In a ruling that could have huge implications for Creek Nation citizens and other Oklahoma tribes if it is allowed to stand, an appellate court has thrown out the conviction and death sentence for a man who successfully argued that he should have been prosecuted by the federal government rather than the state of Oklahoma.
In an opinion issued Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver sided with Patrick Dwayne Murphy’s contention that he should have been tried in federal court for the 1999 murder and genital mutilation of another man in McIntosh County because he was Native American and the death occurred in “Indian country.”
“Mr. Murphy is a member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation,” the opinion stated. “Because the homicide charged against him was committed in Indian country, the Oklahoma state courts lacked jurisdiction to try him.”
While the federal government previously has assumed jurisdiction in cases occurring on tribal-owned properties, experts say this ruling greatly expands what is considered “Indian country” to include all land in a region spanning 11 counties across Oklahoma, including Tulsa County, regardless of whether it is owned by the Creek Nation or one of its members.
The 11-county Creek Nation reservation, which includes most of the city of Tulsa, it turns out, was never disestablished by Congress, according to the ruling.
An expert on tribal law at the University of Tulsa said the ruling is historic, especially for the Creek Nation.
“It’s huge, especially for criminal jurisdictions,” said University of Tulsa professor Judith Royster. “The primary impact it’s going to have is any crime committed by or against an Indian, not just a Creek citizen, but any Indian, in the boundaries of the Creek reservation can no longer be prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma.”
The Creek Nation jurisdiction includes Hughes, McIntosh, Okfuskee, Okmulgee, Wagoner and Creek counties and portions of Tulsa, Mayes, Seminole and Rogers counties.
Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief James Floyd said in a statement that the tribe greatly appreciates the court decision.
“Today’s unanimous decision is a complete and unqualified victory for not only the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, but all of Indian Country,” Floyd said. “The Court endorsed every principal argument that the Nation advanced to find that Congress did not disestablish the Muscogee (Creek) Nation’s reservation boundaries and that its 1866 boundaries remain intact.
“This decision affirms the right of the Nation and all other Indian Nations to make and enforce their own laws within their own boundaries.”
A spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office declined to say whether or not an appeal was planned of the ruling, saying staff was reviewing the 132-page opinion.
The appeal by Murphy, 48, turned in part on whether or not Congress had ever disestablished the Creek Nation reservation.
It turns out, the court said, that Congress had not disestablished the reservation.
Congress, Royster said, is the only body that can establish or do away with a tribal reservation.
Murphy in 2004 first raised the jurisdictional issue in his second application for state post-conviction relief. Murphy had lost prior court challenges to his conviction and sentence including one that claimed he should not be executed because he was “mildly mentally retarded.”
The appellate court in its Tuesday ruling noted that Murphy and the state agreed that the offense in this case occurred within the Creek Reservation if Congress has not disestablished it.
“We conclude the Reservation remains intact and therefore the crime was committed in Indian country,” the court opinion stated. “Mr. Murphy, a Creek citizen, should have been charged and tried in federal court.”
A jury in McIntosh County convicted Murphy in 2000 of murdering George Jacobs Sr., 49, who was his girlfriend’s ex-husband.
Jacobs’ body was found in a ditch along a county road near Vernon, about 15 miles west of Eufaula on Aug. 28, 1999. Testimony at the trial indicated that Jacobs was dragged from a vehicle by three men, who then kicked and punched him before he was attacked with a knife.
A passerby found Jacobs in the ditch with his face bloodied and slashes across his chest and stomach, according to the ruling.
Jacobs’ genitals had been severed and his throat slit. It was estimated that Jacobs bled to death in four to 12 minutes.
Two other tribes filed friend of the court briefs in the case in addition to the Creek Nation — the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma.
Klint Cowan, who represented the Keetoowah tribe, agreed that the ruling was significant for other tribes.
“It would mean if an Indian committed a (major) crime they would have to be tried in federal court, the Northern District or the Eastern District, whichever one overlaps that part of the reservation.” Cowan said.
Minor crimes would be prosecuted in tribal court, he said.
“Everyone has always assumed there were no reservations in Oklahoma and this is the first time we’ve gotten the 10th Circuit to say, yes the reservation is still there, Congress never took action to disestablish or diminish it,” Cowan said. “It may be a shock to the state, ‘hey wait now, we have a big ole reservation right in the middle of Oklahoma.’”
