Developed February 2015
This project was supported by Grant No. 2012-IC-BX-K001 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile and Delinquency Prevention, the Office for Victims of Crime, and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Primary Authors
The Tribal Law and Policy Institute (TLPI) has developed many resources to assist tribal governments in creating a comprehensive, community-based, victim-centered response to crime. This series is developed with a philosophy that tribal laws and policy should reflect tribal values. In addition, writing a tribal law usually requires careful consideration of how federal and state laws apply. Each resource is designed to help tribal governments customize laws and policies that fit community values, principles, and capacities. These resources are all freely available for downloading on the Tribal Court Clearinghouse.
Tribal Legal Code Resource: Tribal Laws Implementing TLOA and VAWA 2013 is designed to be a resource for tribes interested in implementing the Tribal Law and Order Act sentencing enhancement provisions or VAWA 2013’s Special Criminal Domestic Violence Jurisdiction. The resource focuses on the tribal code and rule changes that may be needed should a tribe elect to implement the increased tribal authority in either or both statutes. It discusses the concerns and issues that need resolution in implementation and provides examples from tribal codes and tribal court rules. (February 2105)
Tribal Legal Code Resource: Juvenile Justice - Guide for Drafting or Revising Tribal Juvenile Delinquency and Status Offense Laws provides guidance for tribes interested in drafting and/or revising their juvenile laws. It includes both juvenile delinquency laws and status offense laws (that is, laws – such as truancy or runaway - which only apply to juveniles due to their status as juveniles). This resource is designed to assist tribes in ensuring that their juvenile justice system reflects the vision and values of the tribal community to be served. Part I provides guidance concerning how to address juvenile code development, preliminary considerations, and assessing resources. Part II provides extensive examples, critical commentary, discussion questions, and exercises designed to help tribes customize their laws to meet the needs of the individual community This resource covers the full range of juvenile delinquency laws and status offense laws and processes. It also provides guidance for tribes interested in developing specialized court dockets such as juvenile wellness courts, peacemaking courts, and teen courts. (March 2015)
Tribal Legal Code Resource: Domestic Violence Laws was developed by TLPI in cooperation with OVW and BJA. This victim-entered approach to domestic violence against Native women resource guide includes exercises, examples, and discussion questions to help tribes customize their laws to meet the needs of their community. This resource was revised and updated in 2012 and in 2015, to include the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) (2010) and the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2013 (VAWA 2013). (Revised February 2105)
Sexual Violence and Stalking Laws: Guide for Drafting or Revising Victim-Centered Tribal Laws Against Sexual Assault and Stalking was developed by the TLPI in conjunction with the Southwest Center for Law and Policy and is intended to be a guide for drafting or revising victim-centered tribal criminal laws on sexual assault and stalking. This resource guide includes sample language and discussion questions which are designed to help tribal community members decide on the best laws for their community. This resource was revised and updated July 2012, including changes addressing the 2010 enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act.
Tribal Legal Code Resource: Crimes Against Children has been developed by the TLPI under a Children’s Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities training and technical assistance grant. Specifically, it has been developed to provide assistance to tribes and tribal organizations that have received Children’s Justice Act Partnerships for Indian Communities grants. Tribes frequently request assistance in developing and/or updating their laws to address victimization of tribal children. TLPI developed this resource guide and workbook to meet the identified need. This project was conceived in 2001 under the guidance of an advisory committee of experts in the tribal justice field, those working with Native child abuse and child victimization issues, and those working with tribal child and family services providers. The resource provides illustrative examples, narrative, and discussion questions. The discussion questions direct users through a tailoring process that will assure that the resulting draft statutory provisions reflect the needs and values of the tribal community that the targeted law serves. (August 2008).
Tribal Judge’s Sexual Assault Bench Book and Bench Card was developed by TLPI in cooperation with the Office on Violence Against Women as a resource for tribal judges who hear sexual assault cases in tribal courts. It provides background information on important sexual assault and tribal jurisdictional issues, as well as providing guidance in handling key issues at various stages of a sexual assault criminal trial. (June 2011)
Tribal Domestic Violence Case Law: Annotations for Selected Cases was developed by the TLPI in cooperation with the Office on Violence Against Women as a resource for tribal judicial officers in understanding how some tribal governments have handled certain legal issues within the context of domestic violence cases. While a great deal of research has been done on case law in the state systems, little to no analysis has been done on the tribal judicial approach to domestic violence. This compendium, developed as part of an overall code-writing workshop curriculum for tribal governments, will assist tribal legislators as well. Understanding how laws are interpreted by the court systems may impact the development of laws that provide safety to tribal citizens. (June 2011)
Law Enforcement Protocol Guide: Sexual Assault was developed by the TLPI in conjunction with Southwest Center for Law and Policy as a tool for improving the investigation of sexual assault crimes. Effective investigations increase the likelihood of victim participation and increase the probability of convictions in tribal, state, and/or federal courts. This guide focuses on the development of an internal protocol for law enforcement. A law enforcement protocol can enhance the efforts of all community agencies in addressing sexual violence. Once a tribal government has strong laws in place, this publication will help create policies and protocols for a law enforcement agency to enforce laws. (July 2008)
Prosecutor Protocol Guide: Sexual Assault was developed by the TLPI in conjunction with Southwest Center for Law and Policy as a tool for improving the prosecution of sexual assault crimes. Holding offenders accountable for their actions is a key part of making a community safe. This publication is designed to help a prosecutor’s office ensure consistency and compassion for all survivors. This guide focuses on the development of an internal protocol for tribal prosecution. A prosecutor protocol can enhance the efforts of all community agencies in addressing sexual violence. (July 2008)
Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Resource was developed by the TLPI in conjunction with Southwest Center for Law and Policy as a guide to creating cohesive policies between tribal agencies. Victims of sexual assault deserve a coordinated, comprehensive response from a variety of community agencies. This SART resource provides a starting point for developing victim-centered SART teams in your community. (September 2008)
Listen to the Grandmothers Video Discussion Guidebook is designed to assist tribal programs with incorporating cultural traditions into contemporary responses to violence against Native women. The Listen to the Grandmothers video features Native elders speaking to the problem of violence against Native women. The video provides a historical overview of violence against Native women, traditional responses, and an analysis concerning the incorporation of cultural traditions into contemporary responses to violence against women. (2008)
Sharing Our Stories of Survival: Native Women Surviving Violence is a general introduction to the social and legal issues involved in acts of violence against Native women; this book’s contributors are lawyers, advocates, social workers, social scientists, writers, poets, and victims. In the United States, Native women are more likely than women from any other group to suffer violence, from rape and battery to more subtle forms of abuse, and Sharing Our Stories of Survival explores the causes and consequences of such behavior. The stories and case studies presented here are often painful and raw, and the statistics are overwhelmingly grim. But a countervailing theme also runs through this extremely informative volume: many of the women who appear in these pages are survivors, often strengthened by their travails, and the violence examined here is human violence, meaning that it can be changed, if only with much effort and education. The first step is to lay out the truth for all to see, and that is the purpose accomplished by this textbook. (2008)
Sharing our Stories of Survival Trainer’s Manual for Training on Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Involving Native Women is specifically designed to give guidance to advocates in presenting workshops, conference plenary sessions, and staff and community training. It provides the directions and materials for eight interactive workshops/training sessions based on chapters of the text book, Sharing Our Stories of Survival. (June 2013)
Tribal Protection Order Resources is a website designed to provide tribal and nontribal entities with a clearinghouse of information and resources pertaining to the issuance and enforcement of tribal protection orders.
With the enactment of the Tribal Law and Order Act in 2010 (TLOA) and the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2013 (VAWA 2013), the federal government has reaffirmed some of the criminal jurisdiction and sentencing authority it had previously limited by statute and Supreme Court decisions. Congress specifically affirms and recognizes the inherent jurisdiction of tribes within the wording of the statutes.[1] However, tribes are not required to exercise any of this newly recognized authority. Tribes that do want to take advantage of these powers must comply with certain prerequisites set out in the statutes.
TLOA and VAWA 2013 are very broad statutes covering numerous topics. This resource focuses solely on the sentencing enhancement provisions of TLOA and the special domestic violence jurisdictions sections of VAWA 2013. This resource provides an overview of the enhanced powers recognized by each statute and explores ways that tribes can comply with the requirements of the federal statutes.
Part I: Background Information is divided into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an introduction to this resource guide, discussing its purpose and its limitations. Chapter 2 explores in more detail the way the resource is structured and how it can be used. Chapter 3 then turns to the TLOA and VAWA 2013, briefly discussing the history and requirements of each statute. Because tribes are not required to exercise any of the powers recognized by either statute, Chapter 4 provides some guidance for tribes to consider in deciding whether they want to make use of the recognized authority of one or both of the statutes. For tribes that wish to exercise those powers, Chapter 5 includes some suggestions about ways to approach drafting the required laws and regulations.
This resource guide addresses both the sentencing enhancement provisions of TLOA and special domestic violence jurisdiction provisions of VAWA 2013 because many of the requirements of the two statutes overlap. It is important to keep in mind, however, that a tribe may choose to exercise the authority recognized in one statute but not the other.
The passage of the TLOA increased some of the sentencing authority that had been taken away by the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA). TLOA does, however, impose some requirements on tribes who wish to exercise those recognized powers. It is important to note that TLOA gives tribes a choice about whether the tribe wants to use the enhanced sentencing authority recognized by TLOA. If a tribe does not want to use the enhanced sentencing authority, tribes do not have to comply with the requirements set out in the statute.
VAWA 2013 recognizes certain Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ). As with TLOA, VAWA 2013 places requirements on tribes that wish to exercise the recognized powers. VAWA 2013 became effective March 7, 2015, although three tribes have participated in a pilot project exercising special domestic violence jurisdiction.
This book is designed to be a resource for tribes interested in implementing TLOA or VAWA 2013. The book focuses on the changes that may be needed should a tribe elect to implement either statute. It raises the concerns and issues that will need resolution in implementation and provides examples from tribal codes and tribal court rules.
We start by providing a general overview of the TLOA and VAWA statutes and the requirements, and then turn to a more detailed examination of each requirement. Each chapter provides a variety of questions that a tribe should attempt to answer in analyzing whether the implementation of these statutes and the expansion of jurisdiction and sentencing power are right for your nation. Additional resources are referenced and provided, particularly information drafted by the three pilot tribes and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI).
A Tribal Domestic Violence Special Jurisdiction Model Code is provided in the appendix of this resource. This model code was developed by the pilot tribes. The model code should be helpful in providing you a full picture of how the law might look and how sections of the law work together. It also includes sections that were not discussed in this resource, but are important to include. The tribal codes of the three tribes participating in the pilot project might also serve as model codes. Links to their tribal codes are included in the Helpful Resources Chapter of this guide. We do not recommend that you adopt any model code, but rather that you review each of the chapters that provide important information on discussions that should take place before deciding on any changes in your code. Then, if you have decided to implement TLOA or VAWA 2013, select sections that fit your particular legal structure, historical background, cultural values, and resources, using the examples in the chapters and the model code as aids.
In addition the appendix provides a copy of the Tulalip Tribal Court Rules, including rules specific to the Tulalip Domestic Violence Court. Many of the requirements of TLOA and VAWA 2013 can be met by court rule, rather than code revision. We provide short examples throughout the resource, but it may be helpful to see a comprehensive example of Court Rules. Tulalip Request for Application of Indigent Criminal Conflict Attorney and their contract is also provided in the appendix.
Because each tribe currently has unique codes, it is anticipated that each tribe that desires to implement one or both statutes will need to carefully review their current code and then modify their code in such a way that the requirements of TLOA or VAWA 2013 are met. In some cases the constitution of the tribe may need to be amended to ensure that criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians is permitted in the tribal constitution. We do not provide constitutional recommendations, but have chosen instead to focus on the tribal code provisions that are most likely to need amendment. We do pose questions in later chapters regarding your tribal constitution as it may contain restrictions on jurisdiction or rights granted through ICRA.
TLOA and VAWA 2013 are expansive statutes; we do not attempt to address all sections of those laws, but rather focus specifically on sentencing enhancement and special domestic violence jurisdiction.
Protocol development or development of administrative rules is not covered in this resource and is a necessary part of implementation of TLOA +or VAWA 2013. This resource guide is not a replacement for training. Even the best law in the world is not effective if people do not understand it and support it. Involvement of people in the lawmaking process is helpful in gathering support and providing training helps in promoting understanding.
This resource guide also does not discuss the protection of victim’s rights and support needed for victims. Community support and programming for domestic violence victims is important. Protocols and procedures to ensure victims are safe and other public safety concerns should also be reviewed when considering the topics relevant to the TLOA and VAWA 2013. Several of TLPI resources contain information on victims’ rights. The Guide for Drafting and Revising Victim-Center Tribal Laws Against Domestic Violence has a chapter that may be helpful. Other TLPI guides on codes and protocols are described in the beginning of this guide.
This resource guide is not a model code. Your tribal community is the best judge of what language will work best for your people and is consistent with TLOA or VAWA 2013. There are advantages and disadvantages to certain kinds of legal language, and not every tribal government has the same needs or resources. Most importantly, the sample language in this guide is not necessarily consistent with every tribe’s culture, traditional practices, or current criminal code design. The discussion questions are provided to help you design a code that fits your community.
You should consider different ideas before making a final decision about how to use this resource guide. Some tribes may spend several days in a row working through the questions and issues. Others may hire a facilitator to help organize meetings and community forums. You may want to consider creating a community team to tackle the issue over a longer period of time. There are many ways to develop a code that meets the needs and customs of your tribe. You should develop a plan that is consistent with your needs, goals, and resources.
Keep in mind that this resource guide provides a very broad overview of important points of law. It does not include every detailed legal issue, so you will probably need to do additional research in order to develop more detailed laws.
Writing a tribal code can sometimes be a very long process. Be realistic about the time needed to complete this process. Take the time to do the job right, keeping in mind that you will need to listen to many different opinions.
Consider the resources in your community, including:
Tribal governments use a variety of terms to describe their laws, including statutes, ordinances, and codes. Generally, the term code refers to an organized listing of all laws for a given subject matter, while a specific subsection may be entitled a statute or ordinance. In this resource guide, the terms will be used interchangeably in order to be relevant to a wide variety of audiences. A glossary is included at the end of this resource.
Part I provides necessary background and context, including a brief history of TLOA and VAWA 2013, as well as exploring preliminary matters for a tribe to consider. It also explains how best to use this resource guide.
Parts II, III, and IV examine in more detail the requirements tribes must meet in order to exercise the powers recognized by TLOA and VAWA 2013. Each chapter in Parts II, III, and IV contain four main parts:
The Overview will introduce you to the section and to the statutory requirements. Reading the overview will give you basic background on the issue addressed in the chapter.
The Tribal Code Examples provide language from existing tribal codes and court rules. Whenever possible, we have included laws that other tribes have written to address the TLOA and VAWA 2013 requirements, including the three tribes that piloted VAWA 2013.
After each section of tribal code examples, Tribal Code Commentary is provided. This commentary is designed to help you consider the strengths and weaknesses of the tribal code examples.
The Discussion Questions are an important part of this resource guide. They are designed to help you think about the important issues and to better select words, process, and procedures that fit your community.
Part V provides a brief description of available online resources that may be helpful in further understanding the requirements and purposes of TLOA and VAWA 2013.
The glossary provides definitions of words and acronyms that may be helpful. The appendix provides a Tribal Domestic Violence Special Jurisdiction Model Code for implementation of VAWA 2013 and ICRA with TLOA and VAWA 2013 amendments highlighted.
Since 1968, a combination of federal statutes and federal court decisions have created a complex maze of laws and regulations that make it difficult to address crime committed in Indian country and to enforce protection orders. The primary obstacles created by this complex maze include the way in which criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is fractured across federal, tribal, and state governments; the sentencing limitations imposed by the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA); and the funding available to support tribal government infrastructure. Many of the limitations imposed by the U.S. Supreme Court have been heavily influenced by the provisions of ICRA that relate to the right to counsel. This chapter briefly reviews each one of these issues and then turns to an overview of the relevant provisions of TLOA and VAWA 2013.
Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a government to regulate conduct and to enforce those regulations through a court system. Generally speaking, jurisdiction is usually tied to territory and the power of a government over its territory. This is particularly true in criminal jurisdiction, at least for the federal and state governments. The federal and state governments possess the ability to prosecute an offender if any significant element of a crime occurred within the territory of that government. This territorial principle is further illustrated by the fact that criminal cases are entitled something along the lines of “the People versus the Defendant” or “the State versus the Defendant”; the government brings the prosecution because the defendant’s conduct is said to violate community norms.
This territorial approach is not, however, the approach used with respect to criminal jurisdiction in Indian country. Instead, a series of statutes and court decisions have declared that a tribal government’s criminal jurisdiction in Indian country is centered primarily on the identity of the people involved in the crime (both the victim and the perpetrator), and not only on the place where the conduct occurred.[2]However, location is also an important factor: whether a crime took place inside or outside of Indian country or on fee or trust land (for example, in Washington’s optional PL 280 Jurisdiction).
This fractured jurisdiction creates a great deal of confusion and requires extensive coordination between police departments, prosecutors’ offices, court systems, probation/parole offices, and victim service providers. The complex bureaucracy often has a detrimental impact on the ability of all governments to adequately address crime in Indian country. Because tribal governments are not able to prosecute all persons who commit crimes in their territory, tribes must rely on the federal and state governments to do so, and those governments are not always focused on prosecuting crime that occurs in Indian country.
Even when a tribe does possess the ability to prosecute a particular defendant, the federal government, through ICRA, has restricted the penalties the tribe can impose. As is discussed more fully in Chapter 13, ICRA limits both the amount of jail time a tribe can impose and the maximum fine, placing a maximum of one year imprisonment and a fine of $5,000. It is important to note that ICRA does not limit other penalties, such as community service, restitution or exclusion. Nevertheless, ICRA’s limitations often made it difficult for tribes to deal with serious offenders, particularly those who commit repeated offenses.
Underlying both of the previous problems is the issue of funding for government infrastructure. Operating a police department, a prosecutor’s office, and a court system is not cheap and requires a consistent flow of revenue. The federal and state governments rely on taxes to raise the necessary revenue. As a result of federal Indian policy, many tribes lack the necessary tax base and taxation authority to do the same. The result is that the majority of tribal governments are dependent on economic development and on federal funding to finance their criminal justice system. These revenues have not always been consistent or reliable.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of court decisions limiting tribal criminal jurisdiction. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, [5] restricted tribes inherent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians, indicating that until Congress acts, tribes had been implicitly divested of their inherent power to try non-Indians. The Supreme Court extended that reasoning beyond non-Indians to prohibit tribal criminal jurisdiction over Indian who are not members of the prosecuting tribe in Duro v. Reina.[6] Congress quickly acted to overturn Duro’s holding, in what is commonly called the “Duro fix.” The Court in U.S. v. Lara[7] found the “Duro fix,” which “recognized and affirmed” the inherent power of Indian tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction over all Indians, was a “legitimate exercise of Congress’s power to remove restriction on inherent tribal authority.”[8]
The decisions restricting tribal jurisdiction include some expression of concern regarding the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to tribes. This concern usually centers on the fact that ICRA does not contain a provision analogous to the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, which requires states to provide indigent defendants with a court-appointed attorney in certain cases. Instead, ICRA provided only that tribes cannot “deny to any person in a criminal proceeding the right . . . at his own expense to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. . . .”[9]
In making these pronouncements, the U.S. Supreme Court rarely looks beyond the superficial statement that ICRA does not require tribes to provide indigent defendants with an attorney in a criminal case. The reality is much more complex. First, some tribes do provide indigent defense counsel as a matter of tribal law. It should not matter whether an indigent defendant receives an attorney as a result of tribal or federal law. The result is the same: the defendant was represented by an attorney at trial.
Second, the Sixth Amendment does not require states or the federal government to provide every indigent defendant with an attorney in every criminal case. Instead indigent defense is required only if the case would result in a sentence of actual imprisonment. This includes suspended sentences if jail time is ever imposed.[10]
Both TLOA and VAWA 2013 attempt to remedy some of these problems, and we now turn to a brief examination of the provisions of each of those statutes.
Congress passed the TLOA in July 2010 and the president signed it into law on July 29, 2010. TLOA is a comprehensive statute focused on all aspects of investigating and prosecuting crime in Indian country with a primary purpose of reducing crime in Indian country and increasing public safety. Reports such as Amnesty International’s Maze of Injustice, the Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA,[11] which focuses on the systemic problems that left Indian women vulnerable, ignited public interest in the high rates of violence in Indian country, and motivated systemic changes. TLOA increases federal accountability, increases tribal authority, authorizes (not appropriates) additional funding, and establishes the Indian Law and Order Commission (ILOC).[12] The statute attempts to systematically address a wide variety of problems from data collection to housing prisoners. A complete discussion of the entire TLOA is beyond the scope of this resource, and we have chosen to focus on the enhanced sentencing authority and what tribes must do to implement that enhanced authority.
Prior to passage of the TLOA, federal law did not permit tribes to impose more than one year of imprisonment or more than a $5,000 fine. These restrictions were part of ICRA. In setting out these limitations, ICRA did not address the issue of “stacking,” that is, whether a defendant convicted of multiple offenses could be sentenced to consecutive terms. For example, suppose a defendant who robbed a convenience store and beat up the clerk was convicted of robbery and of assault and battery. If the court sentenced the defendant to one year in jail for each offense, could the court order the defendant to serve those sentences consecutively, for a total of two years of imprisonment? Federal courts have been divided about whether tribal courts can “stack” sentences, and if so, under what circumstances.
TLOA provides that if a tribe complies with the prerequisites listed in that statute, the tribe’s court system is able to exercise enhanced sentencing authority and can sentence a defendant to three years and a $15,000 fine for a single offense and can stack those sentences up to a cumulative total of nine years. Even if a tribe satisfies the prerequisites, however, this authority does not apply to every defendant convicted in tribal court. Rather, it applies only to defendants who (1) have previously been convicted of the same or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, or (2) are being prosecuted for an offense comparable to a felony. (See Chapter 6 for more details.)
A tribe wishing to exercise this enhanced sentencing authority must also comply with the following requirements:
The types of offenses and defendants are explored in Chapter 6. Types of Offenses and Defendants. The standards for defense counsel are discussed in Chapters 8. Defense Counsel and 10 Establishing a Tribal Bar Association, and the standards for judges in Chapters 9. Judges and 10 Establishing a Tribal Bar Association. The requirements for publication of laws and rules are explored in Chapter 7. Publication of Laws and Rules, and Chapter 11. Conduct of Proceedings discusses the rules for maintaining a record of the proceedings.
Chapters 13 Sentencing Options and 14 Stay of Detention Pending Habeas Review examine the remaining aspects of TLOA’s requirements. Chapter 12. Jury Trials relates only to VAWA 2013 and does not apply to TLOA’s enhanced sentencing provisions.
VAWA was first passed in 1994. It provided funding for the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women and established the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) in the Department of Justice (DOJ). The act included automatic expiration dates. It has been reauthorized in 2000, 2005, and 2013. In 2005 the authorizations included a specific tribal title, Title IX. The Title IX section of VAWA 2013 deals with a number of topics, such as grants, coalitions, Alaska-specific issues, tribal protection orders, and tribal jurisdiction. This resource focuses on Section 904, Tribal Jurisdiction over Crimes of Domestic Violence.
The statute required a pilot project that allowed earlier exercising of the jurisdiction by special permission of the attorney general. Three tribes became a part of that pilot project in February 2014: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, and the Tulalip Tribes. The three tribes submitted an application to the DOJ, which provided answers to questions and copies of laws and regulations that demonstrated compliance with VAWA 2013 requirements. The applications are helpful to tribes contemplating implementation, so pertinent parts are included in Part V. Helpful Resources.
In addition to the pilot project, tribes interested in implementing VAWA 2013 should join the Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group on Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction (ITWG). Forty-one tribes shared advice and information on how to best implement VAWA 2013, including the three tribes piloting the jurisdiction. Resources were generated by this working group and the pilot tribes, and are available through the Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group on Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction (ITWG) site.
The fractured nature of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country makes it particularly difficult to effectively address domestic violence committed against Native women. A significant portion of that violence is committed by non-Native men.[13] The federal prohibition restricting tribes from prosecuting non-Indians meant that tribes were unable to prosecute non-Indians for domestic violence, even when it occurred on the reservation. States were unable to prosecute (except in PL 280 and similar situated states) because the victim was an Indian, and federal prosecutors were generally uninterested in such cases unless serious injury or death occurred. Even then, federal reports showed that federal prosecutors declined more than half the cases referred to them.[14]
These restrictions also impacted the tribe’s ability to enforce protection orders and prosecute violations of those orders. Most protection orders are issued by civil courts, but are enforced (at least in the states) through the criminal justice process. Again, the federal prohibition restricting tribes from prosecuting non-Indians meant that tribes were limited to imposing civil sanctions on non-Indians who violate protection orders.
Congress enacted VAWA 2013 in part to address this problem. VAWA 2013 recognizes the ability of tribes to prosecute non-Indians who commit domestic violence in Indian country. VAWA 2013 refers to this as “Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction,” and sets out a series of requirements tribes must satisfy if they want to exercise this recognized authority. VAWA 2013 establishes a two-year time frame for a pilot project and provides that its provisions take effect two years after the date of enactment. Since VAWA 2013 was signed into law in March 2013, it became fully effective in March 2015. It should be noted that VAWA 2013’s SDVCJ did not apply in Alaska except for Metlakatla, because of an exception provided for in §910 of VAWA 2013. Tribes in Alaska strongly opposed the “Alaska exception,” and it was repealed in 2014.[15]
VAWA 2013 allows tribes to prosecute non-Indians for three categories of crimes—domestic violence, dating violence, and violations of protection orders—provided the tribe satisfies the prerequisites. The statute also requires that at least one of the parties in the case must be Indian and that the defendant must have some connection to the tribe, such as living or working in the tribe’s Indian country, or being involved in a relationship with a member of the tribe or with an Indian who resides in the tribe’s Indian country.
VAWA 2013 requires that tribes wishing to use the extra authority must provide the defendant with all the rights guaranteed by the statute, including (if the defendant may be sentenced to jail time) an attorney under the same conditions as in TLOA (see Chapters 8 and Chapter 10). The tribe must also provide the defendant with the right to a trial by an impartial jury that is drawn from sources that—
Finally, the tribe must also provide to defendants “all other rights whose protection is necessary under the Constitution of the United States in order for Congress to recognize and affirm the inherent power of the participating tribe to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over the defendant.”[16] (See Chapter 12).
The chart provides a comparison between the due process protections required by the TLOA and VAWA 2013.
TLOA and VAWA Due Process Requirements | TLOA | VAWA |
Defendants are provided with effective assistance of counsel equal to at least that guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. | X | X |
Tribal government provides to an indigent defendant a defense attorney licensed to practice by any jurisdiction in the United States. | X | X |
Defense attorney is licensed by a jurisdiction that applies appropriate licensing standards and effectively ensures the competence and professional responsibility of its licensed attorneys. | X | X |
Judges presiding over criminal proceedings subject to enhanced sentencing/non-Indian defendants have sufficient legal training to preside over criminal trials. | X | X |
Any judge presiding over criminal proceedings subject to enhanced sentencing/non-Indian defendants is licensed to practice law by any jurisdiction in the United States. | X | X |
The tribe’s criminal law, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure are made available to the public prior to charging the defendant. | X | X |
Tribal court maintains a record of the criminal proceeding, including an audio or other recording. | X | X |
Any defendant sentenced under either act is sentenced to a facility that passes the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) jail standards for enhanced sentencing authority. | X | X |
Tribal court provides the defendant the right to a trial by an impartial jury. | X[17] | X |
Tribal court ensures that the jury reflects a fair cross-section of the community. | X | |
Tribal court ensures that juries are drawn from sources that do not systematically exclude any distinctive group in the community, including non-Indians. | X | |
Tribal court ensures that anyone detained under SDVCJ is “timely notified” of his or her rights and responsibilities. (This may not be limited to SDVCJ.) | X | |
Tribal court ensures that a defendant is notified of his or her right to file “a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a court of the United States.” | X | |
Tribal court ensures that “all other rights whose protection is necessary under the Constitution of the United States in order for Congress to recognize and affirm the inherent power of the participating tribe to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction over the defendant” are provided. | X | |
Tribal court ensures that “all applicable rights under the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction provisions” are provided. | X |
In both TLOA and VAWA 2013, Congress declared that if a tribal government meets certain prerequisites, the tribe can exercise certain powers that had previously been restricted by the federal government. Neither statute requires tribes to use the recognized powers, so the first step is for a tribe to decide whether it wants to use those powers, and if so, whether complying with the federal requirements is worth the time and expense.
We have put this chapter and these questions in Part I because asking and answering them is part of the process a tribe may want to follow in deciding whether, and if so how, to comply with the requirements of TLOA and VAWA 2013. You may, however, want to skim these questions, read the rest of this resource guide, and then come back to the questions to start answering them. Many of the questions will make more sense after reading the rest of the chapters in this book, and you may be able to give more complete answers.
It is important to note that neither TLOA nor VAWA 2013 requires that tribes opt in within a certain time period. There is no rush for a tribe to make the decision that it wishes to implement the required changes. It is also possible for a tribe to initially decide it does not want to use the powers and then to later change its mind and change its laws to comply with the federal laws.
In making these decisions, a tribe should consider whether the recognized powers are consistent with its culture and traditions and the way it approaches its criminal justice system. TLOA and VAWA 2013 increase the amount of prison time and fines the tribal courts can impose as part of a sentence for a criminal conviction, and VAWA 2013 recognizes criminal jurisdiction over certain non-Indians who commit dating or domestic violence in the tribe’s Indian country. But they also require increased procedural complexity and apply only to the criminal justice system.
If no cultural reason exists for declining to make the changes required by TLOA and VAWA 2013, the tribe may also want to consider the following questions. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list; instead, we have tried to provide questions that will get the conversations started and direct attention to what are likely to be the major issues.
