Fears in Oklahoma over US appeals court ruling in tribal murder case – Killing occurred on land assigned to tribe before statehood

In this photo provided by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, Patrick Dwyane Murphy is pictured in a photo in McAlester, Okla., dated July 8, 2004. Murphy, a 49-year-old member of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation on death row, had his conviction and death sentence tossed by a federal appeals court.(Oklahoma Department of Corrections via AP)

By SEAN MURPHY,  Associated Press  OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) 07/28 — Patrick Murphy was convicted of killing a fellow Muscogee (Creek) Nation man in 1999 and was sentenced to die. Prosecutors say he mutilated George Jacobs and left him to bleed to death on the side of a country road about 80 miles southeast of Tulsa.

In a decision that many believe could radically redefine criminal jurisdiction across a huge swath of Oklahoma, though, a federal appeals court overturned the conviction last year. It determined the case should have been tried in federal court, not state court, because the crime occurred on land assigned to the tribe before Oklahoma became a state and Congress never formally disestablished the tribal borders even though the land long ago stopped being a reservation.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s appeal of the ruling this fall, but other Native American inmates and defendants in Oklahoma have already begun appealing their convictions or asking for their cases to be dismissed on the same jurisdictional grounds. State and federal officials warn, too, that if the ruling stands, it could have far-reaching effects on areas beyond criminal jurisdiction, including tax collection and property rights.

In this Wednesday, June 13, 2018 file photo, Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter speaks at a news conference in Oklahoma City, Wednesday, June 13, 2018. A grisly 1999 killing in eastern Oklahoma has led through a maze of tribal law to the nation’s highest court. Many fear the case could radically redefine criminal jurisdiction across a huge swathe of eastern Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)


“If not corrected, the decision … could result in the largest abrogation of state sovereignty by a federal court in American history,” Oklahoma’s attorney general, Mike Hunter, wrote in asking the Supreme Court to look at the ruling.

The ruling could have a big effect on tribal members in Oklahoma, but not elsewhere, because of how tribal land was treated as Oklahoma transitioned from territory to state.

Many of the 38 Oklahoma-based tribes were driven from their ancestral homelands and resettled on sweeping tracts of land in what later became the state, including most of what is now eastern Oklahoma. The Creek Nation’s territory, alone, encompassed more than 3 million acres, including most of what became the state’s second-largest city, Tulsa.

As settlers continued to expand westward, the federal government took back much of that land through forced allotment, a policy aimed at transforming communally owned tribal land to individual parcels owned by tribal members. Lands the government determined to be “excess” were sold on the open market or allowed to be settled by non-Native Americans.

In its ruling last year, the appeals court in Denver determined that because Congress never formally disestablished the Creek Nation’s original tribal boundaries, the land in McIntosh County where Jacobs was killed is still under the jurisdiction of tribal or federal authorities for crimes involving tribal members.

Although the ruling is specific to Murphy’s case and Creek Nation territory, legal experts say it could be applied to cases involving other members of tribes whose boundaries also weren’t formally disestablished by Congress.

If the ruling is allowed to stand, the number of felony indictments based on Oklahoma Indian country jurisdiction could jump from three cases in 2017 to more than 500 per year, the U.S. Department of Justice’s solicitor general wrote in a filing supporting the state’s appeal.

“The federal government would have exclusive jurisdiction over most crimes by or against Indians in most of eight counties, including the City of Tulsa, with a total population of about 950,000 people,” he wrote.

The state’s oil and gas industry also submitted a brief in the case, fretting that the ruling threatens to “upend practically every aspect of Oklahoma’s legal and regulatory regime.”

Many tribal officials and legal scholars, along with Murphy’s attorneys, say many of the “sky-is-falling” legal arguments in the case are overblown.

“I would say they’re not just a little bit overblown, they’re wildly overstated on a lot of fronts,” said Lindsay Dowell, first assistant attorney general for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Dowell said the tribe, like many in Oklahoma, has a fully functional court and law enforcement system that already works closely with state and federal partners.

“So, the Nation has the capacity to function as a government with respect to law enforcement and does that already and has the capacity to handle anything that would result from Murphy,” she said.

Casey, Ross, Oklahoma City University’s general counsel, professor and director of the law school’s American Indian Law and Sovereignty Center, is pictured during an interview in Oklahoma City, Wednesday, July 11, 2018. A grisly 1999 killing in eastern Oklahoma has led through a maze of tribal law to the nation’s highest court. Many fear the case could radically redefine criminal jurisdiction across a huge swathe of eastern Oklahoma. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)


Oklahoma City University’s general counsel, Casey Ross, who is also director of the law school’s American Indian Law and Sovereignty Center, said she also believes many of the fears about how the ruling might impact tax policy, environmental regulation and land ownership are overstated. Still, she acknowledged the ruling is momentous, as it stands.

“It’s an interesting case. It’s an interesting time,” she said. “Particularly my law professor colleagues, we all kind of joke with each other about how we might have to change up the way we’re teaching (tribal law).”



Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Posted in: Appeals, Convictions, Court Rulings, Courts & Trials, Crime & Criminals, Death Penalty, Homicide, Murder/Attempted Murder, Prosecutors, U.S. Government, Victims of Crime

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 × four =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.