The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to recommend to the Congress, on or before July 1, 1968, a model code to govern the administration of justice by courts of Indian offenses on Indian reservations. Such code shall include provisions which will (1) assure that any individual being tried for an offense by a court of Indian offenses shall have the same rights, privileges, and immunities under the United States Constitution as would be guaranteed any citizen of the United States being tried in a Federal court for any similar offense, (2) assure that any individual being tried for an offense by a court of Indian offenses will be advised and made aware of his rights under the United States Constitution, and under any tribal constitution applicable to such individual, (3) establish proper qualifications for the office of judge of the court of Indian offenses, and (4) provide for the establishing of educational classes for the training of judges of courts of Indian offenses. In carrying out the provisions of this subchapter, the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Indians, Indian tribes, and interested agencies of the United States.
Notes of Decisions
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978).
· cites it 4× “" 25 U. S. C. § 1311 (4). Courts of Indian offenses were created by the Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs to administer criminal justice for those tribes lacking their own criminal courts.”
Fortino Alvarez v. Randy Tracy, 835 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “73 , 78 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1311 ) (emphasis added). Thus, in federally established Courts of Indian Offenses, a model code would assure that defendants there both have rights—the full slate of rights provided by our Constitution—and that they have notice of these rights.”
State Sec., Inc. v. Anderson, 506 P.2d 786 (N.M. 1973).
· cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C.A. § 1311 . Its approval of the Navajo Tribal Code is ample evidence of this fact, coupled with authority for the training of judges of Indian courts.”
Charles O'Neal & Leo O'Neal v. Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 482 F.2d 1140 (8th Cir. 1973).
“For the reasons hereinbefore expressed, the decision appealed from is affirmed as modified. 1 . Congress clearly did not intend to detract from the continued vitality of the tribal courts by passage of this legislation.”
Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874 (2d Cir. 1996).
“at 78 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 1311 ). Title III of the ICRA amended the controversial Public Law 280, which had ceded to five states — and provided other states with the opportunity to assume— jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against Indians on Indian territory and…”
Tillett v. Hodel, 730 F. Supp. 381 (W.D. Okla. 1990).
“25 U.S.C. § 1311 (4). In 25 U.S.C. § 13 , Congress implicitly recognized the Courts of Indian Offenses by authorizing funding for “Indian judges”.”
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.