Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Video in Lezmond Mitchell Appeal

Here:

Federal Government Sets Execution Date for Lezmond Mitchell

Here is “Justice Department sets execution date for only Native American on death row.”

Here is the most recent opinion in his case, where two Ninth Circuit judges questioned his sentence.

Below is a statement from counsel for Mr. Mitchell. Deputy Federal Public Defenders Jonathan Aminoff and Celeste Bacchi:
“With the enactment of the Federal Death Penalty Act, Congress made a commitment to the Native American peoples that no Native American would be subjected to the death penalty for a crime committed against a fellow Native American on Native American land unless the tribe consented. In what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals referred to as a “betrayal of a promise made to the Navajo Nation,” the Department of Justice exploited a legal loophole and sought the death penalty against Mr. Mitchell for the federal crime of carjacking over the objection of the Navajo Nation, the victims’ family, and the local United States Attorney’s Office. The federal government’s announcement that it now plans to execute Lezmond Mitchell demonstrates the ultimate disrespect for the Navajo Nation’s values and sovereignty.
The Government’s contravention of tribal autonomy did not end with the decision to pursue a death sentence against Mr. Mitchell. In addition to the charging decision, the Government committed misconduct in the course of this prosecution by confining Mr. Mitchell in a tribal jail where they continually interrogated him over the course of 25 days without providing him an attorney. Furthermore, the Government systematically excluded Navajos from serving on Mr. Mitchell’s jury, resulting in a jury composed of 11 white people and only one Navajo. Unfortunately, we have been barred from investigating concerns of juror bias amongst Mr. Mitchell’s jury. Under these circumstances, allowing Mr. Mitchell’s execution to go forward would be a grave injustice and an unprecedented affront to tribal sovereignty, and it should not be permitted to proceed. We will continue to pursue all available avenues of relief for Mr. Mitchell from his unconstitutional convictions and death sentence.”

 

-Deputy Federal Public Defenders Jonathan Aminoff and Celeste Bacchi, attorneys for Lezmond Mitchell

-July 29, 2020

NCAI/NIWRC Amicus Briefs in Support of Federal Cert Petition in U.S. v. Cooley

Here:

NCAI Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

Cert petition here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama Nation Reservation Boundaries Case

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Klickitat County :

Yakama Opening Brief

County Opening Brief

US Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Banishment of Federal Offender from Browning, MT

Here is the opinion in United States v. Many White Horses.

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Lummi Tribe U& A

Here are the materials in United States v. Washington, subproceeding 11-02 (W.D. Wash.):

Lummi Tribe Brief

Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Kllalam Tribes Brief

Tulalip Brief

Lower Elwha Tribe Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

This case presents the question whether the State of Washington may exercise criminal jurisdiction over members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation who commit crimes on reservation land. To answer that question, we must interpret a 2014 Washington State Proclamation that retroceded—that is, gave back—“in part,” civil and criminal jurisdiction over the Yakama Nation to the United States, but retained criminal jurisdiction over matters “involving non-Indian defendants and non-Indian victims.” If “and,” as used in that sentence, is conjunctive, then the State retained jurisdiction only over criminal cases in which no party—suspects or victims—is an Indian. If, by contrast, “and” is disjunctive and should be read as “or,” then the State retained jurisdiction if any party is a non-Indian. We conclude, based on the entire context of the Proclamation, that “and” is disjunctive and must be read as “or.” We therefore affirm the district court.

Briefs here. Oral argument video here.

United States Petitions for Cert in Case Involving Tribal Police Authority to Detain Non-Indians

Here is the cert petition in United States v. Cooley:

Cert Petition

Question presented:

Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.

Lower court materials here.

Update:

NCAI Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

Waiver of Response

Ninth Circuit Briefs in SPRAWLDEF v. Guidiville Rancheria of California [Rule 19]

Here:

Guidiville Opening Brief

SPRAWLDEF Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Decides Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States [leadership dispute]

Here is the unpublished opinion in Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States.

Briefs here.