The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 77 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reassessing Concurrent Tribal–State–Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas
Open accessAbstract
1790s, 14 the federal statutory scheme as it existed in 1861, expressly disavowed federal criminal jurisdiction over Indian-on-Indian crimes within Indian country.15 It was also well-established that states had no authority for extending their laws into tribal territories.16 Even as late as 1883, the United States Supreme Court validated the continuance of exclusive tribal jurisdiction over intratribal crimes, despite attempts by federal officials to extend federal criminal laws into Indian country.17 In 1885, with the passage of the Major Crimes Act (MCA), 18 Congress extended federal criminal jurisdiction into Indian country, providing for the first time federal prosecutorial power over Indians independent of whether the victim of the crime be Indian or non-Indian.19 The MCA provided for federal prosecution over certain crimes but did not purport to authorize state jurisdiction.20 Instead, the passage of the MCA in concert with the previous federal statutory scheme of federal jurisdiction over interracial crimes set up a system whereby Indian country crimes would be prosecuted by federal or tribal officials, or both.Numerous cases within the federal system uphold the right of the tribe and the right of the federal government to prosecute an individual, without double jeopardy concerns, based on the fact that both sovereigns are exercising independent sovereign powers.21 During this time period, the only instances in which states were authorized to exercise criminal jurisdiction inside Indian country were those offenses in which both the perpetrator and the victim were non-Indian.22 State jurisdiction in those instances was judicially sanctioned
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The article argues that the Kansas Act’s concurrent tribal–state–federal criminal jurisdiction is outdated because all four Kansas tribes now operate tribal courts and the original jurisdictional-gap rationale no longer exists. It recommends full repeal, partial repeal, or cooperative agreements to avoid duplicative and potentially triple prosecutions.
Key findings
- The Kansas Act (1940) conferred state criminal jurisdiction over offenses by or against Indians on Kansas reservations while preserving federal jurisdiction under the Major Crimes Act and General Crimes Act, creating concurrent tribal–state–federal jurisdiction and the possibility that one act could be prosecuted by all three sovereigns.
- Legislative history claimed all four Kansas tribes supported the Act, but archived records show the Prairie Band Potawatomi opposed it; three tribes passed near-identical model resolutions, and the Potawatomi chairman stated his business committee represented 1,100 of the 1,600 Indians in Kansas.
- The original rationale—no tribal courts and a jurisdictional gap—no longer holds: all four Kansas tribes now have tribal courts, and the Prairie Band Potawatomi judicial budget is $237,848; the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 expanded tribal sentencing from one year/$5,000 to three years/$15,000 in some cases, up to nine years total.
- Federal prosecutions in Kansas Indian country are described as virtually nonexistent, while state and tribal prosecutions duplicate; the article gives a Washburn Law Clinic example of dual tribal–state prosecution and notes a 2009 memorandum of agreement between the Jackson County attorney and Prairie Band Potawatomi prosecutor to avoid dual prosecutions.
Methods
- Doctrinal and historical legal analysis of statutes, case law, legislative history, and archived records from the National Archives, including 1938–1940 bill drafts and tribal resolutions.
- Comparative discussion of Public Law 280, federal sentencing cases, and a Washburn Law Clinic case example; authors also spoke with tribal prosecutors.
- No systematic empirical data collection; the authors attempted to obtain dual-prosecution statistics from tribal and state courts but were unsuccessful.
Limitations
- The paper states that statistics on the frequency of dual prosecutions are not readily available and that attempts to obtain them were unsuccessful; it also states the authors are not aware of any actual triple prosecution, only that the possibility exists under law.
- It relies on anecdotal evidence and archival records; the archived materials leave unclear whether the tribal resolutions were prompted by Superintendent Bruce or responsive to tribal concerns, and no Potawatomi resolution appears for the second bill.