Complying with all of these requirements will be expensive, both in time and in money. Who will review and propose changes to your laws and procedures? Who will train prosecutors, judges, and defense counsel on the new laws and procedures and how they work? What funding will be required to make these changes? To pay for any additional prosecutors, judges, defense counsel, and court staff? To pay to publish the laws and regulations? To process the licensing and educational requirements? To implement the jury selection process? To pay for incarceration? To pay for medical costs of the incarcerated? Where will these funds come from? Is that source of funding stable and reliable?
For the most part, all of the preceding questions apply to both TLOA and VAWA 2013. A tribe considering whether it wishes to opt in to VAWA 2013 may also want to ask the following questions:
In considering these questions, a tribe may also want to consider possible alternatives, which may include:
Making No Changes. ICRA’s restrictions on sentencing and federal limitations on criminal jurisdiction may not be a problem for your tribe. You may have other effective ways of dealing with these problems or you may not be experiencing the type of behavior they are designed to address. In that case, it is probably not worth your time and effort to make the changes. Even if you are experiencing some of these problems, it may not be sufficiently widespread or serious as to be worth the time and money to comply with the federal prerequisites.
Using Civil Infractions and Alternative Sentencing. If your tribe does not already make use of alternative sentencing (such as community service) or approach certain matters as civil, rather than criminal, infractions, you may want to consider whether those approaches would be more effective or at least effective enough that it is not worth your time to comply with the federal requirements.
Can Other Parts of TLOA Address the Problem? TLOA is a very broad and comprehensive statute, and it addresses a wide variety of obstacles to effective crime control on reservations. Will or could some of these other provisions provide sufficient tools so that it is no longer worth the time and money to comply with the prerequisites to enhanced sentencing and prosecuting non-Indians? For example, would the Special Assistant United States Attorney (SAUSA)[18] provisions be a workable compromise?
Tulalip Tribes found that the use of SAUSA’s was an important tool in implementing VAWA 2013, as it provided more options along with the ability to negotiate or chose a forum. It continues to be an important tool after implementation, allowing complex cases to be prosecuted in both/either forums. It also provides a mechanism to provide the victim with a more comprehensive treatment of crimes.
We encourage you to think broadly about the community members who may have information that will help draft good laws. The following is a checklist of people and agencies that may be useful in drafting codes—but each community is different.
Understanding various perspectives in writing a law is not the only benefit of working with a multidisciplinary team. Other possibilities include:
Writing or revising a tribal law usually does not happen quickly or easily. Code writing involves a great deal of time, effort, and cooperation. There is not one “right” way to research and draft laws. The following tips come from successful efforts of other tribal nations.
The effort will not succeed if it simply becomes a process of finger pointing and blaming others for weaknesses in the current law. The best laws are developed one step at a time by a group that is committed to brainstorming and reviewing possible solutions to problems.
Equal representation is important. The code development process is not the “property” of any one agency or group.
The setting should be a safe environment in which the group can share, learn, and explore. It is okay to acknowledge differences of opinion, but not in a stereotypical or judgmental manner. The safety of women must be respected.
Try to focus on areas of common interest instead of differences. A shared vision (such as “a safe community”) can create confidence and trust.
All participants must be willing to explore new ways to help make sure that women are safe. However, different people may have different ideas. Listen to and learn from each other.
To be successful, you must be willing to be creative and persistent. The process will undoubtedly have frustrations and difficult times. Think “outside the box..”
The participants must also be willing to share in the burden of the process by sharing resources, training, technical assistance, and limited available funding, and to alternate locations of meetings and focus groups.
All tribal agencies involved should have a chance to review the draft laws before they are completed. Because each agency will have to follow the law, they need to know what is going to be proposed.
In some cultures, it is important to share and provide food for participants. You will be spending a great deal of time together, so make sure everyone is comfortable. (Please note that there are substantial restrictions on the use of federal grant funds for food. The safest practice is to use nongrant funds for food. If you are considering using federal grant funds, be sure to check with your grant manager.)
It cannot be stressed enough that this is a lengthy project, but one that is well worth the effort. Your cooperation in creating these new laws will help protect the women and families in your community.
As you sit down together to begin the process of implementing TLOA and VAWA 2013 for your tribe, keep your main goal in mind.
Consider writing down your ultimate goal and reviewing it at the beginning of each meeting.
Example: Provide greater safety to our community while expanding our jurisdiction.
You should review your constitution and bylaws or other foundational legal documents. Keep track of your legislative history and consider incorporating it into the law. Reviewing and clarifying the roles of law enforcement, the tribal court, and the prosecutor may also be helpful. Additionally, it is important to understand the federal and/or state laws that impact your tribe. Review all the amendments made to ICRA by TLOA and VAWA 2013. Amended ICRA is in Part V. Helpful Resources of this guide with notations of the amendments made by TLOA or VAWA 2013.
It is also important to evaluate the laws that are already in place in your community. Be sure to analyze the strengths and weaknesses in any current laws. Inserting a Savings Clause in your amended code to ensure that during the time of adoption or following adoption, there is no question as to what happens to the old code cases. An example of a Saving Clause appears in the Tribal Domestic Violence Special Jurisdiction Model Code at the back of this guide.
If appropriate, you should review your traditions and stories, as well as your customs, regarding healing and justice. This research may be done by interviewing elders within your community. In addition, you can also consult anthropological documentation about your tribe, historical records, or other tribes that share similar cultural or linguistic ties.
Consider creating a binder for all team members that includes:
Many times, existing tribal laws may have originated in the laws from another tribe or from a city, state, or county. Take the time to go through and review your current laws to:
In Part II of the resource we begin to review the specific requirements of the TLOA and VAWA 2013 that could require changes in your tribal code.
We begin with the basics in Chapter 6 by discussing who could be criminally prosecuted by implementing the enhanced sentencing provisions of the acts and for what crimes they could be prosecuted. TLOA and VAWA 2013 will impact only specific sections of your code. Implementation of the enhancement provision will require examination of specific sections of your code. Possible options for amendments to tribal codes are discussed and examples of tribes who have decided to opt in to one or both laws are provided. Because VAWA 2013 was not fully implemented until March 2015, example codes from the tribes that participated in the pilot project are used. A Tribal Domestic Violence Special Jurisdiction model code is also included in the appendix.
Chapter 7 discusses the requirements of the acts to publish tribal laws, procedures, and rules. It also provides examples of rules and code on recusal of a judge, as recusal is specifically referenced in TLOA.
The TLOA amended ICRA to permit enhanced sentencing when a defendant is a repetitive offender who has previously been convicted of the same or a “comparable offense” in any jurisdiction.[19] “Comparable offense” is not defined in the statute, but its ordinary meaning is having enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison appropriate.[20] Evidence needs to be submitted to the court supporting the previous convictions and the court needs to review the statute of the other jurisdiction, to determine that the statute is comparable to the offense that the defendant is currently charged with.
The information on criminal offenses from other jurisdiction may be available through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). According to TLOA, a tribal justice officer, serving a tribe with criminal jurisdiction over Indian country, shall be considered an authorized law enforcement official with access to NCIC. Some tribes have been able to access NCIC, freely entering and accessing information, while other tribes are only able to enter their information. Still others are unable to gain access to the NCIC portals. This is because states provide the NCIC portal to tribes. Some states are cooperative and others are not. Tribes should also check states or tribal jurisdictions they know the defendant to have previously resided.
Additionally, TLOA amended ICRA to allow enhanced sentencing by the tribal court, if the defendant is prosecuted for an offense in tribal court that would be comparable to an offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment if prosecuted in federal or state court. Generally, in state or federal courts a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year is considered a felony and a crime punishable by less than one year is considered a misdemeanor. Felonies such as murder, sexual assault, and so forth, may carry enhanced sentencing. In addition some states may consider some domestic violence and stalking crimes felonies, so if they are comparable to the offenses in your nation, these crimes could also carry up to three years and/or a $15,000 fine.
Defendant must be prosecuted for
Defendant must be prosecuted for
VAWA 2013 recognizes tribes’ inherent ability to hold non-Indian offenders of Natives accountable and removes some restrictions imposed by Oliphant. Statistics have indicated that non-Indians are the primary perpetrators of crimes against Native women in both domestic violence and sexual assault.
VAWA 2013 also amended ICRA allowing certain domestic violence crimes committed by non-Indians against Natives within Indian country to be prosecuted in tribal court should the tribe decide to exercise the “special domestic violence jurisdiction” over non-Indians. Because perpetrators in domestic violence and sexual assault cases are often non-Native, this “special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction” is a significant tool to help tribes protect Native women and a significant step forward in reestablishing full tribal jurisdiction.
In order for the tribe to exercise the special jurisdiction, the non-Indian must have sufficient connections to the tribe, by either
The definition of Indian country in 18 U.S.C. § 1151 is:
In applying and interpreting this statute, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared that Indian country is land set aside for the use of Indians under the superintendence of the federal government. The Court has also declared that the statutory definition applies in both civil and criminal cases.
The domestic violence offenses designated by VAWA special domestic violence jurisdiction are defined in the ICRA as follows:
DATING VIOLENCE—The term dating violence means violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim, as determined by the length of the relationship, the type of relationship, and the frequency of the interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.[21]
VIOLATION OF A PROTECTION ORDER—The term protection order means any temporary or permanent, civil or criminal order issued to prevent violent or threatening acts or to prohibit contact, communication, or physical proximity to the interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.[22]
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE—The term domestic violence means violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse or intimate partner, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic- or family-violence laws of an Indian tribe that has jurisdiction over the Indian country where the violence occurs.[23] The violation must occur in Indian country of the participating nation.[24]
The definition of dating violence seems to eliminate hookups or casual sexual relationships. Sexual assault and stalking are covered if the activity meets the definition of domestic violence or dating violence. The tribal statute regarding domestic violence may include familial relationships that do not meet the federal definition of domestic violence in VAWA 2013 and tribes may need to create one that meets the federal definition.
3.4.1 Imprisonment and Fines.
The Court may impose the following criminal penalties against a person who is convicted for violating this Code:
3.4.2 Repetitive Offenders.
The Court may, at its discretion, sentence a person who has been previously convicted of the same offense, or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, to one class higher than the sentence imposed in the previous conviction. Convictions for two or more offenses committed for the same act may be counted as one conviction for the purposes of this section.
3.4.3 Consecutive Terms of Imprisonment.
If multiple crimes are committed, and multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time, the Court may, at its discretion, direct the sentences to run consecutively.
3.4.4 Other Criminal Penalties.
In addition to, or in lieu of, the penalties set forth in Section 3.4.1, the Court may order restitution, diversion from criminal prosecution, community service, treatment, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, unless a provision of this Code provides otherwise with respect to a certain type of offense.
The Court may substitute community service for a fine, upon a showing that the defendant is indigent.
3.4.5 Civil Damages.
3.4.6 Hopi Traditions, Customs, and Practices.
The Court shall consider Hopi traditions, customs, and practices when imposing the penalties set forth in this section.
Chapter 6: Offences Against Family
3.6.7 Domestic Violence.
A person who commits assault, aggravated assault, endangerment, threatening, kidnapping, sexual assault, or sexual conduct with a minor is guilty of domestic violence, a serious offense, if any the following factors are present:
SECTION 3.26. MISDEMEANORS
Any offense not defined as a felony shall be subject to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year or a fine of $5,000, or both.
SECTION 3.27. FELONIES
SECTION 4.74. ASSAULT
SECTION 4.84. STALKING.
Section 8-3. Sentencing Classifications, Restitution or Alternative Compensation, Offense Specific Penalty or Sentence.
In addition to any other penalty, the court may require a person convicted of an offense, who has injured a person(s), property of a person(s) and/or entity in that offense, to make restitution or to compensate for the injury through the surrender of property, the payment of money damages, or the performance of any other act for the benefit of the insured, or any combination of such. Such restitution or compensation is wholly separate from any fine imposed.
In no event shall the court impose a sentence or penalty in excess then what is permitted by the specific offense, or for the class of sentence assigned to the offense. If in any matter in which the sentence permitted by this section for the class of offense is inconsistent with the specific sentencing mandate in a particular criminal offense of tribal code, the specific sentencing term for the tribal offense shall be applied.
Sec. 14-20.10. Punishment.
Any person subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the Eastern Cherokee Court of Indian Offenses or any successor Cherokee Tribal Court who shall be convicted of any offense defined by this Article shall be punished as follows:
4.25.010 Purpose
Article I General Provisions
The Purpose of this Chapter is to recognize domestic violence and family violence as serious crimes against society, the Tribes, and the family, and to provide the victim of domestic violence or family violence the maximum protection from further violence that the law, and those who enforce the law, can provide. Furthermore, the purpose of this Chapter is to recognize that the strength of the Tribes is founded on healthy families, and that the safety of victims of domestic and family violence, especially children, must be ensured by immediate intervention of law enforcement, prosecution, education, treatment, and other appropriate services.
It is the intent of the Tulalip Tribes that the official response of domestic violence and family violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect the victim and to hold the perpetrator accountable, which will in turn communicate the Tribes’ policy that violent behavior against intimate partners or family members is criminal behavior and will not be excused or tolerated. This in turn will promote healing of families and the tribes where possible, and promote cultural teachings and traditional tribal values so as to nurture nonviolence and respect within families. This chapter shall be interpreted and applied to give it the broadest possible scope to carry out these purposes.
4.25.020 Legislative Findings
It is the intent of the Tulalip Board of Directors and the tribal community that the official response to domestic violence and family violence shall be that the Tribes will not tolerate or excuse violent behavior under any circumstances. All people, whether they are elders, male, female, or children of our Tribes, or of the entire community residing on the Tulalip Reservation, are to be cherished and treated with respect.
Domestic violence and family violence are not acceptable and are contrary to traditional Tulalip tribal culture and values of honoring the family, and are contrary to the interest of our community and sense of well-being and growth. Domestic violence and family violence will not be tolerated.
The Tribes find that domestic violence and family violence imperils the very subsistence of the tribal community and the residents of the reservation. The Tribes recognize the Department of Justice findings that one in three Native women is sexually assaulted in her lifetime and that 70% of reported assaults are committed by non-Native men against Native women. A community response to domestic and family violence is necessary because domestic and family violence crimes and incidents impact the community as a whole. These crimes redirect tribal resources—whether personnel, financial, public safety or other resources—elsewhere and require an immediate response. As a result of this impact on tribal resources, the Tribes deems it necessary to address domestic violence and family violence to the fullest extent permitted by laws existing now or as may be adopted or amended in the future.
The Tribes further recognizes that there is a distinction between intimate partner domestic violence and family member violence. Domestic violence involves an intimate partner relationship and dynamics of power and control are overwhelmingly present in the action. Family violence is committed against all other family or household members. Both are reprehensible actions that require specialized recognition and enhanced provisions than what might be otherwise available to victims of crimes, or remedies available in civil actions.
4.25.030 General Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction over domestic and family violence matters shall be in accordance with Chapter 2. In addition, the Tulalip Tribal Court shall retain jurisdiction over members of federally recognized Indian tribes and any violations of Orders of Protection entered pursuant to this Chapter which are alleged to have occurred outside of the boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation where such orders are entitled to recognition outside reservation boundaries as a matter of full faith and credit.
