User:Elliekearns/Tribal courts

Overview of Tribal Courts

"Court of first instance" redirects here. For other uses, see Court of first instance (disambiguation).

The Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, an example of a trial court

A trial court or court of first instance is a court having original jurisdiction, in which trials take place. Appeals from the decisions of trial courts are usually made by higher courts with the power of appellate review (appellate courts). Most appellate courts do not have the authority to hear testimony or take evidence, but instead rule solely on matters of law.

In the trial court, evidence and testimony are admitted under the rules of evidence established by applicable procedural law and determinations called findings of fact are made based on the evidence. The court, presided over by one or more judges, makes findings of law based upon the applicable law. In most common law jurisdictions, the trial court often sits with a jury and one judge; in such jury trials, the jury acting as trier of fact. In some cases, the judge or judges act as triers of both fact and law, by either statute, custom, or agreement of the parties; this is referred to as a bench trial. In the case of most judges hearing cases through the bench trial process, they would prefer that all parties are given an opportunity to offer a vigorous and robust case presentation, such that errors in testimony, procedures, statutes, etc., do not grow "crab legs" (compounded errors) and are remanded or returned to their court on appeal.

In the United States

In the United States, a trial court of general jurisdiction is authorized to hear some type of civil or criminal case that is not committed exclusively to another court. The United States district courts are the trial courts of general jurisdiction of the federal judiciary; each state has a system establishing trial courts of general jurisdiction, such as the circuit courts in Florida, the superior courts in California, and the New York Supreme Court in New York state. Most trial courts are courts of record, where the record of the presentation of evidence is created and must be maintained or transmitted to the appellate court. The record of the trial court is certified by the clerk of the trial court and transmitted to the appellate body.

Not all cases are heard in trial courts of general jurisdiction. A trial court of limited jurisdiction is authorized to hear only specified types of cases. Trial courts of limited jurisdiction may be limited in subject-matter jurisdiction (such as juvenile, probate, and family courts in many U.S. states, or the United States Tax Court in the federal judiciary) or by other means, such as small claims courts in many states for civil cases with a low amount in controversy. Other trials do not take place in courts at all, but in quasi-judicial bodies or in administrative agencies with adjudicatory power created by statute to make binding determinations with simplified procedural practices, such as arbitration. The United States Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but has original jurisdiction in cases involving a diplomatic official or a state.

Because different U.S. states apply different names to their courts, it is often not evident whether a court has general or limited jurisdiction. For instance, the Maine District Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, but the Nevada District Courts are courts of general jurisdiction.

CFR Courts

The Court of Indian Offenses (CFR) is a judicial system that was established by the United States government to handle legal matters in Indian country. The CFR system was created in 1883 and was initially known as the Court of Indian Offenses for Indian Territory. The purpose of the CFR system was to provide a legal framework for Native American tribes to govern themselves and to resolve disputes within their communities. The CFR system was designed to be flexible and to allow tribes to adapt the system to their own needs. The CFR system is still in use today, and there are currently 10 CFR courts in operation across the United States.

The CFR system has a complex history, and its role in Native American communities has been the subject of much debate. Some critics argue that the CFR system was designed to undermine tribal sovereignty and to impose Western legal norms on Native American communities. Others argue that the CFR system has been an important tool for tribes to maintain their own legal traditions and to resolve disputes within their communities. Despite these debates, the CFR system remains an important part of the legal landscape in Indian country, and it continues to play a vital role in the lives of Native Americans today.

Independent Tribal Courts

Independent tribal courts are judicial systems that are established and operated by Native American tribes. These courts are separate from the federal and state court systems and are designed to handle legal matters within the tribe's jurisdiction. The purpose of independent tribal courts is to provide a legal framework for Native American tribes to govern themselves and to resolve disputes within their communities. Tribal courts are designed to be flexible and to allow tribes to adapt the system to their own needs. The tribal court system is an important tool for tribes to maintain their own legal traditions and to resolve disputes within their communities. Tribal courts are also important for preserving tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

The history of independent tribal courts is complex and has been shaped by the federal government's policies towards Native American tribes. The establishment of independent tribal courts was a result of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which aimed to promote tribal self-government and to preserve Native American culture and traditions. However, the federal government's policies towards Native American tribes have been inconsistent, and the relationship between the federal government and tribal courts has been fraught with tension. Despite these challenges, independent tribal courts remain an important part of the legal landscape in Indian country, and they continue to play a vital role in the lives of Native Americans today.