- Text-evident: this is an advocacy-oriented law review article rather than an empirical study, with a client example whose details are omitted to protect privacy and no quantitative measurement of prosecution rates or sentencing effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
61 Sources not found · 36 Own interpretation · 25 No basis given · 11 Not checked yet · 2 Own result
In the paper
“At present, all four tribes within the state of Kansas operate a tribal court system exercising both civil and criminal jurisdiction.195”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > D. Practical Consequences of the Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [195]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, federal prosecutions have been virtually nonexistent on Indian reservations Kansas, likely due to the fact that the state has traditionally prosecuted coupled with the increased criminal dockets in tribal courts.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“Under this MOA, the county attorney and the tribal prosecutor agree to work in a cooperative manner to minimize dual prosecutions of a single defendant.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > C. Tribal-State Cooperative Agreements
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [214]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are no reported federal cases from Kansas and having spoken to tribal prosecutors within the state, the authors are unaware of a single federal charge being brought in the last decade, despite congressional authorization to do so.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though no tribal courts existed at the time of enactment, tribal objections to state authority within the reservation boundaries is welldocumented and the perceived jurisdictional gaps were disingenuous given federal statutory authority to prosecute Indian defendants for major crimes and non-Indian defendants for interracial crimes.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The budget includes funds for contracts with five public defenders and two additional court appointed attorneys, in addition to the pro bono legal services of Washburn Law Clinic.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [216]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though no tribal courts existed at the time of enactment, tribal objections to state authority within the reservation boundaries is welldocumented and the perceived jurisdictional gaps were disingenuous given federal statutory authority to prosecute Indian defendants for major crimes and non-Indian defendants for interracial crimes.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At present, federal courts are not hearing Indian country criminal cases in Kansas and the U.S Attorneys' office is not yet exercising its full authority under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 to prosecute major crimes and interracial crimes occurring in Indian country.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are no reported federal cases from Kansas and having spoken to tribal prosecutors within the state, the authors are unaware of a single federal charge being brought in the last decade, despite congressional authorization to do so.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On this premise, the door was opened for a transition to full state authority; however, the transition was never fully realized.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 41
- It may state two separate claims as one. 33
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recently, some tribal and state prosecutors have addressed that concern by taking steps to prevent dual prosecutions.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The largest of the four, the Prairie Band Potawatomi Tribe, maintains a judiciary consisting of a district court judge, two associate district court judges, a special district court judge, three court of appeals justices, a separate employment dispute tribunal, a healing to wellness court, and a peacemaker's circle for alternative dispute resolution.196 The annual judicial budget is $237,848.197”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > D. Practical Consequences of the Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [196]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [197]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Native people in Kansas have expressed surprise and concern that a single act on a reservation can result in multiple prosecutions.150”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [150]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, the Washburn Law Clinic served as counsel for a Native American client charged with offenses under a tribal criminal code.149 While facing charges in tribal court, the client also faced charges for the same act in state court.”
- Also stated in: § 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975 · plain
“When both prosecutions had concluded, the client stood convicted of a felony in state court and offenses in tribal court.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [149]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975 · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This example is not the only instance of dual prosecutions occurring due to the Kansas Act.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The tribe hires a prosecutor and four public defenders on a contract basis.198 All judges, prosecutors, and public defenders are law-trained members of state bar associations, predominately the Kansas Bar.199”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > D. Practical Consequences of the Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [198]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [199]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The state of Kansas has instituted mandatory furloughs for state courts and judicial resources have been severely reduced.208”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 983
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [208]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Recall that the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, the state's largest native population, never consented to, and in fact actively opposed, the extension of state jurisdiction onto the reservation.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > B. Partial Repeal of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [211]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the legislation was passed in 1940 amidst of narrative of perceived lawlessness on Kansas Indian reservations, Congress presumed that tribal governments would no longer exist and that tribal people would become fully assimilated as state citizens without tribal affiliation.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Meanwhile, the federal government plays little or no role.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > V. PROPOSAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AND OTHER REFORM
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MOA has resulted in better communications between the two prosecutors and operates on the principle of good faith prosecutorial discretion.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > C. Tribal-State Cooperative Agreements
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At present, federal courts are not hearing Indian country criminal cases in Kansas and the U.S Attorneys' office is not yet exercising its full authority under the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 to prosecute major crimes and interracial crimes occurring in Indian country.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The Potawatomi Reservation consists of 77,400 acres within Jackson County, Kansas.201”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 983
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [201]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To that end, all tribes in Kansas maintain an active tribal court system with appellate review.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation tribal courts are fully functioning with a $237,848 annual tribal appropriated budget which includes a three judge court of appeals, a district court judge, two associate district court judges, a special district court judges, a healing to wellness court, a peacemaker tribunal, an employee appeals tribunal, a probation department, a court administrator and three”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [215]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Since federal criminal jurisdiction was limited by statute and tribal nations were not then asserting their own jurisdiction, even without specific authority, enforcement of general criminal law often fell to Kansas state authorities.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Stated Purpose of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.R. REP. NO. 1999, at 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rainwater, supra note 29, at 25
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For some time, Kansas authorities had simply been accepting jurisdiction over criminal cases brought before them.31”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Stated Purpose of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.R. REP. NO. 1999, at 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the modern realities of tribalstate-federal relations in Kansas, particularly in light of the development and growth of tribal courts, no longer support the continued need for multijurisdictional criminal coverage.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > I. INTRODUCTION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Tribal courts in Kansas have developed and grown since the 1930s.