4.25.040 Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
4.25.050 Special Jurisdiction; Criminal Conduct Applicable
The Tulalip Tribes exercises the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction of a defendant for criminal conduct that falls into one or more of the following categories:
The first several examples are designed to meet TLOA’s requirements. The last example from Tulalip is an example from a tribe that implemented VAWA 2013 in the pilot project.
The Hopi Nation has implemented TLOA by categorizing their criminal offenses into five categories:
The Dangerous Offense and the Serious Offense are the two categories that have the possibility of enhanced sentencing under TLOA. The Dangerous Offense has the potential maximum incarceration of three years and a potential fine of up to $15,000. A Serious Offense carries a maximum incarceration of two years and a potential fine of up to $10,000. Each offense in the Hopi Criminal Code is categorized in one of the five categories. Examples of the crime of domestic violence and stalking are included to show how the crimes are categorized as Serious Offenses or Dangerous Offenses. Presumably the offenses designated as Serious Offenses or Dangerous Offenses are those that are comparable to felonies in states or federal courts, and subject to incarceration in excess of a year in those jurisdictions.
Section 3.4.2, Repetitive Offenders, allows enhancement of the crime to the next higher category if there is a previous conviction of the same crime in the tribal jurisdiction or of a comparable crime in any other jurisdiction in the United States. It does clarify that the other conviction must be for a different act. Because we have different sovereigns, it is possible that an offender could be charged in federal court or state court for the same activity and the tribal code makes it clear that the previous conviction must be for a different offense.
The Hopi Code also requires that Hopi customs and traditions be considered in sentencing. Additionally the court may look beyond fines and imprisonment. It can order restitution, diversion from criminal prosecution, community service, treatment, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, unless a provision of the code has mandatory sentencing. The Court may substitute community service for a fine, upon a showing that the defendant is indigent.
Hopi also has a section that allows the tribal prosecutor to bring a civil action against non-Indians who are not subject to tribal criminal jurisdiction, but who violate the criminal laws in Hopi’s territory. These individuals would be required to pay fines. The amount of the fines has increased due to the TLOA to a possible high of $15,000.
The Hopi Domestic Violence definition is much more expansive than the definition implemented by VAWA 2013. Hopi may choose to make a specific domestic violence offense regarding non-Indians rather than modifying their domestic violence statute. There may be one domestic violence law for Indians and another for non-Indians. They would want to ensure that the penalties are the same for both Indian and non-Indians so they may categorize the Special Domestic Violence law as a serious offense or, if a repetitive offender is involved, a dangerous offense subject to the maximum three years of imprisonment and a $15,000 penalty.
The Umatilla Nation incorporates the TLOA through categorization of their criminal offenses into felonies and misdemeanors. Those crimes that are categorized as felonies are subject to imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to $15,000. The total imprisonment for any proceeding should not exceed nine years. Considered here is the possibility of stacking offenses dealt with in one proceeding, resulting in multiple convictions. The total incarceration is limited to nine years—the limitation in the TLOA.
Examples of the type of offenses that are considered felonies include stalking and assault under specific circumstances. Here the tribe has reviewed comparable offenses in states or federal court where these offenses are considered felonies, subject to incarceration in excess of a year. The Umatilla Code uses the language from the TLOA, stating that a defendant is not subject to a felony prosecution unless previously convicted of the same or comparable offence by any jurisdiction in the United States or is being prosecuted for an offense comparable to an offense punishable by more than one year of imprisonment if prosecuted by the federal or state courts. All defendants in Umatilla have the same rights and are subject to the same potential sentences regardless of citizenship status. In their code the Jurisdiction Section and the Charging Section make distinctions based on citizenship status to meet requirements to participate in SDVCJ.
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community has put offenses into five categories. Class A offenses are those offenses that are subject to up to three years of incarceration and/or a $15,000 fine. The Class A offenses also have a minimum mandatory sentence of one year of imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Salt River reviewed all of its offenses to determine the appropriate classification, considering how the offenses were categorized in state and federal courts. There does not appear to be any general section that allows enhancement of punishment for repeat offenders.
The Eastern Cherokee Nation reviewed their criminal code sections and amended those sections that met TLOA criteria and those sections that the Cherokee Nation believed should carry the harsher punishment. The example is the punishment section of their sexual assault offense. The nation has a minimum mandatory sentence of three years for aggravated sexual assault, which cannot be stayed, reduced, or suspended. It also has a mandatory sentence of three years for sexual abuse and sexual abuse of a minor or ward, but allows a judge to suspend all or part of this sentence. Conviction of the remaining sexual assaults could result in incarceration for up to three years, but there is no mandatory sentence. There doesn’t appear to be any requirements to enhance sentencing for repeat offenders.
The Tulalip statute is specifically designed to implement VAWA 2013. It was one of the pilot tribes. The statute closely follows the requirements laid out in VAWA 2013.
TLOA requires that, prior to charging a defendant, a tribe wishing to use the enhanced sentencing authority must make publicly available the criminal laws (including regulations and interpretative documents), rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure (including rules governing the recusal of judges in appropriate circumstances) of the tribal government.
VAWA 2013 incorporates these same requirements.
Given the consequences of a criminal conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is not fair to hold a defendant responsible for obeying the law if there was no way the defendant could know what the law required. One of the criticisms that has long been leveled against tribal governments and tribal courts is that it is difficult to know what the tribe’s laws are and to whom they apply. To some extent, this is an educational gap. The laws of the federal and state governments are available in both law libraries and in online legal databases, and law schools train their students in how to locate those laws. Most law students do not receive equivalent training in how to research tribal law. It is true, however, that (at least until recent years) some tribes did not make their laws available in law libraries and online how cases move through the court system.
Tribes will thus want to ensure that all its laws, rules, regulations, and court opinions that relate to criminal justice and criminal procedure are publicly available. “Interpretive documents” also likely include any commentary or other legislative history. The statute does not define “publicly available.”
As a general rule, it is likely sufficient if the tribe’s documents are as readily available as comparable state documents. This can mean being published in books available through law libraries, in legal databases, or on the Internet. Most tribes use the Internet to make their criminal laws, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure publicly available.
Some tribes have also placed hard copies in publicly accessible places, such as tribal buildings, tribal agencies, tribal jails, and tribal libraries. Other tribes are providing hard copies to those who request it. You may also want to place written notices around the courthouse, police, station, and so forth that explain where you can find the documents—online and/or hard copies.
Your tribe has unique financial circumstance that may or may not permit giving out hard copies, or placing hard copies in the community. You will want to take into account your budget when making these decisions. Tribes do not have to make these documents available for free, but they cannot charge a disproportionately large fee for them.
Few tribes have specific laws or rules relating to how they will make their laws and codes publicly available. Those are generally administrative matters. Accordingly, this portion of the chapter focuses on provisions for recusing judges. The commentary section includes information about how tribes are satisfying the “publicly available” requirement.
Sec. 14-20.10. Punishment.
Sec. 7-9. - Conflict of interest.
Any Justice or Judge with a direct personal or financial interest in the outcome of any matter shall recuse himself or herself, and failure to recuse shall constitute grounds for impeachment and removal from office.
5.1514. Change of Judge.
RULE 10. CHANGE OF JUDGE.
Rule 10.1. Change of Judge.
Rule 10. Change of Judge
2.05.060 Disqualification of Judges and Magistrates.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee has listed its code (including criminal laws, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure) online through the website Municode. Municode allows the user to view, print, and e-mail the code for free. The user can also purchase a copy of the code on the website. The tribe also keeps copies of their tribal code (including the criminal laws, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure) at the tribal building in the Cherokee Nation. Copies of the code are also distributed to all of the tribal programs. The code is available to the public in all of these locations.
The Gila River Indian Community Code (including the criminal laws, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure) is available on their community website. The community also plans to have hard copies of the code available at the tribal library, jail, and the seven district service centers throughout the reservation. The district service centers are where tribal members hold district meetings, play basketball, and so forth. GRIC has included the legislative history of the criminal code within its criminal code.
The Hopi Tribe’s code (including the criminal laws, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure) is available on the tribe’s website. The code is also available in hard copy for inmates in jail. On the tribal website the Hopi Tribal Council Resolution regarding TLOA is also posted.
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community code (including the criminal laws, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure) is available on the community’s website. The community also provides hard copies of the code upon request.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Umatilla) code (including the criminal laws, Court Code, rules of evidence, and rules of criminal procedure) is available on the tribe’s website. The legislative history is included within the codes. Umatilla’s recusal provisions are covered in Section 4.03(c) of the Court Code.
A tribe may articulate in either its code or its court rules the circumstances in which a judge should recuse himself or herself from presiding over a case. These will generally involve circumstances in which the judge has a personal or financial stake in the outcome of the case or for other reasons cannot be fair or impartial. The details of the procedures for recusal are not usually contained in the statute but rather are usually found in the court rules or judicial standards of conduct.
The example from Eastern Band of Cherokee illustrates a typical code provision regarding judicial recusal.
The excerpt from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa rules illustrates a typical procedure for handling recusal situations.
The Tulalip Code goes into more detail, providing parties with a right of one automatic change of judge if the party files an affidavit within the specified time stating that the judge assigned to the case is prejudiced. The party may be entitled to a second reassignment of the case if the party is able to demonstrate prejudice. A judge may also choose to recuse “himself or herself upon grounds that he or she deems sufficient.”
The excerpt from the Gila River code and rules illustrates more fully the relationship between statutory provisions regarding recusal and rules of procedure implementing those provisions. Note that the rules of procedure provide more detail about the process, including the paperwork that must be filed, the time for filing it, and the hearing on the matter.
A tribe wishing to exercise the enhanced sentencing authority under TLOA and the SDVCJ under VAWA 2013 must ensure that the attorney representing the defendant and the judge presiding over the case meet minimum standards of competency.
Chapter 8 explores the standards for defense counsel. Chapter 9 explores the standards for judges. One way to satisfy the licensing portion of the requirements is to establish a tribal bar association, and Chapter 10 explores what would be required of a tribal bar association.
Those attorneys must:
A tribe may already have a system for providing representation to defendants. If so, the tribe should review that system to make sure it fits the standards required by TLOA and VAWA 2013. Tribes should also be aware that these standards are the minimum requirements; tribes are free to provide an attorney to every defendant, if they wish to. The main reason to limit who gets a court-appointed attorney is the expense of paying for an attorney.
Complying with the TLOA and VAWA 2013 requirements regarding defense counsel can become very complicated very quickly. This is due in large part to the complicated legal standards developed by federal courts for ensuring that a court-appointed lawyer does what the lawyer is supposed to do.
Tribes do not need to adopt the same complex standards, but they do need to understand those standards. TLOA and VAWA 2013 require a tribe to provide at least the same level of effective assistance of counsel required by the U.S. Constitution. A tribe can impose higher standards on it defense attorneys.
The three key parts of TLOA and VAWA 2013 to remember with respect to defense counsel are that:
The first question for a tribe, then, is to determine how it will define “indigent.” That is, when will a defendant be considered too poor to hire his or her own attorney?
Once a tribe has decided who will qualify for a court-appointed defense attorney, the tribe must decide what system it will use for appointing an attorney. Several types of systems exist. The three most common systems are a public defender office, a contract system, and a pro bono or required service system.
If the tribe has a public defender office, the court will appoint that office to represent the defendant. A public defender system is one in which the tribe establishes a special office and hires attorneys to work as attorneys for defendants who cannot afford their own lawyers. The benefit of a public defender system is that the attorneys are specialized in criminal defense work and the cost of running the office is fairly predictable. There are two disadvantages to a public defender system. First, a tribe needs to be able to accurately predict how many defendants will require a court-appointed lawyer, and that number must be sufficient to require full-time defense attorneys. It must also be a fairly consistent number of defendants. Second, there must be a way to handle what are called “conflicts.” There are times when an attorney will not be able to represent a particular client because to do so would be an ethical conflict. If the attorneys in the public defender office cannot represent a defendant, the tribe must have an alternate means of appointing an attorney.
The usual way to handle conflicts is to have a contract system. A contract system can also be an alternative to having a public defender office at all. A contract system means the tribe has entered into an agreement with an attorney (or attorneys). The agreement provides that the attorney will accept court appointments to serve as defense counsel and sets the fees that the attorney will receive in return for that work. The main advantage to a contract system is that the tribe only has to pay the attorney when the attorney is needed. If a tribe does not require a full-time defense attorney, this can be a more cost-effective alternative. The disadvantages are that contract attorneys may not be as skilled at criminal defense work and that the costs are not as predictable.
A third type of system is one in which attorneys who are members of the tribal bar association are required to take turns accepting court appointments to serve as defense counsel. This service is usually “pro bono,” which means the attorney donates his or her time. These pro bono or required service systems do not usually work very well because it is difficult to ensure the attorney has the skills required to do criminal defense work and that the attorney has sufficient time to spend on the case.
No matter what system the tribe chooses to use, it must ensure that the attorneys who serve as defense counsel meet the minimum standards required by both TLOA and VAWA 2013. Those standards have two parts: a basic competency standard and a licensing requirement.
Both TLOA and VAWA 2013 require that a tribe provide the defendant with a right to effective assistance of counsel at least equal to that required by the U.S. Constitution. The federal and state courts have developed a large body of law defining what “effective assistance of counsel” means, or as it is more commonly phrased, when a defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the constitution. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show not only that the attorney was deficient, but that those deficiencies prejudiced the defendant.[25]
The first part of the test is to evaluate any alleged deficiencies in counsel’s conduct. As a practical matter, the defendant must point to particular, specific things the attorney did wrong. The defendant must also prove that the errors were so serious that counsel was not functioning as the “counsel” guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This is a very difficult standard to meet, particularly as the U.S. Supreme Court directed judges to indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. The second part of the test requires the defendant to prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
This complicated test has been applied in a very technical way that has produced much debate. For example, in one case, the record showed that the defense attorney fell asleep in court. The appellate court reviewed the transcript and decided the part of the trial the attorney slept through was not sufficiently important that it would have affected the outcome of the case.[26]
A tribe may choose to adopt the standard used by the federal and state courts or to create its own standard. A tribe may choose to adopt the same test, but apply it differently, but at a minimum it must meet the Strickland test and any changes to that test the Supreme Court make in the future. The two key requirements of TLOA and VAWA 2013 are that the tribe must guarantee a minimum standard of competency for court-appointed defense counsel and that the standard chosen cannot be lower than the standard used by the federal courts when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. The details for this standard and how it is interpreted are often supplied in court decisions and court rules.
Both TLOA and VAWA 2013 mandate that a tribe require that its court-appointed attorneys be licensed to practice law by any jurisdiction in the United States that applies appropriate professional licensing standards and effectively ensures the competence and professional responsibility of its licensed attorneys. Tribes have a number of options for satisfying these requirements, including:
1.6.1 OFFICERS.
Officers of the Trial Court include:
Attorneys and lay advocates who are members of the Bar of the Hopi Tribe.
(1.6.2 Omitted)
1.6.3 PUBLIC DEFENDER
1.6.4 APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS.
Title II: Court Rules
Chapter 8: Trial, General Provisions
2.8.5 RIGHTS OF ACCUSED.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused person shall have the right to defend himself in person or, at his own expense, by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf; and to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; upon request, the accused or a juror shall be entitled to an interpreter.
1-2-401. Declaration of Policy.
1-2-402. Indigence Defined.
