The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Tribal Control in Federal Sentencing
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Though tribes may have concurrent jurisdiction over Native American defendants in mandatory and optional PL 280 states and jurisdiction over non-Major Crimes offenses in non-PL 280 states (as well as Major Crimes that federal authorities might choose not to prosecute), in practice tribal courts in such areas tend to be less developed and less funded than elsewhere because of the expectation that”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Tredeau 2011
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In United States v. Big Crow (1990), the Eighth Circuit affirmed a downward departure from the US Sentencing Guidelines for the defendant, Big Crow, who grew up on the notoriously violent Pine Ridge reservation and made efforts to overcome the adverse living conditions there.A downward departure was deemed warranted based on Big Crow's employment history, strong community ties, and reservation”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Tredeau 2011
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Tight federal-tribal justice coupling might take the form of wardship, where federal authorities may view Native American communities as wards subject to federal crime control efforts”
From Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as Tredeau 2011
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- testimony of Prof Kevin K. Washburn), available at http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative-and- PublicAffairs/PublicHearingsand Meetings/20100120-2 1/Washburn_ Testimony.pdf. 155. Fletcher, supra note44, at 19. 156. See, e.g., USSG ch. 5, pt. A, 1. 8. 157. Id. at ch. 5, pt. A, 1. 38, § 2A4.2(a). 158. Id. at ch. 5, pt. A. 159. Id. 160. See id § 2Al.4 (setting base offense level at 12). 161. Id at ch. 5, pt. A. 2011] 175. Duro, 495 U.S. at 693 ("A tribe's . . . authority comes from the consent of its members, and so in the criminal sphere membership marks the bounds of tribal authority."). 176. Congress cannot legislate without bicameralism and presentment. See Chadha v. INS, 462 U.S. 919, 953 (1983). 177. Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, 435 U.S. 191, 210 (1978) (emphasis added). 178. Duro, 495 U.S. at 698;
- U.S.C. § 1301(2) (2006) (codifying Duro fix). See also Hicks, 533 U.S. at 358-60 (discussing decisional law limiting tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers). 179. U.S. CONST. art. 1, § 1. 180. J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 409 (1928).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Criminal Justice in Indian Country: A Theoretical and Empirical Agenda
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2019) · Annual Review of Criminology · doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-011518-024805 · Cited by 52
Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2018) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2017.1341540 · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Tredeau, E.
- Venue
- California Law Review
- Publisher
- California Law Review
- Published
- 2011
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
