Court of Indian Offenses

Last updated

Court of Indian Offenses is an Article I Court operated by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs. Also known as a "CFR" (Code of Federal Regulations) Court, a Court of Indian Offenses has criminal and civil jurisdiction over Native Americans in Indian Country, on reservations and other Indian trust land that lacks its own tribal court system. Criminally, the Court of Indian Offenses is a limited jurisdiction court that tries misdemeanor violations of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as well as violations of tribal codes, with permission of the tribe. Civilly, the CFR court holds full civil jurisdiction over matters in its territory.

There are currently five CFR courts operating in the United States. These include:

  1. The Albuquerque CFR Court, serving the Kewa Pueblo and the Santa Fe Indian School.
  2. The Southern Plains CFR Court, serving the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, the Caddo Nation of Oklahoma, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, the Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, and the Wichita and Affiliated Tribe of Indians.
  3. The Western Region CFR Court, serving the Skull Valley Band of Goshutes Indians (Utah) and the Te-Moak Band of Western Shoshone Indians (Nevada).
  4. The Eastern Oklahoma Region CFR Court, serving the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the Modoc Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma.
  5. The Southwest Region CFR court serves the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of Colorado. [1]

In addition to the various Courts of Indian Offenses, there is also an appellate court branch called The Court of Indian Appeals. The Court of Indian Appeals hears all appellate cases from cases originally heard in the CFR Courts. [2]

Dual Sovereignty controversy

The CFR court is an Article I federal court, operating under the authority of the United States Secretary of the Interior. [3] The CFR court only tries misdemeanor crimes, while the jurisdiction to try more serious felony crimes is vested with the United States Attorney’s Offices. However, U.S, Attorneys often decline to prosecute felony cases in Indian Country, which leads CFR court prosecutors to prosecute felony offenders using lesser included misdemeanor offenses in order to ensure that serious offenders receive at least some jail time.

This happened in the case of Denezpi v. United States, where the suspect, Merle Denezpi, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, raped a female enrolled member of the Navajo Nation on the reservation of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. [4] The CFR prosecutor charged Denezpi with Aggravated Battery, a misdemeanor charge. Denezpi plead not guilty under an Alford plea, and was sentenced to time served. Unsatisfied with this result, the U.S. Attorney then indicted Denezpi for rape. Denezpi attempted to have the charge dismissed under double jeopardy rules because Aggravated Battery is a lesser included offense of the charge of rape. The government contended that double jeopardy did not exist because the CFR court was exercising tribal prosecutorial authority, not federal authority, in their prosecution of Denezpi. On February 22, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments to determine if CFR courts are tribal courts (as the government and the Ute Mountain Ute tribe contend), or if they are simply machinery to allow tribal courts to operate among tribes that lack the resources to operate their own courts. [5] On June 13, 2022, the Court decided against Denezpi, [6] stating that no matter what authority prosecutes the case, no matter whether CFR courts are tribal courts or federal courts, the source of the dual sovereignty doctrine is the plurality of the authorities where the offences originated from: since the Aggravated Battery charge was defined by the tribal aurhority and the rape charge was federal, they originated from two different sovereigns and therefore could be both prosecuted.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Assault</span> Physical or verbal attack of another person

An assault is the illegal act of causing physical harm or unwanted physical contact to another person, or, in some legal definitions, the threat or attempt to do so. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in criminal prosecution, civil liability, or both. Additionally, assault is a criminal act in which a person intentionally causes fear of physical harm or offensive contact to another person. Assault can be committed with or without a weapon and can range from physical violence to threats of violence. Assault is frequently referred to as an attempt to commit battery, which is the deliberate use of physical force against another person. The deliberate inflicting of fear, apprehension, or terror is another definition of assault that can be found in several legal systems. Depending on the severity of the offense, assault may result in a fine, imprisonment, or even death.

A felony is traditionally considered a crime of high seriousness, whereas a misdemeanor is regarded as less serious. The term "felony" originated from English common law to describe an offense that resulted in the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods, to which additional punishments including capital punishment could be added; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Following conviction of a felony in a court of law, a person may be described as a felon or a convicted felon.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">District attorney</span> US state prosecutor of criminal offenses

In the United States, a district attorney (DA), county attorney, county prosecutor, state's attorney, prosecuting attorney, commonwealth's attorney, state attorney or solicitor is the chief prosecutor or chief law enforcement officer representing a U.S. state in a local government area, typically a county or a group of counties. The exact and scope of the office varies by state. Generally, the prosecutor represents the people of the jurisdiction. With the exception of three states, district attorneys are elected, unlike similar roles in other common law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prosecutor</span> Legal profession

A prosecutor is a legal representative of the prosecution in states with either the common law adversarial system or the civil law inquisitorial system. The prosecution is the legal party responsible for presenting the case in a criminal trial against the defendant, an individual accused of breaking the law. Typically, the prosecutor represents the state or the government in the case brought against the accused person.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation</span> Native American reservation in Utah, United States

The Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is located in northeastern Utah, United States. It is the homeland of the Ute Indian Tribe, and is the largest of three Indian reservations inhabited by members of the Ute Tribe of Native Americans.

