restricted access Chapter 4 Criminal Law
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

20 P.143, n.8. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see also”: United States v. Fiander, 547 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2008) (tribal member can be prosecuted for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act violation for conspiring to violate Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act even though he cannot be convicted of violating the CCTA itself); Add the following to the tenth-to-last line of the footnote after the semi-colon: cf. United States v. Newell, 578 F. Supp. 2d 207 (D. Me. 2008) (Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act did not remove federal criminal jurisdiction over prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the United States); P.144, n.13. Add the following to the end of the footnote: See generally Virginia Davis & Kevin Washburn, Sex Offender Registration in Indian Country, 6 Ohio St. J. Crim.L. 3 (2008) (urging Congress to revisit the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act so that it can be tailored to the unique problems of Indian reservations and allow each tribe to develop the system that works best for that particular tribe); Brian P. Dimmer, How Tribe and State Cooperative Agreements Can Save the Adam Walsh Act from Encroaching Upon Tribal Sovereignty, 92 Marq. L. Rev. 385 (2008) (suggesting a compact process similar to the process used by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and limit the possibility that the delegation to state authority under the Adam Walsh Act will infringe on tribal sovereignty); cf. Amber Halldin, Restoring the Victim and the Community: A Look at the Tribal Response to Sexual Violence Committed by Non-Indians in Indian Country Through Non-Criminal Approaches, 84 N.D. L. Rev. 1, 14 (2008) (arguing that tribes should resist simply replicating state laws in their tribal codes with respect to sexual violencerelated offenses; instead, “[t]ribal governments must also implement new tactics in order to solve the severe problem of sexual violence against Native American women” including use of traditional values, restorative justice and civil protection orders). Chapter 4 Criminal Law 21 Criminal Law P.145, n.19. Add the following to the footnote after “E.g.,”: United States v. Ramirez, 537 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2008); Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: United States v. Graham, 585 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1147–48 (D.S.D. 2008) (failure of superseding indictment to allege defendant’s Indian status required dismissal ; although dismissal would not be required “[i]f the elements are clearly set forth in the indictment in the words of the statute itself, . . . [s]imply citing the charging statute . . . does not cure the omission of an essential element of the charge because that citation does not ensure that the grand jury has considered and found all essential elements of the crime”) P.148, n.31. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “See”: United States v. Cruz, 554 F.3d 840, 850–51 (9th Cir. 2009) (Indian status is an element of a Major Crimes Act prosecution but an affirmative defense under the General Crimes Act); P.151, n.54. Add the following to the end of the footnote before the period: ; see generally Benjamin J. Cordiano, Unspoken Assumptions: Examining Tribal Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers Nearly Two Decades After Duro v. Reina, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 265 (2008) (examining the effect of the decisions in Oliphant, Duro and Lara, and concluding that criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians is crucial to tribal self-governance) P.152, n.64. Add the following to the beginning of the footnote: United States v. Antelope, 548 F.3d 1155, 1157 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[b]ecause a tribe exercises its inherent tribal authority when it prosecutes nonmember Indians , the tribe acts in its capacity as a sovereign[,]” and thus the Double Jeopardy Clause did not apply with regard to subsequent prosecution of nonmember Indian for offense arising from the same conduct); Add the following line 4 of the footnote after “see generally”: David L. Lane, Comment, Twice Bitten: Denial of the Right to Counsel in Successive Prosecutions by Separate Sovereigns, 45 Hous. L. Rev. 1869, 1871, 1880 (2009) (analyzing Wheeler in the overall context of “separate or dual sovereign []” double jeopardy jurisprudence); P.153, n.69. Add the following to line 3 of the footnote after “see generally”: Marie Quasius, Note, Native American Rape Victims: Desperately Seeking an Oliphant-Fix, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1902, 1927 (2009) (recommending adoption of 22 2009 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition ICRA and Major...