Petition of Carmen
1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3764, 165 F. Supp. 942 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Ten Major Crimes Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in federal courts for enumerated crimes committed by an Indian within "Indian Country," which includes any Indian allotment held in trust by the U.S. government, regardless of whether the land originated from the public domain or a reservation.
Facts:
- Carmen, an enrolled member of the Mono tribe of Indians, killed another member of the Mono tribe.
- The killing, and a related assault, occurred at the victim's residence.
- The victim's residence was located on an Indian allotment.
- The title to this allotment was held in trust by the United States government for the Indian allottee.
- The land for this specific allotment was originally part of the public domain, not an established Indian reservation.
Procedural Posture:
- Carmen was first tried in California Superior Court in June 1950 and convicted of both murder and assault with intent to murder.
- On appeal, the California Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction due to improper instructions but affirmed the assault conviction.
- Carmen was retried for murder in the Superior Court in October 1951, convicted again, and sentenced to death.
- On automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court, the U.S. government appeared and raised the issue of exclusive federal jurisdiction.
- The California Supreme Court initially reversed the conviction based on a stipulation that the crime occurred in Indian Country, but upon rehearing, it affirmed the conviction, finding the trial record insufficient to establish lack of jurisdiction.
- Carmen then filed a habeas corpus petition in the California Supreme Court, which appointed a Referee who confirmed the jurisdictional facts.
- The California Supreme Court disregarded the Referee's findings, holding that it could not consider facts outside the trial record in a habeas proceeding, and discharged the writ.
- The U.S. Supreme Court denied Carmen's petition for a writ of certiorari without prejudice, suggesting he file for habeas corpus in a federal district court.
- Carmen then filed the present application for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court lack jurisdiction to try an enrolled tribal Indian for a murder committed against another Indian on an allotment held in trust by the United States, thereby placing the crime within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts under the Ten Major Crimes Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodman, Chief Judge.
No. A state court lacks jurisdiction to try the petitioner because the Ten Major Crimes Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts over this offense. The Act applies because the crime, murder, was committed by an Indian against another Indian in 'Indian Country.' The court holds that 'Indian Country,' as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, includes all Indian allotments where title is held in trust by the United States. It is irrelevant whether the allotment was carved from public domain land or a pre-existing reservation. Citing legislative history and United States v. Pelican, the court reasons that Congress intended a broad definition to ensure federal protection over Indians on all such trust lands. Since the murder and assault occurred on a qualifying Indian allotment, the state court's judgments of conviction are void for lack of jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the exclusive nature of federal jurisdiction under the Ten Major Crimes Act and clarifies the geographic scope of 'Indian Country.' By explicitly including allotments created from public domain land, the court prevents a narrowing of federal authority and reinforces the principle of federal plenary power over Indian affairs. The ruling also serves as a strong precedent for the power of federal courts, through habeas corpus proceedings, to look beyond the state trial record ('dehors the record') to determine if a state court has acted outside its jurisdiction in violation of a federal statute. This upholds federal law supremacy in matters of Indian criminal jurisdiction.
