Major Crimes Act

Michigan Indian Country Crime Report

Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Man Sentenced For Murder on Indian Reservation (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan – http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/)
Daniel Lawrence Fuller, 31, of Mount Pleasant Mich., was sentenced to 300 months in prison and five years supervised release for second degree murder on March 22, 2012.  Fuller pleaded guilty to the charge on Dec. 7, 2012.  The evidence at the plea hearing established that on July 10, 2010, Fuller strangled his sister, Iva Joy Fuller, to death on the Isabella Reservation.
 
Man Sentenced for Shooting Gun Inside House on Indian Reservation (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan – http://www.justice.gov/usao/mie/)
Gonnzalo Alaniz Jr., 44, of Mount Pleasant, Mich., was sentenced to 14 months in prison and two years of supervised release on March 22, 2012.  Alaniz was sentenced in connection to his guilty plea on Oct. 11, 2011. The evidence at the plea hearing established that on Feb. 23, 2011, Alaniz discharged a firearm on the Isabella Reservation after having previously been convicted of a felony.  

Habeas Petition of Indian Country DV Offender Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in Shillingstad v. United States (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Denying Shillingstad Motion

The appeal of the original conviction is here:

Shillingstad CA8 Opinion

Ninth Circuit Holds that Indian Juveniles Convicted of Sex-Related Delinquency Crimes Must Register under SORNA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Juvenile Male.

An excerpt:

Three juvenile defendants, each of whom is a member of an Indian Tribe and who pleaded true to a charge of aggravated sexual abuse with children, appeal their conditions of probation or supervision requiring registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16901 et seq. Defendants argue that SORNA’s registration requirement contravenes the confidentiality provisions of the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. § 5031 et seq., and also challenge its constitutionality. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Because we conclude that Congress, in enacting SORNA, intentionally carved out a class of juveniles from the FJDA’s confidentiality provisions, and that SORNA’s registration requirement is constitutionally sound, we affirm the district courts’ imposition of the sex offender registration conditions.

Ninth Circuit Decides Another Major Crimes Act “Indian Status” Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Juvenile Male. The oral argument audio is here.

An excerpt from the opinion:

A juvenile male appeals the district court’s determination that he is an “Indian” under 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which provides federal criminal jurisdiction for certain crimes committed by  Indians in Indian country. The juvenile claims that he does not identify as Indian, and is not socially recognized as Indian by other tribal members. Nonetheless, he is an enrolled tribal member, has received tribal assistance, and has used his membership to obtain tribal benefits. Because the juvenile is Indian by blood and easily meets three of the most important factors used to evaluate tribal recognition laid out in United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), he is an “Indian” under § 1153, and we uphold his conviction.

While the case is under seal, we do have a redacted version of the opening brief:

Juvenile Opening Brief Redacted October 19, 2011

Is a Tribal Officer a Federal Officer under the Major Crimes Act?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

The question here is whether an assault on a tribal officer can be prosecuted as an assault on a federal officer under the Major Crimes Act. The court concluded that whether the tribal cop is a federal cop must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here is the Court’s opinion in United States v. Danley.

Tenth Circuit Vacates Sentence in Major Crimes Act Conviction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Sentences of Navajo Members in Manslaughter Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Talk.

Eighth Circuit, Over a Dissent, Affirms 48-Year Sentence for Indian Juvenile Convicted of Murder

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the court’s opinion in United States v. Boneshirt.

A lengthy excerpt from the dissent:

As a longtime federal judge, I have seen and reviewed scores of cases in which Indian males have been convicted of assaultive crimes, including murder. Alcohol has played a substantial role in the crime in almost every one of those cases. See, e.g., United States v. Jensen, 423 F.3d 851, 853 (8th Cir. 2005), United States v. LeClair, 338 F.3d 882, 884–85 (8th Cir. 2003), United States v. Emeron Taken Alive, 262 F.3d 711, 712 (8th Cir. 2001). And alcohol obviously played a major role in the unfortunate homicide of Ms. Walking Eagle. Yet the sentencing judge chose a sentence well above the average sentence for murder when, in context, the circumstances were not outside of the usual, serious crime by an adult male Indian, particularly on a reservation.

In addition, the district court did not take into consideration Boneshirt’s life expectancy. The sentencing judge specifically expressed the desire to protect the public by ensuring that Boneshirt would be an old man when he was released: “the Court believes that there is just too much of a risk with Mr. Boneshirt being a part of society before the point where he’s of a very mature age.” However, the district court did not properly consider Boneshirt’s background as a Native American male, who has a life expectancy of fifty-eight years. See Christopher J. L. Murray et al., Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and RaceCounties in the United States, 3 PLoS Med. 1513, 1514 (2006) “Native American males in the cluster of Bennet, Jackson, Mellette, Shannon, Todd, and Washabaugh Counties in South Dakota had a life expectancy of 58 [years] in 1997–2001 . . . .”). Even if he earns all of his good time credit, which the district court was not optimistic about, he will still serve more than forty years in prison. The district court anticipated Boneshirt would be an old man when he was released, but in reality he may be a dead man.

LaBuff v. United States Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

LaBuff Petition for Certiorari dated August 26, 2011

Lower court materials here.

Here are the questions presented:

1. Has the Ninth Circuit, contrary to United States v. Rogers, erroneously minimized consideration of the undisputed facts that petitioner is not socially recognized as an Indian, does not participate in Indian social life, and does not hold himself out as an Indian and thereby created a conflict with the Eighth Circuit?

2. Did the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that petitioner is an Indian person where he is not a member of a tribe, is not socially recognized as an Indian, does not participate in Indian social life, and does not hold himself out as an Indian?

Ninth Circuit Decides Indian Status Case Under Major Crimes Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

I’m still trying to understand how a reasonable jury of non-Indians can decided beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act. 🙂

Here are the materials in United States v. LaBuff:

LaBuff CA9 Opinion

LaBuff Opening Brief

US Answer Brief — LaBuff

LaBuff Reply

The court originally decided this case without publishing the opinion, but the government successfully petitioned the court to published it. Here are those materials. A cert petition is pending (docket no. 11-6168, definitely one to watch!):

US Request to Publish

LaBuff Opposition

Update with additional Ninth Circuit materials:

Doc 27 Objection filed October 18, 2011