Summary and Conclusions
Jurisdiction effects, meaning differences between Public Law 280 and non-Public Law
280 respondents, is our primary hypothesis. For the case-management data, there are a series of
case-management comparisons between Public Law 280 criminal justice state or county workers,
and non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers commenting on tribal court and legal
personnel. We don’t have reliable data for non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers
commenting on federal courts, or for reservation residents in Public Law 280 and non-Public
Law 280 jurisdictions commenting on case-management issues. The data limitation constricts
the comprehensiveness of the findings and suggests the need for more research on Indian country
case-management processes. The data we have suggest that jurisdictional effects, differences in
Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 responses, are not significant for most of our measures
of case management processes. Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 criminal justice
respondents commenting on Public Law 280 state/county courts and non-Public Law 280 tribal
courts, respectively,
agree or give similar responses about the list of crimes that take the most
time and resources, the proportion of crimes that are not prosecuted because of lack of
jurisdiction, the difficulties of encountering legal problems in prosecutions, and the proportion of
274
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
dropped cases due to legal difficulties. Jurisdiction does not affect the above measures of case
management, according to Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers.
Measures of whether cases involving Indians move quickly enough through the courts,
whether it’s logistically more difficult to prosecute Indian-related cases, whether Indian culture
affects decisions to prosecute, and how difficult Indian caseloads are do not have enough data for
comparison or analysis. The data for caseloads involving Indians suggests that 48.7% of Public
Law 280 criminal justice respondents believe that Indian caseloads are disproportionately higher
than non-Indian caseloads. Indians are disproportionately represented in state/county courts
when compared to non-Indian cases and population. Only a few non-Public Law 280 criminal
justice workers responded to the question about whether cases moved quickly enough through
the courts, and over three-fourths of non-Public Law 280 criminal justice respondents say cases
involving Indians move quickly through the non-Public Law 280 tribal courts. A minority of
Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (27.3%) report that Indian cases are more difficult
logistically to prosecute than non-Indian cases, but there are no data for comparisons with
reservation residents or non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers. Among Public Law 280
criminal justice respondents, 41.9% say that knowledge of Indian culture affects decisions to
prosecute or defend a case. This question involved issues of defending and managing cases
through court from the perspectives of public defenders, juvenile and probation officers, and
involves both defense and prosecution decisions. In a similar question answered below, only
factors affecting prosecution are solicited, and there Public Law 280 criminal justice workers
report very little cultural influence on their decisions to prosecute cases involving Indians.
Again, however, there are no data for comparison with non-Public Law 280 criminal justice
workers or with Public Law 280 reservation residents, so we cannot determine jurisdiction or
group effects.
Two measures of case management — greatest problems managing Indian cases, and
whether cultural or legal factors affect decisions to prosecute cases involving Indians — indicate
jurisdictional differences. Public Law 280 criminal justice workers say that the greatest
problems working with tribal defendants or victims are cultural issues and programs needed to
support Indian clients, while non-Public Law 280 respondents do not provide a clear pattern,
although, with too few non-Public Law 280 interviews for reliable results, there is mention of
cultural, resource, and program issues.
There are significant differences between Public Law
280 criminal justice workers and non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers commenting on
state/county court and legal personnel and non-Public Law 280 tribal court workers, respectively,
when responding to whether legal or cultural factors affect decisions to prosecute a case
involving Indians. Public Law 280 criminal justice workers report that state/county court and
legal personnel rarely allow cultural factors to enter into decisions to prosecute, and almost
entirely use evidentiary or legal factors to decide whether to prosecute a case involving Indians.
Non-Public Law 280 criminal justice workers, however, say that evidentiary information is most
often used to decide whether to prosecute in non-Public Law 280 tribal courts, but cultural
factors are used in nearly 44% of the cases. Court and legal personnel in non-Public Law 280
tribal courts take into account cultural factors when deciding whether to prosecute Indian-related
275
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
cases significantly more often than Public Law 280 state/county court and legal personnel. This
finding complements earlier results that Public Law 280 tribal court and legal personnel
understand and use cultural knowledge in court proceedings more frequently than do state/county
and federal court and legal personnel.
Our secondary hypothesis investigates group effects
— differences in responses between
reservation residents and criminal justice workers. Group effects, as measured by several case
court-management criteria, are not significant. Differences between Public Law 280 criminal
justice workers and Public Law 280 reservation residents for meeting with significant cases that
are not prosecuted because of lack of jurisdiction, and noncooperation between tribal officials
and state/county courts over the nature and sequence of prosecuting Indian-related cases, are not
significant. Public Law 280 respondents report similar rates of noncooperation (41% to 67%)
between tribal officials and state/county court and legal personnel in making decisions about the
nature and sequence of prosecutions for cases involving Indians. The trend is toward higher
proportion of noncooperation among Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and more data
might generate a statistically significant result,
but these data are not significant. A similar
proportion (42% to 44%) of Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and Public Law 280
reservation residents agreed they meet with significant cases that are not prosecuted because of
lack of jurisdiction, although, as the comments suggest, the types of jurisdictional problems they
come across may be very different.4 Similar proportions (35% to 41%) of non-Public Law 280
reservation residents reporting on both non-Public Law 280 federal and tribal courts say that they
have met with significant cases that were not prosecuted because of lack of jurisdiction. The
non-Public Law 280 reservation-resident reports are not statistically different from non-Public
Law 280 criminal justice workers, who say that 71.4% came across significant cases that have
not been prosecuted because of lack of jurisdiction.
Suggestions for improving court case management in Public Law 280 communities
encourage criminal justice workers to seek tribally based solutions, learn about Indian cultures,
and engage personally in reservation community activities, organizations, and with Indian
individuals as ways to learn directly about community and culture. Non-Public Law 280
probation officers suggest learning about Indian cultures, more cultural training, keeping
objectivity, understanding tribal priorities, and the need for additional program resources.
