<mediadc-video-embed data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1655135120280,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1655135120280,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"rawHtml":"
var _bp = _bp||[]; _bp.push({ "div": "Brid_55135116", "obj": {"id":"27789","width":"16","height":"9","video":"1030236"} }); ","_id":"00000181-5dbd-d405-a3e7-ddbf58f40000","_type":"2f5a8339-a89a-3738-9cd2-3ddf0c8da574"}”>Video EmbedThe Supreme Court ruled Native Americans prosecuted in certain tribal courts may also be prosecuted based on the same incident in federal court, which could result in lengthier sentences.
The 6-3 majority opinion was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett on Monday and joined by Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissent that was joined in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
DOES THE CONSTITUTION’S DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE COUNT FOR CRIMES ON TRIBAL LAND?
The case centers on an appeal from Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo Nation who was initially tried and convicted of domestic violence in a Court of Indian Offenses, also known as CFR courts, and subsequently in a federal district court following a 140-day jail sentence.
<mediadc-iframe data-state="{"cms.site.owner":{"_ref":"00000161-3486-d333-a9e9-76c6fbf30000","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b93390000"},"cms.content.publishDate":1655135149456,"cms.content.publishUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"cms.content.updateDate":1655135149456,"cms.content.updateUser":{"_ref":"00000177-1b39-d2c7-af7f-5fbf13ff0004","_type":"00000161-3461-dd66-ab67-fd6b933a0007"},"iFrameEmbedCode":"","_id":"00000181-5dbe-d702-a3cf-5fff172e0000","_type":"00000161-b425-d761-a563-f7e77e270000"}”>iFrame Object
In 2017, Denezpi was traveling with a female member of the Navajo Nation to Towaoc, Colorado, which is designated under the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. While there, Denezpi was accused of raping the woman. He was charged with assault and battery in the Court of Indian Offenses and sentenced to 140 days of incarceration.
Six months later, he was indicted in federal court for aggravated sexual abuse for the same incident.
At the time, his lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, arguing he’d already been prosecuted. They lost the argument, and he was sentenced to 30 years in prison. A federal appeals court affirmed the district court decision.
Denezpi challenged the second federal prosecution on double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution protects from being prosecuted twice for the same offenses.
Barrett argued Denezpi is not protected from double jeopardy because charges stemmed from laws under separate sovereigns. “Because Denezpi’s second prosecution did not place him in jeopardy again ‘for the same offence,’ that prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause,” she wrote.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Denezpi’s single act led to separate prosecutions for violations of a tribal ordinance and a federal statute. Because the Tribe and the Federal Government are distinct sovereigns, those ‘offense[s]’ are not the same,” Barrett wrote.
The court also noted that in 1978, the “double jeopardy” clause did not block the federal government from prosecuting a Native person in federal court following a tribal court prosecution. For Denezpi v. United States, the question was whether the rule should be different for the Courts of Indian Offenses.
