Here:
Pueblo of Pojoaque RFP for Legal Services
Here:
Here:
Link to Santa Fe Register article by Steven Hsieh here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Diaz. And the briefs:
An excerpt:
Linda Diaz was convicted of knowingly leaving the scene of a car accident where she hit and killed a pedestrian. The accident occurred on the Pojoajue Pueblo Indian reservation. She was charged with committing a crime in Indian Country under 18 U.S.C. § 1152. On appeal, among other issues, Diaz contends the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the crime because the government failed to prove that the victim was not an Indian, a jurisdictional requirement under § 1152.
We conclude the government met its burden of proof. The testimony of the victim’s father provided enough evidence for a jury to conclude the victim was not an Indian for purposes of the statute. We also conclude the district court did not err in its rulings on various other evidentiary and trial issues.
Here is the order — US v Diaz Order on Motion in Limine
It reads in relevant part:
Defense Counsel will be permitted to mention his former employment as well as his status as a Native American, during the voir dire process, but not during any other portion of the trial.
The government motion is here.
News coverage from Indianz (and H/T):
A federal judge says an attorney can talk about his status as an Indian and can mention his prior work as a federal prosecutor during jury selection for the trial of a Pueblo leader. Continue reading
Here is the New Mexico Court of Appeal’s opinion in Martinez v. City of Gold Casino, owned by the Pojoaque Pueblo. The New Mexico Supreme Court recently declined to review this case. It’s a bit confusing. It seems to hold that the Pueblo, and the Buffalo Thunder Development Authority have not waived immunity from suit, but that the Pojoaque Gaming, Inc. (PGI) entity has. And that the petitioner, Martinez, was fired only after he brought a worker’s comp claim in the state system. The court orders PGI to rehire Martinez to a job similar to his old one, while acknowledging that the Pojoaque gaming regulators probably won’t give him his gaming license back.
Here is the opinion in Garcia v. Gutierrez, from the New Mexico Supreme Court (Garcia v Gutierrez — NM SCT Opinion). An excerpt:
In this case—a divorce and custody dispute between an Indian father and a non-Indian mother whose children are enrolled members of the Pojoaque Pueblo—state and tribal courts have entered conflicting decrees. Regrettably, complete resolution of that conflict lies beyond our reach.
What we can do, however, is conclude that the state court does have jurisdiction. The tribal court—given the importance of the Pueblo’s children to its culture and its future—likely has jurisdiction; and neither is exclusive of the other. As has long been the tradition in New Mexico, the state and tribal courts must share jurisdiction under principles of comity and work out their differences, guided by universally accepted principles of doing what is in the best interests of the children. See Fox v. Doak, 78 N.M. 743, 744, 438 P.2d 153, 154 (1968) (“In making [a child-custody determination, a court’s] controlling influence should be the welfare and best interests of the child.”).
Thanks to T.L.M. for the head’s up.
The Federal Bar Association’s Indian Law Conference save the date postcard is in the mail. Here is thedescription on the postcard (which is linked below the fold):
For the first time in its history, the annual Federal Bar Association Indian Law Conference will take place in a tribal community just outside of Santa Fe, N.M., at Pojoaque Pueblo’s Buffalo Thunder Resort. We celebrate this historic move as an opportunity for reflection on the relationship between federal Indian law and Indian communities, particularly in an era of political change and promise.
The case is captioned Garcia v. Gutierrez (opinion). The issue was stated by the New Mexico Court of Appeals as such:
This case comes before us on appeal from a partial final order pursuant to a divorce between Angelina Garcia and Matthew Gutierrez. Gutierrez, who is a member of the Pueblo of Pojoaque, argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised in the petition as a matter of state law and that, even if the district court did have such jurisdiction under our state statutes, its exercise of jurisdiction was improper as a matter of federal Indian law. As we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction over those issues raised in the petition for dissolution of marriage that were unrelated to child custody, we affirm the district court’s order as to those issues. The question of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the custody dispute requires this Court to determine whether land owned in fee by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a pueblo is considered part of a “tribe” for purposes of determining the “home state” of a child under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), NMSA 1978, Sections 40-10A-101 to -403 (2001). As we conclude that such land is part of the tribe as that term is used in the UCCJEA, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the children in this case had no home state and in finding that it, rather than the tribal court, had jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the district court as to the custody matters and remand so that those claims may be dismissed.
Next year’s conference will be April 1-3, 2009, at Buffalo Thunder!
Here is a nice profile of the facility: Indian Gaming Magazine, October 2008 Profile
Thanks to Mike McBride.