Justia Native American Law Opinion Summaries

Joseph Harjo was tried and convicted by a jury in Oklahoma federal court for aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country under the Major Crimes Act. The district court sentenced him to life in prison. Harjo challenged his conviction, arguing that the Major Crimes Act is unconstitutional and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting evidence of prior child abuse under Federal Rule of Evidence 414.Previously, Harjo was charged by the state of Oklahoma with child sexual abuse and was convicted by a state jury, resulting in a life sentence. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which determined that Muskogee was within the Muscogee Creek Nation, Oklahoma's jurisdiction was invalidated, and Harjo's conviction was set aside. Subsequently, a federal grand jury indicted him on one count of aggravated sexual abuse in Indian Country.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act, citing controlling Supreme Court precedent that establishes Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs and the unique status of Indians as a separate people with their own political institutions. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of five child witnesses under Rule 414. The district court had determined that a reasonable jury could conclude the prior acts occurred by a preponderance of the evidence and that the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice.The Tenth Circuit concluded that the district court carefully addressed the relevant factors and reached a permissible conclusion on the admissibility of the testimony. Therefore, the court affirmed Harjo's conviction and life sentence. View "United States v. Harjo" on Justia Law

In April 2018, Justin Little was investigated and arrested by state police in Oklahoma after his wife’s boyfriend was shot and killed on the Muscogee Creek Reservation. Following the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, it was established that the Creek Reservation had not been disestablished, meaning state police lacked jurisdiction over Little’s offense. Little was later convicted of first-degree murder in federal court.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denied Little’s motion to suppress evidence collected by state officers, ruling that the officers reasonably believed they had jurisdiction at the time of the investigation. Little was subsequently convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the evidence collected by state officers was admissible under the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. The court reasoned that, given the historical belief that Oklahoma had jurisdiction over offenses on Creek land and the stay of the mandate in Murphy v. Royal pending Supreme Court review, state officers could reasonably believe they had jurisdiction. The court concluded that excluding the evidence would not have a significant deterrent effect and would impose substantial social costs.The Tenth Circuit affirmed Little’s conviction and sentence, rejecting his other arguments for reversal, including challenges to the admission of evidence, jury instructions, and prosecutorial statements. The court found that none of these issues warranted relief, either individually or cumulatively. View "United States v. Little" on Justia Law

The defendant was tried and convicted by a jury of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a 72-year-old woman, E.F., in her home in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The indictment alleged that the defendant is an Indian as defined under federal law, which was a jurisdictional predicate for the federal charges. The defendant was sentenced to life in prison, and judgment was entered on July 27, 2023. The defendant timely appealed, raising four issues: the admission of a hearsay verification letter to prove his Indian status, the exclusion of expert testimony on trauma and memory, the allowance of unnoticed expert testimony by a forensic nurse, and improper jury instructions regarding kidnapping.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma admitted a verification letter from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to prove the defendant's Indian status, over the defendant's hearsay objection. The court also excluded the expert testimony of Dr. Geoffrey Loftus on trauma and memory, allowed the Government’s forensic nurse to provide unnoticed expert testimony, and used the Tenth Circuit’s pattern jury instruction for kidnapping, rejecting the defendant’s proposed language.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case and found merit in the first issue on appeal. The court held that the district court erred by admitting the verification letter as it was inadmissible hearsay and did not qualify as a business record. The court determined that this error was not harmless because it negated an essential element of the crimes charged, specifically the defendant's Indian status, which is required for federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit reversed the convictions and sentence and remanded the case to the district court to vacate the judgment and conduct further proceedings consistent with its decision. View "United States v. Harper" on Justia Law

Craig Wood was indicted on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country. The government needed to prove Wood's Indian status to secure a conviction. To do so, they introduced a "Certificate of Indian Blood" from the Seneca-Cayuga Nation, authenticated by a "Certificate of Authenticity." Wood objected, arguing he was not given reasonable pre-trial notice of the Authenticity Certificate, as required by Rule 902(11), and thus had no fair opportunity to challenge it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma overruled Wood's objection, admitting the Indian Blood Certificate into evidence. The court did not address the notice requirement under Rule 902(11) and based its decision solely on the fact that the same individual signed both certificates. Wood was subsequently convicted on both charges by a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court's decision to admit the Indian Blood Certificate without proper notice was manifestly unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit emphasized that Rule 902(11) requires reasonable pre-trial written notice to allow the opposing party a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence. The court concluded that the district court's failure to consider the notice requirement was an abuse of discretion.The Tenth Circuit also determined that the error was not harmless. The improperly admitted Indian Blood Certificate was the only direct evidence of Wood's Indian status, which was crucial for the jurisdictional requirement. The court noted that the government's argument that M.M.'s testimony about Wood's Indian status was sufficient was unconvincing and did not meet the required standard for harmless error.As a result, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, vacated Wood's convictions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wood" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a mobile home fire that resulted in two deaths. The government accused Mr. Joseph Allen Hernandez of intentionally setting the fire, supported by expert testimony from a fire investigator. Mr. Hernandez claimed that he had accidentally started the fire. The trial resulted in convictions on two counts of second-degree murder in Indian Country and one count of arson in Indian Country.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma had allowed the fire investigator to give expert testimony, despite objections from the defense. The court also permitted the investigator to testify that he did not believe Mr. Hernandez's explanation of the fire's cause.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered whether the district court had erred in allowing the fire investigator's expert testimony and whether the investigator's disbelief of Mr. Hernandez's explanation had intruded on a reasonable expectation of privacy. The appellate court found no error in the district court's decisions. The court held that the district court had not abused its discretion in allowing the fire investigator's expert testimony. It also found that the investigator's disbelief of Mr. Hernandez's explanation did not intrude on a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court affirmed the district court's rulings and Mr. Hernandez's convictions. View "United States v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Kimberly Graham, who was convicted for first-degree manslaughter and leaving the scene of a fatal accident. After her convictions became final, she applied for postconviction relief, arguing that she was a Native American and the events took place on a reservation. The state district court granted her relief and vacated her convictions based on the Supreme Court's ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which stated that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Native Americans within a reservation. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals later overruled the precedent that allowed for the application of McGirt to convictions that had already become final. Consequently, the state district court reinstated Graham's convictions.Graham then sought a writ of prohibition from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that a liberty interest had arisen from the order vacating her convictions. The court denied her request, stating that the new precedent prevented the application of McGirt to convictions that had become final and that the initial order vacating the convictions was unauthorized under Oklahoma law. Graham then sought habeas relief, claiming that the reinstatement of her convictions had arbitrarily stripped her of her liberty interest. The federal district court agreed with Graham and granted habeas relief.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of habeas relief. The court held that regardless of whether the state appeals court had erred, its rejection of the due process claim was at least reasonable based on the facts and Supreme Court precedent. The court concluded that the state appeals court did not unreasonably determine the facts or apply a Supreme Court holding. Therefore, the federal district court should have deferred to the state appeals court. View "Graham v. White" on Justia Law

