Denezpi v. United States

Background

Merle Denezpi, a member of the Navajo Nation, was accused of sexual assault at a house on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. A Bureau of Indian Affairs officer filed charges in a Court of Indian Offenses (a CFR court), and Denezpi pleaded guilty to an assault-and-battery count and was sentenced to 140 days. Six months later a federal grand jury indicted him for aggravated sexual abuse under the Major Crimes Act; a jury convicted him and he received a much longer federal sentence. The Tenth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court reviewed the double jeopardy claim.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second prosecution after an earlier CFR conviction. It explained that the Clause protects people from being tried twice “for the same offence,” and that an “offence” is defined by the law enacted by a sovereign. Because a tribal law and a federal statute are laws of different sovereigns, they define different offenses, so successive prosecutions for those distinct offenses do not violate double jeopardy. The Court also said it need not decide whether CFR court prosecutors exercise tribal or federal authority to decide the case.

Real world impact

The decision means federal prosecutors may pursue statutory Major Crimes Act charges even after a person faced a CFR-court conviction for related tribal-law conduct. People accused in Indian country may therefore face separate penalties at different forums and potentially much longer federal sentences. The ruling resolves the double jeopardy question in favor of allowing such successive prosecutions but leaves some practical and jurisdictional questions open.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing the Court of Indian Offenses is a federal scheme that assimilates tribal laws into federal regulations, so Denezpi was effectively prosecuted twice by federal authority and double jeopardy should have barred the second prosecution.