United States v. Pemberton, 94 F.4th 1130

Paul Pemberton, a member of the Creek Nation, was convicted in Oklahoma state court in 2004 of committing murder in McIntosh County, later determined to fall within Creek and Cherokee reservation boundaries.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s McGirt v. Oklahoma decision established that much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian Country, thus placing crimes involving Indian defendants under exclusive federal jurisdiction per the Major Crimes Act.
After McGirt, Pemberton sought post-conviction relief in state court, arguing the state lacked jurisdiction. His effort was denied, consistent with state precedent refusing to apply McGirt retroactively to final convictions.
Meanwhile, a federal grand jury indicted Pemberton for the murder. He sought to suppress evidence from the initial state investigation/arrest, arguing Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction.
The federal district court denied suppression and also denied Pemberton’s post-trial request to represent himself at sentencing. He appealed both rulings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Suppression of Evidence due to Lack of Jurisdiction	The state lacked jurisdiction under McGirt, so all evidence from 2004 should be suppressed.	Officers acted in good faith based on the law as it stood in 2004; exclusionary rule should not apply.	No suppression; good-faith exception applies since officers acted consistently with longstanding beliefs about jurisdiction.
Good-Faith Exception Applicability to Warrantless Arrest	Good-faith exception shouldn’t apply to warrantless arrests outside jurisdiction.	Good-faith exception should apply because officers reasonably believed they had jurisdiction.	Good-faith exception extended to warrantless arrest; no suppression.
Right to Self-Representation at Sentencing	Denial of self-representation at sentencing violated constitutional rights.	Request was untimely, for purposes of delay, and not relevant to sentencing.	No violation; district court acted within its discretion given timing/purpose.
Appropriateness of District Court’s Hearing on Self-Representation	Formal Faretta hearing required.	Substantial inquiry was made and standards met pragmatically.	Formal hearing not required post-trial; inquiry sufficed.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020) (held that much of eastern Oklahoma remains Indian Country, impacting jurisdiction)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (established the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (established the right of a defendant to represent himself if waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent)
Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1 (1995) (exclusionary rule’s purpose is to deter police misconduct, not judicial error)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (good-faith exception applies to reliance on binding appellate precedent later overruled)
Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984) (test for whether an Indian reservation has been disestablished)
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022) (states retain concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian Country)