Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:53 pm
Time: 9:53 pm
Results for tribal courts
8 results foundAuthor: Maurer, David Title: Indian Country Criminal Justice: Departments of the Interior and Justice Should Strengthen Coordination to Support Tribal Courts Summary: The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports from the latest available data that from 1992 to 2001 American Indians experienced violent crimes at more than twice the national rate. The Department of the Interior (DOI) and DOJ provide support to federally recognized tribes to address tribal justice issues. Upon request, GAO analyzed (1) the challenges facing tribes in adjudicating Indian country crimes and what federal efforts exist to help address these challenges and (2) the extent to which DOI and DOJ have collaborated with each other to support tribal justice systems. To do so, GAO interviewed tribal justice officials at 12 tribes in four states and reviewed laws, including the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010, to identify federal efforts to assist tribes. GAO selected these tribes based on court structure, among other factors. Although the results cannot be generalized, they provided useful perspectives about the challenges various tribes face in adjudicating crime in Indian country. GAO also compared DOI and DOJ's efforts against practices that can help enhance and sustain collaboration among federal agencies and standards for internal control in the federal government. The 12 tribes GAO visited reported several challenges in adjudicating crimes in Indian country, but multiple federal efforts exist to help address some of these challenges. For example, tribes only have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indian offenders in Indian country. Also, until the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 (the Act) was passed in July 2010, tribes could only sentence those found guilty to up to 1 year in jail per offense. Lacking further jurisdiction and sentencing authority, tribes rely on the U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAO) to prosecute crime in Indian country. Generally, the tribes GAO visited reported challenges in obtaining information on prosecutions from USAOs in a timely manner. For example, tribes reported they experienced delays in obtaining information when a USAO declines to prosecute a case; these delays may affect tribes' ability to pursue prosecution in tribal court before their statute of limitations expires. USAOs are working with tribes to improve timely notification about declinations. DOI and the tribes GAO visited also reported overcrowding at tribal detention facilities. In some instances, tribes may have to contract with other detention facilities, which can be costly. Multiple federal efforts exist to help address these challenges. For example, the Act authorizes tribes to sentence convicted offenders for up to 3 years imprisonment under certain circumstances, and encourages DOJ to appoint tribal prosecutors to assist in prosecuting Indian country criminal matters in federal court. Federal efforts also include developing a pilot program to house, in federal prison, up to 100 Indian offenders convicted in tribal courts, given the shortage of tribal detention space. DOI, through its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and DOJ components have taken action to coordinate their efforts to support tribal court and tribal detention programs; however, the two agencies could enhance their coordination on tribal courts by strengthening their information sharing efforts. BIA and DOJ have begun to establish task forces designed to facilitate coordination on tribal court and tribal detention initiatives, but more focus has been given to coordination on tribal detention programs. For example, at the program level, BIA and DOJ have established procedures to share information when DOJ plans to construct tribal detention facilities. This helps ensure that BIA is prepared to assume responsibility to staff and operate tribal detention facilities that DOJ constructs and in turn minimizes potential waste. In contrast, BIA and DOJ have not implemented similar information sharing and coordination mechanisms for their shared activities to enhance the capacity of tribal courts to administer justice. For example, BIA has not shared information with DOJ about its assessments of tribal courts. Further, both agencies provide training and technical assistance to tribal courts; however, they are unaware as to whether there could be unnecessary duplication. Developing mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts could yield potential benefits in terms of minimizing unnecessary duplication and leveraging the expertise and capacities that each agency brings. GAO recommends that the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General direct the relevant DOI and DOJ programs to develop mechanisms to identify and share information related to tribal courts. DOI and DOJ concurred with our recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2011. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-11-252: Accessed March 14, 2011 at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11252.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11252.pdf Shelf Number: 120974 Keywords: Courts (American Indians)Native AmericansTribal CourtsTribal Justice |
Author: Adams, William Title: Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System: Final Report (Revised) Summary: The Tribal Youth in the Federal Justice System project explored issues surrounding the population of American Indian juveniles who are processed in the federal justice system. Juveniles in the federal system are rare, and a substantial proportion enters into the system because of crimes committed on American Indians lands, over which the states have no jurisdiction. While these cases are sometimes handled within a tribe’s own justice system, some are prosecuted federally. Using 1999-2008 data from the Federal Justice Statistics Program and interviews with tribal and federal officials, the study explored the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of these youth at each stage of the justice system. In addition, the study examined significant issues surrounding the processing of tribal youth cases, including the reasons that these cases may be handled federally or tribally. This study fills a gap in the literature by providing both statistical and contextual information about tribal and non-tribal juvenile cases in the federal system. Although the data have many limitations, the study pointed to a number of findings, including the following: over the last ten years, about half of all juveniles in the federal system were tribal youth; the number of juveniles in the federal system – both tribal and nontribal -- decreased over this period; most juvenile cases were concentrated in a small number of federal judicial districts; and U.S. Attorneys declined a substantial portion of all juvenile matters referred for prosecution. Tribal and non-tribal juvenile cases differed in significant ways: most tribal youth cases involved violent offenses, while most non-tribal cases involved public order and drug offenses; and tribal youth were more likely to be adjudicated delinquent, while nontribal youth were more likely to be prosecuted as adults. Availability of rehabilitative resources and tribal capacity to prosecute were also found to be important factors in the decision to pursue a tribal youth case in the federal system. