Anticipating an increased workload associated with its assumption of exclusive criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction over reservation Indians (...
Anticipating an increased workload associated with its assumption of exclusive criminal misdemeanor jurisdiction over reservation Indians (except for crimes committed against non-Indians, for which the federal government has concurrent jurisdiction), the Tribes expanded and improved their court system in several respects: a. Development of an Independent Prosecutor’s Office. All Prosecutors must be licensed to practice law…. b. Establishment of Separate Defender’s Office. This Office represents all people facing a criminal charge in Tribal Court…
. c. Expanded Legal Services Program. This program provides representation in civil cases to individuals meeting representation guidelines. Office staff currently, consists of four attorneys and one advocate. … d. Adult and Juvenile Probation Services and Community Service Placements.124 The Tribes also remodeled their tribal court’s chambers and expanded their appellate court system.125 The Tribes’ preparations would prove to be invaluable. As a report to the National Institute of Justice noted: Retrocession engendered a flood of new police activity. Calls to the department nearly doubled between 1993 and 1996, from 4,109 to 7,049. To its credit, the Salish and 431 122 “Officials Have Different Opinions on Impact of Retrocession Issue on Lake County Ballots,” CharKoosta News, Nov. 11, 1994, p.1; “Tribal Officials: Retrocession Details Can be Worked Out,” CharKoosta News,
Oct 7, 1994, p.1; “Retrocession Agreement Takes Effect Saturday: Despite Opposition by Lake County,” Char-Koosta News, Sept. 30, 1994, p.1; Wakeling et al., supra note 120, at 35 & n.22. 123 60 FR 33318 (June 27, 1995); State v. Spotted Blanket, 955 P.2d 1347, 1351 (Mont. 1998). 124 See Testimony of Rhonda R. Swaney, supra note 99. As of 1996, most of the attorneys in these offices were nonmembers. 125 Id.; “Tribal Court Remodeling Project Completed,” Char-Koosta News, Dec. 23, 1994, p.3. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Kootenai department adjusted well to its increase in size and activity level, as well as to the new jurisdictional rules. Salish and Kootenai officers reported (and we observed) that they worked well with officers from the other jurisdictions, even the Lake County deputies (although on an administrative level, Lake County and the Confederated Tribes did not have a warm relationship).126 In 1999, the retrocession agreement was renewed for eight more years, though Lake County and the City of Polson refused to sign. Then the prevailing sentiment was that the agreement had been a success, and would continue to be “as long as the attorneys and politicians don’t interfere.”127 Ely Colony: In 1955, pursuant to Public Law 280,
the Nevada Legislature enacted NRS § 41.430, which authorized the State’s assumption of “criminal and civil jurisdiction over public offenses committed or civil causes of action arising in areas of Indian country in Nevada.”128 From the outset, Nevada counties had concerns about the financial burdens associated with PL 280 jurisdiction.129 Building on these concerns, many Nevada tribes undertook an effort to persuade the state to retrocede statewide, in the interest of strengthening tribal sovereignty and government.130 In 1975, Nevada passed legislation offering to retrocede all of its jurisdiction, except over tribes that explicitly consented to continued jurisdiction. In June of that year, the United States accepted Nevada’s retrocession over 14 Indian reservations and “colonies.”131 At the time, the only Nevada tribe not included was Ely Colony. With only 100 acres at the time on the outskirts of Ely, Ely Colony determined that it was not ready for retrocession responsibilities, and successfully sought exclusion from the sweeping statewide legislation.13
No comments