The ruling could eventually have both civil and criminal jurisdictional implications for other tribes across the state, Cowan said.
“This extends to civil jurisdiction as well,” Cowan said. “If there is a reservation boundary the tribe has the authority to game, for instance, anywhere within the boundary, whether it’s fee land or trust land or non Indian land, it doesn’t matter, it’s all within the jurisdiction of the tribe.”
So how did it come to be believed that the Creek reservation had been dissolved when it had in fact had not?
“I think part of it is Oklahoma ... since statehood, kind of assumed the Indian tribes in this state don’t necessarily have the same status as tribes do in other states, because of the peculiar history of Oklahoma,” Royster said. “And that assumption on the part of the state is being proved incorrect in multiple areas.”
(63) comments
This bogus idea of tribal sovereignty needs to be eliminated by the US Congress once and for all. The reasoning that because the US Constitution lists Indian Tribes in a list along with other nations and between the States in the duties of Congress, that after westward expansion, a separate class of US citizen needs to be recognized is absurd. Either Native Americans are citizens of the United States and citizens of the State they reside in, or they aren't. This hodgepodge collection of rulings only further separates the people of this country. Furthermore, it's pretty much ridiculous for any Tribe to think they have sovereignty which lasts right up until the United States says it doesn't. Don't believe me, wait for the first tribe to announce they are opening a brothel on tribal lands. If you think casinos make money....
I agree with you, Jon.
Jealous?
What's absurd is how often folks replace education with opinion. If you take a look at the laws upon which the US bases its ideas of sovereignty such as the Montivideo Accords, you'd see that all sovereignty is a limited affair. A state has inherent sovereignty. So does a town. So does a family and individual. All are limited by a number of factors, one of which is the ability and might of the neighbors and their will to exercise it against the sovereign claims of another. Canada only exists as a sovereign state because the United States allows it. Tribes are no different and are legally equal to the states within the vast family of American governments. To your point, brothels are legal in Nevada, so there's no legal reason tribes couldn't have them. The reason why we wouldn't is because (unlike yours) our cultures tend to value women as more than objects for pleasuring penises.
Crack a book.
Well said!
ᏩᏙ!
Yes thank you. Even further though, tribes are not equal with states. The tribal interest is defined as tribal-federal interest. Tribes are above states. No state jurisdiction in tribal lands.
This is crazy. The ruling should be reversed. [smile]
I don't see how the ruling CAN be reversed. Either Congress disestablished the reservation, or it didn't. If the reservation exists, then federal law requires that major crimes be tried in federal court. There is no option.
There is no such thing under the U.S. Constitution as an "Indian reservation" post their citizenship of 1924.
US citizenship had no bearing on tribal citizenship, a fact that was later affirmed repeatedly in congress (PCA) and in half a dozen SCOTUS decisions.
Actually, the land commonly known as an "Indian reservation" including land in Oklahoma according to federal documents readily available on-line with the header posted below says the land is owned by the People of the United States with rare exception which makes it 'federal' land and the trial should have been done in federal court. Here's the header for the federal documents that affirms ownership of the land...the whole document is too large to post. Non-Indian U.S./State citizens are being 'dumb-down,' as 'gullible' by politicians-state and federal-that they-politicians-can pass common law that regulates the capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens because of their "Indian ancestry/race" post their 1924 citizenship:
INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES
Vol. IV, Laws (Compiled to March 4, 1927)
Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1929.
________________________________________
Home | Disclaimer & Usage | Table of Contents | Index
________________________________________
PART III.— EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATING TO INDIAN RESERVATIONS FROM JULY 1, 1912, TO NOVEMBER 23, 1927.
ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | IDAHO | KANSAS | MINNESOTA | MONTANA | NEBRASKA | NEVADA | NEW MEXICO | NORTH DAKOTA | OKLAHOMA | OREGON | SOUTH DAKOTA | UTAH | WASHINGTON | WISCONSIN | EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATING TO INDIANS ON PUBLIC DOMAIN | EXECUTIVE ORDER RESERVATIONS
It's not based on race. It's based on individual legal status.