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 had a significant impact on how Native American tribal courts operate. The Act aimed to promote tribal self-government and to preserve Native American culture and traditions. It allowed tribes to establish their own governments and to adopt constitutions and bylaws. This gave tribes the power to create their own legal systems and to establish independent tribal courts. The Act also provided funding for tribal courts and allowed tribes to contract with the federal government for law enforcement services. As a result, independent tribal courts became an important tool for tribes to maintain their own legal traditions and to resolve disputes within their communities.

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 also had a broader impact on the relationship between Native American tribes and the federal government. The Act recognized the importance of tribal sovereignty and self-determination and aimed to promote these values. It allowed tribes to establish their own governments and to make decisions about their own affairs. This was a significant departure from previous federal policies, which had sought to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream American culture. The Act also provided funding for economic development and education, which helped to improve the lives of Native Americans. Overall, the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 played a crucial role in shaping the legal and political landscape in Indian country and helped to promote tribal sovereignty and self-determination.

Funding

Native American tribal courts receive funding from various sources, including tribal, state, and federal funding. Tribal funding is the primary source of funding for tribal courts, and it is often used to cover the costs of court operations, salaries for judges and court staff, and other related expenses. State funding is another source of funding for tribal courts, and it is often used to support court operations and to provide training and technical assistance to tribal court personnel. Federal funding is also available for tribal courts, and it is often used to support court operations, provide training and technical assistance, and to fund specific programs and initiatives.

Under Title 25 US Code 3601, the federal government provides funding for tribal courts through the Indian Tribal Justice Support program. This program provides funding for tribal courts to improve their operations, provide training and technical assistance, and to fund specific programs and initiatives. The program is designed to support the development of effective and efficient tribal justice systems that are consistent with tribal traditions and values. The program also provides funding for tribal courts to address issues related to domestic violence, child abuse, and other crimes that are prevalent in Indian country. Overall, the funding sources for Native American tribal courts are diverse and are designed to support the development of effective and efficient tribal justice systems that are consistent with tribal traditions and values.

Jurisdiction

Native American tribal courts have jurisdiction over a wide range of cases that occur within their respective tribes' territories. Tribal courts have the authority to hear both civil and criminal cases, including disputes over property, contracts, and family law matters such as child custody and adoption. Tribal courts also have jurisdiction over criminal offenses committed by Native Americans within their territories, including offenses related to drugs, alcohol, and domestic violence. However, tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Native Americans who commit crimes within tribal territories, except in limited circumstances.

Cases that involve non-Native Americans are typically referred to state or federal courts. The Major Crimes Act of 1885 gives the federal government jurisdiction over certain major crimes committed by Native Americans on tribal lands, including murder, manslaughter, and kidnapping. The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 also allows for the federal government to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit crimes against Native Americans on tribal lands. In addition, some states have entered into agreements with tribes to allow for state jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by non-Native Americans within tribal territories. Overall, the jurisdiction of Native American tribal courts is complex and is shaped by a variety of federal and state laws, as well as tribal customs and traditions.

Sentencing Authority

Overview

The sentencing process in Native American tribal courts varies depending on the tribe and the nature of the case. In general, tribal courts aim to incorporate traditional tribal values and customs into their sentencing practices. This may involve a focus on rehabilitation and restoration rather than punishment. Sentences may include community service, restitution, or participation in traditional healing ceremonies. In some cases, tribal courts may also work with state or federal courts to develop joint sentencing agreements. These agreements allow for the coordination of sentencing between tribal and non-tribal courts and can help to ensure that sentences are consistent and fair. Overall, the sentencing process in Native American tribal courts is designed to reflect the unique cultural and legal traditions of each tribe and to promote the well-being of the community as a whole.

Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010

The Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 is a federal law that was enacted to address the issue of crime and violence in Native American communities. The Act aims to improve public safety in Indian country by increasing the authority of tribal courts and law enforcement agencies. It provides funding for tribal courts and law enforcement agencies, and it allows tribes to exercise greater control over their own justice systems. The Act also includes provisions to improve coordination between tribal, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and it provides for the appointment of special prosecutors to handle cases involving violence against Native American women. Overall, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 is an important piece of legislation that seeks to address the unique challenges faced by Native American communities in the United States. [how did this impact sentencing?]

See also

• Lower court
• Appellate court
• Supreme court
• [add to this section]
• [ALSO NEED TO TRANSFER REFERENCES FROM GOOGLE DOCS]