An individual accused by the Tribes of a criminal offense shall be determined to be indigent if he or she presents to the Tribal Defenders Office a statement documenting that his or her income is less than 200% of the current standard for poverty contained in the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines. If the individual's income is between 200% and 300% of that standard, he or she may elect to have the Tribal Defenders Office represent them for a fee to be determined by the Tribal Defenders Office and approved by the Tribal Council, but shall not be entitled to representation by that Office in the absence of making that election. If the individual’s income is over 300% of the current standard for poverty contained in the Federal Poverty Income Guidelines then he or she shall be responsible for retaining and paying their own attorney or advocate, and shall not be entitled to representation by the Tribal Defenders Office.
Section 3.28. DEFENDANT’S RIGHTS
Rule 11 Advocates or Attorneys
5.1505. Right to Counsel.
Rules 6. ATTORNEYS, APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Rule 6.1. Right to Counsel, Waiver of Rights to Counsel.
The appointment and waiver of counsel shall be subject to the requirements in the GRIC Code § 5.1505.
Rule 6.2. Appointment of Counsel.
Rule 29.4 Right to Assistance of Counsel for Purposes of Appeal.
(1. through 7. Omitted)
# of Persons in Family/Household | |
1 | $17,235 |
2 | $24,265 |
3 | $29,295 |
4 | $35,325 |
5 | $41,355 |
6 | $47,385 |
7 | $53,415 |
8 | $59,445 |
For Each Additional Person Add | $6,030 |
The Hopi Tribal Code established an Office of Public Defender and sets out a list of the duties of that office and the attorneys’ qualifications. The tribe uses a contract system to provide public defenders for indigent defendants.
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes maintain a Tribal Defenders Office, and an indigent defendant accused of a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment has a right to representation by that office. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribal Code defines three categories of income level for appointment of counsel: a level at which the defendant is entitled to representation by the Tribal Defenders Office at no charge, a level at which the defendant is entitled to representation for a fee, and a level at which the defendant is not entitled to representation by the Tribal Defenders Office (although the defendant can hire and pay for his or her own attorney).
The Umatilla Code articulates the standards required by TLOA and VAWA 2013, and then provides more detail in the court rules. This approach provides flexibility, as court rules are often easier to update and change than are statutes. Note that the regulation is focused on the licensing requirement and does not directly address the effective assistance of counsel requirement. That is a fairly typical approach, as the effective assistance of counsel standards will often be addressed more fully by the courts in opinions. In practice Umatilla contracts out cases to local state bar licensed attorneys who practice criminal defense in surrounding communities.
The Gila River Indian Community also addresses the matter of indigent defense counsel in both the tribal code and in court rules. The code indicates that an indigent defendant is eligible for a court-appointed attorney when the defendant may be subject to incarceration of more than a year, not when subject to incarceration for less than a year. The court rules contain a detailed process for determining whether a defendant is indigent. Note that the tribe provides a more extensive right to counsel for tribal members, and that the tribe also provides a right to appellate counsel in certain cases.
VAWA 2013 echoes these requirements, declaring that before a term of imprisonment of any length may be imposed, the tribe must provide a defendant with all rights described in section 1302(c), which includes TLOA’s standards for judges.
This chapter will focus on the “sufficient legal training” portion of the requirements first, and then turn to the licensing requirements.
Most tribes already set standards for judicial qualifications. To satisfy TLOA, however, those standards must include requirements designed to insure that a judge has sufficient legal training to preside over criminal proceedings. Note, however, that these standards do not necessarily apply to all members of the tribal judiciary. They do not even necessarily apply to all judges hearing criminal cases. Rather, they apply only to judges who preside over criminal cases in which the enhanced sentencing authority will be used or which involve SDVCJ. A tribe may, however, decide to apply these training requirements more broadly.
TLOA does not require that the judge hold a law degree. Rather, it requires only that the judge have “sufficient” legal training to preside over criminal proceedings. That training may be acquired through law school, through judicial training certification programs, or other workshops. The tribe also retains the authority (at least initially) to determine what constitutes sufficient training.
As for the licensing requirements, tribes have a number of options for satisfying those, including:
This division is not just driven by the language of TLOA. Most states have a different set of standards for qualification of judges and qualification of attorneys. Judges may be members of the bar association, but judicial standards of conduct are usually set by court rule or statute. Allegations that a judge has violated those standards are usually heard by a different organization than the one that hears allegations against attorneys. There will often be a statutory committee to review judicial conduct, and sometimes that authority is placed in the tribal council (although the latter is potentially fraught with separation of powers issues).
Sec. 7-8. - Judicial qualifications.
(Sec. 7-9. Omitted)
Sec. 7-10. - Removal by impeachment.
SECTION 2.02. Eligibility
Rules 41.1 Purpose
The protection of the rights of Community members depends upon the existence of an independent and competent judiciary. The task of maintaining judicial competence depends on the willingness of the judiciary itself to assure that its members are knowledgeable and skilled and that the judges are trained in the application of legal principles. For purposes of Rule 41 a judge shall include the chief judge; associate judges; appellate court judges, and judges pro tempore (visiting judges) appointed on a full-time, part-time or on-call basis to preside over criminal proceedings.
Rule 41.2 Educational Requirements
2.05.040 Judges.
The Tulalip Tribal Court shall consist of a Chief Judge and such Associate Judges as needed, whose duties shall be regular and permanent, as fixed and determined by the Board of Directors. No person shall exercise the judicial authority of the Tulalip Tribes in any Tulalip Tribal Court, Employment Court, Gaming Court, or other Court under this code or any other Tulalip ordinance or regulation unless and until such person has been appointed by the Board of Directors in accordance with this chapter. Judges shall receive such compensation as is set by resolution of the Board.
To be eligible to serve as Chief Judge of the Tribal Court, a person must also possess administrative experience in addition to the requirements included in this section.
(2. and 3. Omitted)
The Eastern Band of Cherokee requires that its judges be licensed by the North Carolina State Bar and members in good standing of the practicing bar of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The statute gives the Ethics Committee the power to remove judges. The law does not, however, contain an explicit requirement that the judge have sufficient training to preside over criminal trials. It is likely that the North Carolina bar requires that attorneys possess a JD, which should be sufficient to meet the training requirement.
The Umatilla Code explicitly requires that its judges be graduates of an accredited law school. The Umatilla code also requires membership in good standing of a state bar, but it accepts membership in any state bar, unlike the Eastern Cherokee who limited licensure to the bar of the state where they are located.
Gila River does not require its judges to have a law degree, but it has established a very detailed set of rules regarding judicial education. Those standards require a minimum amount of educational instruction prior to being assigned a case as well as a continuing education requirement. It has imposed even higher standards for the initial education requirements for judges presiding over cases involving defendants subject to enhanced sentencing. Gila River has also defined what topics are acceptable to fulfill the educational requirement and which programs are deemed to be accredited. The code also establishes a procedure for judges to certify they have satisfied the requirement.
The Tulalip code establishes several alternative requirements for serving as a judge. Possessing a Juris Doctorate from a law school is only one option.
Bar associations can be organized in many different ways and can serve a variety of functions. They run the spectrum from being a social networking organization for lawyers and judges to being the organization that sets and enforces the minimum standards of training, education, and knowledge a person must possess in order to practice law in that jurisdiction. Under the latter function, the bar association usually also sets and enforces standards of professionalism and ethical conduct, and imposes requirements for continuing education.
A bar association can also set and enforce Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements, including minimum quantities of annual training and defining standards for who can teach CLE courses.
TLOA and VAWA 2013 both distinguish the licensing requirements for judges and for defense attorneys. With respect to judges, the two statutes require only that the judge be licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction in the United States. With respect to defense counsel, the requirements are more stringent. Defense attorneys must not only be licensed, but also their licensing body must apply appropriate standards and ensure both the competence and the ethical (professional responsibility) duties of its attorneys. As discussed more fully in Chapter 9, this difference is likely a result of the fact that judicial standards of conduct are usually set by court rule or statute.
If a tribe wishes to satisfy TLOA’s and VAWA 2013’s requirements by using its existing tribal bar association or by establishing a tribal bar association, it must ensure that the tribal bar applies “appropriate standards” to ensure “both the competence and professional responsibility of its licensed attorneys.”[27]
It is not entirely clear what will satisfy this requirement. Many tribes have tribal bar associations that require only that the attorney be licensed in another jurisdiction and pay the membership fee. The tribal bar association does not do any screening, but rather relies on the other bar association to serve that function. It is possible that a tribal bar association that requires an attorney be a member in good standing of another bar association is sufficient, so long as the other bar association applies the necessary standards. In essence, this would be no different than using the other bar association as the licensing agent. A tribe choosing this option would need to make sure that the attorney continues to be licensed by and in good standing with the other bar association.
It is also possible to interpret TLOA and VAWA 2013 to require that if a tribe is relying on a tribal bar association to fulfill the licensing requirement for defense attorneys, the tribal bar association must be the one who sets and enforces the standards. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach.
The primary advantages are that the tribe controls the standards for who is allowed to practice law in its jurisdiction and who is allowed to appear in tribal court. These standards can include requiring knowledge not only of Indian law in general, but of tribal law specifically. An attorney applying for membership can be required to take a bar examination to demonstrate the attorney possesses the required knowledge. The tribe can also establish its own standards of professional conduct, pro bono requirements (a bar association may require a certain amount of public service annually from its members), and CLE requirements.
The disadvantages relate to the time and resources required. Setting up and administering a bar exam is time consuming and can be expensive, as can screening applicants for character and fitness issues. A tribal bar association that sets its own standards must also have a way to enforce those standards, which requires some sort of disciplinary procedures. Establishing a tribal bar association that serves these functions requires making decisions about who will run the association (staff? volunteers? some combination?) and where funding will come from.
It is also possible to set up a hybrid system. A tribe may, for example, require membership in a state bar and passage of a tribal bar exam. That way the tribe can leave the expensive screening and disciplinary processes to the state bar. The tribal courts can handle the key professional conduct standards through court rules and contempt of court citations.
Another possibility might be for tribes, particularly those in one geographic area or that are culturally related, to develop an intertribal bar association to share the work and expense and to assist in building a critical mass of attorneys.
1.6.4 APPEARANCE OF ATTORNEYS.
Rule 11 Advocates or Attorneys
SECTION 1. Establishment.
The Oglala Sioux Tribal Council hereby establishes the Oglala Sioux Tribal Bar Association for the purposes and responsibilities stated herein. The Oglala Sioux Tribal Bar Association, hereinafter the Tribal Bar, is hereby created, established and constituted by law as a public association.
SECTION 2. Purpose.
The Oglala Sioux Tribal Bar shall be to regulate the conduct of all practicing attorneys before the Oglala Sioux Tribal Courts in the administration of justice and in maintaining a high standard of professional conduct at the Bar, to uphold the honor of the profession of the law, and to encourage adequate preparation for its practice before the Court of the Oglala Sioux Tribe.
SECTION 3. Authorization.
The Tribal Bar is authorized and shall have the power to enact bylaws and rules of practice not inconsistent with tribal law, as may be deemed necessary for Tribal Bar government, including the establishment of an annual membership fee. However, no such bylaws or rules of practice shall become effective until recommended for approval by the Supreme Court of the Oglala Sioux Nation and adopted by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council.
The Tribal Bar shall have the power from time to time, subject to the approval of the Supreme Court to formulate rules of professional conduct of all its members.
SECTION 4. Bylaws, Rules and Regulations.
The bylaws, rules and regulations adopted by the Tribal Bar and approved by the Supreme Court and which may be hereafter adopted and approved as provided by law, or the willful violation of any such bylaw, rule or regulation by any member of the Tribal Bar shall constitute sufficient grounds for the discipline of such member before the Tribal Bar and Supreme Court.
SECTION 5. Clerk of the Supreme Court.
The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall be the secretary to and maintain the records of the Tribal Bar and shall maintain a list of all active members of the Bar in good standing, and for the collection and maintenance of fees thereof. Said lists shall be provided on the first day of each month.
SECTION 6. Attorney admitted to practice law.
Any attorney admitted to practice law before the Courts of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and any attorney specifically admitted by the Oglala Sioux Tribal Courts for a particular purpose or proceeding is subject to the exclusive disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the disciplinary Board of the Tribal Bar.
SECTION 7. Attorney list.
The Supreme Court shall have sole power to strike from the list of attorneys licensed to practice before the Courts of the Oglala Sioux Tribe the name of any attorney and counselor at law and to revoke their license or to suspend such attorney from the practice for such time as shall deem just for cause shown.
SECTION 8. Contempt.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to deny to any Oglala Sioux Tribal Court such powers as are necessary for that Court to maintain control over proceedings conducted before it, such as the power of contempt.
SECTION 9. Interim Board of Commissioners.
An Interim Board of Commissioners, Oglala Sioux Tribal Bar Association, composed of five (5) members shall be appointed by the Judiciary Committee. A minimum of three such members shall possess Juris Doctorate degrees. The chairman of the Interim Commissioners shall be selected from within the Board. The Judiciary Committee shall work with said Board.
The Interim Commission shall present to the Oglala Sioux Tribal Council for approval bylaws, rules and regulations governing the Tribal Bar Association.
I. Membership
There shall be the following classes of membership:
Members wishing to change membership status or to withdraw from membership altogether shall file a request with the Vice President of the Association for action by the Admissions Committee. Members wishing to change their membership status will be assessed a $25.00 fee.
Status for purposes of assessing dues shall be determined as of January 1st of each year. The Executive Director of the Association shall collect dues from each member by the first Friday in February.
Failure to pay dues is grounds for suspension from the Association. The Secretary shall report to the President the names and addresses of those members who have failed to pay their annual dues. The President shall then file a Motion for Suspension with an Order with the Navajo Nation Supreme Court. Those members shall have thirty (30) days after the motion is filed to pay the annual dues and a $30.00 penalty fee. A copy of the motion shall be mailed to those affected, after it is filed. Once the order is signed, a member may be reinstated within one year upon payment of a $150.00 reinstatement fee, in addition to the membership dues.
If a member has been suspended for more than one year, he/she must reapply to the Navajo Nation Bar Association, Inc. for membership and take the regularly scheduled Navajo Nation Bar Examination.
(II. Omitted)
III. Qualifications
A. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF ALL APPLICANTS
In order to take the Navajo Nation Bar Examination and subsequently be admitted to membership, a person must:
B. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF PERSONS WHO ARE NOT ENROLLED MEMBERS OF ANY INDIAN TRIBE
In order to take the Navajo Nation Bar Examination, a person who is not an enrolled member of any Indian tribe must:
C. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED OF PERSONS WHO ARE ENROLLED MEMBERS OF ANY INDIAN TRIBE
In order to take the Navajo Nation Bar Examination, an enrolled member of any Indian tribe must:
D. REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION TO MEMBERSHIP IN THE NAVAJO NATION BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
In order to be eligible for admission to membership in the Navajo Nation Bar Association, Inc., a person must:
IV. Bar Admission
V. Board of Bar Commissioners
VI. Officers
VII. Committees
There shall be the following standing committees of the Association:
2.05.080 Tulalip Tribal Bar—Attorneys and Tribal spokespersons.
Following the hearing, the Hearing Officer or Hearing Panel shall make a finding by a preponderance of evidence of whether a violation has been established. The officer or panel will then reconvene to determine appropriate sanctions allowing both sides to make recommendations. The panel will memorialize the sanction(s) in a written opinion. Sanctions may include censure, reprimand, suspension, or disbarment.