On Trump’s claim that U.S. nuclear arsenal is ‘now far stronger and more powerful’..............................................................
“The nuclear arsenal is the same as it was the day before Inauguration Day,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. It consists of about 1,750 strategic nuclear warheads deployed on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and strategic bombers and about 180 tactical nuclear weapons on European bases.............................................................................
Obama had already launched a nuclear weapons modernization effort that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cost $400 billion between 2015 and 2024 — and $1 trillion over 30 years. Kimball said Trump’s initial budget proposal for nuclear weapons was essentially a “cut and paste” of what Obama had proposed.
Lonnie did you notice those two that were pestering you on the cartoon caption thing are gone now?. I called the webmaster and he took their posts down and banned them lol. But guess what he emailed me that i should not use the word that describes someone's mouth like a pie or I might get banned lol.[smile]
Roy, I e-mail Jason as soon as someone with an obvious fake name posts, including the two you are talking about. No need to bother him with a call. I even e-mailed him about your avatar that had the P word for a cat in it. I have always found him to be fair, except for the time he banned me for a while. [smile]
LOL, are you the police force now since you were banned?[smile]
By the way, were you personally trying to get me banned without warning me first?[wink]
After all the p thing was something trump said. Didn't you like me bringing it up?
Roy, I don't mind it but I think it broke the profanity rules of this site. [smile]
Roy, I am not trying to get you banned. I just hate cowards who use fake names to post. The rules are clear and their discourse is usually very course. Jason can't catch them all and appreciates a heads up, I think. [smile]
I have been on William "Billy" Dusenberry's case a lot you must have noticed. Sometimes I wonder if I'll get banned for harassment.
Roy, You are wasting your time with him. He is too blissful. You should always watch what you say and just try to follow the rules no matter what others do. You do go over the top sometimes, but I would never complain because you use your real name. [smile]
Lonnie, what are those weird posts about some kind of magic that can make your wife or husband quit cheating? Have you seen them? I started clicking the report button next to her it's this one person that does it.
Roy, They are spam and you were right to report them. [smile]
Have you run into that gunner nich guy with all the words that you have to read carefully to understand him? I think he is the one that told John Swafford that he was proud to have been a 1st Lt and John was just cannon fodder and that the military always chooses the most intelligent men to lead. I wouldn't have said intelligent I'd of said better educated.
Roy, Since I was never in the military I can't say. But I was offered Officers candidate school if I enlisted when I took the pre-induction physical because I aced the exam. I said no thanks and took my chances with a number of 99. I lucked out and was never drafted. That's how close I came. I'd say you are probably right in some cases but not all. [smile]
Well, that's all I'm gonna bug you with tonight bye.
Roy, Good night and sleep tight. [smile]
Would this apply to civil matters where one of the parties is Native American? What percent of blood would be required to be deemed Native American?
I'm 3/64 and I can vote as a cherokee
Actually, I'm more than that. The Cherokee comes from my Grandma which can be proven because of the Dawes rolls and my grandpa was Creek but there are no Indian rolls for him.
The whole notion that Title 25-INDIANS is good common law is a myth. They are U.S./State citizens with "Indian ancestry/race" entitled to no more and no less than every other non-Indian U.S./State citizen. Politicians are lying.
lmao ..............................https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/25
[censored] I did not see any Constitutional proofs from you that Title 25-INDIANS is Constitutional. No common law can be enacted that does not conform to the Constitution...where in the Constitution is the authority to pass Title 25-INDIANS post their 1924 citizenship?
And these benefits are not actually entitlements. They are treaty obligations the United States has made to the tribes over the course of centuries of concessions agreed to between parties to end or avoid hostilities. Taking them away would just be the US breaking more treaties. Crack a book, Paul.
As far as entitlements we are entitled to quite a few things that you whites aren't.[wink]
[censored] Such faux entitlements are unconstitutional as there is no such thing under that document as a race-based entitlement of any sort.
Roy, You sure got that right. [beam]
Congress and the constitution both disagree with you, Paul. Tribal citizens are treated as citizens of sovereign nations that predate the USG by millennia. The constitution recognizes that. Congress recognizes that. The Supreme Court recognizes that. The fact that I'm 1924 Indians were granted US citizenship alongside their tribal citizenship has no bearing whatsoever.
