Federal Court Refuses to Suppress Statements Made to FBI under Advice of Tribal Court Lay Advocate

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

Chase Alone Magistrate R&R

Chase Alone Objection

DCT Order on Chase Alone R&R

Apparently under the Red Bird case, a tribal lay advocate is not “counsel” under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, so any statements made to the FBI after a tribal criminal defendant is represented by a lay advocate are not required to be suppressed.

New Sixth Amendment Case Out of Indian Country re: Lay Counsel and Miranda

Here is yet another case holding that the appointment of tribal lay advocates/counsel to defend an Indian in tribal court does not trigger Sixth Amendment protections under Miranda.



Here is an important footnote in the R&R (n. 4):

There is a split of authority among the circuits as to whether, in cases involving an allegation of a Sixth Amendment violation, the Texas v. Cobb decision incorporates the full panoply of double jeopardy analysis–specifically the dual sovereign analysis–or whether only the Blockburger test applies. This would be of significance where, for example, state and federal officials charged a defendant with offenses having identical elements. If the defendant had already appeared in state court and asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and federal officials subsequently interrogated the defendant before the institution of federal charges with the same essential elements as the state charges, courts disagree on whether this would constitute a Sixth Amendment violation. See United States v. Coker, 433 F.3d 39, 43 (1st Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit does not apply the dual sovereign analysis to allegations of Sixth Amendment violations. United States v. Mills, 412 F.3d 325 (2d Cir. 2005). The Eighth Circuit is in accord with this approach at least where the other sovereign is an Indian tribe. See Red Bird, 287 F.3d at 715. The First and Fifth Circuits apply the dual sovereign analysis to Sixth Amendment violations. See Coker, 433 F.3d at 43; United States v. Avants, 278 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2002).

US v. Wells — Motion to Suppress Statements Made to Tribal Police and FBI

In this case, the District of South Dakota denied a motion to suppress statements made at the Oglala Sioux Tribal Police Department to tribal police and FBI agents.