In the paper
“The legislative report referenced a challenge to state prosecution of criminal acts on reservations in Kansas.34”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Stated Purpose of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.R. REP. NO. 1999, at 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These foundations of Federal Indian law have resulted in the understanding that Indian country crimes are a matter of tribal and federal concern.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > I. INTRODUCTION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“This was done even when the conduct involved offenses under the Major Crimes Act.33”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Stated Purpose of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.R. REP. NO. 1999, at 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Rainwater, supra note 29, at 25
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“the Kansas Act federal legislation, which extended Indian country criminal jurisdiction to the state of Kansas, while leaving unimpaired preexisting tribal and federal jurisdiction over the same offenses.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > I. INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kansas Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3243 (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The intricacy of this jurisdictional framework resulted largely from the disposition of allotment and trust lands in Kansas.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Stated Purpose of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Negonsott v. Samuels, 507 U.S. 99, 102-03 (1993)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (2006)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The remaining unrestricted 80,063 acres were reported to be under state, rather than federal jurisdiction.39”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 955
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.R. REP. NO. 1999, at 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The MCA provided for federal prosecution over certain crimes but did not purport to authorize state jurisdiction.20”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The U.S. Attorney General's Office criticized Mr. Alexander for decisions that were being made in criminal cases involving Indians on reservations in Kansas.47”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 957
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Federal jurisdiction also adds to this patchwork of prosecutions, making members of federally recognized Tribal Nations particularly vulnerable to enhanced federal penalties.154”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [154]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is even conceivable that one single act could constitute violation of tribal law, state law, and federal law.If so, a Native person could face triple prosecution.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > B. Unintended Consequences-Multiple Prosecutions
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The U.S. Attorney General believed these cases should be prosecuted in federal court.48”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 957
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the 2004 Eighth Circuit case of United States v. Harlan, Terry Harlan had been convicted of assault with a dangerous weapon for an incident occurring on the Omaha Indian Reservation.179”
- Also stated in: § 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 979 · plain
“The district court determined that the Guidelines did not adequately capture the defendant's criminal history, and therefore the court increased the applicable criminal history based in part on Harlan's prior tribal court convictions.180”
- Also stated in: § 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 979 · plain
“This augmented Harlan's criminal history category from I to III, which increased the initial Guidelines range of fifty-one to sixty-three months imprisonment to a range of sixty-three to seventy-eight months.181 Ultimately, Harlan was sentenced to seventy-two months of imprisonment, nine months longer than what would have been applicable under the then-mandatory Guidelines had criminal history”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 979
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [179]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [180]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [181]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 979 · plain
In the paper
“The Federal Sentencing Guidelines have been advisory since 2005; however, federal district judges must still calculate and consider the applicable Guidelines range when sentencing an offender.175”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 979
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [175]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, had the federal government chosen to step in, the accusations would have qualified for prosecution under the federal Major Crimes Act, resulting in a triple prosecution.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
hedgedstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Superintendent Bruce outlined six points in support of the proposed transfer.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 957
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This case means that offenders who are members of a federally recognized tribe could conceivably be prosecuted in a tribal, state, and federal court for the same behavior, while a non-Indian would only be subject to state and federal jurisdiction.167”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 977
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [167]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Communication from Superintendent Bruce to U.S. Attorney Alexander following up on this development urged transfer of jurisdiction over these cases from federal to state authorities”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 957
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It should be noted that the tribes never consented to give up their own jurisdiction, nor did the tribes consent to a scenario where multiple prosecutions for the same offenses could occur.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 55.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This bill was the precursor to what became the Kansas Act two years later.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 959
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When an offense was committed on a reservation, assertion of federal criminal jurisdiction over the act could occur only after determining that the offense occurred on trust land rather than unrestricted land.40”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 955
