State v. Shale

Commentary on State of Washington v. Shale Decision

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Critical commentary, I might add. From the King County Bar Association Law Bulletin:

State v Shale – Supreme Court Moves Washington in the Wrong Tribal Direction

A somewhat random excerpt:

The Court’s opinion is primarily based on its wholly mistaken belief that when Public Law 280 was passed by Congress in the 1950s and enacted and amended by Washington in the 1960s, “neither this state nor the federal government would have understood that one tribe’s court could have jurisdiction over members of another tribe.” To reach that conclusion, the Court relied upon Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), where the U.S. Supreme Court held a tribe no longer possessed the authority to prosecute a “nonmember Indian.”

Washington SCT Decides State v. Shale, State Criminal Jurisdiction under PL280 over Nonmember Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

We posted briefs here.

Criticism of the reasoning behind the decision is coming fast and furious. Here is Anthony Broadman’s take.

Washington Appellate Briefs in Yakama Member’s Challenge to State Court Jurisdiction over Crime on Quinault Land

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in State v. Shale (Wash. App.):

446545-Appellant’s Brief

446545-Respondent’s Brief

UPDATE (additional briefs):

Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

State’s Response to Appellant’s Supplemental Brief

Appellant’s Supplemental Reply Brief

Prosecuting Attorneys Amicus Brief

Appellant’s Response to Amicus

WAPA Supplemental Brief

Washington AG Amicus Brief