United States v. McBratney
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | GRAY |
| Citation | 104 U.S. 621,26 L.Ed. 869 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. MCBRATNEY |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1881 |
CERTIFICATE of division of opinion from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
The Solicitor-General for the United States.
Mr. Thomas G. Putnam, contra.
MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant, having been indicted and convicted, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado, of the murder of Thomas Casey, within the boundaries of the Ute Reservation in that district, moved in arrest of judgment for want of jurisdiction of the court. The indictment does not allege that either the accused or the deceased was an Indian. The certificate of division, upon which the case has been brought to this court, states that at the trial it appeared that both were white men, and that the murder was committed in the district of Colorado, within the Ute Reservation, the said Ute Reservation lying wholly within the exterior limits of the State of Colorado; and that, upon the motion in arrest of judgment coming on to be heard before Mr. Justice Miller and Judge Hallett, their opinions were opposed upon this u estion: 'Whether the Circuit Court of the United States sitting in and for the district of Colorado has jurisdiction of the crime of murder, committed by a white man upon a white man, within the Ute Reservation in said district, and within the geographical limits of the State of Colorado.'
The Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of the crime of murder committed in any 'place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;' and, except where special provision is made, 'the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of crimes committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Page 622
United States, except the District of Columbia, shall extend to the Indian country.' Rev. Stat., sect. 629, cl. 20, sect. 2145, sect. 5339, cl. 1.
By the second article of the treaty between the United States and the Ute Indians, of March 2, 1868, the United States agreed that a certain district of country therein described should be set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians therein named, and of such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they might be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit among them; and that no persons, except those therein authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employees of the government as might be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, should ever be permitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Means v. Navajo Nation, No. 01-17489.
...(1958). 61. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 62. Antelope, 430 U.S. at 642-44, 97 S.Ct. 1395. 63. 18 U.S.C. § 13; see United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 621-24, 26 L.Ed. 869 64. 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 65. Antelope, 430 U.S. at 645, 97 S.Ct. 1395 (quoting Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554, 94 S.Ct. 2474). 66.......
-
State v. McCoy, No. 36224
...that process might be served within a reservation for a suit in territorial court between two non-Indians. In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869, and Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419, the Court held that murder of one non-Indian by anothe......
-
U.S. v. Dodge, Nos. 75-1173
...66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261 (1946); United States v. Ramsey, 271 U.S. 467, 46 S.Ct. 559, 70 L.Ed. 1039 (1926); United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1881); United States v. Goings, 527 F.2d 183 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Cleveland, 503 F.2d 1067 (9th Cir. The Supreme......
-
Duro v. Reina, No. 85-1718
...& C. Wilkinson, Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law 388 (1979) (citing United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. (14 Page 1146 Otto) 621, 26 L.Ed. 869 (1882)). The flaw in Duro's analysis is that state courts apparently do not exercise their criminal jurisdiction as Duro recommends. Notabl......
-
Means v. Navajo Nation, No. 01-17489.
...(1958). 61. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 62. Antelope, 430 U.S. at 642-44, 97 S.Ct. 1395. 63. 18 U.S.C. § 13; see United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 621-24, 26 L.Ed. 869 64. 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 65. Antelope, 430 U.S. at 645, 97 S.Ct. 1395 (quoting Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554, 94 S.Ct. 2474). 66.......
-
State v. McCoy, No. 36224
...that process might be served within a reservation for a suit in territorial court between two non-Indians. In United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 26 L.Ed. 869, and Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240, 17 S.Ct. 107, 41 L.Ed. 419, the Court held that murder of one non-Indian by anothe......
-
U.S. v. Prentiss, No. 98-2040
...statute, the Supreme Court, interpreting the predecessor of the Indian Country Crimes Act,5 Page 967 held in United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 624 (1881), discussed infra, that a crime between two non-Indians was not a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 1152. Thus, 18 U.S.C. § 1152 gen......
-
Means v. Navajo Nation, No. 01-17489.
...(1958). 58. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 59. Antelope, 430 U.S. at 642-44, 97 S.Ct. 1395. 60. 18 U.S.C. § 13; see United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621, 621-24, 26 L.Ed. 869 61. 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 62. Antelope, 430 U.S. at 645, 97 S.Ct. 1395 (quoting Mancari, 417 U.S. at 554, 94 S.Ct. 2474). 63.......
-
Weekly Case Digests August 31, 2020 September, 4 2020.
...unsettle Oklahoma's authority to try non-Indians for crimes against non-Indians on the lands in question. See United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621, 624 (1882). Still, the stakes are not insignificant. If Mr. McGirt and the Tribe are right, the State has no right to prosecute Indians fo......
-
OPTIMIZING MILITARY INSTALLATION JURISDICTION.
...note 75, [section] 678, http://www.justice.gov/ usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00678.htm (citing United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1882) (creating a judicial exception protecting states' rights from the broad application of federal and tribal jurisdiction pursuant to 18......
-
Structuring the Cherokee Nation Justice System: The History and Function of the Cherokee Nation Marshal Service
...court. Norman: Universityof Oklahoma Press.Treaty of New Echota, Art. VI, 7 Stat. 478, 481 (December 29, 1835).United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621 (1881).United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978).Worchester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 561 (1832).William Heckreceived his Ph.D.......
-
TRIBES, VACCINES, AND COVID-19: A LOOK AT TRIBAL RESPONSES TO THE PANDEMIC.
...PRIORITIES (2005), https://www.ojp.gov/pdffilesl/nij/209839.pdf [https://perma.cc/9DZR-UYPX]. (212.) See United States v. McBratney, 104 U.S. 621,624 (1881): see also GOLDBERG & VALDEZ SINGLETON, supranole 211, at (213.) See Ray Stern, Medical-Marijuana Law Doesn't Apply on Loop 101 fro......