18 U.S.C. § 3242
Indians committing certain offenses; acts on reservations
All Indians committing any offense listed in the first paragraph of and punishable under section 1153 (relating to offenses committed within Indian country) of this title shall be tried in the same courts and in the same manner as are all other persons committing such offense within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1957–2017 · leading case: Keeble v. United States
Keeble v. United States (1973)
“" 18 U. S. C. § 3242 (emphasis added). [12] In the face of that explicit statutory direction, we can hardly conclude that Congress intended to disqualify Indians from the benefits of a lesser offense instruction, when those benefits are made available to any non-Indian charged…”
Murphy v. Royal (2017)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3242 . The parties agree that Mr.”
United States v. John Louis Iron Shell, Jr. (1980)
“18 U.S.C. § 3242 provides: All Indians committing any offense listed in the first paragraph of and punishable under section 1153 [18 USCS § 1153] (relating to offenses committed within Indian country) of this title shall be tried in the same courts and in the same manner as are…”
United States v. Antelope (1977)
“See 18 U. S. C. § 3242 . Respondents were, therefore, subjected to the same body of law as any other individual, Indian or non-Indian, charged with first-degree murder committed in a federal enclave.”
Murphy v. Royal (2017)
“” 18 U.S.C. § 3242 . The parties agree that Mr.”
United States v. Indian Boy X (1977)
“79); see generally 18 U.S.C. § 3242 . 8 . Fictitious name. Upon the commission of a felony on the Indian reservation, Hill assumes the role of a police administrator.”
United States v. Mary Mae Harvey, United States of America v. Wallace Chase (1983)
“§ 1153 ; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3242 . The Montana implied consent statute is not applicable to Indians on the reservation.”
United States v. Martin James Maloney (1979)
“If, in fact, Congress sought, by § 661, to define an expanded crime of “theft”, we may not then turn to that section to define the offense of “larceny” under § 1153.”
Emery L. Negonsott v. Harold Samuels and the Attorney General of the State of Kansas (1991)
“A separate statute governs the jurisdiction and venue of the Major Crimes Act as follows: “All Indians committing any offense listed in the first paragraph of and punishable under section 1153 (relating to offenses committed within Indian country) of this title shall be tried in…”
United States v. Steven Lee Swallow (1997)
“§ 1153 (b); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3242 (providing that Indians prosecuted under the Major Crimes Act “shall be tried in the same courts and in the same manner as are all other persons committing such offense within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States”).”
United States v. Archambault (2001)
“§ 1153 and 18 U.S.C. § 3242 (giving federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in Indian country by both Indians and non-Indians).”
United States v. John Clyde Walkingeagle (1992)
“The Court noted, as has the majority, that 18 U.S.C. § 3242 provides that Indians “shall be tried in the same courts, and in the same manner, as are all other persons committing any of the above crimes [including those listed at § 1153].”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.