Here is the order in Munoz v. McDonald (N.D. Cal.): Munoz v McDonald.
An excerpt:
Appellant, who is Native American, argues that he was denied a fair trial because the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude three of the five Native American prospective jurors on the panel and no Native Americans were seated on the jury. In addition to the three jurors excused by peremptory challenge, the court excused for hardship reasons prospective juror R.B., the tribal chairperson for the Elem Indian Colony. After the jury was sworn, but before opening statements, the court excused for cause an alternate juror described by defense counsel as “the only Native American juror that we have” after it came to light that the juror had failed to disclose information about his prior arrests and convictions. Appellant does not challenge the court’s decision as to either of those two jurors.] We disagree.
American Indian Tribal Law
Facing the Future: The Indian Child Welfare Act at 30
The Eagle Returns: The Legal History of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
The Indian Civil Rights Act at Forty