SCOTUS breaks treaty with Native Americans?

[watu05]

U.S. Supreme Court Breaks Sacred Vow to Oklahoma Tribal Nation? It does raise the issue of what a treaty is worth.

U.S. Supreme Court Breaks Sacred Vow to Oklahoma Tribal Nation | Opinion

Guest Opinion. The United States Supreme Court’s disconcerting decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta will go down in history as a ruling against legal precedent and the basic principles of federal Indian law. Tragically, it is another broken promise ...

nativenewsonline.net

 

[lawpoke87]

Can you point to the treaty where the state of Oklahoma agreed not to prosecute crimes committed in eastern Oklahoma if the alleged victim was a member of a tribe.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The way I understand it, certain Major Crimes are considered under Federal jurisdiction in Indian Territory. Did they dictate that it wasn't in Indian Territory? Otherwise it would be considered either Federal or Indian jurisdiction depending on the crime. I don't think there has ever been any state jurisdiction if the crime is committed in Indian Territory.

 

[aTUfan]

are all tribes equipped to handle a criminal investigation, and a trial?

 

[lawpoke87]

The way I understand it, certain Major Crimes are considered under Federal jurisdiction in Indian Territory. Did they dictate that it wasn't in Indian Territory? Otherwise it would be considered either Federal or Indian jurisdiction depending on the crime. I don't think there has ever been any state jurisdiction if the crime is committed in Indian Territory.

When was the last time the state or Fed’s didn’t prosecute crimes committed in eastern Oklahoma ? I assume we are considering the land originally allotted to the tribes as Indian territory…correct? Regardless of whether said land has been sold by the allottees and any restrictions removed.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

When was the last time the state or Fed’s didn’t prosecute crimes committed in eastern Oklahoma ? I assume we are considering the land originally allotted to the tribes as Indian territory…correct? Regardless of whether said land has been sold by the allottees and any restrictions removed.

I'm not talking about whether we prosecuted it. I'm talking about what is on the books as the jurisdiction of state, federal, or Indian. If the Indians didn't wish to press their rights that's one thing, but in this instance they did. Tulsa and most of the rest of eastern Oklahoma is still called Indian Territory, and has never been changed. If an Indian is involved as either party of a crime(victim, perpetrator, or both) the law states that any minor crimes are Indian jurisdiction. It also states that any major crime(felony) can be Federal jurisdiction or Indian jurisdiction, depending on the crime.(determined by precedents.) If pressed, this crime should be in Indian court or Federal court.

 

[lawpoke87]

I'm not talking about whether we prosecuted it. I'm talking about what is on the books as the jurisdiction of state, federal, or Indian. If the Indians didn't wish to press their rights that's one thing, but in this instance they did. Tulsa and most of the rest of eastern Oklahoma is still called Indian Territory, and has never been changed. If an Indian is involved as either party of a crime(victim, perpetrator, or both) the law states that any minor crimes are Indian jurisdiction. It also states that any major crime(felony) can be Federal jurisdiction or Indian jurisdiction, depending on the crime.(determined by precedents.) If pressed, this crime should be in Indian court or Federal court.

The case at hand addressed the question on whether there is concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in eastern Oklahoma. Are convictions in district court of non-Indians where the victim was Indian valid or are those convictions now overturned? The court held there is concurrent jurisdiction and those past convictions of non-Indians are valid.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward. I’m not very familiar with Indian law outside of the real estate area. Are the criminal juries comprised of only tribe members?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The case at hand addressed the question on whether there is concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in eastern Oklahoma. Are convictions in district court of non-Indians where the victim was Indian valid or are those convictions now overturned? The court held there is concurrent jurisdiction and those past convictions of non-Indians are valid.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out going forward.

Yeah I believe that there is only stated concurrent jurisdiction with federal court, as stated in the treaty addendums, not state concurrence. I think the S.C. went with the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. To me this is the right decision, so as not to free all those indians and non indians in which the indian didn't press his rights in former cases.

 

[Gold*]

There is so much ignorance on this issue all over the spectrum. I’m mostly in agreement with Thomas and Kavanaugh on this one (and only this one).

The practical effects, that Justice Kavanaugh discusses some, irk me most. Unless you deal with courts every day, those issues won’t make any sense. This has been an abject disaster for law enforcement in northeast Oklahoma. People who would normally be in jail aren’t prosecuted at all right now if the US attorney’s office deems the case unworthy of their time. Gun crimes and serious property crimes aren’t being prosecuted. It’s stupid. You also now have juveniles in the federal system and no means to fix that.

There are a lot of examples of how messy this makes things. Few civil cases move forward in federal court because everything is jammed up with these criminal cases. You have all these conflict attorneys charging the federal government lots of money to represent defendants now. When McGirt was first decided, if you walked into a rural Oklahoma court room for a scheduled civil hearing, you’d have to wait around while all these dudes tried to get out under McGirt.

