Here are the materials (unpublished opinion):
Ninth Circuit
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Challange to Mont. SCT Decision in Unauthorized Law Practice in Blackfeet Tribal Court
Here are the materials in O’Neil v. State of Montana (unpublished opinion):
Tribal Materials in Arizona Voter ID/Citizenship Case
Yesterday, a deeply divided panel of the Ninth Circuit (which included Justice O’Connor in the majority, and Chief Judge Kozinski the dissenter) struck down the Arizona statute requiring persons to provide documentary evidence of citizenship before registering to vote. Here is the opinion in Gonzalez v. State of Arizona.
And here are the tribal materials only (there were many, many briefs):
Ninth Circuit Panel Issues Amended Order in Colville Death Penalty Case
Well, it’s complicated. Colville has not reinstated the death penalty in accordance with the Federal Death Penalty Act, which removes capital murder from the Major Crimes Act unless the tribe “reinstates” it. But apparently a split panel of the Ninth Circuit held (and holds) that federal prosecutors can still pursue the crime of capital murder under the Major Crimes Act, they just can’t impose the death penalty. And the CA9 panel majority says that therefore the 5-year statute of limitations for capital crimes is therefore waived. Interesting. Here is the opinion (and the earlier opinion).
The majority panel writes:
If we were to limit the federal statute of limitations for murder to five years when a tribe has not opted to permit imposition of the death penalty against its members under the Federal Death Penalty Act, we would in fact be limiting sovereignty by burdening the choice created by the Act. “[T]here is typically no statute of limitations for first-degree murder — for the obvious reason that it would be intolerable to let a cold-blooded murderer escape justice through the mere passage of time . . . .” United States v. Quinones, 196 F. Supp. 2d 416, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), rev’d on other grounds, 313 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Story v. State, 721 P.2d 1020, 1026-27 (Wyo. 1986) (stating that no state has adopted a limitations period for murder). If the statute of limitations for murder were to shorten so dramatically as a consequence of a tribe’s decision not to reinstate the death penalty, tribal governments would be forced to choose between capital punishment — to which they may have religious or political objections — and justice for the most heinous of crimes.
Judge Tashima disagreed:
Ninth Circuit Concludes Winnemucca Council Dispute
The court’s unpublished opinion in Bank of America v. Swanson is here.
Here are the materials:
An excerpt:
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Appeal of U.S. v. Washington Subproceeding (Lower Elwah v. Lummi)
Here is the unpublished opinion. The underlying dispute apparently is the usual and accustomed fishing area of the Lummi Indian Tribe.
Here are the materials:
Ninth Circuit Denies Attorney Fees to Winnemucca in Nuclear Fallout Case
Here is the unpublished opinion in Winnemucca Indian Community v. United States. And the materials:
Federal Court Denies Habeas Relief to Navajo Man Sentenced to Death (over Navajo Nation’s Wishes)
Some of you might remember this case — the Ninth Circuit’s opinion affirming the death sentence was a big part of the discussion at the FBA Indian Law Conference three years back — US v Mitchell CA9 Opinion.
Here is the district court order on habeas review: Order Denying Mitchell Habeas Relief
The Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 USC 3598, requires federal prosecutors to seek tribal concurrence on the death penalty before seeking the sentence for Indian country crime committed by tribal members. So the Ashcroft Dept. of Justice sought the death penalty under a different jurisdictional statute, and successfully avoided the tribal concurrence provision.
Ninth Circuit Rejects Nisqually Challenge to Frank’s Landing Indian Community Tax Agreement
Here are the materials in Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire (opinion here):
Frank’s Landing Indian Community Answer Brief
Frank’s Landing Supplemental Brief
Squaxin Island Supplemental Brief
Lower court materials here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms SORNA Conviction (Major Crimes Act is Underlying Conviction)
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. George.
An excerpt:
Defendant-Appellant Phillip William George (“George”) was convicted of the federal crime of sexual abuse of a minor on an Indian reservation in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2243(a)and 1153. He served his sentence for that offense, but then he failed to register as a sex offender in violation of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2250. He was convicted of that offense in 2008, pursuant to a conditional guilty plea, and now appeals that conviction. He contends his conviction is invalid because the state where he was required to register, Washington, had not implemented SORNA. He also argues SORNA’s registration requirement is an invalid exercise of congressional power and violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.
You must be logged in to post a comment.