Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation member

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Native Americans prosecuted in certain tribal courts can also be prosecuted based on the same incident in federal court, which can result in longer sentences.

The 6-3 ruling is in keeping with an earlier ruling from the 1970s that said the same about a more widely used type of tribal court.

The case before the justices involved a Navajo Nation member, Merle Denezpi, accused of rape. He served nearly five months in jail after being charged with assault and battery in what is called a Court of Indian Offenses, a court that deals exclusively with alleged Native American offenders.

Under federal law Courts of Indian Offenses can only impose sentences of generally up to a year. Denezpi was later prosecuted in federal court and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He said the Constitution’s “Double Jeopardy” clause should have barred the second prosecution.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-navajo-142635877.html

[Dr. Strange]

1. I'm not a big fan of allowing prosecutions for the same act under multiple sovereignties...

but as long as that's the law, this decision seems inevitable.

[ruet]

2. This SCOTUS Is Worse Than I Imagined.

I won't live long enough to see the damage undone.

[cstanleytech]

3. Court probably made the correct ruling as imagine if it was case where a police officer was found

not guilty for beating a suspect to death? It could have blocked the federal government from trying to prosecute the officer.

[onenote]

4. The three dissenters were Sotomayor, Kagan and....Gorsuch.

Breyer voted with the majority.

[madville]

5. Sounds like a reasonable decision

If the tribal court can’t sentence someone to more than a year the federal courts should be prosecuting their felonies anyway.

It’s similar to military members, they can be tried in both the military and civilian systems for the same offense.

[GregariousGroundhog]

6. Your second statement about military and civilian is partially true.

If a person commits a single act, they can be charged once by the federal government, and once by one (or more!) state governments.

If a service member is charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), that charge is under the sovereignty of the federal government. As such, the Department of Justice cannot charge them again if they dislike the result.

If a service member not subject to the UCMJ is charged by the state, they cannot then be charged again by their national guard unit. This would be relevant in a case where, for example, a service member shoots a protestor in the back of the head during a riot after being deployed by the governor.

Also note that tribes are sovereign, but that federal territories (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc...) are not.

[EndlessWire]

7. Not to minimize the repugnancy

of a rape charge, but I think that respect for the sovereignty of the Native American Nations is in order. Like it or not, they were given their own territories, and they are little nations within another nation. That, to me, is unique and an important enough concept that it should be respected despite any desire to bring some felon to justice.

I know they can vote in Federal elections and such, but, as you pointed out, they are sovereign.