사용자:Goldgrape/연습장

위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.
카펜터 대 머피
미국 연방 대법원
변론 11월 27일, 2018년
사건명마이크 카펜터, 오클라호마 임시 교도관, 청원자 대 패트릭 드웨인 머피
재판 기록 번호17-1107
변론Oral argument
이전 역사오클라호마 주 법원의 배심원은 머피의 살인죄를 인정하여 사형을 선고함. 제10 연방 항소 법원은 머피의 유죄 판결을 뒤집어 오클라호마 주 법원은 머피를 유죄 판결 할 관할권이 없다고 판결함. [1]
제기된 질문
의회가 무스코지어 자치국을 해산하였는가
참조 법조
18 U.S.C. § 1151

카펜터 대 머피는 미국 연방 대법원에서 현재 진행중인 판결로, 미국의 의회가 무스코지어 국가의 해체 여부에 대해 의문을 제기하는 판결이다. 본 소는 표면적으로는 무스코지어 국가에 대해서만 다루지만, 문명화된 다섯 부족이 역사적으로 밀접한 관계를 가지기에 판결에 따라 체로키, 촉토족, 치카소족, 세미놀 자치구에도 영향을 끼칠 수 있다.

1866년 미국 의회는 무스코지어, 체로키, 치카소, 촉토, 세미놀, 총 5개 부족의 원주민 자치구의 경계를 지정했다. 무스코지어 자치국은 오클라호마 동부 30만 에이커 가량을 차지하였으며, 여기에 오클라호마의 도시인 털사시의 대부분도 포함됐다. 모든 다섯 부족의 자치국은 190만 에이커의 구역을 차지하였으며, 오클라호마 지역의 동쪽 절반을 대부분 차지하였다. 1907년 의회는 오클라호마 주를 연방의 46번째 주로 승인하였고, 원주민 자치국의 연방 준주 법원은 계류되어 있던 모든 연방과 관련되어 있지 않은 소들을 주 법원으로 인계하였다.[2] 연방대법원은 연방 준주 법원이 이러한 인계를 할 권한이 있었는가를 판결할 것이다. 기존의 연방대법원의 전례들에 따르면 원주민 구역은 의회의 명확한 선언이 있지 않는 한 해체될 수 없다. 미국 연방 법률(18 U.S.C. § 1151(a))에 따르면 원주민 자치구 구성원이 저지르거나 원주민 자치구 구성원에게 가해진 모든 범죄는 연방 대법원이 판결권을 가진다.[3]


2018년 11월 27일 연방 대법원은 양측의 구두 의견을 들었으며, 2019년 6월 중으로 판결이 나올 것으로 예상된다.

배경[편집]

Boundaries of the Five Tribes in 1866

From the colonial and early federal period in the history of the United States the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations became known as the Five Civilized Tribes.[4] These are the first five tribes that Anglo-European settlers generally considered to be "civilized".[5] The “Five Tribes” once occupied much of the land in current day Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee.

In the 1830’s, Congress forcibly removed these tribes from their ancestral homelands to designated Indian Territory. The migration from these homelands to the designated territory is infamously known as the Trail of Tears. During the American Civil War, some of the tribes supported the Confederates. After the Union victory, the “Five Tribes” ceded all its territory in western Oklahoma. The Muscogee (Creek)’s present boundaries reflect two cessions. In 1856, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation “cede[d]” lands to the Seminoles.[6] In 1866, Congress signed the Treaty with the Creek where the Muscogee (Creek) Nation “cede[d] … to the United States” lands in return for $975,168.[7]

In the 1880’s, the “Allotment Era” swept the Western United States. The Dawes Act of 1887 (also known as the General Allotment Act or the Dawes Severalty Act of 1887),[8][9] authorized the President of the United States to survey Native American tribal land and divide it into allotments for individual Native Americans. Those who accepted allotments and lived separately from the tribe would be granted United States citizenship. The Curtis Act of 1898 amended the Dawes Act to extend its provisions to the Five Civilized Tribes; it required abolition of their governments, allotment of communal lands to people registered as tribal members, and sale of lands declared surplus, as well as dissolving tribal courts.

The Muscogee (Creek) Nation reached a negotiated agreement with the federal government for the allotment of tribal lands, and Congress passed it into law in 1901. The original agreement specified that its terms would control over conflicting federal statutes and treaty provisions, but it in no way affected treaty provisions consistent with the agreement. The agreement's central purpose was to facilitate a transfer of title from the Muscogee (Creek) Nation generally to its members individually. It provided that "[a]ll lands belonging to the Creek tribe," except for town sites and lands reserved for public purposes, should be appraised and allotted "among the citizens of the tribe."[10] In 1906, Congress passed the The Oklahoma Enabling Act,[11] which empowered the people residing in Indian Territory and Oklahoma Territory to elect delegates to a state constitutional convention and subsequently to be admitted to the union as a single union. The question before the Supreme Court is whether these laws and other similar federal statutes clearly disestablished the reservation of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.

