697 F.3d 670
8th Cir.2012Background
- Jackson, an Indian, was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon in Redby, within the Red Lake Reservation.
- District court denied Jackson's motion to dismiss the indictment, ruling the offense occurred in Indian country as a matter of law.
- Jackson pleaded guilty conditionally to the charged offenses, with a plea agreement allowing withdrawal if the dismissal issue prevailed.
- The 1905 Act granted a railroad right to select and take land near its Red Lake terminus, creating 320 acres of land adjacent to the reservation.
- Disputed whether the 1905 Act diminished Red Lake Reservation; record lacked clear title transfer or ownership history of the 300.5 acres, and ownership status of Redby land was unclear.
- Court vacated the district court's ruling, remanding to permit Jackson to withdraw his guilty plea if appropriate and to address whether the land was Indian country after extrinsic evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the 1905 Act diminish Red Lake Reservation? | Jackson argues the Act diminished boundaries, removing Indian country. | The government argues no clear diminishment; extrinsic evidence may show preservation of boundaries. | Ambiguity unresolved; remanded for extrinsic-evidence consideration. |
| Is the offense within Indian country given the land's ownership status in Redby? | Jackson contends land is privately owned and outside Reservation boundaries. | Government contends Indian country status can persist despite private ownership. | Precedent requires extrinsic evidence; not resolved on record. |
| Was it proper to decide the issue on a minimal factual record as a matter of law? | Jackson asserts the district court relied on inadequate record. | Government relied on statute and limited record to assert jurisdiction. | Errors recognized; required consideration of extrinsic evidence. |
| Should Jackson be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea if Indian country status is unsettled? | Jackson's plea should be withdrawable if the defense has merit. | No withdrawal if plea already accepted and record incomplete. | Remanded to permit withdrawal consistent with plea agreement. |
| Does the 1905 Act provide clear evidence of diminishment to sustain jurisdiction? | The Act shows diminishment and federal jurisdiction remains limited. | Text and context do not definitively prove diminishment. | Text not conclusive; extrinsic context required; district court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Gaffey, 188 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 1999) (presumption against diminishment; congressional purpose controls)
- Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399 (1994) (context and congressional intent govern diminishment)
- Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (textual clarity required for diminishment; presumption in favor of Indians)
- Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973) (surplus lands Act framework and diminishment analysis)
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, 430 U.S. 584 (1977) (surplus land and reservation boundary interpretation)
- United States v. Wounded Knee, 596 F.2d 790 (8th Cir. 1979) (railroad land status and diminishment principles)
- United States v. Jewett, 438 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1971) (government bears burden to prove Indian country location)