Uncounseled Tribal Court Guilty Pleas in State and Federal Courts: Individual Rights versus Tribal Self-Governance

By Martenson, Christiana M. | Michigan Law Review, February 2013 | Go to article overview

Uncounseled Tribal Court Guilty Pleas in State and Federal Courts: Individual Rights versus Tribal Self-Governance


Martenson, Christiana M., Michigan Law Review


Indian tribes in the United States are separate sovereigns with inherent self-governing authority. As a result, the Bill of Rights does not directly bind the tribes, and criminal defendants in tribal courts do not enjoy the protection of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In United States v. Ant, a defendant-without the legal assistance that a state or federal court would have provided-pled guilty to criminal charges in tribal court. Subsequently, the defendant faced federal charges arising out of the same events that led to the tribal prosecution. The Ninth Circuit in Ant barred the federal prosecutor from using the defendant's prior uncounseled tribal court guilty plea as evidence in the federal proceeding, explaining that doing so would violate the Sixth Amendment. This Note argues that Ant is no longer good law. First, Ant's legal foundation is weak, especially in light of subsequent developments in Sixth Amendment jurisprudence. Second, Ant is poor policy because excluding tribal court guilty pleas from state and federal proceedings undermines tribal self-governance. Even though governments must protect the rights of individual criminal defendants, supporting tribal authority will ultimately lead to decreased violence on Indian land and increased consistency with federal legislation.

Introduction

On October 27, 1986, Keri Lynn Birdhat, an Indian woman, was found dead on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in Montana.1 Seven weeks later, Northern Cheyenne tribal police arrested Francis Floyd Ant, Birdhat's uncle, and he confessed to killing Birdhat.2 Lacking jurisdiction to charge Ant with homicide,3 the tribe charged Ant with assault and battery.4 Ant entered a guilty plea at his tribal court arraignment and served a sixmonth prison sentence.5 He did not have the assistance of counsel during tribal court proceedings.6

The United States indicted Ant on January 7, 1987, charging Ant with voluntary manslaughter in connection with Birdhat's death.7 Shortly thereafter, Ant filed a motion to suppress his tribal court guilty plea in federal court.8 Pointing to the Sixth Amendment, Ant argued that using his uncounseled tribal court guilty plea as evidence in federal court would deprive him of his constitutional right to counsel.9 In response, the district court first ruled that the tribal court proceedings that resulted in Ant's guilty plea were valid.10 The court then explained that respect for the Northern Cheyenne tribal judicial system required it to admit Ant's guilty plea as evidence.11 On this basis, the court denied Ant's motion.12

Ant appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the decision of the district court. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court with respect to the initial validity of Ant's tribal court guilty plea.13 Although the Sixth Amendment requires state and federal courts to provide attorneys for indigent criminal defendants facing imprisonment,14 neither Northern Cheyenne tribal law nor U.S. federal law required the tribal court to provide counsel to Ant.15 Thus, Ant's tribal court guilty plea, despite Ant's lack of legal representation, was consistent with tribal law, federal law, and the Constitution.16

However, the Ninth Circuit departed from the district court's judgment regarding the use of Ant's tribal court guilty plea in federal court. According to the Ninth Circuit, Ant would have been entitled to counsel in the assault and battery proceeding if it had taken place in federal court rather than in tribal court.17 Therefore, notwithstanding the initial legitimacy of Ant's uncounseled tribal court guilty plea, admitting Ant's plea as evidence in a subsequent federal proceeding would have violated the Constitution.18

For almost twenty-two years, no federal court seriously questioned the Ninth Circuit's decision in United States v. Ant.19 In July 2011, however, two circuit court decisions raised significant doubts about Ant's status as good law. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Uncounseled Tribal Court Guilty Pleas in State and Federal Courts: Individual Rights versus Tribal Self-Governance
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.