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 ...
“barring federal prosecutions in similar cases could allow defendants to escape harsh sentences”
So sharia courts could be double jeopardy too?
I dont think this will pass the double jeopardy clause.
Not really surprising when you fall under two different jurisdictions. It’s not uncommon for servicemembers to be charged under a local ordinance or state law and also receive punishment under the UCMJ for the same incident.
I wonder how corrupt these indian courts are compared to regular American courts.
It is a little more complicated than it sounds here.
In my opinion juristiction should be determined before trial.
Simple
Different sovereigns. Learned about that in Naval Justice School with regard to military members being prosecutable in state courts as well as courts-martial.
Since the government recognizes the tribal courts of these Nations, because they are part of a sovereign nation, within the United States, then why don’t they have to recognize and honor the sentence decision of that court? Frankly, most criminals in the rest of this country are offered plea deals by D.A.’s and State Attorney Generals all the time, so they never do the time for the actual crime they commit. This guy pled to a deal, and did five months. The Federal government doesn’t interfere with local and State court decisions when they think a sentence or deal is unfair, so why are they doing it in the courts of a sovereign nation?
I doubt there's much difference these days.
It just did.
“Denezpi’s single act led to separate prosecutions for violations of a tribal ordinance and a federal statute. Because the Tribe and the Federal Government are distinct sovereigns, those” offenses are not the same, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for a majority of the court. “Denezpi’s second prosecution therefore did not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
So then, could a state prosecute Michael Sussman?
It just did
It just did. Seems the Indian court is not a real court as far as Supremes see it.
Read the case
It did.
If Sussman committed a state crime, absolutely.
I was thinking the same thing, too, but Sharia courts are binding arbitration contracts, not criminal courts.
Sharia courts are no different than Judge Judy courts.
-PJ
It is called dual-sovereignty with regard to States and the Feds. Feds can prosecute someone for the same crime as a state without triggering double-jeopardy. Often the Feds don’t bother but they could, States have similar rights as well.
Tribes are also sovereigns so it should be unsurprising that similar doctrines apply.
But there is a wrinkle that made this specific case a bit different. The initial conviction of the guy was from a particular type of tribal court that is administered by the US rather than a tribe. (It is an old system put in place when tribes did not have a right to establish their own court systems). Most tribes have their own sovereign court systems now, but I guess there are a few still using this old-school federally administered Indian court.
So the arguments made against this ruling basically suggest that the second conviction (for breaking Federal laws) should be double jeopardy because the first conviction (for breaking tribal law) was from a court administered by the US and not a tribe.
The majority held that double-jeopardy did not attach because the guy committed two offenses with one action. One against the tribe and one against the US. They said the just because there is one prosecuting authority (the US) did not change the fact that there were two offenses each 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.