Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

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.