Abstract
I. Introduction . . . . . 889
II. Background . . . . . 895
A. Demographics in Indian Country . . . . . 895
B. Double Jeopardy and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine in Indian Country . . . . . 899
1. The Dual Sovereignty Doctrine . . . . . 899
2. United States v. Wheeler . . . . . 902
C. Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country . . . . . 906
1. Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country . . . . . 907
2. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribes . . . . . 910
3. Duro v. Reina . . . . . 912
D. Separation of Powers and the Duro Override . . . . . 916
III. The Circuit Splits . . . . . 919
A. Weaselhead and Lara . . . . . 920
B. United States v. Enas . . . . . 924
IV. The Choices Before the Court . . . . . 926
A. The Court Could Decide that Duro Is Constitutionally Based . . . . . 928
B. The Court Could Conclude that Duro was Decided
as a Matter of Federal Common Law . . . . . 934
V . Conclusion . . . . . 937
Recommended Citation
Terrill Pollman,
Double Jeopardy and Nonmember Indians in Indian Country,
82 Neb. L. Rev.
(2003)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol82/iss4/2