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites H.R. REP. NO. 1999, at 4
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In the Tenth Circuit case United States v. Denetclaw, the court upheld the use of a defendant's tribal court pleas to impeach his testimony at the federal trial arising from the same assault incidents.171 The circuit court then affirmed the sentencing district court's use of that perjurious testimony to enhance the defendant's sentence based on obstruction of justice.172”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 977
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [171]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [172]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As such, in prosecuting Lara, the Spirit Lake Tribe was acting as a distinct sovereign, and thus the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prohibit subsequent federal prosecution for the separate federal offense.166”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 977
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [166]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this agreement is effective relief from the risk of dual prosecutions, it is only a band-aid fix to the problem.A change in policy or philosophy by administrators of either entity could end the agreement, restoring the risk of multiple prosecutions”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 975
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The term “prior sentence” is defined by the Guidelines as “any sentence previously imposed upon adjudication of guilt, whether by guilty plea, trial, or plea of nolo contendere, for conduct not part of the instant offense.”192”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 981
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [192]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, as passed, the Kansas Act extends, rather than transfers, authority to prosecute to the state, while at the same time retaining within the federal authority the ability to prosecute offenses under federal law.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > B. Unintended Consequences-Multiple Prosecutions
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Efforts to pass the Kansas Act did not begin the year it was enacted.Rather, a legislative initiative designed to transfer to the state the power to prosecute offenses occurring on reservations began at least two legislative sessions earlier.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 1. Archived Records Show the Initial Purpose of the Bill Was to Transfer Criminal Jurisdiction from Federal Authority to the State of Kansas
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These agreements address judicial full faith credit concerns, regulatory matters such as foster home licensing, and sharing of resources for infrastructural needs such as road construction and utility access.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > C. Tribal-State Cooperative Agreements
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [213]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the passage of the Kansas Act responded to a perception of lawlessness and a lack of tribal court systems in 1940, the practical realities, seventy years later, no longer require the state to have jurisdiction that intrudes into Indian country in Kansas.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > V. PROPOSAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AND OTHER REFORM
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The Kansas Act was passed in 1940 in response to a perception of lawlessness and a lack of tribal court systems.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a time when the Kansas state judicial budget is strained, the jurisdictional reach of tribal courts has expanded, and the four tribal nations in Kansas have demonstrated they are capable of administering justice within their borders, there is no reason for the Kansas Act to continue to undercut tribal sovereignty.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > Additional information
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The Kansas state judicial budget is strained.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to the present day relevancy, continuing dual prosecutions by the state and tribes is equally without merit.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Kansas Act should be fully repealed because circumstances no longer necessitate the expenditure of state money for prosecutions that are adequately handled by tribal or federal officials.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The key to their success is that the agreements are entered into on a sovereign-to-sovereign capacity that outlive political appointments or election cycles.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > C. Tribal-State Cooperative Agreements
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Federal prosecutions contemplated by the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 can fill the gap in those circumstances in which limitations imposed upon tribal courts will not fully meet the interests of Native communities.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > KANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 59
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this economic climate, with Kansas state courts subject to mandatory court furlough days and other cutbacks, there is no reasonable incentive for the state to continue prosecutions that can be pursued by tribal or federal authorities.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: Kansas state courts are subject to mandatory court furlough days and other cutbacks.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only actual jurisdiction gap that existed was the prosecution of minor crimes committed by an Indian against another Indian, all matters that are surely within the purview of the modern tribal courts that currently exist.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“In both instances, the federal government retains the power to prosecute under the Major Crimes Act or the General Crimes Act, leaving intact U.S. attorneys' role as statutorily mandated.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 987
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Major Crimes Act
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites General Crimes Act
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The tribal court may exercise jurisdiction over individual Indians when the crime occurs within the reservation boundary and the substantive law is defined by tribal legislation.202 The state court may exercise jurisdiction over the same individual, with the substantive law defined by state legislation.203 The federal court may exercise jurisdiction over the same individual, with the substantive”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > 2011] CONCURRENT CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN KANSAS 983