Statement of the Case[편집]

Patrick Murphy, a member of the Moscogee (Creek) Nation, murdered George Jacobs near Henryetta, Oklahoma on August 28, 1999. He confessed to the murder to Mr. Jacobs' former acquaintance, Ms. Patsy Jacobs, whom he was living with, and was arrested. An Oklahoma state court jury convicted Patrick Murphy of murder in and imposed the death penalty in 2000.[12]

After his conviction, Murphy filed an application for post-conviction relief in an Oklahoma state court seeking to overturn his conviction by claiming the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute murders committed by Indians in Indian country; Henryetta lies within the former boundaries of the Moscogee reservation. The state district court concluded state jurisdiction was proper because the crime had occurred on state land. Murphy appealed to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals which also determined that the state had jurisdiction. Murphy then sought Habeas relief in the Federal District Court of Eastern Oklahoma. The Federal District Court determined the Oklahoma state court decisions were not contrary to federal law and denied the Habeas petition.[13] Murphy then appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which reversed the decision of the District Court.[14]

Argument for the Petitioner[편집]

Whenever a state prisoner files a federal habeas corpus petition, the opposing party is the “authorized person having custody of the prisoner”.[15] In this case, the person having custody of Murphy at the time of oral arguments was the Interim Warden for the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Mike Carpenter. While Carpenter is the name on the case, the attorneys for Carpenter represent the interests of the Oklahoma state government. The Federal Government also filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Carpenter with the concern that if the Supreme Court affirmed the federal appellate court’s decision, then “the federal government would have—and the State would lack—criminal jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians in nearly all of eastern Oklahoma.”[16] Other amicus curiae briefs in support of Carpenter were filed by the International Municipal Lawyers Association[17], the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association[18], the Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association[19], the Environmental Federation of Oklahoma[20], and a consolidated brief on behalf of ten other state governments.[21]

Carpenter’s attorneys argue that 1) Congress never established reservations for the Five Tribes. Although Congress established boundaries for the Five Tribes, these territorial boundaries do not meet the legal definition of a reservation. 2) Even if the boundaries meet the definition of a reservation, Congressional laws during the “Allotment Era” disestablished reservations. 3) Congress rescinded the Five Tribes’ territorial sovereignty by stripping the Five Tribes of the most basic executive, legislative, and judicial functions to bestow those powers upon the new State. 4) Congress’s transfer of jurisdiction over Indians to Oklahoma state courts is incompatible with the reservation status.[2]

Argument for the Respondent[편집]

Murphy is represented by his criminal defense attorneys. Amicus curiae briefs in support of Murphy were filed by the Muscogee (Creek) Nation[22], the Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (joined by several former officials of the State of Oklahoma)[23], the National Congress of American Indians[24], the Cherokee Nation (joined by Historians and Legal Scholars)[25], a group of former United States Attorneys[26], and the National Indigenous Women's Resource Center.[27]

Murphy’s attorneys argue that 1) Congress in 1866 established a reservation for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation 2) the Supreme Court has clearly and resolutely affirmed that Solem v. Bartlett provides the “well settled” framework for assessing disestablishment. 3) The test provided in Solem to determine whether a reservation has been disestablishment has not been met. 4) Although Congress established the Muscogee (Creek) Nation over 150 years ago, it is a well-established rule that courts will not repeal a statute unless Congress's intention is clear and manifest.[28]

Should the Supreme Court uphold the Tenth Circuit’s decision, that the crime occurred in Indian country under federal jurisdiction, the federal government will defer to the tribe on whether or not to impose the death sentence. Currently, the Muscogee (Creek) have not elected to apply the death penalty, so Murphy would likely receive a life sentence. Should the Court reverse the Tenth Circuit’s decision, Murphy will be subject to the state of Oklahoma’s decision, and his capital punishment sentence will stand.[29]

Supreme Court proceedings[편집]

The original name of this case was Royal v. Murphy. Terry Royal, the Warden at Oklahoma State Penitentiary, accepted another job and resigned in good standing prior to briefings in the case.[30] Before his resignation, Royal filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court on February 6, 2018. The Court granted the petition on May 21, 2018. On July 25, 2018 the case was renamed Carpenter v. Murphy to reflect the appointment of Mike Carpenter as Interim Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary.[31]

Oral Arguments were heard on November 27, 2018. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the Court’s review of this decision because of his earlier participation in a Tenth Circuit’s en banc rehearing of the case while he served as a judge on the Tenth Circuit.[29] Attorneys for Mike Carpenter, Oklahoma State Penitentiary Interim Warden, argued that Congress has clearly disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation. Carpenter is backed by attorneys for the State of Oklahoma and the United States Solicitor General. Attorneys for Patrick Dwayne Murphy argued that there is no clear intention of Congress to disestablish the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Reservation. Murphy is backed by the National Congress of American Indians and other American Indian organizations.[32] The Justices raised concerns about the practicality of deciding that much of Oklahoma would be classified as an Indian Reservation, which would potentially affect the livelihood of 1.8 million residents.[33]

