Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Subsonic" data-source="post: 3390451" data-attributes="member: 232">Had a class on this taught by some AUSA folks that specialized in this type of prosecution. There was a nexus they went by to decide if it was going to be a state or federal prosecution: Indian suspect vs Indian victim it went federal, Indian suspect vs Non-Indian victim it went federal, Non-Indian suspect vs Indian it went state, at least that’s how I remember the information. Basically this case upheld the geographical boundaries of the tribes for federal/tribal prosecution rather than if it was trust vs non-trust land. The cases involved occurred on non-trust land but fell within the historical boundaries that SCOTUS just ruled were never officially disestablished by Congress. The state argued that they were effectively disestablished based on the treaty after the Civil War, the land run and statehood.So basically if you’re a card carrying tribal member and you commit a crime within the geographical boundaries of the reservation, you go to federal/tribal court but non-tribal members go to state court.</blockquote>