Supreme Court Native American Ruling (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Sep 28, 2019
    Reaction score
    Washington DC Metro
    Interesting article, it sounds like this has caused chaos
    Kyle Willis hadn’t seen Kimberly Graham in years, since the day she was sentenced to 107 years in prison after she drunkenly plowed her truck into a group of motorcyclists in Tulsa, killing five people, including his mother and stepfather.

    So it was a shock when he saw her at a court hearing last month — tanned, dressed in a frilly purple top and jeans and laughing — a free woman.

    Graham, who is Native American, was let out of prison in April after a Supreme Court decision last year that found that a large part of eastern Oklahoma is still Indian country.

    Despite a century of state and local prosecutions, the court ruled that crimes there were the province of federal and tribal courts.
“She’s enjoying life as if nothing ever happened,” said Willis, 34, of Broken Arrow, Okla., who said the sight of Graham left him numb. “It’s bizarre. It’s crazy.”

    The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma said prosecution of Native Americans for crimes in the expanded Indian country must be carried out in federal and tribal courts, rather than by state or local officials.

    It was celebrated across the country by Native Americans last July, who saw it as a historic affirmation of treaties signed with the U.S. government in the 1800s.

    But in the year since, the ruling has upended Oklahoma’s criminal justice system, imperiled convictions in thousands of cases, sowed confusion for police and emergency responders and led to the direct release of more than 50 criminals convicted on charges including second-degree murder and child abuse, state records show…..

    Fascinating and tragic at the same time. The practical reality is Congress and the Cherokee Nation need to come up with some sort of a deal as the necessary personnel are shifted to account for the increased caseloads and potential retrials.

    As a matter of law all of those past convictions are invalid. It sucks but there is no way around it.

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.


    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed


    Top Bottom