Here:
Amicus briefs:
Oklahoma DAs and Sheriffs Amicus Brief
States Amicus Brief Supporting Oklahoma
Cert stage and lower court materials here.
Indian Country Crimes Act
SCOTUS Grants Oklahoma Petition to Consider Whether the State Can Prosecute Non-Indian – on – Indian Crime in Indian Country
Here is today’s order.
The grant is limited to question 1 — here are the questions presented:
- Whether a State has authority to prosecute non- Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
- Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
Lower court materials:
Nevada Federal Court Denies Habeas Petition of Non-Indian Convicted of Crime on Tribal Lands
Here are the materials in Berry v. Baca (D. Nev.):
Federal Court Rejects McGirt Defenses in Prosecution of Indian Man for Gun Possession
Here are the materials in United States v. Billey (N.D. Okla.):
Federal Court Indian Country Determination Order [Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo]
Here are the materials in United States v. Vigil (D.N.M.):
Justice Dept. Cements Position on Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in “Optional” P.L. 280 States
Here:
oaag-80488-v1-optional_pl_280_memo_to_u_s__attorneys
An excerpt:
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
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)
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)
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. White.
Federal Court Decision re: Interaction of Indian Country Crimes and State Law
Here are the materials in United States v. Lesmeister (D. S.D.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.