Here is the opinion in United States v. Downwind.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Criminal Sentence in Red Lake Reservation Robbery
Here is the opinion in United States v. Downwind.
Major Crimes Act
UND Panel Discussion on Native American Sentencing Disparity and the Case of Dana Deegan
Looks like an amazing discussion. Here. We posted on this case here.
The UND School of Law will host a panel discussion featuring Federal Judge Myron H. Bright on October 14, 2013 from 1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. UND School of Law Baker Courtroom. The panelists will discuss the topic of Native American sentencing disparity and specifically the case of Dana Deegan. She is a member of the Three Affiliated Tribes, and is currently serving a 10-year sentence on a charge of second-degree murder.
Schedule of Speakers:
1:30 – 2:00 p.m. – Overview of the Disparity Problem and its Origins
BJ Jones, Director, Tribal Judicial Institute & Chief Justice of the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court of Appeals
Chris Ironroad, Associate Attorney at Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP
2:00 – 3:00 p.m. – Impact of Disparity on Native Americans- The Case of Dana Deegan
Judge Myron H. Bright, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Judge David E. Ackerson, St. Louis County, Minnesota
Sarah Deer, Assistant Professor of Law, William Mitchell College of Law
Marmie Jotter, sister of Dana Deegan and licensed psychotherapist
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit – Appeal of Dana Deegan Case
3:00 – 3:30 p.m. – How the Guidelines Unfairly Treat Domestic Violence Victims
Radmilla Cody- Ms. Navajo Nation 1997-98 and recording artist
Light refreshments will be served during the event
Ninth Circuit Issues Amended Opinion in Zepeda — Same Outcome, Different Reasoning
Here are the new materials:
Zepeda Response to En Banc Petition
From Judge Watford’s now-much-shortened dissent:
I agree with much of the majority’s analysis, particularly its conclusion that whether a tribe has been recognized by the federal government is a question of law. But I disagree with the majority’s ultimate determination that the government failed to present sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that Zepeda has a blood connection to a federally recognized tribe. Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979), a rational jury could certainly infer that the reference in Zepeda’s tribal enrollment certificate to “1/4 Tohono O’Odham” is a reference to the federally recognized Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona.
Panel materials are here.
Materials on affected appeals are here.
New Scholarship on Major Crimes Act Prosecutions, Tribal Sovereignty, and Jury Vicinage & Venue Selection
Shannon Rogers has published “Comment: Giving Meaning to Empty Words: Promoting Tribal Self-Governance by Narrowing the Scope of Jury Vicinage and Venue Selection in MCA Adjudications” in the Wyoming Law Review.
An excerpt:
A practical step to solving the federal-tribal disconnect and involving the Indian community is to narrow the MCA adjudication procedures. As discussed below, the MCA, unlike any other criminal statute, explicitly draws geographic and racial-political boundaries. The adjudication process, through venue and jury venire selection reform, needs to be limited in consideration of the MCA’s constraints. This comment discusses two proposals for modifying MCA adjudications to better involve the Indian community: (1) moving the venue for MCA adjudications closer to the Indian community, and (2) shrinking the jury venire used. To exemplify these proposals, the discussion herein focuses on Wyoming because the state geography, proximity of the federal courts to the reservation, and tribal population provide a perfect case study for general issues faced in MCA prosecutions. The ultimate intent of this comment is to highlight the practical implications of ignoring venue problems and the over-inclusion of non-Indians in MCA adjudications. In doing so, the proposals presented in this comment will help further the federal government’s policy of self-governance for tribes.
Update in Carnel Chamberlain Murder Prosecution — Motion to Change Venue to Detroit Denied
Here are the materials in United States v. Bennett (E.D. Mich.):
11 Bennett First Superceding Indictment
Ninth Circuit Withdraws Zepeda Opinion
Here. The order:
The opinion in this case filed on January 18, 2013, and reported at 705 F.3d 1052 is hereby withdrawn. The opinion shall not be cited as precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. The court will file a new opinion in due course. As the court’s opinion is withdrawn, the government’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc is moot.
Materials in this case and related cases are here.
Fourth Circuit Affirms Major Crimes Act Murder Conviction Arising on Eastern Band Cherokee Reservation
Here is the opinion in United States v. Lespier.
Prisoner Challenge to Major Crimes Act under 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie Fails
Materials in Federal DV Prosecution under Major Crimes Act (Colville)
Here are the materials so far in United States v. Flett (E.D. Wash.):
An excerpt:
On June 5, 2012, Tommie Joe Flett allegedly assaulted his estranged girlfriend at a residence that is located within the boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation. The Colville Confederated Tribes charged Mr. Flett in tribal court with violations of tribal law. On August 24, 2012, Mr. Flett pleaded guilty in tribal court to the crime of “Battery (Domestic Violence).” During the process, he allegedly admitted assaulting his estranged girlfriend on June 5, 2012. The tribal judge sentenced Mr. Flett to a term of 360 days incarceration with credit for time served. The matter did not end there. The United States sought, and obtained, an indictment charging Mr. Flett with violations [2] of federal law. The federal indictment is based upon the same conduct that the 2012 tribal conviction is based upon. Counts one, two, and three allege Mr. Flett committed the crime of assault in Indian Country.18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a)and113(a). Count four alleges he is subject to enhanced punishment based upon prior domestic violence convictions.18 U.S.C. § 117(a). The parties have filed a number of pretrial motions.
Montana Lawyer Article on the Zepeda Case
Here, see pages 28-30.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.