The statutes and rules excepted in the preceding text illustrate the wide variety of possible approaches to setting standards for attorneys.
Hopi allows “qualified” attorneys to appear in tribal court, and to be qualified an attorney must satisfy three requirements: (1) be a member in good standing of a state bar association or the bar association of one of the federal courts; (2) obtain a certificate and pay the required fee; and (3) agree to follow the ethical standards established by the Professionalism Committee. Because most federal courts require membership in a state bar association, Hopi has taken an approach that relies on the extensive state bar association infrastructure to handle the testing and screening of attorneys. Hopi has, however, created its own standards of professional conduct.
The Umatilla code requires applicants to be a member in good standing of any state or tribal bar, but also requires a more extensive application process including setting forth education and experience possessed by the attorney and providing a reference.
The Oglala Sioux have established a more extensive tribal bar association. Its tribal bar has the power to enact bylaws, rules of practice, and rules of professional conduct. It also has the authority to discipline members who violate those rules.
Navajo and Tulalip have established more extensive and explicit standards. Navajo has several categories of membership, including one for judges, and has detailed application requirements. Navajo also has its own bar exam (with specified subjects) and disciplinary procedures. Tulalip also has its own bar examination and has established extensive disciplinary procedures.
A tribe planning to exercise the enhanced sentencing authority under TLOA and the special domestic violence jurisdiction under VAWA 2013 must ensure that certain court procedures and processes are used in cases impacted by these two statutes. This section of the resource focuses on those requirements.
Chapter 11 discusses the requirement to be a court of record. Chapter 12 deals with the standards required in jury trial under VAWA 2013. Chapter 13 explores sentencing options under TLOA and VAWA 2013. Staying detention during a Habeas Review is discussed in Chapter 14.
A defendant being prosecuted for a crime with enhanced sentencing under TLOA is guaranteed that the tribal court maintains a record of the criminal proceeding, including an audio or other recording of the trial proceeding.[28] VAWA 2013 incorporates this requirement through its amendments to ICRA, if imprisonment of any length may be imposed.[29] This does not mean that the tribal court must maintain a record of all of its proceedings, but only those with enhanced sentencing under TLOA and those with “special domestic violence” jurisdiction under VAWA 2013. Many tribes maintain a record of all proceedings.
The primary function of a court record is to provide a record of proceedings for possible review by an appellate court. The record generally includes evidence introduced by the parties, copies of all papers filed by the parties, and an audio or video recording of the proceedings (appearances, hearings, trial), which is generally reduced to a transcript on appeal. This record must be kept for a period of time—clearly for as long as any appeal or habeas corpus action is possible. After that time frame the evidence may be returned to the parties or destroyed.
Many tribal courts are courts of record in criminal cases and no change in their statutes are required, but every tribe should look closely at the process and equipment being used in preserving evidence and recording the proceedings. No doubt there will be more appeals and possibly habeas corpus actions due to the increased sentencing power and the inclusions of non-Indians.
Many courts have specific court rules dealing with the quality and type of equipment that must be used to record proceedings and have other requirements to ensure an accurate record is preserved for the requisite period of time. These rules would generally not be in a statute, but would be in court rules that are developed by the chief judge. Authorization for the judge to develop court rules could appear in the statute.
Court rules can be easily changed and updated to consider technology and process. Review of court rules in your federal district or state courts could be helpful in your development of rules.
1.5.7. COURTS OF RECORD.
SECTION 3.33. COURT REPORTER AND TRANSCRIPTS.
All trials shall be recorded by a Court Reporter. Any party wishing a transcript of the trial shall bear the cost therefore.
SECTION 3.34. COURT RECORDS AND FILES.
All Court records and files shall be in the custody of the Clerk of the Court under the discretion and supervision of the Chief Judge.
Note: Court Directive #4 – allows indigent defendants a copy free of charge.
Rule 7: Pretrial Proceeding
Rule 30: Service, Filing, and Records
(a., b., and c. Omitted)
The statute or rule relative to recording criminal proceedings appears in different places in tribal codes. Sometimes it appears in the section establishing and empowering the court and other times it appears in the Rules of Criminal Procedure of a tribe.
The Hopi statute is the most comprehensive of the tribal examples. There is a whole section on court of record. It declares that all tribal and appellate courts are courts of record and that the clerk of court has the responsibility to ensure accuracy and validity of files and records. The Chief Judge is responsible for determining what type of device is trustworthy to create a permanent verbatim record of all proceedings. It is anticipated that the Chief Judge would develop rules or policy and procedures relating to the recording and preservation of the court record. It is a criminal offense for the clerk of court to knowingly make or keep a false record or destroy, alter, or amend any file, record, or transcript.
The Confederated Tribe of the Umatilla Reservation inserted the provision requiring that all trials be recorded by a court reporter. A court reporter is an individual trained to provide a verbatim transcript of proceedings. A person with court reporter credentials is not required by ICRA, but use of a court reporter does provide assurance of authenticity and accuracy due to their training and certification.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee place a simple statement in their Rules of Criminal Procedure indicating that all proceedings are recorded. It would be left to the judge or court administration to determine the equipment and procedure to ensure accuracy and authenticity of the recording. The clerk of court is responsible for maintenance of all court records.
Prior to 2013, ICRA declared that no tribe shall “deny to any person accused of an offense punishable by imprisonment the right, upon request, to a trial by jury of not less than six persons.”[30] TLOA made no changes to the jury requirement, but VAWA 2013 did make changes.
This resource guide has combined discussions of TLOA and VAWA 2013 because, for the most part, the two statutes impose the same requirements on tribes that wish to exercise the powers in each statute. Although TLOA does not explicitly impose any new standards for juries other than those already contained in ICRA, federal case law is pretty clear either there must be a unanimous verdict in felony cases, or if guilty by a majority of the jury, it must be a twelve person jury and probably at least a nine to three verdict.[31]
Tribes who wish to exercise the SDVCJ by VAWA 2013 must comply with the standards for juries set forth in that statute. VAWA 2013 requires that trials held pursuant to the special domestic violence jurisdiction must include: “an impartial jury that is drawn from sources that—
Thus, tribes opting to hold non-Indians accountable for “special domestic violence crimes” in Indian country need to review their laws related to juries and their processes to ensure that the jury pool for the “special domestic violence crimes” includes a fair cross-section of the community, including non-Indians. The fair cross-section of the community including non-Indians may not need to apply to all criminal cases, nor to all TLOA cases, but only to those cases involving the special domestic violence jurisdiction over non-Indians. However, some experts believe that the fair cross-section of the community requirement applies to all defendants not just SDVCJ cases.
Because the requirements for juries can be fairly technical, some background information about the U.S. Constitution and how its jury requirements have been interpreted may provide helpful context. The right to trial by jury contained in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to have two aspects: when that right applies and how the jury is formed.
The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is found in the Sixth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment applies to the federal government, but the right to trial by jury has been extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to apply to the states.[33] The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the clause differently for federal and state courts.[34] States are not required to provide juries in cases in which the potential penalty includes a jail sentence of less than six months.[35]
ICRA, however, requires that tribes provide juries in all criminal cases in which imprisonment is a possibility.[36] Thus, tribes whose laws include imprisonment as a possible sentence must have a procedure for selecting a jury. Because the primary purpose of a jury is to provide a fair and impartial body to decide the facts of a case, the U.S. Supreme Court requires that a jury be drawn from a fair cross-section of the community.
The process by which a jury is selected is evaluated at two stages: determining who is eligible to be summoned to serve on a jury (often referred to as the jury pool) and determining who will actually serve on a particular jury.
A court will keep a list of who is eligible to serve on a jury and will summon a number of people from that list to come to court on the day a jury trial is scheduled. The judge and the attorneys will then question the potential jurors to select ones that can decide the case at hand fairly and impartially.
Many tribes have statutes that allow only their tribal members to serve on juries. These laws need to be changed if tribes intend to expand jurisdiction to non-Indians under VAWA 2013. Some tribes before VAWA 2013 included non-Indians and nontribal members in their jury pools, even though the federal government had taken away their authority to criminally prosecute non-Indians. They include not only residents of Indian country, but people who work in Indian country. Review of their statutes may be helpful and are included in the Tribal Code Example section.
What is a “fair cross-section of the community”? According to the U.S. Constitution the “fair cross-section of the community” means that juries must be drawn from a source fairly representative of the community. It does not guarantee that the jury selected actually represents the community.[37]
States commonly use lists of people registered to vote or actual voters for jury pools. Driver license lists and other lists such as tax rolls, welfare lists, city directories, and utility lists have been used as well. Some type of random selection process is used to select the jury panel from the designated source lists, often a computerized selection process.
Determining what lists could be used in your community and whether those lists or combination of lists “fairly represent your community” is important. The jury pool should be roughly proportional to the distinctive groups that are residents in your jurisdiction. It is critical that the process not exclude any distinctive group, including non-Indians.
Courts have developed a three-prong test to determine whether a particular group of people is a distinctive group for cross-section analysis:
Just as they cannot be excluded from the jury pool, members of distinctive groups also cannot be systematically excluded from sitting on the jury. This means that the process by which a jury is selected (including both peremptory challenges and challenges for cause) must be examined. Included under additional resources is the link to the ABA Principles for Juries and Jury Trials, which may be helpful in developing rules and process that meet fairness standards, although many of the suggestions may not fit small community standards in much of Indian country. Review of court rules and procedure on jury selection in adjoining counties or the federal district may also be helpful, but not controlling. It is important you carefully consider a process that is workable for your nation, considering its size, population, and resources.
Although this guide is focused on the tribal statutes, it is important to review both court rules and rules of procedure to understand the entire process used by a particular tribe and ensure it complies with the VAWA 2013 requirements.
SECTION 3.19. JURY
(SECTION 3.20. Omitted)
SECTION 3.21. TRIAL BY JURY
2.05.110 Juries.
When the Court determines that a juror is prejudiced or cannot act impartially, the juror shall be excused. After questioning by the Judge, both parties may question the jurors using the struck jury system. Either party may question the jurors concerning the nature of the action, including burden of proof in criminal cases and the presumption of innocence. The Judge may limit examination of jurors when the Judge believes such examination to be improper or unacceptably time consuming.
The Umatilla Tribal Code provides that any resident of the Umatilla Nation is eligible for jury service. A list of eligible individuals is maintained by the clerk of court. The statute does not indicate where the clerk gets the names of individuals who are residents that become a part of the jury pool. However, the pool is drawn from the voting records of the district that is a rough overlay of the reservation. Selection is manual and random. In January of each year a pool of fifty potential jurors are selected by the judge from that list. These fifty residents serve as the jury pool for that year. They are notified of their selection to the trial jury list for the year from which jury panels of not less than eighteen names are selected for a trial.
The remainder of the Umatilla statute relating to juries describes how a jury is selected at trial. The statute allows for the questioning of prospective jurors by the attorney for each the prosecution and the defense and exclusion of jurors for cause when there is some evident bias. Four peremptory challenges that required no reason for exclusion are allowed for each the prosecution and the defense. Six members and one alternate are seated for a trial.
The Tulalip Tribal Code instructs the court to prepare and update a list of eligible jurors (the jury pool). The list would include the following classes of people: tribal members living on or near the reservation; residents of the Tulalip Reservation; and employees of the Tulalip tribes or any of its enterprises, agencies, subdivisions, or instrumentalities who have been employed by the tribes for at least one year continuously prior to being called as a juror. From this jury pool the clerk of court randomly selects twenty-five names for a potential jury panel. The persons selected are summoned by mail or personal service to appear at a designated time. If the fail to appear that are subject to contempt of court action.
The Tulalip Code instructs the judge to first question potential jurors, screening for bias or impartiality. Specific questions appear in the code. The code is also specific about eliminating relatives from the jury panel, at least those that are of the first or second degree by marriage or blood to any party. We can probably assume that this probably also includes the relatives of the victim in a criminal case, as well as any person who might have a direct interest in the case.
The Tulalip Code provides for a motion to discharge, which is the method that a party would question the manner in which a jury venire (pool) was selected. If a motion is raised, the judge would be required to conduct a hearing and if the judge finds that the jury was improperly selected, a new one would be impaneled.
Challenges for cause and peremptory challenges are described in the statute. In the event the court finds it is short of jurors, the statute allows the court to call anyone eligible to serve without any advance notice so that the case can move forward. Fees for jurors are also provided, although the amount of the fee is probably established by court rule.
One of the core provisions of the TLOA, and the primary reason this resource guide exists, is the enhanced sentencing powers to tribes. As was discussed in Chapter 3, ICRA places limitations on the amount of jail time and the size of the fines that a tribal court can impose upon a defendant. Before TLOA, ICRA prohibited tribes from imposing more than one year of imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. After TLOA, a tribe that complies with the prerequisites may sentence a defendant to three years for any one offense and up to nine years total for one criminal proceeding. TLOA also contains provisions regarding where a tribe can order a defendant to serve his or her term of incarceration. This chapter addresses both parts of the sentencing options.
A tribe that chooses to comply with TLOA’s prerequisites regains the ability to sentence certain defendants (see Chapter 6) to three years of imprisonment and/or a fine of $15,000 for any one offense, and up to a total of nine years for any one criminal proceeding. An example will help illustrate the difference between a single offense and a criminal proceeding. Suppose a defendant breaks into a house, beats up the owner, and steals a television set. These are all part of one continuous event and generally will be prosecuted in one criminal proceeding. Each one, however, is a separate offense. Thus, the three offenses (breaking and entering, assault and battery, and stealing the television) make up one criminal proceeding. Under TLOA, the tribal court can sentence the defendant to a maximum of three years (plus a fine) on each of the offenses, provided the combined total for the entire criminal prosecution is no more than nine years.
Although federal law places a limit on the amount of imprisonment and fines that can be imposed, the actual sentencing range is a matter of tribal law. Thus, if a tribal government wants its courts to be able to use the enhanced sentencing power, the tribe must review its code and make any necessary amendments to increase the amount of imprisonment and fines permitted for each offense. Amending tribal law is also important to ensure that potential defendants have appropriate notice of the penalties for violating tribal law.
A tribe may also want to provide guidance to its judges, either through its code or its court rules, for how to determine whether sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. For example, in the situation discussed in the preceding paragraph, suppose the judge sentences the defendant to two years for breaking into the house, two years for beating up the owner, and two years for stealing the television. If these are served concurrently, the defendant will serve a total of two years in prison. If they are served consecutively, the defendant will serve a total of six years in prison.
Each tribe must also decide where defendants will serve their sentences. TLOA declares that the tribal judge may require the defendant
A complete examination of each of these options is beyond the scope of this resource guide, as this resource guide concentrates on the code and rule changes tribes need to make to comply with the prerequisites of TLOA and VAWA 2013. The details regarding where a defendant will serve his or her sentence is not usually a matter to be resolved in the tribal code or the tribal court rules. Instead, the issue of where a defendant will serve his or her sentence is both an administrative matter and the subject of negotiated agreements between the tribal and other governments. We will, however, take a brief look at the key issues involved in the first two of the listed options, as those options contain some potentially hidden issues.
