144 F. 985 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Washington | 1906
The following is a condensation of the statement of facts, contained in the brief filed in behalf of the petitioner for a writ of habeas corpus;
The petitioner is an Indian, and was an inhabitant of the Umatilla Indian reservation, in the state of .Oregon, at the time of the commis
The grounds upon which it is claimed that the petitioner should be discharged, as stated in the petition and relied upon in the argument, are that the petitioner is ,an Indian born within the United States, to whom an allotment of land had been made previous to the commission of the offense, and his status had been changed from that of an ordinary Indian, subject to the control of the Indian Department of the government, to- that of a citizen of the United States, having all the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizenship, and subject to the laws of the state in which he was domiciled, and therefore the Supreme Court of Oregon erroneously decided that the offense was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Court, and the latter court did not have jurisdiction of the case. In re Heff, 197 U. S. 488, 25 Sup. Ct. 506, 49 L. Ed. 848; Ex parte Viles (D. C.) 139 Fed. 68.
This contention involves questions of fact and of law, which were necessarily adjudicated by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Oregon, in ad judging, petitioner to. be guilty of the offense charged in the indictment against him, and sentencing him to be imprisoned for life. I say “necessarily” because, if upon thq trial the petitioner had proved as facts that he was born within the United States, and that he had received an allotment of land, and had asserted the incidental rights of citizenship in bar of the prosecution, he should have been acquitted. Every defense available upon his trial must have been disposed of by the court in which he was tried, whether pressed upon the attention of the court or not. That court was at
IE the court which sentenced the petitioner to be imprisoned for life erred in exercising jurisdiction, it is equally true that he has had the benefit of an erroneous decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon, in denying the jurisdiction of the court in which he was first tried, for by that decision he escaped the extreme penalty for the atrocious crime of which he has been pronounced guilty by the verdicts of two juries, and he certainly has no ground to complain of injustice. His case is distinguishable from the Heff Case and the Viles Case, by the fact that in each of those cases the judgment was void because founded upon a statute which the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional, and in the Viles Case the invalidity was apparent on the face of the record, whereas, in this case, the indictment alleges the facts constituting the crime of murder and the jurisdictional facts, and does not allege any fact inconsistent with a valid judgment, and in the argument counsel for the petitioner admitted that the judgment could not be impeached, unless this court: would receive and consider evidence to prove the nativity of the petitioner, and that he was an allottee at the time of the murder; those facts being dehors the record.
Petition denied.