<i>Duro v. Reina</i> 1990 United States Supreme Court case

Duro v. Reina, 495 U.S. 676 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court concluded that Indian tribes could not prosecute Indians who were members of other tribes for crimes committed by those nonmember Indians on their reservations. The decision was not well received by the tribes, because it defanged their criminal codes by depriving them of the power to enforce them against anyone except their own members. In response, Congress amended a section of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301, to include the power to "exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians" as one of the powers of self-government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Major Crimes Act</span>

The Major Crimes Act is a law passed by the United States Congress in 1885 as the final section of the Indian Appropriations Act of that year. The law places certain crimes under federal jurisdiction if they are committed by a Native American in Native territory. The law follows the 1817 General Crimes Act, which extended federal jurisdiction to crimes committed in Native territory but did not cover crimes committed by Native Americans against Native Americans. The Major Crimes Act therefore broadened federal jurisdiction in Native territory by extending it to some crimes committed by Native Americans against Native Americans. The Major Crimes Act was passed by Congress in response to the Supreme Court of the United States's ruling in Ex parte Crow Dog that overturned the federal court conviction of Brule Lakota sub-chief Crow Dog for the murder of principal chief Spotted Tail on the Rosebud Indian Reservation.

A criminal defense lawyer is a lawyer specializing in the defense of individuals and companies charged with criminal activity. Some criminal defense lawyers are privately retained, while others are employed by the various jurisdictions with criminal courts for appointment to represent indigent persons; the latter are generally called public defenders. The terminology is imprecise because each jurisdiction may have different practices with various levels of input from country to country. Some jurisdictions use a rotating system of appointments, with judges appointing a private practice attorney or firm for each case.

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ages of consent in the United States</span> U.S. law on age of consent to sexual activity

In the United States, each state and territory sets the age of consent either by statute or the common law applies, and there are several federal statutes related to protecting minors from sexual predators. Depending on the jurisdiction, the legal age of consent is between 16 and 18. In some places, civil and criminal laws within the same state conflict with each other.

United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that followed the death of one member of a Native American tribe at the hands of another on reservation land. Crow Dog was a member of the Brulé band of the Lakota Sioux. On August 5, 1881 he shot and killed Spotted Tail, a Lakota chief; there are different accounts of the background to the killing. The tribal council dealt with the incident according to Sioux tradition, and Crow Dog paid restitution to the dead man's family. However, the U.S. authorities then prosecuted Crow Dog for murder in a federal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that lands designated as a reservation in Mississippi are "Indian country" as defined by statute, although the reservation was established nearly a century after Indian removal and related treaties. The court ruled that, under the Major Crimes Act, the State has no jurisdiction to try a Native American for crimes covered by that act that occurred on reservation land.

United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the federal prosecution of a Native American (Indian) who has already been prosecuted by the tribe.

United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that American Indians convicted on reservation land were not deprived of the equal protection of the laws; (a) the federal criminal statutes are not based on impermissible racial classifications but on political membership in an Indian tribe or nation; and (b) the challenged statutes do not violate equal protection. Indians or non-Indians can be charged with first-degree murder committed in a federal enclave.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. After McGirt, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt rationale in six similar cases, finding that Congress established reservations within the final incarnation of the Indian Territory for eight other Indigenous nations which have not been disestablished. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the State of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system. In these cases, jurisdiction properly vests within the Indigenous judicial systems and the federal district courts under the Major Crimes Act.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided in 2020. In McGirt, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Congress never properly disestablished the Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma when granting its statehood, and thus almost half the state was still considered to be Native American land. As a result of McGirt, crimes under the Major Crimes Act by Native Americans in the reservations are treated as federal crimes rather than state crimes.

References

  1. ↑ "Court of Indian Offenses". U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. U.S. Department of the Interior. Retrieved May 11, 2022.
  2. ↑ Smith, Gregory (2020). "The Court of Indian Appeals: America's Forgotten Federal Appellate Court". American Indian Law Review. 44 (2): 215. Retrieved May 11, 2022.
  3. ↑ Smith, Gregory (2020). "The Court of Indian Appeals: America's Forgotten Federal Appellate Court". American Indian Law Review. 44 (2): 231. Retrieved May 11, 2022.
  4. ↑ Eagle, Amanda L. White (June 16, 2022). "Amy Coney Barrett Ignored a Critical Detail About the History of Tribal Courts". Slate Magazine. Retrieved June 16, 2022.
  5. ↑ "Denezpi v. United States". Legal Information Institute Supreme Court Bulletin. Cornell Law School. Retrieved May 11, 2022.
  6. ↑ "DENEZPI v. UNITED STATES". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved July 14, 2023.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.