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 204p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2011 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412369-Tribal-Youth-in-the-Federal-Justice-System.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412369-Tribal-Youth-in-the-Federal-Justice-System.pdf Shelf Number: 122299 Keywords: American IndiansCriminal Justice System, Federal (U.S.)Juvenile OffendersTribal Courts |
Author: Van Stelle, Kit R. Title: Red Cliff Anishinaabek Juvenile Justice Study: Final Report Summary: The Anishinaabek Juvenile Justice Study was developed by the First American Prevention Center of the Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians and supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The purpose of the study was to formulate community-defined options to improve services for high-risk youth involved in the Red Cliff juvenile justice system and to build the capacity of the Red Cliff community to utilize evaluation techniques to address emerging community needs. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Medical School, Department of Population Health Sciences, 2003. 210p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/about/staff/vanstellek/RedCliffAnishinaabekJuvenileJusticeStudy-Oct2003.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/about/staff/vanstellek/RedCliffAnishinaabekJuvenileJusticeStudy-Oct2003.pdf Shelf Number: 122445 Keywords: American IndiansJuvenile CourtsJuvenile Justice Systems (Minnesota)Juvenile Offenders (Minnesota)Tribal Courts |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Programs Council on Native American Affairs Title: Tribal Justice Advisory Group: Final Report Summary: The Tribal Justice Advisory Group or TJAG is an independent group of tribal leaders and officials made up of one delegate and one alternate from each of the twelve regions of the United States as defined by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, plus one delegate and one alternate from two of the largest American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native American (AI/AN/NA) nonprofit organizations, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the National Indian Health Board (NIHB). After a consultation involving tribal leaders in Phoenix, Arizona, the TJAG was chartered in 2007 by recommendation of the Justice Programs Council on Native American Affairs (JPCNAA), a council of senior-level Office of Justice Programs (OJP) leaders and tribal liaisons from each of the offices of OJP and other DOJ agencies. While the JPCNAA represents OJP’s efforts to coordinate internally its diverse tribal efforts, the TJAG is a medium through which AI/AN/NA external perspectives and tribal input can be brought to bear on those efforts of OJP in order to better serve tribes. During the three years since its establishment, the TJAG was the only body of its kind at the Department of Justice, a truly independent voice for tribes at OJP. However, in October 2009, Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder announced that he would create an AG-level independent advisory group called the Tribal Nations Leadership Council or TNLC. As a result, the TJAG will sunset into the new TNLC. At a final working group meeting held June 16th and 17th of 2010 in Rapid City, SD, the TJAG drafted this final report to make a record of its history, resources, goals, accomplishments, and recommendations, intending it not only to be viewed by OJP and DOJ staff and the public at large, but also specifically to serve as a tool for the newly-created TNLC as it picks up where the TJAG left off. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 205p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 22, 2011 at: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/tjagreport.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/tjagreport.pdf Shelf Number: 123085 Keywords: American IndiansIndians of North AmericaNative AmericansTribal CourtsTribal Justice (U.S.)Tribal Police |
Author: Creel, Barbara Title: Tribal Court Convictions and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Respect for Tribal Courts and Tribal People in Federal Sentencing Summary: This article critiques a proposal to include tribal court criminal convictions and sentences in the federal sentencing scheme. The proposal, as articulated by Kevin Washburn, calls for an amendment to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to count tribal court convictions in calculating an Indian defendant’s criminal history score to determine a federal prison sentence. Currently, tribal court convictions are not directly counted in criminal history, but may be used to support an “upward departure” to increase the Native defendant’s overall federal sentence. Washburn’s proposal seeks to gain “respect” for tribal courts, based upon a premise that tribal convictions must be afforded the same weight and treatment as federal and state criminal convictions under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. This Article explores the idea of respect for tribal courts and convictions in the context of their history and connection to tribal peoples and communities. Ultimately, this Article concludes that respectful treatment would not tolerate placing a tribal defendant in such a powerless position within the federal sentencing hierarchy. A proposal that would negatively impact only Native American defendants in a foreign justice system in the name of respect warrants critical review. As an Assistant Federal Public Defender, I had the opportunity to view the application of federal criminal laws from the front and the back end of the criminal justice system, from trial to post-conviction. As a Native woman, I have seen the impact of crime, justice, and federal sentencing on tribal people, families, and whole communities. It is from this perspective that I focus the lens of respect on the work of tribal courts and criminal justice in Indian Country, and ultimately oppose any amendment in federal sentencing to count tribal court convictions to increase federal sentences for Native criminal defendants. A review of the historical diminishment of tribal authority over crime and punishment on the reservation, as well as the disparate impact of crime and punishment on Native peoples, leads to a rejection of counting tribal court convictions in federal sentencing. This Article proposes an alternative view that both respects Native American individuals caught in the criminal justice system and elevates tribal sovereignty. Details: Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico School of Law, 2011. