A federal judge had bad news for 18 Indians sitting in federal prisons: Even though your crimes were not committed on federal land, your criminal convictions likely will stick.
U.S. District Judge David Sam ruled that a 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision slashing the boundaries of Uintah Indian Reservation is not retroactive. Sam's ruling applies to only one Indian, Kim Cuch, but it sets a precedent other federal judges will rely on in evaluating similar appeals filed by at least five Indians.In all cases, the Indians' crimes were committed on what was believed to be the Uintah Reservation. The federal government has jurisdiction on the reservation, so the Indians were charged with federal crimes, sentenced under the stiff federal sentencing guidelines and sent to federal prisons.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in February that the land in question was state land, after all. The ruling put much of the area - including Roosevelt and Myton - under state and local rule.
But it created a legal vacuum: Who really had jurisdiction over the land all the years it was believed to be federal land?
U.S. Attorney Scott Matheson argued that the high court's ruling is not retroactive. The land is now state land, but until last February it was believed to be federal land and federal law applied, he told the court.
In a 22-page analysis, U.S. Magistrate Ronald Boyce disagreed. The federal government never had jurisdiction over the land and Cuch must be immediately released from prison, he concluded.
Federal judges in Utah rarely depart from a magistrate's recommendation. But Sam did Friday.
If the high court ruling were retroactive, it would create "a lawless zone" in the area once believed to be under federal rule, Sam wrote.
The federal government didn't have jurisdiction, but neither could state rule because a federal judge issued an injunction in 1976 banning the exercise of state power in the area.
During those years, there was no alternative to federal rule, Sam concluded.
"Neither the federal nor state systems, nor in particular the individuals who relied on the finality of federal prosecutions during this time period, can be faulted for their reliance on the law as it stood for over a decade," he wrote.
Matheson was pleased with the ruling. "Obviously the government's position is significantly strengthened as a result of this ruling," he said. The federal judges considering five similar appeals will look to Sam's ruling as a precedent, he said.
At least for the moment. Matheson expects that Cuch will appeal Sam's ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the high court ruling were retroactive, 18 violent Indians would be released into the community, Sam noted in his ruling. State prosecutors have said they couldn't retry the Indians on state charges because evidence and witnesses have been lost over the years.
The 18 Indians were convicted for crimes ranging from murder to burglary. Most of them were convicted for murder, rape or sexual abuse of a child. One murder occurred 15 years ago.
The Indians were justly and fairly convicted in the first place, Sam wrote. Cuch's crime was "a crime in 1992, at the time of his conviction; it is criminal today and it will always be criminal," the ruling says. Cuch was convicted of sexual abuse of a child.
U.S. District Judges David Winder and Bruce Jenkins have not held hearings on the similar cases assigned to them. One case has been referred to Magistrate Sam Alba for a report and recommendation such as the one Boyce wrote for Sam last fall.
The other 12 Indians may still file appeals seeking release.
"I imagine this will be with us for awhile," Matheson said.