Two Circuits Approve Use of Uncounseled Convictions Against Native Americans

In Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967), the Supreme Court held that a prior conviction cannot be used to enhance a defendant’s sentence under a recidivism statute if the prior conviction was obtained in violation of the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel. Native Americans, however, must deal with an apparent loophole in the Burgett rule: the Sixth Amendment right to counsel applies to proceedings in federal and state courts, but not tribal courts. If an uncounseled prior conviction in tribal court does not violate the Constitution, it may arguably fall outside the Burgett prohibition and be used against the defendant in a later case.

By some apparent coincidence, the Eighth and Tenth Circuits last month both addressed the use of uncounseled tribal-court convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 117(a), which makes domestic assault by a habitual offender a federal crime. Both courts approved use of such convictions to satisfy the criminal-history element of the offense.

The Eighth Circuit decision, which actually drew a dissent, seems the more carefully reasoned.

Continue ReadingTwo Circuits Approve Use of Uncounseled Convictions Against Native Americans

Farewell, Judge Terence T. Evans

One of Marquette’s most distinguished judicial alumni passed away last week.  Judge Terence T. Evans ’67 had served since 1995 on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Before that, he served as a trial judge in federal district court and Milwaukee County Circuit Court.

Judge Evans was profiled here in the Marquette Lawyer, along with his Seventh Circuit colleagues Judge John L. Coffey ’48 and Judge Diane S. Sykes ’84.  Judge Evans’ Journal Sentinel obituary is here.  A webcast of an “On the Issues” conversation he had with Mike Gousha and Judge Sykes is here.  (The picture above comes from that exchange.)

I never had the pleasure of meeting Judge Evans in person, but I’ve read many of his opinions.  They do have a distinct style and sensibility — once you’ve read a few, you are not likely to mistake an Evans opinion for that of any of his colleagues.  The opinions reflect a sharp wit, an eye for the telling factual detail, and a commonsensical approach to judging.  I doubt there are many judges on the federal bench whose opinions would be more accessible and engaging for the lay reader.

The Wisconsin Public Defender’s On Point website has collected some wonderful personal reminiscences of Judge Evans here.  Among the many notable tributes is one from his former clerk Daniel J. O’Brien ’78, who observed:

No one – NO ONE – enjoyed life more than “The Judge.” Luckily, for those of us privileged to spend time with him, that joie de vivre (borrowed from Judge Easterbrook’s marvelous tribute) was contagious. . . .

The Judge’s skill as a jurist was surpassed only by his warmth as a person. The word “mentor” is far down the list of adjectives describing his impact on my life [Others that come to mind: Marquette recruiting analyst, legal writing tutor (“To be a good legal writer,” he’d often say, “write like a journalist, not a lawyer”), comedian, Brewer fan, role model, expert on “greasy spoon” diners, and friend].

Visitation is today from 4:00 to 8:00 at Feerick Funeral Home, 2015 E. Capitol Dr.  Additional parking is across the street at Atwater School and at St. Roberts Catholic Church, which is about one block to the west.

Continue ReadingFarewell, Judge Terence T. Evans

Adoption Across Race: Disparate Treatment of Native Americans and African Americans

David Papke has a new paper on SSRN that contrasts the laws governing the adoption of Native American and African American children by whites. Once rare in this country, “transracial” adoptions became common over the latter decades of the twentieth-century. Such adoptions sparked concerns within both Native American and African American communities, but the legal system responded to the concerns quite differently. On the Native American side, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 gave preference to Native Americans in custody contests over Native American children and undercut state-court jurisdiction over such proceedings in favor of tribal courts. But, on the African American side, the Howard M. Metzenbaum Multiethnic Placement Act has established a “color-blind” standard for adoptions. David observes, “Race is not supposed to be a consideration when whites seek to adopt African American children, and it has become increasingly common for whites to ‘adopt across race.’” (9)

What explains the different legal treatment of the two types of transracial adoption? David suggests two answers. The “formal” answer “involves the unique status of Native Americans under the law of the United States,” which regards tribes as sovereign nations of sorts. But a “more fundamental explanation” may have something to do with the unique force of racist attitudes towards African Americans and related negative beliefs regarding their parenting abilities.

David’s paper is entitled “Transracial Adoption: The Adoption of Native American and African American Children by Whites.”

Continue ReadingAdoption Across Race: Disparate Treatment of Native Americans and African Americans