Posted on 06/13/2022 4:40:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Native Americans prosecuted in certain tribal courts can also be prosecuted based on the same incident in federal court, which can result in longer sentences.
The 6-3 ruling is in keeping with an earlier ruling from the 1970s that said the same about a more widely used type of tribal court.
The case before the justices involved a Navajo Nation member, Merle Denezpi, accused of rape. He served nearly five months in jail after being charged with assault and battery in what is called a Court of Indian Offenses, a court that deals exclusively with alleged Native American offenders.
(Excerpt) Read more at ksbw.com ...
Sounds like at least one similar decision in which they ruled that a person found “not guilty” in a state court could then be tried by court martial. It happened in NC where a Fort Bragg soldier killed a woman but was found not guilty by a state court. The Army then tried him by court martial,he was found guilty and he was sentenced to death.He’s at Leavenworth now.IIRC his name was Hennis.
Interesting. It was 6-3, but not quite along party lines.
Gorsuch has a known leftist (or if it makes people feel better, they pretend its “libertarian”) streak on cases involving American Indians, and followed the usual pattern in this case, authoring the dissent and being joined by comrades Sonia Sotomayor & Elena Kagan.
The six-member majority ruling was authored by Amy Coney Barrett. I presume that means either outgoing justice Breyer (he might have said “screw it, I’ve got nothing to do lose at this point...”) OR the newly confirmed Biden justice voted with the “conservatives” on this one, I’m not sure which of them is on the court currently.
Researched it here:
Can ya not read, lad? The Supremes said there is NO double jeopardy involved. so, if a sharia court was recognized (??), the defendant could still be tried in a federal case.
It’s like when someone gets convicted of a crime in your state court...say it’s something financial. They’re convicted, they worked what they thought was a sweet deal and then...
BOOM! In come the feds, this time charging the defendant with a RICO crime. No double jepoardy attaches.
Very well explained. Thank you!
Read Justice Gorsuch’s dissenting opinion. With all due respect to our conservative Justices Thomas and Alito, Gorsuch is the only justice who is not from the left or right coast, and as a Colorado resident, he may have a greater understanding of the Native American judicial system. Thomas and Alito are my faves, but I don’t like their position on this case.
Good thing guns are regulated much harsher
On The Rez.
Dissent was Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor.
I wouldn’t classify Thomas as a coaster.
“The Federal government doesn’t interfere with local and State court decisions when they think a sentence or deal is unfair”
You don’t really believe that, do you?
L
Thanks for the explanation. I'm surprised the old court system created by the Feds, wasn't eventually grandfathered into the new system a long time ago. Despite the fact that this guy is a rapist, it seems unfair that the Feds are still allowed to interfere in this day and age, in a handful of tribes that continue to run under the original system. The government took away their land. They took away their culture and their language, and expected them to live like the white man...and although Native American culture was eventually encouraged to thrive once more, in my mind, the court basing their decision on a system it established well over 100 years ago, takes us back to those days, when the U.S. government ran every aspect of Indian life. This is more offensive to me since that same court refused to hear 2020 election suits, that were clearly covered by their 2000 Bush v. Gore decision.
If they do it, it isn't official, and it isn't legal. They are supposed to be enforcing, and prosecuting Federal laws, they really shouldn't be interfering in court proceedings at the State and local level.
“If they do it, it isn’t official, and it isn’t legal.”
Incorrect on both counts.
L
Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note that is specifies the same offence, not the same action. Lawyers, of which I am not one, may discuss the significance of that distinction.
My personal opinion is that SCOTUS abandoned the US by ducking the election questions. Basically they repudiated their entire reason for existing — and in the process helped shepherd in the end of the US.
This ruling regarding double jeopardy is rather conventional. Double jeopardy attaches if one is on trial for the same offense. Here one act that breaks tribal laws and federal laws is in fact two offenses. Thus, each sovereign gets a bite at the apple with respect to the violation of their laws.
I don’t like dual sovereignty much but it is reasonable given our federalist system.
Thanks for your insight. I've never been a student of law, so I'm glad to hear from folks with knowledge to explain things I don't understand. I did some checking. The land where the Navajo lived, are shown as primarily what are now New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah. Courts of Indian Offenses was created in 1883. New Mexico didn't become a State until January 1912. Arizona became a State in February 1912. Colorado became a State in August of 1876, and Utah in January 1896. The majority of the land they lived on wasn't even in the Union when that Court was established, yet the Court is willing to honor it.
