Kagama, a Yurok Native American accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. Kagama and his son Mahawaha went to Iyouse’s house, where an argument ensued that resulted in the death of Iyouses’ wife. The local district attorney declined to prosecute, citing a policy of not prosecuting crimes between Indians. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, confirming Crow Dog’s assertion that they lacked jurisdiction because the crime occurred in Indian country. This allowed Congress to pass the Dawes Act the following year, giving the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes.
About United States v. Kagama in brief
Kagama, a Yurok Native American accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. The case has been criticized by legal scholars as drawing on powers that are not granted to Congress by the Constitution. Kagama and his son Mahawaha went to Iyouse’s house, where an argument ensued that resulted in the death of Iyouses’ wife. The local district attorney declined to prosecute, citing a policy of not prosecuting crimes between Indians. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, confirming Crow Dog’s assertion that they lacked jurisdiction because the crime occurred in Indian country between two Indians. This allowed Congress to pass the Dawes Act the following year, giving the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation. law remains good law, despite that criticism, despite the fact that Kagama was convicted of a crime outside the boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Reservation, even though the crime was supposedly occurred on the reservation. Because the U. S. Attorney for Northern California forcefully prosecuted the case, both Kagamas were taken to San Francisco for trial after having been indicted for murder, and both were found guilty. The jury found Kagama not guilty of the murder charge, but he was found guilty of a charge of assault with intent to kill, and he was sentenced to life in prison.
The sentence was later reduced to 15 years, with the possibility of parole after 25 years, if he served the sentence. The judge also found that the sentence was not too harsh because Kagama had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the other count, which would have left him in prison for a year and a half. The verdict was upheld by the Supreme Court, which confirmed Congress’ authority over Indian affairs and allowed it to pass a law granting jurisdiction to federal courts over Indian crime anywhere in the nation, if the land is Indian country. The law was passed on March 3, 1885, more commonly known as the Major crimes Act. The seven original crimes included in the 1885 act were murder, manslaughter, rape, assault, arson, burglary, and larceny. In response, Congress debated the need and importance of teaching Indians regard for the rule of law, and it was argued that if an Indian committed a crime he could be tried under the laws of the United States. In the opinion issued by Justice Stanley Matthews in Ex parte Crow Dog in 1883, the Court implied that if Congress intended to exert legislative authority over these tribes they must pass an explicit law granting jurisdictional jurisdiction to the federal Courts over Indian- on-Indian crime in Indian nation.
You want to know more about United States v. Kagama?
This page is based on the article United States v. Kagama published in Wikipedia (as of Nov. 03, 2020) and was automatically summarized using artificial intelligence.
