Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

At a tribal housing complex in Peever, South Dakota, defendant stabbed two men, killing one. Defendant was subsequently convicted of first degree murder and aggravated assault and sentenced to life imprisonment. At issue was whether the district court properly denied defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus where he challenged the state's jurisdiction to try him. The court held that the district court properly denied habeas corpus relief where the housing complex's land did not meet the Alaska v. Native Vill. of Venetie Tribal Gov't. test of being a "dependent Indian community." View "Owen v. Weber" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged for the offense of domestic assault by a habitual offender under 18 U.S.C. 117 and the district court dismissed the indictment because, although defendant had received prior misdemeanor abuse convictions in tribal court on three separate occasions, he had not received the benefit of appointed counsel in the proceedings that resulted in the convictions. At issue was whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments precluded the use of these prior tribal court misdemeanor convictions as predicate convictions to establish the habitual offender elements of section 117. The court noted an apparent inconsistency in several cases dealing with the use of arguably infirm prior judgments to establish guilt, trigger a sentencing enhancement, or determine a sentence for a subsequent offense. The court held that the predicate convictions in this case, valid at their inception, and not alleged to be otherwise unreliable, could be used to prove the elements of section 117. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Cavanaugh, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with assault resulting in serious bodily injury, occurring within the Colorado River Indian Tribes reservation in western Arizona. At issue was whether a district court could, over defense objection and after the administration of an unsuccessful Allen charge, inquire into the reasons for a trial jury's deadlock and then permit supplemental argument focused on those issues, where the issues in dispute were factual rather than legal. The court held that allowing such a procedure in a criminal trial was an abuse of the discretion accorded to the district courts in the management of jury deliberations. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "United States v. Evanston" on Justia Law

Defendant fired a rifle shot through the front grill of a government owned pickup truck in the custody of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) land assessor. After the court vacated his initial conviction of depredation of government property, a second jury found him guilty of the same charge, and the district court sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment, applying a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice because he perjured himself during his trial testimony. Defendant raised several issues on appeal. The court held that a retrial was entirely consistent with its mandate of its opinion vacating his first conviction; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for recusal; defendant suffered no prejudice from the challenged jury instruction and any error in the instruction was harmless; the district court's application of the enhancement was affirmed; and the term of imprisonment was affirmed. The court held, however, that special conditions 1, 2, and 5 were vacated where, because there was a complete lack of explanation for imposition of the condition, the error also substantially affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "United States v. Wisecarver" on Justia Law

Petitioner Charles Medicine Blanket unsuccessfully appealed his conviction on sexual assault charges. He sought the writ of habeas corpus from the Tenth Circuit to challenge the district court’s denial of his appeal. Though he committed his crimes in Colorado, Petitioner was arrested on the Rosebud Sioux Reservation in South Dakota, and was extradited back to Colorado to stand trial. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Petitioner argued that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was arrested with an "invalid" federal warrant, and then removed from the reservation without an extradition hearing. Furthermore, Petitioner alleged that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to challenge his arrest warrant and extradition. The district court concluded that Petitioner failed to exhaust "certain due process claims" in his state post-conviction proceedings before bringing his appeal to the district court. Specifically, Petitioner failed to pursue his due process claims through "one complete round of the state’s appellate process." Upon careful consideration of the record and the applicable legal authority, the Tenth Circuit concluded that Petitioner did not exhaust his due process claims in the lower courts, and as such, the lower courts were correct in denying him the relief he sought. View "Medicine Blanket v. Brill" on Justia Law

Appellant, the finance officer for the Standing Rock Housing Authority of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, pleaded guilty to theft concerning programs receiving federal funds and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 120 months imprisonment. At issue was whether the district court committed procedural error when it departed upwards from the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range, U.S.S.G. 4A1.3, and when it considered ethnicity and other improper factors during sentencing. Also at issue was whether the sentencing was substantively unreasonable. The court held that the district court did not engage in impermissible double counting by departing upwards to criminal history category IV where the district court discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of appellant, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities between similar defendants, and the need to provide restitution for the victims. The court also held that the sentence was substantively reasonable where any comments regarding race or national origin were not offered as an explanation for imposing sentence but reflected the district court's disagreement with appellant's counsel that the Guidelines were "fair" and that a Guidelines sentence of 70 to 87 months imprisonment was appropriate as a matter of law; where the district court's statements expressed its frustration about its inability to order restitution for an amount closer to the total loss of money rather than a comment on appellant's socio-economic status; and where the district court did not use appellant's lack of an addiction to justify the sentence, but rather to describe his state of mind as he carried out the embezzlement scheme.

A member of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community was convicted of destroying trees on the Ontonagon Reservation (18 U.S.C. 1853) and stealing tribal property for his own use (18 U.S.C. 1163). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the defendant had a right to use the land as chief of the Ontonagon Band and that his sentence was improper because he did not receive an acceptance of responsibility reduction. Federal law does not recognize a separate Ontonagon Band; the land is held by the government in trust for the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Merely expressing regret for the consequences of criminal conduct, without admitting wrongful intent, does not constitute acceptance of responsibility within the meaning of the Guidelines. The court acted within its discretion in imposing a restitution requirement of $47,200.

Appellant, an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, pled guilty to assault with a dangerous weapon in Indian Country in violation of 18 U.S.C. 113(a)(3) and 1153 and was sentenced to 36 months imprisonment followed by 3 years supervised release. At issue was whether the government failed to establish compliance with Articles I and V of the Fort Laramie Treaty, 15 Stat. 635, between the United States and different Tribes of Sioux Indians which deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over his case. The court affirmed the judgment and held that even if Articles I and V of the treaty could reasonably be construed as establishing a jurisdictional requirement at the time the treaty was executed, Congress's subsequent grant of citizenship to the Indians makes them subject to all restrictions to which any citizen was subject and was evidence of clear indication to abrogate any contrary treat provisions.

The defendant was convicted of being a spectator at a cockfight that occurred in Indian Country, in violation of the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 13, (assimilating Oklahoma law criminalizing cockfighting and being a spectator) as applied through the Indian Country Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1152. The Tenth Circuit remanded for dismissal. The prosecution failed to present any evidence that the defendant was an Indian; Indian status of the victim or perpetrator is an element of the federal criminal statute. Federal courts lack jurisdiction over a victimless crime, committed in Indian Country by a non-Indian. The court noted that the state retains jurisdiction.