Feds can prosecute someone for the same crime as a state without triggering double-jeopardy.
I believe this is a misstatement. They can prosecute for the same acts, but the acts constitute two different crimes. The Federal crime is against the United States, and the State crime is against the state. The two crimes may carry different penalties, and may differ in the elements of the crime.
Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law, Fourth Edition, West Publishing Co., 2003, p. 230
(a) Federal-State Jurisdiction and Prosecution. Prosecution by both the state and federal governments is not barred by the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. In Bartkus v. Illinois1 the Supreme Court sustained a state conviction for robbery of a federally-insured bank after the defendant had been acquitted on federal charges based on the same robbery. And in the companion case of Abbate v. United States,2 where the order of the prosecutions was reversed, the Court upheld a federal conviction for conspiracy to destroy communications facilities operated or controlled by the United States after the defendant had been convicted in the state courts for conspiracy to destroy the property of another. In both cases, the rationale was that the policies underlying the double jeopardy bar against reprosecution were inapplicable because separate sovereignties were involved. The Court expressed the fear that a contrary rule would result in a state (or federal) prosecution for a minor offense barring a subsequent federal (or state) prosecution for a serious impingement upon the interests of the latter jurisdiction.31. 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959).
2. 359 U.S. 187, 79 S.Ct. 666, 3 L.Ed.2d 729 (1959).
3. In Bartkus, the Court referred to Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945), where the defendants were convicted in federal court under federal statutes with maximum penalties of one and two years respectively, although the state crime involved was a capital offense. In Abbate, the Court noted that the defendants’ conspiracy to dynamite telephone company facilities had resulted in only a three-month sentence from the state court.
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)
Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959)
Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)
- - - - - - - - - -
Denezpi v. United States, S. Ct. No. 20-7622 (13 Jun 2022) Slip Op, Barrett, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESNo. 20–7622
MERLE DENEZPI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[June 13, 2022]
JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects a person from being prosecuted twice “for the same offence.” An offense defined by one sovereign is necessarily different from an offense defined by another, even when the offenses have identical elements. Thus, a person can be successively prosecuted for the two offenses without offending the Clause. We have dubbed this the “dual-sovereignty” doctrine.
This case presents a twist on the usual dual-sovereignty scenario. The mine run of these cases involves two sovereigns, each enforcing its own law. This case, by contrast, arguably involves a single sovereign (the United States) that enforced its own law (the Major Crimes Act) after having separately enforced the law of another sovereign (the Code of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe). Petitioner contends that the second prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the dual-sovereignty doctrine requires that the offenses be both enacted and enforced by separate sovereigns.
We disagree.
The Eastburn family murders were the murders of Kathryn "Katie" Eastburn and her daughters, Kara and Erin, which occurred in Fayetteville, North Carolina in May 1985. In 1986, United States Army Sergeant Timothy Hennis was tried and convicted for the three murders. In 1988, Hennis' conviction was overturned on appeal and he was acquitted the following year. In 2006, the Cumberland County Sherriff's Office obtained DNA evidence linking Hennis to the crime. Despite the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause prohibiting retrials after acquittals, the United States Army was able to initiate prosecution and trial proceedings against Hennis under the dual sovereignty doctrine. In 2010, Hennis was tried and convicted by an Army court-martial for the triple murders and sentenced to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_R._MacDonald
In the Fatal Vision case of Dr. Jeffery MacDonald, he was acquitted by the military, and subsequently tried and convicted by a State court.
A reasonable person might think that, but you'd be wrong. I haven't read through this decision yet, but this is from the Supreme Court itself. I'm quite sure the 'conservative' members of the court twisted themselves into pretzels to claim it somehow isn't double jeopardy, but they've been chipping away at double jeopardy for quite a while now. There are certain members on the court, who otherwise support the Constitution, but when the chips are down, will ultimately support the State first. They seem to believe that any impediment to the power of the Feral government is a bad thing.
You can read their 'logic' Here. I'll probably read through it on an empty stomach later.
Thank you for your reply. I’m headed to a doctor’s appointment as I’ve not been feeling well since last Thursday. If I don’t get any satisfaction there, I’m headed to the emergency room. It’s not Covid, or at least the Covid test I gave myself yesterday said I was negative. So if I do get to respond, it may not be for a while.
I think we agree, at least it seems we agree that the court says that the same criminal act can result in different offenses — each offense against a different sovereign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.