Denezpi v. United States Background Materials

Merits Stage Materials

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Amicus Brief

US Brief

NIWRC & NCAI Amicus Brief

Scholars Amicus Brief

States Amicus Brief

Tribal Governments Amicus Brief

Cert Stage Materials

Cert Petition


United States’ Brief in Opposition

Tenth Circuit Materials

United States v Denezpi Tenth Circuit Opinion

Denezpi Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Reply Brief

District Court Materials

1 Indictment

1-1 Criminal Information Sheet

14 DCT Detention Order

29 Denezpi Motion to Dismiss

29-1 CFR Pleadings

30 US Response

31 Reply

31-1 CFR Court Forms

32 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds

Tenth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Ute Juveniles for Church Burning

Here is the opinion in U.S. v. Doe. An excerpt:

Defendants’ appeals center on the definition of “person” in 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a)’s phrase: “Any Indian who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person any of the following offenses ….“ (emphasis added). First, defendants argue that context and statutory construction dictate that “person” is restricted to only living individuals. Second, and alternatively, defendants contend that at its broadest, “person” can only include living individuals or corporations, public and private. Under this definition, defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the arson victim was a corporation. Third, defendants argue that the district court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecution to reopen its cases to present evidence related to the corporate status of the arson victim. Fourth, defendants argue that the charging information was insufficient because it failed to provide sufficient identification of the arson victim and its status.

The court actually split on what definition to use to define “person” — the Major Crimes Act or the Dictionary Act. either way, the entire panel reached the same result.