Colorado Federal Court Refuses to Accept Plea Deal for Lesser Included Offense in Major Crimes Act Prosecution

Here are the materials in United States v. English (D. Colo.):

1 Indictment

33 Joint Memorandum in Support of Plea Agreement

36 Magistrate Minute Order: “This Court does not have jurisdiction over the charge in the proposed Plea Agreement. . . .”

37 Government Objection

39 English Objection

41 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Major Crimes Act represents one way in which Congress has permitted federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over crimes occurring on tribal lands which otherwise would be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribal courts. Now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1153, the Act gives federal courts exclusive federal jurisdiction over certain enumerated felonies occurring between Indians in Indian Country, including, specifically, “a felony assault under section 113.” 18 U.S.C.A. § 1153(a). See also United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 669 (10th Cir. 1999). Prosecution of crimes not expressly designated in section 1153, including, specifically, simple assault – is reserved to the tribal courts, in recognition of their inherent sovereignty over such matters. United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 643 n.1, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 1397 n.1, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977); United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602, 700-01, 36 S.Ct. 699, 605-06, 60 L.Ed. 1196 (1916); United States v. Burch, 169 F.3d 666, 668-69 (10thCir. 1999). See also United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 199, 124 S.Ct. 1628, 1632-33, 158 L.Ed.2d 420 (2004) (“[25 U.S.C. § 1301] says that it ‘recognize[s] and affirm[s]’ in each tribe the ‘inherent’ tribal power … to prosecute nonmember Indians for misdemeanors.”).

New Mexico Federal Court Rejects Criminal Convict’s Request for Downward Variance in Sentence; Challenge to Major Crimes Act as Racial Classification

Here are materials in United States v. Jojola (D.N.M.):

Of course, if SCOTUS goes the wrong way in Brackeen, this case and hundreds will go much differently.

Federal Court Rejects Fourth Amendment and Double Jeopardy Challenges to Federal Prosecution for Robbery at Red Lake Subsequent to Tribal Prosecution

Here are the materials in United States v. Stately (D. Minn.):

1 Indictment

39 Motion to Suppress

40 Motion to Suppress

43 Motion to Suppress

50 Government’s Response

52 Government’s Response

118 Motion to Dismiss

129 Memorandum re Motion to Suppress

130 Memorandum re Motion to Suppress

134 Memorandum re Motion to Dismiss

138 Government’s Response to 118

139 Government’s Response to 40

140 Government’s Response to 43

141 Memorandum in Support of 118

142 Magistrate Report

144 Objections

148 Government’s Response

149 Objections

153 Government’s Response

158 Reply

161 DCT Order