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [202]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [203]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [204]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As such, it is not a reliable shield against dual prosecutions and leaves defendants vulnerable to multiple convictions that could have heightened consequences in sentencing on both the state and federal level.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > C. Tribal-State Cooperative Agreements
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to employing their own police forces and judicial staff to respond to criminal activity, the tribes and state routinely detain and convict the same defendant for a single criminal offense.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > V. PROPOSAL FOR LEGISLATIVE AND OTHER REFORM
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, federal prosecutions have been virtually nonexistent on Indian reservations Kansas, likely due to the fact that the state has traditionally prosecuted coupled with the increased criminal dockets in tribal courts.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Kansas Act creates a situation unique to Kansas by leaving intact inherent tribal jurisdiction, granting jurisdiction to the state but expressly preserving federal jurisdiction over Indian country crimes.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Kansas Act
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On those occasions, federal authorities are required to step in when the offense involved falls under federal jurisdiction.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > KANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 59
plainstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The model suggested here recognizes that the increased jurisdictional reach of tribal courts makes them capable of handling many prosecutions previously pursued by state authorities.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > A. Full Repeal of the Kansas Act
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although a step in the rights direction, an MOA between individual prosecutors only temporarily addresses the issue and provides a band-aid to a much bigger problem and is subject to personnel and political changes.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > C. Tribal-State Cooperative Agreements
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In fact, the Kansas Act expressly preserves a federal role in prosecuting Indian country crimes and subsequent federal Indian policy ultimately revived tribal governments and supports tribal selfdetermination.”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > VI. CONCLUSION
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Tribal courts in Kansas have developed and grown since the 1930s.
“particularly in light of the development and growth of tribal courts”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Kansas Act was passed in 1940 in response to a perception of lawlessness and a lack of tribal court systems.
“Although the passage of the Kansas Act responded to a perception of lawlessness and a lack of tribal court systems in 1940, the practical realities, seventy years later, no longer require the state to have jurisdiction that intrudes into Indian country in Kansas.”
The paper relies on this without support.
An Indian country liaison has been appointed in the U.S. Attorneys' Office to fulfill the obligation to prosecute Indian country crimes.
“In fact, an Indian country liaison has been appointed in the U.S. Attorneys' Office to fulfill this obligation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Kansas state courts are subject to mandatory court furlough days and other cutbacks.
“In this economic climate, with Kansas state courts subject to mandatory court furlough days and other cutbacks, there is no reasonable incentive for the state to continue prosecutions that can be pursued by tribal or federal authorities.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The U.S. Attorneys' Office will continue to decline prosecution when charges by another entity will adequately address the wrong committed by an offense.
“This suggestion is made contemplating that the U.S. Attorneys' Office will continue to decline prosecution when charges by another entity will adequately address the wrong committed by an offense.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Kansas state judicial budget is strained.
“At a time when the Kansas state judicial budget is strained, the jurisdictional reach of tribal courts has expanded, and the four tribal nations in Kansas have demonstrated they are capable of administering justice within their borders, there is no reason for the Kansas Act to continue to undercut tribal sovereignty.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > D. Practical Consequences of the Act
“The tribe hires a prosecutor and four public defenders on a contract basis.198”
§ Reassessing Concurrent Tribal-State-Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas > Additional information
“The budget includes funds for contracts with five public defenders and two additional court appointed attorneys, in addition to the pro bono legal services of Washburn Law Clinic.216”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Private International Law Bibliography 2011: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English
Symeonides, S. C. (2012) · The American Journal of Comparative Law · doi:10.5131/ajcl.2012.2 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Francis, J. J., Leeds, S. L., Organick, A., & Exum, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Washburn University (US)
- ORCID
- John J. Francis
- Venue
- Kansas Law Review
- Publisher
- The University of Kansas
- Published
- 2011
- ISSN
- 0083-4025 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3121543778
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Kansas Law Review (publishedVersion)
- UNM’s Digital Repository (University of New Mexico) (submittedVersion)
- Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
- Keywords
- tribal criminal jurisdiction, federal criminal jurisdiction, Indian Country, tribal sovereignty, double jeopardy, federalism, tribal-state relations
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reassessing Concurrent Tribal–State–Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.17161/1808.20166
- The paper
- Francis, J. J., Leeds, S. L., Organick, A., & Exum, J. J. (2011). Reassessing Concurrent Tribal–State–Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Kansas. Kansas Law Review. https://doi.org/10.17161/1808.20166
