U.S. v. Maggi — Ninth Circuit Further Refines Who is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act

Here are the materials:

CA9 Opinion

Maggi Opening Brief

Government Brief in US v Maggi

Maggi Reply Brief

Mann Opening Brief

Government Brief in US v Mann

Mann Reply Brief

An excerpt:

Gordon Mann and Shane Maggi appeal from unrelated convictions on the same basis, namely that they are not “Indians” for purposes of prosecution under the Major Crimes Act. Because there is no evidence that Mann has any blood from a federally recognized Indian tribe, his conviction must be vacated. Maggi’s documented blood from a federally recognized tribe is scant-1/64. However, we do not decide the novel question whether Maggi’s Indian blood degree is adequate; rather, because Maggi lacks sufficient government or tribal recognition as an Indian, his conviction must also be vacated. In light of this disposition, we need not consider Maggi’s additional challenges to the sufficiency of the indictment and the reasonableness of the sentence.

The real question here is whether the government thinks this is the right vehicle to test the Ninth Circuit on the means by which it defines “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act. I’d say definitely not Mann (with no Indian blood from a federally recognized tribe), but maybe Maggi (still only 1/64 blood from a federally recognized tribe). I bet they wait for another case (assuming they want one at all).

This entry was posted in Author: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, Criminal, Research and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to U.S. v. Maggi — Ninth Circuit Further Refines Who is an “Indian” under the Major Crimes Act

  1. divinryan says:

    “[W]e do not decide the novel question whether Maggi’s Indian blood degree is adequate.” Look for an article titled “Who is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters” (publication forthcoming in the spring 2010 edition of the Asia Pacific Law and Policy Journal – A preponderance (50.01%) of preferred blood is the logical answer to the question of how much blood is necessary to distinguish between ideological association and legitimate racial identity.

  2. redline says:

    You are either Indian OR you are NOT.
    Its not a coat you put on to suit your needs.
    If they are not Indians for the purpose of prosecution, then they are not Indians for any other purpose.
    Not for purpose of employment.
    Not for purpose of health care.
    Not for purpose of education.
    Not for purpose of any services provided FOR INDIANS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s