Page 221 - Ad Hoc Report June 2018
P. 221

 creation of a Tribal Liaison” position in the Federal Defender offices “to assist with the coordination of defense services for Native Americans facing federal prosecu-
tion from Indian Country jurisdiction.” 834 Professor Creel notes that there are already tribal liaisons in the U.S. Attorney’s Offices to assist in prosecution, but there is no corresponding position for the defense. A tribal liaison position within the Federal Defender Organizations would “bridge the gap between the two cultures and judicial systems.”835 Professor Creel’s second recommendation is that the CJA statute should be amended to clarify what constitute “ancillary matters” and whether the definition extends to matters in tribal courts.836 In recognizing that the Department of Justice has authorized special assistant US Attorneys to prosecute matters in tribal court and rep- resent the United States in federal court, Professor Creel opines that these tribal court proceedings may be “critical stages” of what will become a federal prosecution. She further testified, “Representation at all critical stages is required to adequately rep- resent Native Americans in Indian Country....[Defenders] should be allowed under the local plan to represent Indian individuals in ancillary matters in tribal court under their federal appointment to protect the federal constitutional rights of Indians.”837
Finally, in echoing Professor Creel’s testimony, a panel attorney requested more training on the representation of Native American clients. As he observed, “Currently there is little training given on issues in Indian Country....Indian coun- try law is not something to be dabbled in, yet we are asking lawyers to do this every day in very complex cases.”838 •
 834 Id.at9.
835 Id.
836 18U.S.C.§3006(A)(c)(2012).
837 ProfessorBarbaraCreel,Law&IndigenousPeopleProgram,U.ofNewMexico,Public Hearing—Santa Fe, N.M., Panel 4, Writ. Test., at 8.
838 AlexanderReichert,CJADist.Rep.,D.N.D.,PublicHearing—Minneapolis,Minn.,Panel5,Writ. Test., at 3.
No recommendation presented herein represents
the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United 2 0 1 7 R E P O R T O F T H E A D H O C C O M M I T T E E T O R E V I E W T H E C R I M I N A L J U S T I C E A C T 177
States unless approved by the Conference itself.
 























































































   219   220   221   222   223