Tribal Correctional Center. TLOA requires that a tribal correctional center must be approved by the BIA in order to house inmates under the enhanced sentencing provisions. The BIA issued a draft of these guidelines in December 2010, and at the time this resource guide was written, the guidelines are still in draft form (2010) and have not yet been finalized. The draft guidelines contain several provisions that may be of concern to tribes, including requiring compliance with American Correctional Association Core Jail Standards and the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and requiring that personnel policies conform to both the Equal Employment Opportunity and Americans with Disabilities Acts. The current draft also does not permit tribes to house non-Indian inmates who may be sentenced under VAWA in BIA facilities. The Department of Interior (DOI) has, however, announced plans to change this latter provision and allow tribes to house non-Indians in BIA-approved facilities.
Federal Facility. TLOA created a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Pilot Project that allowed tribes to house prisoners in federal prison at federal expense. The initial pilot project (through November 26, 2014), but it may still be extended. Moreover, it is possible that the Bureau of Prisons may be able to continue the project under its existing authority.
The project was structured to accept a maximum of one hundred prisoners at any one time. The resource has only been used by a few tribes. First, complying with the federal prerequisites to exercising enhanced sentencing authority is time consuming and expensive. Some tribes cannot afford to satisfy the requirements, other tribes have decided the extra authority is not worth the expense, and other tribes are still working through the process. Second, the regulations established by the BOP limit which prisoners it will accept. To be eligible, the offender must (among other requirements) be at least eighteen years old at the time of the offense, be convicted of a violent crime, and be sentenced to a term of two or more years of imprisonment. Third, the forms to apply to transfer a prisoner into the BOP are complicated and time consuming to complete.
Many of the defendants convicted will be on probation at some time during their sentence. Many may reside off tribal land in an adjacent community. Your tribe needs a plan from the outset on the use of available resources. In some cases state resources may be tapped to deliver offender classes or provide other resources for those on probation. What resource will the tribe provide? Extradition issues may also prove important. Developing a plan on service delivery and supervision with the necessary Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) or other agreements will be needed.
Sec. 14-10.30. - Robbery with a dangerous weapon.
3.4.1 IMPRISONMENT AND FINES
The Court may impose the following criminal penalties against a person who is convicted for violating this Code:
3.4.2 REPETITIVE OFFENDERS.
The Court may, at its discretion, sentence a person who has been previously convicted of the same offense, or a comparable offense by any jurisdiction in the United States, to one class higher than the sentence imposed in the previous conviction. Convictions for two or more offenses committed for the same act may be counted as one conviction for the purposes of this section.
3.4.3 CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF IMPRISONMENT.
If multiple crimes are committed, and multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time, the Court may, at its discretion, direct the sentences to run consecutively.
3.4.4 OTHER CRIMINAL PENALTIES.
In addition to, or in lieu of, the penalties set forth in Section 3.4.1, the Court may order restitution, diversion from criminal prosecution, community service, treatment, probation, parole, or suspension of sentence, unless a provision of this Code provides otherwise with respect to a certain type of offense.
Rule 26.3. Date of Sentencing; Extension.
Sec. 8-3. Sentencing Classifications, Restitution or Alternative Compensation, Offense Specific Penalty or Sentence.
Rule 26.3. Date of Sentencing; Extension.
Rule 26.4. Pre-sentence Report.
Rule 26.5. Contents of the Pre-sentence Report.
Rule 26.6. Request for Aggravation or Mitigation Hearing.
Rule 26.7. Notice of Objections; Special Duty of the Prosecutor; Corrections to Pre-Sentence Report.
Rule 26.8. Presence of the Defendant.
Defendant has a right to be present at the pre-sentence hearing and shall be present at sentencing unless a defendant has requested a resolution of his/her case under Rule 9.2.
Rule 26.9. Pronouncement of Judgment and Sentence.
Rule 26.10. Duty of the Court after Pronouncing Sentence.
After trial, the Court shall, in pronouncing judgment and sentence:
Rule 26.11. Fines and Restitution.
**At the present time, a sentence of imprisonment for any offense cannot exceed one year. If changes are made to the Code that would allow the Judge to sentence a defendant to a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year, this subsection should be implemented to comply with TLOA.
Rule 26.12. Re-sentencing.
Where a judgment or sentence, or both, have been set aside on appeal or on a post-trial motion, the Court may not impose a sentence for the same offense, or a different offense based on the same conduct, which is more severe than the prior sentence unless:
Rule 26.13. Entry of Judgment and Sentence.
The judgment of conviction and sentence shall be complete and valid as of the time of their oral pronouncement in open court. If the written judgment differs from oral pronouncement, the oral pronouncement shall control unless the sentences has been modified or corrected pursuant to Rules 24.1 and 24.2.
Two basic approaches exist to establishing what penalties may be imposed for violating a particular criminal statute. The first, which is illustrated by the example from the code of the Eastern Band of Cherokees, is to list the potential penalty in each separate criminal statute. One benefit to this approach is that the potential penalties are immediately clear upon reading the statute; there is no need to follow a cross-reference to another portion of the code.
The second, which is illustrated by the examples from Hopi and Salt River, is to “classify” criminal offenses into categories and have one code provision that sets out the possible penalties for each of the crimes. One benefit to this approach is that, so long as the classification system does not change, a tribe can amend the potential sentence for every criminal offense simply by amending one section of its code; there is no need to amend every individual code section that defines a criminal offense.
The Hopi sentencing provisions also give some guidance as to other penalties the judge can impose, as well as some guidance as to whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently.
The Salt River examples illustrate a detailed set of rules governing the process by which a court collects and reviews the information it will consider when imposing a sentence.
VAWA 2013 requires that tribes wishing to exercise special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction delay a defendant’s sentence under certain circumstances. Before discussing the details of VAWA 2013’s requirement, some general background regarding habeas corpus is provided.
A defendant accused of a crime in tribal court has rights guaranteed by tribal law and by federal law. Defendants who are convicted and sentenced, and who believe that their rights were violated, can appeal their conviction according to whatever procedures are established by the tribal government and the tribal court. This is sometimes called the “direct” appeals process.
Because the federal government wants to make sure tribal courts properly interpret and apply the rights guaranteed to defendants by federal law, the federal government has also established a process for defendants to ask a federal court to review what happened in tribal court. This is known as “habeas corpus” or the “indirect” appeals process. Since ICRA was first passed in 1968, it has contained a section declaring that “the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.”[39]
The writ of habeas corpus pre-dates establishment of the U.S., and began in the U.S. as a way to make sure that states did not violate a defendant’s federal rights during state criminal trials. Because federal courts want to avoid interfering with state trials unless it was absolutely necessary, federal courts developed a complicated set of procedures and rules about when and how a defendant accused of a crime in state court can ask a federal court to review the actions of the state court. For example, with very few exceptions, the federal courts will not hear a habeas petition unless the defendant is in custody, is alleging a violation of his federal rights, and has first given the state courts a chance to fix the problem.
It is not clear to what extent the rules developed in the state context apply to review of tribal courts. That question does not, however, need to be resolved here. Instead, VAWA 2013’s requirements relate to what tribal courts must do if a defendant asks the federal court to review his conviction (to use the technical legal terms, a defendant asks for review by “filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus”).
VAWA 2013 amended ICRA to provide procedures relative to notice of habeas corpus and a stay (suspension) of detention for tribes participating in special domestic violence jurisdiction.
25 U.S.C. §1304(e) Petitions to Stay Detention
It is important to note that this section applies to defendants who:
A defendant who satisfies these requirements may file a petition in federal court asking the court to stay further detention by the tribe until the federal court has a chance to hear the case. It can take months and sometimes a year or more for a federal court to make a decision regarding a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is thus possible that a defendant may serve his or her entire sentence before the court can review whether the defendant’s conviction and sentence violated federal law, if the detention is not suspended.
A tribal court must notify defendants subject to a tribal order for detention, of their rights to petition the federal court for a writ of habeas corpus and a stay of detention pending the federal court’s decision.
VAWA 2013 also establishes standards and procedures for the federal court to follow in deciding whether to grant the defendant’s petition for a stay of detention. The court is required to grant the stay of detention if two conditions are met:
Some tribes have their own tribal habeas corpus proceedings. A review of the tribal habeas corpus statute is wise. The reason for tribal habeas proceedings in this situation is so the tribe can argue to the federal court that the defendant has not exhausted the tribal remedies if they haven’t first filed a habeas action in tribal court and therefore, the defendant cannot establish “a substantial likelihood that the habeas corpus action will be granted”.
Sec. 15-7. - Indian Civil Rights Act.
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians adopts all the protections afforded in Title 25, Chapter 15 of the United States Code, as amended.
Section 3.28 Defendant’s Rights
(A. through F. Omitted)
4.25.040 Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
(1. and 2. Omitted)
This section of VAWA 2013 is clear and leaves little room for interpretation or for debates about how to satisfy the requirements. One option, then, for tribes is to not include these provisions in any tribal law, but to simply ensure that tribal judges understand that the requirement exists and what standards it imposes. However, there should be a standard method to provide notice to the defendants’ rights to petition a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus and a stay of detention.
Another possible approach, illustrated by the excerpts from the code of the Eastern Band of Cherokee, is to adopt a basic catchall provision declaring that the tribe adopts the protections established in ICRA. This is not necessarily recommended as it may lead to confusion as to the exact rights.
The Umatilla and Tulalip tribes, both participating in the pilot project exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, went one step further and enacted a provision that echoed the language of VAWA 2013. Note that the Umatilla code does expressly require that defendants exhaust their tribal court remedies prior to filing a petition with the federal court. Umatilla has an extensive habeas process in Section 3.47 of their Criminal Code. The code also explicitly requires that every defendant who is detained in jail shall be notified of all relevant rights.
This section provides a description of and links to online resources to help in developing tribal codes and further understanding TLOA and VAWA 2013. Some of the resources help in understand key issues that may need to be addressed during implementation.
The Indian Civil Rights Act, as Codified
25 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1304
For purposes of this subchapter, the term—
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.
Tribal Domestic Violence Special Jurisdiction Model Code: This model code was developed by the three tribes that piloted 2013’s Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction (SDVCJ) and is the latest copy (3/2/2015). This model code will no doubt be revised. Check Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group on Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction for later versions.
.010 Purpose.
Domestic violence and family violence are serious crimes against society, the (Tribe: substitute the name of the Indian Nation for Tribe where appropriate), and the family. The victim of domestic violence or family violence deserves the maximum protection from further violence that the law, and those who enforce the law, can provide. Furthermore, the strength of the (Tribe/s) is founded on healthy families, and the safety of victims of domestic and family violence, especially children, must be ensured by immediate intervention of law enforcement, prosecution, education, treatment, and other appropriate services.
It is the intent of the (Tribe/s) that the official response to domestic violence and family violence shall stress the enforcement of the laws to protect victims and to hold perpetrators accountable, which will, in turn, communicate the (Tribe’s) values that violent behavior against intimate partners or family members is criminal behavior and will not be excused or tolerated. This in turn will promote healing of families and the (Tribe) where possible, and promote cultural teachings and traditional (Tribal) values so as to nurture nonviolence and respect within families. This chapter shall be interpreted and applied to give it the broadest possible scope to carry out these purposes.
.020 Special Domestic Violence Court created.
There is hereby created a Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction Court, which shall be subject to all criminal procedures of the (Tribe) to the extent they do not conflict with the provisions contained within this chapter/title/code. All proceedings under this chapter/title/code shall be recorded. All tribal laws related to these proceedings shall be published by posting on the tribal court website and available at the tribal court to all those subject to this chapter/title/code.
.030 Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction.
.040 Rights Applicable.
It is the policy of Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction Court to provide all defendants the full protection of the laws. Therefore, in all proceedings in which the Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction Court is exercising this jurisdiction, all defendant rights afforded herein shall apply. These rights include the following:
.050 Special jurisdiction—Criminal conduct applicable.
The (Tribe)s exercise the special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction of a defendant for criminal conduct that falls into one or more of the following categories:
.060 Statute of limitations. (use if your tribe has such a statute, if not eliminate)
For purposes of this chapter, the statute of limitations shall be consistent with the statute applicable to other crimes committed under the (Tribe)’s or any successor code.
.070 Nonwaiver of sovereign immunity.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to constitute a waiver by the (Tribe)s of its sovereign immunity for any reason whatsoever.
.080 Severability.
If any part, or parts, or the application of any part of this chapter is held invalid, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this chapter. The Tribal Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remaining parts of this chapter even if it had known that such part or parts or application of any part thereof would be declared invalid.
.090 Savings.
This chapter takes effect on the date approved by the Tribal Council and does not extinguish or modify any civil or criminal liability or enforcement of such penalty or forfeiture that existed on or prior to the effective date of this chapter and such code shall be treated as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any proper action or prosecution for the enforcement of such civil or criminal action, enforcement of any penalty, forfeiture or liability.
Domestic violence offends the traditional Tulalip tribal values of honoring the family and respecting all members of the community, and it is contrary to the best interests of the family, the Tribes and the community. The purpose of the Tulalip Tribes Domestic Violence Court is to promote important traditional Tulalip tribal values by protecting victims of domestic violence and holding perpetrators accountable while ensuring that all persons accused of domestic violence crimes are provided equal protection and due process of law.
6.2 CREATION
The Tulalip Tribal Court shall exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Chapter 4.25 of the Tulalip Tribal Code and while sitting in the exercise of such jurisdiction shall be known and referred to as the "Tulalip Domestic Violence Court."
6.3.1 Separate Docket
A separate docket shall be maintained for the Tulalip Domestic Violence Court. Cases assigned to the Tulalip Domestic Violence Court will be heard on Mondays, or as otherwise designated by the Tulalip Tribal Court calendar.
6.3.2 Types of Cases Assigned
All criminal domestic violence cases (all criminal cases with the designation "DV") shall be assigned to the Tulalip Domestic Violence Court docket. Additionally, any civil protection order case involving the issuance, modification or enforcement of a permanent or temporary protection order (any civil case with the designation "RO") may be assigned to the Tulalip Domestic Violence docket at the judge's sole discretion.
6.4 RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT
6.4.1 Defendant Rights
It is the policy of Tulalip Domestic Violence Court to provide all defendants the full protection of the laws. Therefore, in all proceedings in which the Tulalip Domestic Violence Court is exercising its Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction pursuant to TTC Chapter 4.25, all defendant rights afforded by TTC §4.25.040(2) shall apply. These rights include the following:
6.4.2 Right to Counsel
All defendants, regardless of the length of the potential sentence for the crime being charged, have the right to effective assistance of counsel meeting the requirements of TTC §2.25.070(3)(a) while the Tulalip Domestic Violence Court is exercising its Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction conferred by Chapter 4.25 of the Tulalip Tribal Code. An indigent defendant shall be provided the assistance of a defense attorney meeting the requirements of TTC §2.25.070(3)(a) at the expense of the tribal government. Defense attorneys assigned to an indigent defendant will submit their credentials to the court demonstrating they meet the requirements of federal law and such credentials and bar licensing will become part of the trial record.
