Oklahoma Lacks Jurisdiction to Prosecute Indians for Crimes that Occur in Indian Country, Including Much of Tulsa
In Sharp v. Murphy, Docket No. 17-1107, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Murphy v. Royal, 875 F.3d 896 (10th Cir. 2017), for the reasons stated in McGirt v. Oklahoma. In Murphy, the Tenth had held that the Creek reservation had not been disestablished and that the State of Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction to prosecute the petitioner for a murder that occurred on the reservation. The State of Oklahoma's death sentence is vacated.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, Docket No. 18-9526 (July 9, 2020): The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision holds that Mr. McGirt’s state convictions should be vacated and he should be tried in federal court because he was an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and his crimes occurred on the Creek Reservation. The Court agreed that land reserved for the Creek Nation in the 19th century is still Indian Country for purposes of the Major Crimes Act. It rejects all of the State’s contentions to the contrary, including the State’s argument that recognizing that much of northeastern Oklahoma is Indian Country could unsettle many prior convictions and make it difficult to prosecute in the future. The Court points out that Oklahoma can still prosecute cases involving non-Indian defendants and victims even in Indian Country, and many Native Americans may prefer to finish their state sentences than risk a federal prosecution and potentially harsher sentence.
Quotes I like: “In any event,” the Court observes, “the magnitude of a legal wrong is no reason to perpetrate it.” Slip opn. At 38. Later, it says, “Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law.” Slip opn. At 42.
The real world consequence is that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute Indians for crimes committed in a portion of northeastern Oklahoma that includes most of Tulsa.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, Docket No. 18-9526 (July 9, 2020): The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision holds that Mr. McGirt’s state convictions should be vacated and he should be tried in federal court because he was an enrolled member of the Seminole Nation and his crimes occurred on the Creek Reservation. The Court agreed that land reserved for the Creek Nation in the 19th century is still Indian Country for purposes of the Major Crimes Act. It rejects all of the State’s contentions to the contrary, including the State’s argument that recognizing that much of northeastern Oklahoma is Indian Country could unsettle many prior convictions and make it difficult to prosecute in the future. The Court points out that Oklahoma can still prosecute cases involving non-Indian defendants and victims even in Indian Country, and many Native Americans may prefer to finish their state sentences than risk a federal prosecution and potentially harsher sentence.
Quotes I like: “In any event,” the Court observes, “the magnitude of a legal wrong is no reason to perpetrate it.” Slip opn. At 38. Later, it says, “Unlawful acts, performed long enough and with sufficient vigor, are never enough to amend the law.” Slip opn. At 42.
The real world consequence is that the State of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute Indians for crimes committed in a portion of northeastern Oklahoma that includes most of Tulsa.
posted by Anonymous at 4:18 PM
<< Home