The case involves Douglas Smith, a non-Indian, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for an act he committed on his property located within the exterior boundaries of the Pueblo of Santa Clara. Smith shot and killed Maria Gallegos, who he saw trying to break into a trailer on his property. Prior to trial, Smith moved to dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, arguing that the federal district court lacked criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed on his property and that Congress acted outside its constitutional authority when it passed the Indian Pueblo Land Act Amendments of 2005. The district court denied his motion.Smith's case was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court had to decide whether federal criminal jurisdiction extends to land owned by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a Pueblo. The court affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Smith's property is Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, and therefore, his crime is subject to federal criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152.Smith also claimed that the 2005 Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to him. The court disagreed, holding that the 2005 Amendment did not unconstitutionally extend federal criminal jurisdiction to Smith's land. The court reasoned that the 2005 Amendment only exercised preexisting federal jurisdiction over Smith's land and was thus not an unconstitutional enactment as applied to Smith.Lastly, Smith contended that the district court erred in declining his request for a two-level sentence reduction for accepting responsibility for his crime. The appellate court found no clear error in the district court's determination, noting that Smith had challenged the factual element of intent at trial, which provided a clear basis to conclude that he did not accept responsibility. The court affirmed the district court's decision. View "United States v. Smith" on Justia Law

In this case, the defendant, Patrick Murphy, was convicted of murder, murder in perpetration of kidnapping, and kidnapping resulting in death. The crimes occurred in 1999, but Murphy was not indicted until 2020, following a Supreme Court decision that clarified jurisdictional issues related to crimes committed in Indian Country. Murphy appealed his convictions, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the kidnapping charges, that the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations, and that the nearly two-decade delay between the murder and the federal prosecution violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed with Murphy's argument regarding the kidnapping charges. The court held that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it did not show that Murphy held the victim for an appreciable period of time, which is a requirement under the federal kidnapping statute. However, the court rejected Murphy's other two arguments. The court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the prosecution because the crimes with which Murphy was charged are, as a general matter, punishable by death and thus not subject to the general five-year statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes. The court also found that Murphy failed to demonstrate that the twenty-year delay in bringing the federal prosecution against him violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.As a result, the court reversed Murphy's kidnapping-related convictions but affirmed his conviction for murder. The case was remanded to the district court for resentencing. View "United States v. Murphy" on Justia Law

In this appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the defendant, Paul Curtis Pemberton, contested his federal conviction for a murder committed in McIntosh County, Oklahoma in 2004. The case was influenced by the Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), which confirmed that the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation covered a larger area of eastern Oklahoma than previously acknowledged by state and federal governments. This ruling impacted many crimes that had been prosecuted in state courts but were actually committed within tribal jurisdictions. Pemberton, an enrolled member of the Creek Nation, argued that his crime fell within this category and should have been prosecuted in federal court under the Major Crimes Act.The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, ruling that the state officers involved in Pemberton’s arrest and the subsequent collection of evidence had acted in good faith, based on the prevailing legal understanding at the time. The court noted that the officers could not have known that the Major Crimes Act barred state jurisdiction over the crime as the reservation boundaries were not clarified until the McGirt decision in 2020.The court also rejected Pemberton’s argument that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation during his sentencing. The court found that Pemberton's request to represent himself was made with the intention to delay the proceedings and was not related to the sentencing hearing. Therefore, the lower court's decision to deny his request was affirmed. View "United States v. Pemberton" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the conviction of Montelito Simpkins for sexually abusing a minor and engaging in abusive sexual contact in Indian country. The government charged Simpkins under the Indian Country Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, which only applies if either the victim or the defendant, but not both, is an Indian. In this case, Simpkins argued that the government provided insufficient evidence to prove that he was not an Indian, an essential element required for a conviction under the Act. The court clarified that a sufficiency challenge must be assessed against the legal elements of the crime, not against the elements listed in the jury instructions. The government conceded it had offered no evidence of Simpkins’s non-Indian status at trial. Therefore, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove Simpkins’s non-Indian status, reversed his convictions, and remanded the case to the district court to enter a judgment of acquittal. View "United States v. Simpkins" on Justia Law