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?
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.
“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