IN THE COURT OF INDIAN OFFENSES OF THE
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma,

Plaintiff,

VS.

Douglas Dry,
Juanita McConnell, and
Rosie Lee Burlison,

Defendants.

No. CR-95

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

COME NOW Douglas Dry, Juanita McConnell, and Rosie Lee Burlison, by and through their attorney, Scott Kayla Morrison, and file this Brief In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

1. THE CHOCTAW NATION TRIBAL COURT HAS NO CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

The Constitution of the Choctaw Nation was ratified July 9, 1983. Tribal members, before ratifying the new constitution, voted in an election for Choctaw Constitutional reform pursuant to a federal court order in Morris v. Watt, CIV-77-1667, District Court of the District of Columbia.

The voters cast ballots on eleven fundamental differences between the 1860 Historic Choctaw Constitution and the 1979 Provisional Choctaw Constitution. One question put before the Choctaw voters in May 1983 was "[s]hall the tribal court's jurisdiction be extended to include general civil, criminal and probate matters?" (see Durant Democrat newspaper article, May 25, 1983, attached as Exhibit 1). The Choctaw voters defeated this proposition by 2,567 voting "no," and 1,161 voting "yes." This election was supervised by an observer team from the Department of Interior. Interior also approved the proposed Constitution on June 9, 1983, and verified the ratification of the Constitution on July 25, 1983. The Choctaw Constitution has not been amended since July 9, 1983. Tribal voters have never extended the judicial department to include a general civil, criminal and probate jurisdiction tribal court. The power of the judicial branch is limited "exclusive jurisdiction to decide dispute, by vote of two (2) members, arising under any provision of this Constitution or any rule or regulation enacted by the Tribal Court." The Choctaw Court of Indian Appeal recently ruled, in Morrison v. Choctaw Nation, CA-01 (September 23, 1995), that the Courts jurisdiction is limited to the above.

The Choctaw people have decided that the sovereignty of the Choctaw Nation does not include sovereignty over the criminal acts of individual Choctaws. Chief Hollis Roberts encouraged the Choctaw voters to defeat the expansion of criminal jurisdiction over tribal members. He submitted a statement to the voters with the 1983 constitutional reform ballot, attached as Exhibit 2, which said: "We have no business getting into the criminal and probate jurisdiction. How would we enforce crimial laws? We have no jails or means to punish people! The state and federal governments do this and I doubt that they would permit us to get involved." The Choctaw voters, at the encouragement of Chief Roberts, have not expanded jurisdiction of this court to include criminal jurisdiction over tribal members. This court has no power or authority to hold Douglas Dry, Juanita McConnell and Rosie Lee Burlison in any criminal action, and any judgment rendered would be null and void.

II. CONCLUSION

The Court of Indian 0ffenses of the Choctaw Nation is without jurisdiction to hear any criminal matters. The Choctaw people voted on this question in 1983 when adopting the current Constitution. The Choctaw people have not amended the Constitution to expand this court's jurisdiction to include criminal matters. Any judgment rendered by this court is null and void.

Respectfully submitted,

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I mailed first class postage prepaid the above and foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Robert L. Rabon on this 26th day of September, 1995.