What happened was individuals who had state sentences could have them thrown out. But they could be retried. My personal favorite story about this was Shannon Kepler, who previously was able to get hung juries because he was a cop who killed a black guy (who was dating his daughter). Dude doesn’t deserve anymore process. But he got another jury trial. The federal judge gave him a worse sentence. As he should.

The people who benefited from McGirt are 1) criminal defense attorneys, 2) and handful of guys who weren’t retried, 3) criminals who aren’t getting prosecuted, 4) civil attorneys looking to make a buck, and 5) idiots who think the decision meant something it didn’t and want to loudly claim that Oklahoma doesn’t exist. This is silly and harms the overall administration of law in this state.

Another example: without the Castro-Huerta decision going the way it did, you’d have tribes taking jurisdiction over non-tribe members in civil and criminal matters. You could get sued in a tribal court for a car wreck, but subject to a court system that is in no way accountable to you. The sheer lack of cognizance of the minority on this issue is beyond alarming.

This isn’t to justify some really horrible rhetoric and actions taken by the likes of Stitt. But if Stitt actually could speak coherently, he’s on the right side of this issue. Then again, his brother tried to get a speeding ticket thrown because he’s Cherokee. Eff that chit.

The original McGirt opinion suggested Congress should fix this issue. But it’s so obscure and in such a politically charged environment, I can’t imagine that makes a difference. And honestly, it’s a middle finger at Oklahoma. The state gets to suffer the consequences of bad politics.

I say none of this to diminish the plight of the tribes or how we got here. But the original majority (and now minority) appears to motivated by that issue and not the practical effects of a reckless decision that has wasted a lot of time and money. Gorsuch is a hack who doesn’t belong there.

Indian law is one of the most screwed up areas of law. I studied some in law school. It’s basically a history class about how the government can’t figure out how to get this right. But whatever McGirt intended to do, it made those issues a lot worse for your average person.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

There is so much ignorance on this issue all over the spectrum. I’m mostly in agreement with Thomas and Kavanaugh on this one (and only this one).

The practical effects, that Justice Kavanaugh discusses some, irk me most. Unless you deal with courts every day, those issues won’t make any sense. This has been an abject disaster for law enforcement in northeast Oklahoma. People who would normally be in jail aren’t prosecuted at all right now if the US attorney’s office deems the case unworthy of their time. Gun crimes and serious property crimes aren’t being prosecuted. It’s stupid. You also now have juveniles in the federal system and no means to fix that.

There are a lot of examples of how messy this makes things. Few civil cases move forward in federal court because everything is jammed up with these criminal cases. You have all these conflict attorneys charging the federal government lots of money to represent defendants now. When McGirt was first decided, if you walked into a rural Oklahoma court room for a scheduled civil hearing, you’d have to wait around while all these dudes tried to get out under McGirt.

What happened was individuals who had state sentences could have them thrown out. But they could be retried. My personal favorite story about this was Shannon Kepler, who previously was able to get hung juries because he was a cop who killed a black guy (who was dating his daughter). Dude doesn’t deserve anymore process. But he got another jury trial. The federal judge gave him a worse sentence. As he should.

The people who benefited from McGirt are 1) criminal defense attorneys, 2) and handful of guys who weren’t retried, 3) criminals who aren’t getting prosecuted, 4) civil attorneys looking to make a buck, and 5) idiots who think the decision meant something it didn’t and want to loudly claim that Oklahoma doesn’t exist. This is silly and harms the overall administration of law in this state.

Another example: without the Castro-Huerta decision going the way it did, you’d have tribes taking jurisdiction over non-tribe members in civil and criminal matters. You could get sued in a tribal court for a car wreck, but subject to a court system that is in no way accountable to you. The sheer lack of cognizance of the minority on this issue is beyond alarming.

This isn’t to justify some really horrible rhetoric and actions taken by the likes of Stitt. But if Stitt actually could speak coherently, he’s on the right side of this issue. Then again, his brother tried to get a speeding ticket thrown because he’s Cherokee. Eff that chit.

The original McGirt opinion suggested Congress should fix this issue. But it’s so obscure and in such a politically charged environment, I can’t imagine that makes a difference. And honestly, it’s a middle finger at Oklahoma. The state gets to suffer the consequences of bad politics.

I say none of this to diminish the plight of the tribes or how we got here. But the original majority (and now minority) appears to motivated by that issue and not the practical effects of a reckless decision that has wasted a lot of time and money. Gorsuch is a hack who doesn’t belong there.

Indian law is one of the most screwed up areas of law. I studied some in law school. It’s basically a history class about how the government can’t figure out how to get this right. But whatever McGirt intended to do, it made those issues a lot worse for your average person.

Thanks.

Out of curiosities sake, did I get it mostly right? Or was I way off in some aspect of it, as far as the jurisdiction goes?