Interesting, and a case to watch. The government is attempting to prove a recidivist element of the crime (domestic violence) through use of two or more uncounseled tribal court convictions. Lower court materials here.
Here is the opening brief: US Appellant Brief in Shavanaux.
Here are the materials in Breakthrough Management Group v. Chukchansi Gold Casino and Resort:
BMG v Chukchansi Lower Court Orders
Lower court briefs here.
The case is United States v. Warrior, and here is the unpublished opinion.
The case apparently involves the Tonkawa Tribe of Oklahoma.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Saupitty.
An excerpt:
While serving as the Tax Commissioner of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (the “Tribe”), Ms. Saupitty diverted tribal tax revenues to a bank account she established without the Tribe’s knowledge and that she solely controlled. Over a two-year period, she withdrew all of the Tribe’s funds from that account–more than $100,000–which she used to pay for her personal expenses, among other things. She was sentenced to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release, restitution of $107,627.65, and 104 hours ofcommunity service.
Here is the opinion in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Oklahoma Tax Commission.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
If you didn’t notice, the Tenth Circuit declined to grant a motion to file an amicus brief drafted by Sarah Krakoff and signed by several American Indian law professors in the HRI case. The court wrote:
Pending before the court are several motions seeking leave to file amicus briefs. Because the movants possess an adequate interest and present arguments that are useful to this court, we grant the motions of the Pueblos of Santa Clara, Sandia, Isleta, and Zia and the United Nuclear Corporation. We deny the motion of the American Indian Law Professors for leave to file an amicus brief only because granting the motion would cause one or more members of this court to recuse themselves from the matter. See 16AA Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 3975, at 318-19 (4th ed. 2008) (“Some circuits will restrict amicus filings in order to avoid disqualifying a member … of the en banc court….”). The states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming also filed an amicus brief, which Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) allows them to do without requesting the leave of this court.
Other than this oblique reference to Wright and Miller, there is no explanation for why one or more judges would have to recuse themselves from this matter.
Very troubling (but at least the Pueblo brief was accepted).
Here is the opinion of the Tenth Circuit sitting en banc. Five judges dissented. [Updated link here.]
Here are the en banc supplemental briefs:
Navajo Nation Supplemental Brief
American Indian Law Profs Amicus Brief [The court denied the motion to file this amicus brief. See opinion at 25 n. 7]
Our posting on the panel decision is here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.