United States v. Zepeda

Perhaps as Many as Three Ninth Circuit Indian Criminal Cases Uncertain as Feds Ponder En Banc Petition in U.S. v. Zepeda

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Today, the Ninth Circuit withdrew an opinion affirming a conviction in United States v. Alvirez. The Alvirez materials are here. The Zepeda materials are here. The federal government has until April 18 to file an en banc petition. A third decision that may be implicated as well is United States v. PMB (materials here).

The issue in Zepeda is here:

The panel held that a Certificate of Enrollment in an Indian tribe, entered into evidence through the parties’ stipulation, is insufficient evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is an Indian for purposes of § 1153, where the government offers no evidence that the defendant’s bloodline is derived from a federally recognized tribe.

Ninth Circuit Reverses Another Conviction under Zepeda (Tribal CDIB Insufficient Evidence of Indian Status)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is yesterday’s unpublished order in United States v. PMB.

The Zepeda post is here.

Split Ninth Circuit Orders Federal Prosecutors to Prove Federal Recognition Status of Tribes in Major Crimes Act Prosecutions…

Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

… to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Here are the materials in United States v. Zepeda:

CA9 opinion

CA9 memorandum (related opinion on other issues)

Zepeda Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Zepeda Reply Brief

US Supplemental Brief

Zepeda Supplemental Brief

The court’s summary:

The panel reversed jury convictions under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, which provides for federal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by Indians in Indian country.
The panel held that whether a given tribe is federally recognized, as required for jurisdiction under § 1153, is a question of fact for the jury, not a question of law for the court; and rejected the government’s request that this court take judicial notice of the Bureau of Indian Affairs’s list of federally recognized tribes in 2008 and 2010.
The panel held that a Certificate of Enrollment in an Indian tribe, entered into evidence through the parties’ stipulation, is insufficient evidence for a rational juror to find beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant is an Indian for purposes of § 1153, where the government offers no evidence that the defendant’s bloodline is derived from a federally recognized tribe.
Dissenting, Judge Watford would hold that federal recognition of an Indian tribe is a question of law for the court to resolve.