Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

SCOTUS rules for Creek Nation

Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Jul 2020, 10:13 am

The supreme court ruled that a huge swath of land in eastern Oklahoma is native American land for certain purposes,siding with the Creek Nation man who challenged his conviction by state authorities in the territory.

The 5-4 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch.The case sprang from the conviction of Creek member Jimmy McGirt,who was convicted of rape of a child on land whose ownership was disputed in the case.

The supreme court ruled a large portion of Oklahoma is of native American domain and tribal and federal authorities have jurisdiction not the state of Oklahoma,ruled SCOTUS in favor of the Muscogee Creek nation.

The case hinged on application of the major crimes act,which gives federal authorities ,rather than state prosecutors jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian land,by or against native Americans.

Chief justice Roberts as well as Thomas dissented on the ruling.This case decided today is McGirt V Oklahoma 18-9626
Its to bad this ruling didn't have a more deserving client,the crime seems rather vicious but likely should have been prosecuted the the feds from the begining.Hopefully this ruling won't make him go free,or maybe he served his time already,the article didn't say.

CNBC


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Jul 2020, 10:25 am

vermontsavant wrote:
The supreme court ruled that a huge swath of land in eastern Oklahoma is native American land for certain purposes,siding with the Creek Nation man who challenged his conviction by state authorities in the territory.

The 5-4 decision authored by Neil Gorsuch.The case sprang from the conviction of Creek member Jimmy McGirt,who was convicted of rape of a child on land whose ownership was disputed in the case.

The supreme court ruled a large portion of Oklahoma is of native American domain and tribal and federal authorities have jurisdiction not the state of Oklahoma,ruled SCOTUS in favor of the Muscogee Creek nation.

The case hinged on application of the major crimes act,which gives federal authorities ,rather than state prosecutors jurisdiction over crimes committed on Indian land,by or against native Americans.

Chief justice Roberts as well as Thomas dissented on the ruling.This case decided today is McGirt V Oklahoma 18-9626
Its to bad this ruling didn't have a more deserving client,the crime seems rather vicious but likely should have been prosecuted the the feds from the begining.Hopefully this ruling won't make him go free,or maybe he served his time already,the article didn't say.

CNBC


I posted a quick summary and link to ruling abount an hour ago...

As I understand it, the 2 people involved have their convctions anulled and are "free to go", but it's likely that the federals will be arresting them quite soon afterwards (one had a 1000 year sentence, and the other was for "life", I believe.). Double jeopardy will likely not apply, as the prior cases would not have been "legal" due to jurisdiction.

However, this will likely also impact on a lot of prior cases as well, as they may now have been tried in a court which did not have juisdiction...



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Jul 2020, 10:39 am

Sorry to have stolen your post,I never saw you,it was far down,no harm intended.

If the prosecution can argue a defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place,then it could be ruled that there is no double jeopardy.This tactic is rarely used,the feds will likely try to use there imagination to change the charges,like to a civil rights violation or something.It looks like his defense could argue he was in jeopardy at some point.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

09 Jul 2020, 10:49 am

vermontsavant wrote:
Sorry to have stolen your post,I never saw you,it was far down,no harm intended.

If the prosecution can argue a defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place,then it could be ruled that there is no double jeopardy.This tactic is rarely used,the feds will likely try to use there imagination to change the charges,like to a civil rights violation or something.It looks like his defense could argue he was in jeopardy at some point.


Not knowing how things work over there, I'm not sure how it would be handled, but the effect that this has on cases going back 100 or so years could be interesting.

How long it stays as "Indian country" is another question, as the opinion delivered indicated that congress can remove it from this classification and so return it to the state quite easily...Whether that can be applied retroactively, however, I don't know.

And don't worry about stealing my post...I just dropped a link to the opinion, with minimal text there, planning to go back to it to flesh it out, as there was only 10 minutes between each opinion being released and I wanted to make sure I didn't miss the details on one while working on another (and listening to a brief explanation of each at the same time).



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

09 Jul 2020, 12:13 pm

Brictoria wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
Sorry to have stolen your post,I never saw you,it was far down,no harm intended.

If the prosecution can argue a defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place,then it could be ruled that there is no double jeopardy.This tactic is rarely used,the feds will likely try to use there imagination to change the charges,like to a civil rights violation or something.It looks like his defense could argue he was in jeopardy at some point.


Not knowing how things work over there, I'm not sure how it would be handled, but the effect that this has on cases going back 100 or so years could be interesting.

How long it stays as "Indian country" is another question, as the opinion delivered indicated that congress can remove it from this classification and so return it to the state quite easily...Whether that can be applied retroactively, however, I don't know.

And don't worry about stealing my post...I just dropped a link to the opinion, with minimal text there, planning to go back to it to flesh it out, as there was only 10 minutes between each opinion being released and I wanted to make sure I didn't miss the details on one while working on another (and listening to a brief explanation of each at the same time).
The federal government disincorporated Wampanoag reservation on Cape Cod a few months ago.


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


Mr Reynholm
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2019
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,363
Location: Tulsa, OK

10 Jul 2020, 9:43 am

I live right here in Eastern Oklahoma or The Creek Reservation as I guess we'll call it. The problem I have with this is that it creates a two tiered legal system in this half of the state. Also it can create a "Safe Zone" where some crimes will be ignored so long as one is on the tribal roll. As I live my life in such a way as to not commit crimes this doesn't worry me for personal reasons. The precedent set by this is alarming given our current climate of social unrest in this country.