That man doesn't look at all like a Native American Indian.
That's because Creeks are mixed with blacks from way back till now!
Roy, I like your new avatar. [smile]
Figured you'd like it! [smile]
Sure, murder and mutilation deserve fairness in our courts, or their courts or what court? They should have sent this savage Indian to meet his maker long ago!
savage Indian, nice choice of words
The civil implications are off the charts.
This whole notion that Title 25-INDIANS is a monumental fraud upon the Constitution.[censored]
No. It isn't. Have you even READ the Commerce Clause??
This article is an astonishing piece of a deplorable lack of journalist curiosity regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” since The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924! That single Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, made null all previous common law-state and federal-including Presidential Executive Orders, Commerce Clause and Treaty Clause alleged Indian Treaties (if any U.S. Senate confirmed Indian treaties actually existed pre-1924 Citizenship) regarding U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” so often touted by politicians and Indian advocates as being legitimate law.
And yet, politicians and MSM continue to perpetuate willful blindness to the Constitutional absurdity that Congress, Presidents/Governors, Initiatives and Referendums can make distinguishable the capacities, metes and boundaries of a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” post citizenship.
The United States Constitution makes for no provisions for:
1. Indian sovereign nations. None of the asserted tribes possess any of the attributes of being a ‘sovereign nation:’ a. No U.S. Constitution recognition b. No international recognition c. No fixed borders d. No military e. No currency f. No postal system g. No passports h. et al
2. Treaties with its own constituency
3. Indian reservations whereby a select group of U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” reside exclusively and to the exclusion of all others, on land-with rare exception-that is owned by the People of the United States according to federal documents readily available on-line that notes rights of renters as ‘occupancy and use’ by these distinguished U.S./State citizens with “Indian ancestry/race” only with the land owned by the People of the United States.
4. Recognition of ‘Indian citizenship’ asserted by various tribes. There is no international/U.S. Constitution recognition of “Indian citizenship” as there is no ‘nation-state’ from which citizenship is derived.
A simple question for politicians and MSM to answer…a question so simple, it is hard:
“Where is the proclamation ratified by the voters of the United States that amends the Constitution to make the health, welfare, safety and benefits of a select group of U.S./State citizens distinguishable because of their “Indian ancestry/race?”
Full speed ahead and ***** the torpedoes!
gobbledygook
[censored] I don't see any Constitutional citations to disprove my post...Ad Hominem is your reply.
Looks like Trent can prove his claims and you can't Paul lmao
Crack a book, Paul. That Act upon which your baseless argument rests entirely was clarified in both congress and the SCOTUS. It's not about RACE. It's about legal status and one citizenship doesn't occlude the other.
Washinton Post........................................A Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that trump said he ordered is something that a new administration does when it takes power. The last one was completed in 2010, under Barack Obama, so it would make sense for Trump to order a new one.......................................................................................................
But just because a president orders a study, it doesn’t mean everything changes right away. The NPR is still being written and probably will not be completed at least until later this year, defense officials have said. Then the Pentagon has to implement the new policies — and Congress would have to approve a budget that reflected those new priorities.
Roy, Consider the source. [smile]
more bluster from trump[wink]
USA Today.......................................................If we emerge from this standoff with North Korea unscathed, voters have an old lesson to learn one more time: We need to take Election Day decisions a little more seriously in the future so we never again confront a nuclear-capable enemy with a leader who’s functionally illiterate and who sets his policies based on what Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade giggle about on Fox & Friends. Choosing national leaders isn’t a game or a whimsical matter. We shouldn’t be casting our votes just to troll people we don’t like on Facebook. And now we’re learning why.
Roy, The American people knew best. That's why we have President Trump to handle this total mess that Obama and Hillary left behind. [smile]
By total mess do you mean the N Korea problem or just in general because you can't blame just Obama for Korea. lol
Roy, I blame Obama and Hillary who was SOS for a lot of the problems in the world we face today. The NK problem goes back to Clinton and every President since, but not Trump, yet. I think he will solve the problem. [smile]
The expression someone used "knee jerk" decisions describe Trump well don't you think?
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
The Tulsa World requires that you use your real first and last name on your account, which will appear next to your comments. If you see a questionable comment or a fake name, click the report button next to the comment. Review the guidelines to post comments.