See also[편집]

References[편집]

  1. ↑ Murphy v. Royal, 866 F.3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2017).
  2. ↑ 가 나 Brief for Petitioner
  3. ↑ Mann, Ronald (2018년 11월 20일). “Argument preview: Justices to turn again to rules for disestablishing tribal reservations”. 《scotusblog.com》. 2018년 11월 21일에 확인함. 
  4. ↑ Clinton, Fred S. Oklahoma Indian History, from The Tulsa World. The Indian School Journal, Volume 16, Number 4, 1915, page 175-187.
  5. ↑ “Five Civilized Tribes”. 《Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History & Culture》. Oklahoma Historical Society. 2015년 1월 22일에 확인함. 
  6. ↑ 1856 Treaty arts. I, V.
  7. ↑ Treaty with the Muscogee (Creek), art. III, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat. 785.
  8. ↑ “General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act), Act of Feb. 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388, ch. 119, 25 USCA 331), Acts of Forty-ninth Congress-Second Session, 1887”. 2011년 2월 3일에 확인함. 
  9. ↑ “Dawes Act (1887)”. 《OurDocuments.gov》. National Archives and Records Administration. 2015년 8월 15일에 확인함. 
  10. ↑ Murphy, 866 F.3d at 1209.
  11. ↑ Pub.L. 59–234, 틀:USBill, 34 Stat. 267, 1906년 6월 16일 제정
  12. ↑ “Murphy v. State, 47 P.3d 876, 880-881 (Okla. Crim. App. 2002)”. 
  13. ↑ “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari” (PDF). 
  14. ↑ https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16706988819924277184
  15. ↑ “Form AO 241: Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody” (PDF). 
  16. ↑ “Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner” (PDF). 
  17. ↑ “Brief Amicus Curiae the International Municipal Lawyers Association, the International City/County Management Association, and the National Sheriffs’ Association in Support of Petitioner” (PDF). 
  18. ↑ “Brief of Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of the Petitioner” (PDF). 
  19. ↑ “Brief of Amici Curiae Oklahoma Sheriffs’ Association, Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, and Ten Oklahoma District Attorneys in Support Of Petitioner” (PDF). 
  20. ↑ “Brief of Amici Curiae Environmental Federation Of Oklahoma, Inc., Oklahoma Cattlemen’s Association, Oklahoma Farm Bureau Legal Foundation, Mayes County Farm Bureau, Muskogee County Farm Bureau, Oklahoma Oil & Gas Association, and State Chamber of Oklahoma in Support Of Petitioner, Mike Carpenter, Interim Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary” (PDF). 
  21. ↑ “Brief for the States of Nebraska, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, and Paul R. Lepage, Governor of Maine, as Amici Curiae in Support Of Petitioner” (PDF). 
  22. ↑ “Brief for Amici Curiae Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Support of Respondent” (PDF). 
  23. ↑ “Brief of Amici Curiae David Boren, Brad Henry, Tom Cole, Neal McCaleb, Danny Hilliard, Kris Steele, Daniel Boren, T.W. Shannon, Lisa Johnson Billy, The Chickasaw Nation, and The Choctaw Nation Of Oklahoma in Support of Respondent” (PDF). 
  24. ↑ “Brief for National Congress of American Indians in Support of Respondent” (PDF). 
  25. ↑ “Brief of Amici Curiae Historians, Legal Scholars, and Cherokee Nation in Support of Respondent” (PDF). 
  26. ↑ “Brief Amici Curiae of Former United States Attorneys Troy A. Eid, Barry R. Grissom, Thomas B. Heffelfinger, David Iglesias, Brendan V. Johnson, Wendy J. Olson, Timothy Q. Purdon and Danny C. Williams, Sr. in Support of Respondent” (PDF). 
  27. ↑ “Brief of Amici Curiae National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center and Additional Advocacy Organizations for Survivors of Domestic Violence and Assault in Support of Respondent” (PDF). 
  28. ↑ “Brief for Respondent” (PDF). 
  29. ↑ 가 나 Dollenmeyer, Megan (2018년 10월 14일). “Carpenter v. Murphy: A Matter of Life and Death for Tribal Sovereignty”. 《University of Cincinnati Law Review》. 2018년 11월 21일에 확인함. 
  30. ↑ Wingerter, Justin (2018년 7월 27일). “Terry Royal, warden at Oklahoma State Penitentiary, resigns”. 《The Oklahoman News OK》. 2018년 11월 21일에 확인함. 
  31. ↑ “Notice of Substitution” (PDF). 
  32. ↑ “Carpenter v. Murphy”. 《scotusblog.com》. 2018년 11월 21일에 확인함. 
  33. ↑ Liptak, Adam (2018년 11월 27일). “Is Half of Oklahoma an Indian Reservation? The Supreme Court Sifts the Merits”. 《The New York Times》. 2018년 11월 27일에 확인함. 
원본 주소 "https://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=사용자:Goldgrape/연습장&oldid=29042330"