United States v. Bryant, Jr., No. 12-30177 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic assault by a habitual offender in violation of 18 U.S.C. 117(a). On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that using his tribal court convictions to satisfy an element of section 117(a) violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The court concluded that the government waived its argument that defendant failed to make an evidentiary showing that his tribal court convictions were uncounseled. The court held, under United States v. Ant, that the government may not rely on tribal court convictions as predicate offenses in section 117(a) prosecutions unless the tribal court afforded the same right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment in federal and state prosecutions. In this case, defendant's relevant tribal convictions do not meet this standard and the charges against him must be dismissed. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment charging the defendant, an Indian, with two counts of domestic assault by a habitual offender, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 117(a). Applying United States v. Ant, 882 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1989), the panel held that, subject to the narrow exception recognized in case law for statutes that serve merely as enforcement mechanisms for civil disabilities, tribal court convictions may be used in subsequent prosecutions only if the tribal court guarantees a right to counsel that is, at minimum, coextensive with the Sixth Amendment right. Because the defendant’s tribal court domestic abuse convictions would have violated the Sixth Amendment had they been obtained in federal or state court, the panel concluded that it is constitutionally impermissible to use them to establish an element of the offense in a subsequent prosecution under § 117(a), which is an ordinary recidivist statute and not a criminal enforcement scheme for a civil disability. Concurring, Judge Watford wrote separately to highlight why Ant warrants reexamination.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 6, 2015.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.