy Vandever was involved in an automobile accident in the checkerboard area of western New Mexico; a highway worker was killed. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he is an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation and the accident occurred in Indian country. The district court denied the motion, and Defendant pled guilty to homicide by vehicle, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI), and knowingly leaving the scene of an accident involving great bodily harm or death. We affirm the decision of the district court denying the motion to dismiss because Defendant did not meet his burden of establishing that the accident occurred in Indian country.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Indian Country Crimes Act Conviction (Out of Montana)

August 17, 2011August 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. White.

Federal Court Decision re: Interaction of Indian Country Crimes and State Law

August 8, 2010August 7, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in United States v. Lesmeister (D. S.D.):

Lesmeister Brief

US Appellee Brief

Lesmeister Reply

DCT Order Affirming Lesmeister Conviction

Federal Court Upholds Indian Country Crimes Act Conviction but Holds State Law Punishments Control

March 6, 2009March 6, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States v. Langford (us-v-langford-dct-opinion), and its companion case, United States v. McHone (us-v-mchone-dct-opinion), out of the Western District of Oklahoma. The claimant, a non-Indian prosecuted under the Indian Country Crimes Act and the Assimilative Crimes Act, unsuccessfully argued that the federal court had no criminal jurisdiction over him (the underlying crime was cock-fighting, illegal under Oklahoma law).

However, the court also held that the magistrate judge erred in sentencing the defendant to a fine larger than that allowable under Oklahoma law.

Finally, the court dropped an interesting footnote in the Langford opinion:

In his brief, defendant asserts that pursuant to the Indian Civil Rights Act, he is entitled to all rights afforded to tribal members. The Indian Civil Rights Act, however, undertakes to single out the more important civil rights contained in the United States Constitution and to make those applicable to tribal members. See Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo, 540 F.2d 1039, 1042 (10th Cir.1976). Because defendant is not a tribal member, the Court finds the Indian Civil Rights Act is inapplicable in this case.

The citation is to the Martinez panel opinion, not the Supreme Court opinion. I wonder if other circuits have found the same.

US v. Ramirez — “Indian” Status of Victims under 18 USC 1152

August 12, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Ninth Circuit held in US v. Ramirez affirmed a holding that tribal ID cards and tribal residency on the San Xavier Reservation of the Tohono O’odham Nation was sufficient to prove “Indian” status of victims under 18 USC 1152.