Murphy's Law About to Give the
Oklahoma Justice System a Major Enema
Patrick Dewayne Murphy is about to cause a major overflow in the Oklahoma Justice System. Back in 1999 Murphy was accused of murdering a fellow Creek Indian citizen, prosecuted and convicted in state court and sentenced to death. However, Murphy and his attorneys waged a successful appeal that overturned his conviction on the grounds that the state of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction over Indian citizens when a crime was committed on Indian territory. Whether the Indian is the accused or the victim the state has no jurisdiction according to the U.S. 10th Court.
This Murphy case is going to affect thousands of cases in Oklahoma alone. Anytime an Indian is involved on either end of a criminal case the jurisdiction is Federal, not state. Thousands of felony and misdemeanor cases could be over turned and sent to the feds for prosecution or simply result in the criminals walking free. The Murphy case is also affecting new felony cases such as the Tulsa fireworks stand shooting in July of this year.
It turns out that the mother of the "victim" in the states case in the fireworks stand shooting is an American Indian and that the territory the "crime" occurred in is Indian territory. The location of the shooting sits within the Muskogee and Creek territories. Jake Ulrich was the "victim" in the armed robbery shooting/self defense by the Mize boy and on Jake Ulrich's mother Jacklyn DOC record is the proof of her being an American Indian. I suppose apples don't fall far from the tree if mamma had a criminal record and prison record as the briefs state then it is no surprise that her son was killed attempting an armed robbery.
The Murphy decision rests upon two U.S Supreme Court cases, Solem V. Bartlett 1984 and Nebraska V. Parker 2016. The Solem case laid out the definition of what Indian land was and the Parker decision reaffirmed it. Despite the Solem decision being three decades old the State of Oklahoma continues to prosecute cases without proper jurisdiction, preferring to bury its head in the sand instead of obeying the Supreme Court decisions. Their current excuse is that the Murphy case will be overturned on appeal but the state has tried several times to prevail on this matter and each time the state has been slapped down by the federal courts.
In the 1987 case of Indian Country, USA V. Oklahoma Tax Commission the state lost a case where they were trying to tax a Creek Nation casino's profits. The state made the exact same arguments as in the Murphy case and lost with the Supreme Court refusing to review the decision as the law was settled on the issues. Next in 1992 the case US V. Sands the U.S. Attorney's office appealed their own murder conviction, yes, not the defense, but the people that prosecuted the murderer appealed the case saying they had no jurisdiction over the parties involved in the crime. The 10th Circuit Court admonished the U.S. Attorney Office for making the same arguments in the 1987 Indian Country USA case:
"In Indian Country, U.S.A., we held that Oklahoma laws concerning the regulation of bingo and collection of sales tax were preempted on unallotted Creek tribal lands. In reaching this conclusion, we construed § 1151(a) and also recognized that "[t]ribal lands, trust lands, and certain allotted lands generally remain Indian country." Id. at 973, 975 n. 3. The government's position in this case is virtually identical to that of the State of Oklahoma in Indian Country, U.S.A., although the government relies on the Act of April 28, 1904 as additional support for the theory."
The state's argument in the Murphy case has been before the 10th Circuit three different times and rejected three times. Yet we find out that the state itself rejected Congress's efforts to give the state jurisdiction over Indian lands which the state refused because they believed that they already had jurisdiction.
"The government's position is undermined further because Congress has granted some states criminal jurisdiction over Indian country. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 3243. See also California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 1087, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987); Ross v. Neff, 905 F.2d 1349, 1352 (10th Cir.1990). Equally relevant, the United States has consented to States assuming criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, provided that the Tribe consents. 25 U.S.C. §§ 1321, 1324. Oklahoma, however, has not taken the affirmative steps necessary for such an assumption of jurisdiction, let alone obtained consent."
Even the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals understands this law. In 1989 in the State V. Klindt case they stated that the State of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by Indians or against Indians
The Murphy case is going to cause thousands of serious violent criminals to be released yet the state put itself in this position through arrogance or rejecting the Congressional mechanism for assuming criminal jurisdiction. But in the Mize case it should help set a young man free from prosecution for a justified shooting of an armed robber. We might have the Castle Doctrine and the Stand Your Ground laws here in Oklahoma but we also have D.A.s trying to undermine our 2nd Amendment rights every chance they have.
The Mize hearing is on September 11th and the appeal is being waged by lawyers Kevin Adams and Steven Lee, the two lawyers that walked the Sooner Tea Party chief out of court in 2014 and won the reversal of the conviction and resulting fine over holding a politician accountable. Their brief can be found at this link. Should the state court judges be too timid to accept reality and the rule of law the federal courts will certainly slap down the manslaughter prosecution.
