For your reference, below are the endnote citations from the following pages:

What is Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction?

[1] Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (2013).

[2] 25 U.S.C. §1304.

[3] 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

The Need for SDVCJ

[1] Tribal Justice: Prosecuting non-Natives for sexual assault on reservations, PBS NEWS HOUR (Sept. 5, 2015), https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/tribal-justice-prosecuting-non-natives-sexual-assault-indian-reservations. 

[2] See, e.g., Angela R. Riley, Crime and Governance in Indian Country, 63 UCLA L. REV. 1564, 1567 (2016) (discussing the history of criminal justice in Indian Country, the resulting “jurisdictional maze,” and the impacts of this maze on Native women).

[3] Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191 (1978).

[4] S. Rep. No. 112-265, at 7 (2012). 

[5] John C. Coughenour et al., The Effects of Gender in the Federal Courts: The Final Report of the Ninth Circuit Gender Bias Task Force, 67 S. CAL. L. REV. 745, 906 (1994).

[6] See, e.g., Joe Garcia, Garcia: It’s time for action, INDIAN COUNTRY TODAY, Sept. 27, 2007, https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/garcia-its-time-for-action/. 

[7] Letter from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, to Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President, United States Senate, (July 21, 2011) https://turtletalk.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/justice-department-legislativeproposal-on-violence-against-native-women.pdf.

Reaffirming Sovereignty

[1] 25 U.S.C. § 1304(b)(1).

[2] 25 U.S.C. § 1304.

[3] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (b)(2).

[4] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (b)(3).

[5] VAWA 2013 contained a “Special Rule for the State of Alaska” in Section 910 which thereby applied sections 904 and 905 of VAWA only to the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Island Reserve. That special rule was repealed in 2014 by Public Law 113–275. That repeal, however, does not affect the 1998 Supreme Court decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie, which held that most tribal lands in Alaska are not considered “Indian Country” for jurisdictional purposes. As a result, at present, almost all tribes in Alaska cannot exercise SDVCJ. Similarly, some tribes located in states with restrictive settlement acts, like Maine, are also unable to exercise SDVCJ. See https://www.pressherald.com/2015/02/23/maine-tribes-seek-authority-to-try-domestic-violence-cases/.

Criminal Conduct Covered

[1] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (c).

[2] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (a)(1).

[3] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (a)(2).

[4] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (c)(2).

[5] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (a)(5)(A).

[6] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (a)(5)(B).

Limits on SDVCJ Eligible Crimes

[1] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (b)(4)(A)(i).

[2] 25 U.S.C. § 1304 (c)(1)-(2).

[3] 25 U.S.C. § 1304(b)(4)(B)

Due Process Requirements

[1] The United States Supreme Court recently upheld the validity and sufficiency of these due process protections in United States v. Bryant. 136 S.Ct. 1954 (2016). The Court explained that, “proceedings in compliance with ICRA, Congress determined, and we agree, sufficiently ensure the reliability of tribal-court convictions.” Id. at 1966.

[2] 25 U.S.C. § 1304(a)’s protections include: freedom of speech and religion; freedom from illegal or warrantless search or seizure; a prohibition on double jeopardy; the right not to be compelled to be a witness against oneself; the right to a speedy trial and to confront witnesses; the right to a jury trial; and the right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishment, excessive fines, or excessive bail.

[3] In 2010, Congress passed the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) which—among other things—allowed tribal governments to sentence offenders in tribal court for up to three years per charge and nine years total if the tribe provided a certain set of due process protections to defendants. 

[4] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(1).

[5] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(2).

[6] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(3).

[7] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(4).

[8] 25 U.S.C. § 1302(c)(5).

[9] 25 U.S.C. § 1304(d)(3).

[10] 25 U.S.C. § 1304(d)(4).