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 29, 2011 at: UNM School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-11: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949738 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1949738 Shelf Number: 123168 Keywords: American IndiansNative AmericansSentencing, Federal CourtsTribal CourtsTribal Justice |
Author: Perry, Steven W. Title: Tribal Crime Data Collection Activities, 2012 Summary: Describes Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) activities to collect and improve data on crime and justice in Indian country, as required by the Tribal Law and Order Act, 2010. The report summarizes BJS's comprehensive outreach and collaboration strategy to implement a census of courts operating in Indian country. It presents data from the 2010 Census of Population and Housing, which was conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, about American Indians and Alaska Natives (AIAN), their tribal affiliations, and the populations of AIAN reservations and villages. It also includes federal justice statistics on federal suspects investigated and charges filed for offenses occurring in Indian country. The report describes tribal law enforcement agencies and the number of agencies with identifiable crime data in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. It summarizes tribal eligibility for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) awards. Highlights include the following: In 2010, the self-identified American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) population totaled 5.2 million, or 1.7% of the estimated 308.7 million people in the United States. About 3.5 million (76%) of the 4.6 million people living on American Indian reservations or in Alaska Native villages in 2010 were not AIAN. Tribally operated law enforcement agencies in Indian country employed 3,043 full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel in 2008. Details: Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, 2012. 18p. Source: Technical Report: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2012 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tcdca12.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/tcdca12.pdf Shelf Number: 126687 Keywords: American IndiansCrime Statistics (U.S.)Indians of North AmericaIndigenous PeoplesNative AmericansTribal CourtsTribal JusticeTribal Law Enforcement |
Author: Cobb, Kimberly A. Title: Tribal Probation: An Overview for Tribal Court Judges Summary: More effective ways of addressing the misdemeanor offenses of tribal members is needed since incarceration does not play a great part in many tribal cultures. “This article is designed to provide tribal court judges with a general understanding of community supervision and how it can benefit tribal justice systems, as well as provide some insight into the role of community supervision officers” (p. 4). Topics discussed include: what community supervision is; benefits to the tribal justice system; benefits to communities and victims; benefits to offenders; how judges can utilize community supervision officers; the role of a tribal probation officer; and ways a tribal court judge can support community supervision of offenders. Details: Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 2010. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 14, 2012 at http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPOTCJ.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.appa-net.org/eweb/docs/appa/pubs/TPOTCJ.pdf Shelf Number: 126706 Keywords: Community SupervisionNative AmericansProbationTribal CourtsTribal Justice |
Author: Tribal Law and Policy Institute Title: Promising Strategies: Tribal-State Court Relations Summary: Tribal courts and state courts interact across an array of issues, including child welfare, cross-jurisdictional enforcement of domestic violence orders of protection, and civil commitments. In Public Law 2801 (PL 280) jurisdictions, the concurrent jurisdiction of state and tribal courts over criminal prosecutions and civil actions arising in Indian Country creates even more interactions and complications. Tensions and misunderstandings have been common features of tribal and state court relations in the past, sometimes erupting in jurisdictional conflicts. The different cultures, legal traditions, political systems, histories, and economic positions of state and tribal courts have contributed to these challenges. Since the early 1990s, however, initiatives by judges' organizations within both judicial systems have focused on an agenda of greater mutual understanding and cooperative action. Individual judges and court systems have also taken up the challenge, devising innovative programs that sidestep conflict in the interests of common goals such as greater community safety and child protection. State court leadership and court improvement organizations, such as the Conference of Chief Justices and the National Center for State Courts, and funding agencies, such as the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the U.S. Department of Justice, have supported their undertakings. This publication spotlights some of the most successful strategies within these initiatives. The authors hope is that other tribes and states seeking to negotiate complicated relationships will discover new options for solutions and find inspiring stories of collaboration within this publication. Details: West Hollywood, CA: Trial Law and Policy Institute, 2013. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/Promising%20Strategies%20Tribal-State%20Court%20Final%203-13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.walkingoncommonground.org/files/Promising%20Strategies%20Tribal-State%20Court%20Final%203-13.pdf Shelf Number: 134175 Keywords: American Indians Child WelfareCourt SystemsDomestic ViolenceIndians of North AmericaJudicial SystemsTribal Courts |