18 U.S.C. § 3598
Special provisions for Indian country
Notwithstanding sections 1152 and 1153, no person subject to the criminal jurisdiction of an Indian tribal government shall be subject to a capital sentence under this chapter for any offense the Federal jurisdiction for which is predicated solely on Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of this title) and which has occurred within the boundaries of Indian country, unless the governing body of the tribe has elected that this chapter have effect over land and persons subject to its criminal jurisdiction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: United States v. Martinez, 505 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (D.N.M. 2007).
United States v. Martinez, 505 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (D.N.M. 2007). “*1027 18 U.S.C. § 3598 . See Elizabeth B. Bazan, Capital Punishment: An Overview of Federal Death Penalty Statutes, at 22, available at http:/Avww.”
United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007). “Neither do we believe that the FDPA’s opt-in provision for Indian tribes, 18 U.S.C. § 3598 , or the lack of an opt-in by the Navajo Nation, renders the carjacking statute inapplicable.”
United States v. Gallaher, 624 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2010). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3598 . In 2005, a federal grand jury indicted defendant-appellant James H.”
United States v. Murphy, 100 F.4th 1184 (10th Cir. 2024). “Title 18 U.S.C. § 3598 . 37 Appellate Case: 22-7021 Document: 010111044963 Date Filed: 05/07/2024 Page: 38 C 1 The district court properly rejected Mr.”
Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373 (1999). “Nor, in the Court of Appeals’ view, did the District Court err plainly by conveying to the jury the misinformation that three sentencing options were available — death, life imprisonment without release, or some other lesser sentence.”
Olsen v. State, 67 P.3d 536 (Wyo. 2003). “18 U.S.C. § 3598 (c) (Lexis 2001). The federal statute goes on to provide that [alt the sentencing hearing, information may be presented as to any matter relevant to the sentence.”
United States v. Montgomery, 635 F.3d 1074 (8th Cir. 2011). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3598 (c). “Since the need to regulate the scope of testimony is less at the penalty phase than at the guilt phase of trial, parties may present evidence ‘as to any matter .”
United States v. Pepin, 514 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2008). “Errors of Law 18 U.S.C. § 3598 (c) provides, in pertinent part: Proof of mitigating and aggravating factors.”
Lezmond Mitchell v. United States, 790 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2015). “Department of the Interior, a former law professor and United States Attorney, wrote, adoption of the tribal option reflected a “modest step[]” in 2 See 18 U.S.C. § 3598 . 3 Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1994: Hearings on H.”
United States v. Grande, 353 F. Supp. 2d 623 (E.D. Va. 2005). “Defendant Oscar Antonio Grande moves the Court to strike various non-statutory aggravating factors asserted by the government pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3598 (a)(2) and one statutory aggravating factor cited by the government pursuant to 18 U.”
United States v. Fell, 372 F. Supp. 2d 753 (D. Vt. 2005). “” 18 U.S.C. § 3598 (c). The right to offer rebuttal testimony to mitigating circumstances proffered by the defense would be a hollow one indeed without discovery into the mental condition of an accused at the time of commission of the offense.”
United States v. James Gallaher, Jr., 608 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). “See 18 U.S.C. § 3598 . In 2005, a federal grand jury indicted defendant-appellant James H.”
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.