United States v. Diaz

Tenth Circuit Affirms General Crimes Act Conviction at Pojoaque Pueblo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Diaz. And the briefs:

Diaz Opening Brief

US Response Brief

Diaz Reply Brief

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.

Another Federal Court Order on Former Employment and Indian Status of Defense Attorney in Indian Criminal Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in United States v. Tsosie (D. N.M.):

DCT Order on Winder Conduct.

This is similar to an earlier order in 2010 in United States v. Diaz (D. N.M.). In both cases, Sam Winder, the defense attorney, may note his own status as an Indian and a former AUSA during jury voir dire.

Update on Federal Motion re: Indian Status of Defense Counsel in Criminal Trial

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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 →

Does Indian Status or Former Employment of Defense Counsel Constitute Prejudicial Evidence in a Criminal Trial?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

You be the judge (here’s the federal government’s motion in U.S. v. Diaz, via Indianz).

An excerpt:

On at least one occasion, defense counsel has referenced his former employment as an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of New Mexico during oral argument before this Court. The United States asserts that defense counsel should not be permitted to make a similar argument before the jury. If he is so permitted, a jury may erroneously conclude that defense counsel is a voice of authority with respect to the appropriateness of the decisions, rules and procedures, or protocol involved in the charging decisions made by the Department of Justice.