Confidential
Draft Report
“Enforcement
of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968”
May 1990
![]() |
been denied counsel, bail, and
the right to a trial by jury. [45]
__________August 1985: The Red Lake Council began requiring that attorneys be members of the Red Lake Tribe, understand Chippewa, and be a resident of the reservation. [46] In 1985 also, the [45] See Good v. Graves, Civil no. 6-85-508 (D. Minn. May 20, 1985). The court noted: The evidence in
this case leads this court to the inescapable conclusion that the
rights guaranteed petitioners by the Indian Civil Rights Act were
trampled upon by the officials of the Red Lake Court of Indian Offenses.
Id. at
5. See also, Memorandum
to Assistant Secretary -- Indian Affairs from Acting Associate
Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
(Nov. 13, 1987), reprinted as Exhibit 2, Portland Hearing, supra note 25, at
119-22 ("The federal court ordered the prisoners in one such case
released because they had not been given a right to counsel, were told
they would have to pay for a jury trial if they wanted one, and were
denied the right to post bail -- all
in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act. (Emphasis
added; citation to Good v. Graves
deleted.).[46] Red Lake Tribal Council Resolution No. 237-85 (Aug. 29, 1985). Area Director Earl Barlow wrote to the field superintendent: Although Tribal
Resolution NO. 237-85 has established criteria for purposes of
admission to practice before the court, the criteria are so restrictive
that it is a virtual certainty that no professional attorney could
qualify for admission to practice. Imposition of those criteria
would have the effect of denying the right to counsel, and accordingly,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs can neither approve nor recognize the
criteria in Resolution No. 237-85. The existing Tribal Code
provision (Chapter 1, § 4(1)) is equally restrictive because it
limits licensing to Band members."
(continued...)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |