Story is here. The trial is scheduled to last a week.
Previous coverage (and links to other related material) is here.
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Dori McGeshick, a tribal employee, helped administer a federal grant to build 11 new homes on a Native American reservation. Tasked with acquiring appliances for the new homes, McGeshick took the opportunity to improve her lifestyle, using federal funds to buy $13,000 worth of high‐end appliances for her own home. After a bench trial, the district court convicted her of the offense of theft by an employee of an Indian tribal government, see 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), and sentenced her to 15 months’ imprisonment. On appeal McGeshick argues that the district court clearly erred when it found that she had abused a position of trust. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Because she was entrusted with considerable discretion and responsibility, we affirm.
Here.
Briefs:
Wisconsin’s Brief and Motion to Strike
Tribes’ Response to Motion to Strike
Previous material is here.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed a trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Lincoln in Forest County Potawatomi and Sokoagon Chippewa Community v. Town of Lincon (H/T Indianz). From the opinion:
The Forest County Potawatomi Community and the Sokaogon Chippewa Community (the Tribes) appeal a summary judgment dismissing their claim against the Township of Lincoln (the Town) for excessive tax on two forty-acre parcels in Crandon, Wisconsin. The Tribes challenged the assessed value of the land – land often referred to as the Crandon mine site. The assessment was based on a Department of Revenue analysis of an April 2003 sale of the mining company that owned the land. The circuit court concluded the sale was a recent arm’s-length sale of the property. The court declined to consider other factors the Tribes claimed affected the land’s value.
We conclude the sale of the mining company included not just the two forty-acre parcels but also substantial other land and company assets. The transaction was therefore not a sale of “the property.” We further conclude this is “significant contrary evidence,” which rebuts the presumption in favor of the
Town’s assessment. Accordingly, the circuit court erred by failing to consider the Tribes’ evidence of the land’s value. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.