Keeble Supreme Court Case Study

The Supreme Court of the United States

Plaintiff: Keeble (Pomani's brother-in-law).

Defendant: United States Legal Department (the attorney general, solicitor general, and deputy solicitor general)

From: District Court of South Dakota.

Law Firm: Chris and Luke Co. advocates. Attorneys; Luke Levis and Chris John.

Oral Argument

Case no: 17: 5525

Table of Contents I. Table of authorities 2 II. Statement of issues presented for view 3 III. Jurisdictional Statement 4 IV. Procedural History 4 V. Summary of facts 5 VI. Standard review 5 VII. Arguments 6 VIII. Conclusion 7 IX. Sign 7 X. Appendixes 7

Table of Authorities

Cf. Sansone v. the United States. 1895.

Sparf v. the United States. 156 U.S. 51, 63 -64 (1895)

United

We believe that the issues are weighty to the extent of getting the attention of the judges. These issues are as follows. We wish to inform this court that both the district and the appellate court relied on the provisions of the Major Crimes Act 1885 to convict our

Sansone v. the United States, the government conceded that an Indian who had committed an offense similar to that of the petitioner could be allowed trial by the jury that was denied the petitioner.

In the case United States v. Kagama it was established that Major Crimes Act was constitutional, but there were not specifications on whether it should be useful in denying Indians access to the trial by the jury. The Congress extended federal jurisdiction to the Indians after passing the Major Crime Act. Therefore, the treatment of other offenders should apply to the Indians. Thus, the Act provides that Indians tried under its principles shall be tried in the same courts and the same manner as other people.

Arguments

Error in Charges. The petitioner was not charged with assault resulting in bodily injury as provided for in the Major Crimes Act. Instead, he was charged with an assault whose intent was to cause serious bodily injury. Therefore, we can submit that the courts erred in relying on the Act given that they deviated from it in the charges against the petitioner. Thus, we argue that the initial prosecution did not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal district court but under the jury that tried offenders of minor crimes like simple