United States v. Damien Zepeda
738 F.3d 201
9th Cir.2013Background
- In 2008 Damien Zepeda and others shot occupants of a house on the Ak-Chin Reservation; Zepeda was indicted on nine counts including offenses charged under the Major Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. § 1153) and convicted by a jury.
- The indictment alleged Zepeda was an “Indian,” a jurisdictional element for § 1153 offenses.
- At trial the parties stipulated to admission of a “Gila River Enrollment/Census Office Certified Degree of Indian Blood” certificate stating Zepeda was an enrolled member with blood degree 1/4 Pima and 1/4 Tohono O’Odham.
- The government introduced no additional evidence connecting Zepeda’s recorded “Tohono O’Odham” lineage to the federally recognized “Tohono O’Odham Nation of Arizona.”
- Zepeda moved for judgment of acquittal on sufficiency grounds; district court denied. On appeal the Ninth Circuit considered whether the certificate (and trial evidence) sufficed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zepeda’s bloodline derives from a federally recognized tribe as required by the Bruce/Maggi framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Zepeda) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stipulated Tribal Enrollment Certificate was admissible over Confrontation Clause concerns | Admission was proper by stipulation; certificate and detective testimony placed contents before jury | Stipulation waived confrontation rights involuntarily or improperly | Court: No plain error; counsel’s stipulation was a voluntary tactical waiver, so admission was not reversible error |
| Whether the government proved Indian status for § 1153 (first prong: Indian blood from a federally recognized tribe) | The enrollment certificate showing 1/4 Tohono O’Odham and related testimony sufficed for a rational juror to find federal-tribe-derived blood | Certificate does not specify that “Tohono O’Odham” refers to the federally recognized Tohono O’Odham Nation of Arizona; government presented no evidence connecting the two; insufficient proof | Court: Insufficient evidence. Because no evidence tied the recorded Tohono O’Odham blood to the federally recognized Nation, convictions under § 1153 (counts 2–9) vacated |
| Whether the Bruce two‑part test requires that the bloodline derive from a federally recognized tribe | Government relied on Bruce and enrollment to meet first prong | Zepeda argued the certificate did not establish derivation from a federally recognized tribe; Bruce must be read with Maggi/LaPier overlay requiring federal recognition | Court: Bruce’s first prong requires bloodline from a federally recognized tribe (Maggi/LaPier overlay); government failed that threshold |
| Remedy for insufficiency as to § 1153 counts | N/A | N/A | Court: Reverse convictions under § 1153 and remand for resentencing; § 371 conspiracy conviction unaffected |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005) (articulated two‑part test for Indian status: degree of Indian blood and tribal/government recognition)
- United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding first prong requires bloodline from a federally recognized tribe)
- United States v. Cruz, 554 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2009) (Indian status is an element that must be alleged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- LaPier v. McCormick, 986 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1993) (threshold requirement: affiliation must be with a federally acknowledged tribe)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
- United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing federal vs. tribal jurisdiction and applicability of federal statutes like § 371)