6.4.3 Right to Jury Trial
A defendant charged under TTC Chapter 4.25 has a right to a trial by jury of six fair and impartial jurors drawn from the community according to TTC §2.05.110. A defendant may waive the right to a jury trial in a written, voluntary statement to the Court. All jury verdicts must be unanimous.
6.5 SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEDURE
6.5.1 Pre-Trial/Trial Procedure—Additional Requirement
6.5.2 Post-Trial Procedure
Post-trial procedure is meant to describe the general operation of the Domestic Violence Court and does not include procedures relating to appeals to the Tulalip Tribes Court of Appeals. All appeals will be handled as provided by the rules of appellate procedure.
6.5.3 Sentencing and Probation
TULALIP FOUNDATION REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS FOR INDIGENT CRIMINAL CONFLICT ATTORNEY SERVICES
REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS: Three to four Grant Funded Indigent Conflict Criminal Defense Contracts will be awarded.
APPLICATION DUE DATE: December 2, 2010
The Tulalip Tribes Foundation, a Tribal Non-profit agency, requests proposals for the provision of criminal conflict counsel services.
The Tulalip Tribes has a nationally recognized and award winning Tribal court system that is known for its competence and its innovative approach to the legal needs of its community. As the court has grown, so too has the need for conflict criminal defense counsel for indigent clients. Currently, the University of Washington, Tribal Defense Clinic is the primary provider of legal defense. Due to conflict issues, the Clinic cannot represent all eligible defendants. Therefore conflict counsel is regularly appointed.
Period of Performance: January 3, 2011 to December 31, 2011.
QUALIFICATIONS AND WORK PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS:
Those who are qualified to submit proposals are:
Individuals providing criminal defense work will be responsible for providing competent representation. Such will include:
Successful applicants will be required to enter into a contract with the Tulalip Foundation and will be independent contractors, not employees of the Tribes. As such, they will be required to maintain their own malpractice insurance. In addition, successful bidders will be required to adhere to the Washington Rules of Professional Responsibility, any Tulalip Court Code of Ethics; Ordinance 49, Section1.8 and other applicable laws governing representation.
SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS:
Please submit six (6) copies of the proposal. One (1) copy must have original signatures. The application, whether hand or mail delivered, must be received by Wendy Church, Court Director, no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 3, 2010.
NO OBLIGATION TO CONTRACT
The Request for Applications does not obligate Tulalip Foundation to contract for services specified herein. The Tulalip Foundation also reserves the right to cancel or reissue the Request for Applications in whole or in part prior to execution of a contract.
APPLICATION CONTENTS: Interested individuals should provide a resume, references, and a detailed written description of work experience. In light of the qualifications described above. Such should include:
EVALUATION AND AWARD
The Foundation reserves the right to award the contracts to the applications that best meet the needs and interest of the Foundation. Evaluation of responsive proposals will be in accordance with the requirements stated herein and any addenda issued. Selection will be based upon the qualifications of the proposer and the proposal(s) that will suit the needs and interests of the Foundation. Indian Preference applies to the award of this contract in accordance with applicable regulations and policies.
Required Information – Your proposal must provide the following:
All successful applicants will be required to attend an all day training on January 21, 2011. CLE credits will be sought for such training and the training will include one hour of Ethics.
These contracts will replace the existing process for the appointment of conflict counsel services at the Tulalip Tribes. However, it is anticipated that on occasion additional appointment of conflict counsel will be necessary, which will follow the existing rotation assignment procedures.
6406 Marine Drive. - Tulalip, WA 98271
Phone: 360 / 716-4000
FOR INDIGENT CONFLICT DEFENSE LEGAL SERVICES
The Tulalip Foundation (hereafter "Foundation" desires to contract with independent attorneys to provide conflict criminal defense counsel services in the Tulalip Tribal Court; and ________________, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Washington and a member of the Tulalip Bar, and as an independent contractor, is interested in contracting with the Foundation for the provision of conflict criminal defense services (hereafter "Attorney"). In consideration for the mutual benefits to be derived and the promises and conditions contained herein the above parties CONTRACT AND AGREE as follows:
I. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
The purpose of the Contract is to provide criminal defense services to indigent defendants charged with offenses or at risk of a loss of liberty or liberty interest in the courts of the Tulalip Tribes. The Foundation has received a Grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for Tribal Civil and Criminal Legal Assistance Grant pursuant to BJA-2010-2676 and 78. THIS IS A GRANT FUNDED CONTRACT AND CONTINUED FUNDING IS DEPENDANT ON CONTINUED RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDING.
The term of this Contract shall be 12 months from January 3, 2011 and this Contract shall terminate by its own terms on December 31, 2011. Payments made or work completed after the termination of the term of this Contract shall not cause this Contract to be renewed. Renewal shall be at the absolute discretion of each of the parties.
III. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
The express intention of the parties is that the Attorney is an Independent Contractor and not an employee, agent, joint venture or partner of the Foundation. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted or construed as creating or establishing the relationship of employee and employer between the Attorney and the Foundation. The Attorney is not precluded by this contract from engaging in the practice of law beyond the scope of this Contract.
IV. PERSONAL SERVICES OF ATTORNEY CONTRACTED
This Contract is for the personal professional services of the Attorney. The Attorney shall not assign or subcontract this Contract in whole or in part to any other attorney without first obtaining written consent of the Court Director. In no event may a case be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted to other legal counsel for a fee or other compensation except as provided under this Contract.
V. CASES ASSIGNED AND CASELOAD
Cases will be assigned by a court defined process. The court will determine the number and type of cases assigned.
VI. SPECIAL CONDITIONS
The following special conditions apply to this agreement and, unless otherwise indicated, supersede any conflicting provision of this Contract.
In addition to any other remedy, failure to provide such reports mentioned herein may result in suspension by the Court Director of all or part of any payment due Attorney.
VII. COMPENSATION
In consideration of the professional services made available and provided under the Contract, The Foundation will pay the Attorney as follows:
VIII. OTHER DEFENSE SERVICES AND EXPENSES
IX. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
X. TAX RESPONSIBILITIES
Both parties acknowledge that the contract prosecutor is not an employee for federal or state tax purposes. Both parties acknowledge that the Tribes shall not assist with any federal or state income tax withholdings or make any tax contributions on behalf of the contract prosecutor.
XI. OTHER PROVISIONS
XII. GOVERNING LAW
This contract and all disputes arising hereunder shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Tulalip Tribes and enforceable only in the Tulalip Tribal Courts. This provision does not waive any immunity the Foundation may have.
XIII. INTEGRATED AGREEMENT
This Contract embodies the entire agreement between the Foundation and The Attorney. No verbal agreements, conversations, or understandings with any officer, agent or employee of the Foundation prior to the execution of this contract shall affect or modify any of the terms, conditions or obligations contained in any documents comprising this Contract.
XIV. MODIFICATION
After signature by the parties, this Contract may be modified, amended, or extended only upon written agreement of the parties.
____________________________________________________________ | ________________________ |
For the Foundation | DATE |
____________________________________________________________ | ________________________ |
Attorney | DATE |
____________________________________________________________ | |
Name of Firm: | |
Address: | |
____________________________________________________________ | |
Social Security # or Tax ID # | |
(please provide as it is necessary for Income Tax reporting purposes) |
Action: Term that in usual legal sense means lawsuit.
Civil Jurisdiction: The power of the court to hear and decide civil actions.
Civil Law: Laws relating to private rights and remedies as opposed to criminal law.
Common Law: A system of law that is derived from judges’ decisions rather than legislation.
Competent: Properly qualified; adequate.
Concurrent: Together, at the same time. In legal parlance: having the same authority.
Contempt: An act that obstructs a court’s work or lessens the dignity of the court.
Conviction: In a criminal action, the finding that the defendant is guilty of the crime.
Criminal Justice System: The network of courts and tribunals that deal with criminal law and its enforcement.
Custom: Regular behavior (of persons in a geographical area or type of business) that gradually takes on legal importance so that it will strongly influence a court’s decision.
Declination: A formal refusal.
Disposition: A final settlement or result.
Elements: The basic parts of a crime or civil action that must be proven.
Enhanced Penalties: Greater or increased penalties as a result of aggravating factors.
Exclusive Jurisdiction: The power that a court or other tribunal exercises over an action or over a person to the exclusion of all other courts; that forum in which an action must be commenced because no other forum has the jurisdiction to hear and determine the action.
Exemption: Freedom from a general duty; a privilege allowed by law; immunity from certain legal obligations.
Exhaustion Doctrine: When a non-Indian company or individual is seeking to challenge the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court, it must first raise those challenges in tribal court, not federal court. Even if the tribal court first rejects these challenges, the person making these claims must first exhaust all chances to appeal that rejection in the tribal legal system before coming to the federal court.
Explicit: Fully developed or described.
Felony: A crime of a more serious nature than a misdemeanor. Under many state statutes it is punishable by more than a year in prison or even death.
Habeas Corpus: (Latin for “You shall have the body.”) A legal action filed to protect a person from unlawful detention.
Indigency: A level of poverty with real hardship and deprivation.
Inherent: Used in resource as inherent jurisdiction or inherent power; natural authority not derived from another; powers originating from the nature of government or sovereignty that are not dependent on being granted by another government.
Injunction: A judge’s order to a person to do or refrain from doing a particular thing. An injunction may be preliminary or temporary (until the issue can be fully tried in court), or it may be final or permanent.
Judiciary: The branch of government that interprets the law; the branch that judges.
Jurisdiction: Legal authority. A government’s power to exercise authority over persons and things within its territory.
Misdemeanors: Any offense lower than a felony and generally punishable by fine, penalty, forfeiture, or imprisonment. Oftentimes misdemeanors are punishable by less than one year of imprisonment.
Per Capita: (Latin for “by head.”) By the number of individual persons, each equally.
Perpetrator: One who commits an offense or crime.
Petition: A written request or application to a court that it takes a particular action, for example, a petition for protection order.
Prejudice: Bias or preconceived opinion.
Probation: A sentence of a convicted offender, released into the community under supervision of a probation officer.
Pro Bono: Work that is performed for the public good without charge, especially legal work for a client with low income.
Prosecutor: The public official who presents the government’s case in criminal law.
Protocol: The rules of correct or appropriate behavior for a particular group of people in a particular situation. For example, the police protocol for handling domestic violence.
Recusal: Disqualification or removal of a judge from hearing a case due to actual or potential bias or conflict of interest.
Respondent: The person against whom an appeal is taken or against whom a motion is filed.
Restitution: Giving something back; making good for something.
Revoking: Reversing a legal decision.
Sanctioned: Admonished, cautioned, or reprimanded. A sanction is a penalty or punishment attached to a law so that it is obeyed.
Sentencing: The phase of a criminal proceeding after the offender is found guilty, when the punishment is imposed.
Sovereign Immunity: A government’s freedom from being sued.
Unanimity: The condition of being unanimous; complete agreement within a group.
Waive: To voluntarily give up a right.
Ward: A person, especially a child, placed by the court under the care of a guardian.
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs
BOP: Bureau of Prisons
BJA: Bureau of Justice Assistance
CLE: Continuing Legal Education
DOI: Department of Interior
DOJ: Department of Justice
ICRA: Indian Civil Rights Act
ICWA: Indian Child Welfare Act
ILOC: Indian Law and Order Commission
ITWG: Intertribal Technical-Assistance Working Group on Special Domestic Violence Jurisdiction
NCAI: National Congress of American Indians
NCIC: National Crime Information Center
OVW: Office on Violence Against Women
SART: Sexual Assault Response Team
SAUSA: Special Assistant United States Attorney
SDVCJ: Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction
TLOA: Tribal Law and Order Act
TLPI: Tribal Law and Policy Institute
VAWA: Violence Against Women Act
[1] Congress and the Supreme Court recognize and affirm the inherent power of tribes. They have restricted and relaxed restrictions on that power. See Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1301(2), §1304(b.1); Oliphant v. Suquamish Tribe, 435 U. S. 191 (1978), U.S. v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004).
[2] See General Guide to Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country (including chart) at http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/jurisdiction.htm (accessed January 27, 2015).
[3] See Major Crimes Act, 18. U.S.C. § 1153 and General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152.
[4] A number of federal laws of general applicability directly impact domestic violence in Indian country, i.e., Interstate Domestic Violence, 18 U.S.C. § 2261, Interstate Stalking and Cyber Stalking, 18 U.S.C. §2261(A), Interstate Violation of a Protection Order, 18 U.S.C. § 2262, Domestic Assault by a Habitual Offender, 18 U.S.C. § 117, Firearms Offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 922.
[5] 435 U.S. 191, 210 (1978.)
[6] 495 U.S. 676, 684 (1990).
[7] 541 U.S. 193 (2004).
[8] U.S. v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193, 207 (2004).
[10] Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (2002), Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (2002).
[11] Maze of Injustice: Failure to Protect Indigenous Women from Sexual Violence in the USA, Amnesty International USA, New York (2007). Available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/pdfs/MazeOfInjustice.pdf (accessed January 28, 2015).
[12] The ILOC investigated issues related to crime in Indian country, and provided a report to the president and Congress, A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer, November 2013. Available at http://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/report/ (accessed January 28, 2015).
[13] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs at least 70 percent of the violent victimizations experienced by American Indians are committed by persons not of the same race—a substantially higher rate of interracial violence than experienced by white or black victims. Greenfeld, Lawrence, and Steven Smith. American Indians and Crime. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, February 1999. NCJ 173386. Available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aic.pdf (accessed January 28, 2015).
[14] In fiscal years 2005 through 2009, U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAOs) resolved about 9,000 of the approximately 10,000 Indian country matters referred to their offices by filing for prosecution, declining to prosecute, or administratively closing the matter. USAOs declined to prosecute 50 percent of the 9,000 matters. In addition: (1) About 77 percent of the matters received were categorized as violent crimes, and 24 percent as nonviolent crimes. (2) Declination rates tended to be higher for violent crimes, which were declined 52 percent of the time, than for nonviolent crimes, which were declined 40 percent of the time. U.S. Department of Justice Declinations of Indian Country Criminal Matters, GAO-11-167R: Published: December 13, 2010. Publicly Released: December 13, 2010. Available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-167R (accessed January 28, 2015).
[15] The repeal did nothing to change the fact that the jurisdiction is limited to Indian country and the only Indian country in Alaska at present is Metlakatla.
[17] Implicit in 25 U.S.C § 1302(10).
[18] The Indian country SAUSA program makes it possible for U.S. Attorneys to appoint appropriately qualified prosecutors to work in the capacity of an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the prosecution of certain Indian country cases. SAUSA’s could be appointed before TLOA, but TLOA encouraged the appointments and the number of SAUSA’s in Indian country has increased dramatically.
[20] Webster’s New Third Int’l Dictionary 461 (unabridged ed. 2002).
[25] Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
[26] Muniz v. Smith, 647 F.3d 619 (6th Cir. 2011).
[31] See Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972, and Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979).
[33] Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
[34] E.g., federal juries must consist of twelve persons, but state juries can consist of six jurors. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970); federal juries must reach a unanimous verdict, but unanimity is not required of state juries unless they contain only six jurors. Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972).
[35] Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 (1970).
[37] See Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975); Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979).
[38] State v. Pelican, 154 Vt. 496, 580 A.2d 942 (1990) (collecting cases).
[39] 25 U.S.C. § 1303.