Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Oklahoma, Petitioner v. Laurie Jean Martin

NO. 21-_____

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Petitioner,

v.

LAURIE JEAN MARTIN,

__________________________

Respondent.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

JOHN M. O’CONNOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL

MITHUN MANSINGHANI

SOLICITOR GENERAL

COUNSEL OF RECORD

CAROLINE HUNT

JENNIFER CRABB

ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL

BRYAN CLEVELAND

RANDALL YATES

ASSISTANT SOLICITORS GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE OKLAHOMA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

313 N.E. TWENTY-FIRST STREET

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

(405) 522-4392

MITHUN.MANSINGHANI@OAG.OK.GOV

OCTOBER 22, 2021

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

i

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452

(2020), should be overruled.

ii

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

No. F-2017-991

Laurie Jean Martin, Appellant v.

The State of Oklahoma, Appellee

Date of Final Opinion: May 27, 2021

__________

Oklahoma District Court (Carter County)

No. CF-2016-782A

The State of Oklahoma, Plaintiff v.

Laurie Jean Martin, Defendant

Date of Judgment and Sentence: September13, 2017

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i

LIST OF PROCEEDINGS .......................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v

OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1

JURISDICTION.......................................................... 2

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................. 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ......... 6

CONCLUSION............................................................ 8

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued

Page

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals,

State of Oklahoma (May 27, 2021) ........................... 1a

District Court of Carter County, State of

Oklahoma, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law (November 12, 2020) ...................................... 16a

Order of the Court of Criminal Appeals,

State of Oklahoma, Remanding for Evidentiary

Hearing (August 14, 2020) ..................................... 25a

v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Bosse v. State,

2021 OK CR 23, ___ P.3d ___ ................................. 5

Bosse v. State,

484 P.3d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) ................... 5

Hogner v. State,

2021 OK CR 4, ___ P.3d ___ ................................... 5

McGirt v. Oklahoma,

140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020) ................................... passim

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta,

No. 21-429,

(Okla. Crim. App. Sept. 21, 2021) ............... 3, 6, 7, 8

STATUTES

18 U.S.C. § 1151 .......................................................... 2

18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) ..................................................... 2

28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) ..................................................... 2

JUDICIAL RULES

Sup. Ct. R. 12.7 ........................................................... 3

1

In the Supreme Court of the United States

STATE OF OKLAHOMA,

Petitioner,

V.

LAURIE JEAN MARTIN,

Respondent.

__________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal

Appeals, dated May 27, 2021, is included in the

Appendix at App.1a-15a. The order of the Oklahoma

Court of Criminal Appeals, dated August 14, 2020,

remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing is

included below at App.25a-29a. The Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law of the District Court in and for

Carter County, State of Oklahoma, dated November 12,

2020, is included below at App.16a-24a. These opinions and orders were not designated for publication.

2

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal

Appeals was entered on May 27, 2021. App.1a. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1257(a).

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

18 U.S.C. § 1151 (in relevant part)

Indian country defined

[T]he term ‘Indian country’, as used in this

chapter, means (a) all land within the limits of

any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of

the United States Government, notwithstanding

the issuance of any patent, and, including rightsof-way running through the reservation.

18 U.S.C. § 1153(a)

Offenses committed within Indian country

Any Indian who commits against the person or

property of another Indian or other person any of

the following offenses, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, maiming, a felony under chapter

109A, incest, a felony assault under section 113,

an assault against an individual who has not

attained the age of 16 years, felony child abuse or

neglect, arson, burglary, robbery, and a felony

under section 661 of this title within the Indian

country, shall be subject to the same law and

3

penalties as all other persons committing any of

the above offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Thousands of state criminal prosecutions have

been called into question by this Court’s decision in

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S.Ct. 2452 (2020). Like the

pending petition in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No.

21-429, this case presents the question whether McGirt

should be overruled. For the same reasons given in the

Castro-Huerta petition, review is warranted to examine

that question. The petition for a writ of certiorari in

this case should be held pending consideration of the

Castro-Huerta petition or, in the alternative, granted.

1. Angry over her deteriorating relationship with

on-again, off-again boyfriend Chivas Piggee, respondent

gathered a mob of family and friends, including her

own eighteen-year-old daughter, who stabbed and

beat Piggee to death in the middle of a residential

street on the night of November 20, 2016. Tr. I 14072; Tr. II 293-96, 360-61, 425-35, 525. Respondent

incited the mob by falsely claiming Piggee had physically

assaulted her, texting around a “selfie” that featured

a self-inflicted wound, and calling for an “ass

whoop[ing].” Tr. I 279; Tr. II 293-329, 435-36, 447,

465-66, 494-95. In fact, it was respondent who had

 All fact citations are to the transcript of respondent’s trial (Tr.),

which is available below. See Sup. Ct. R. 12.7.

4

recently physically assaulted Piggee. Tr. II 428, 430,

525.

On the night of the killing, respondent lured

Piggee to her house on false pretenses. Tr. II 308-14,

320, 438. When he arrived and exited his car, respondent

and four others immediately approached him; realizing

he had been “set up,” Piggee attempted to escape on

foot. Tr. II 399. The group caught up with Piggee, however, and brutally attacked him, beating his body,

face, and head and stabbing him six times in his lower

body. Tr. I 143-44, 147, 166, 220-24; Tr. II 371-75, 399402. During the attack, respondent screamed, “Beat

that [expletive]’s ass.” Tr. I 142-44, 146.

Respondent was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and sentenced to forty years imprisonment.

She then appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals.

2. After this Court issued its decision in McGirt,

the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case to

the trial court for an evidentiary hearing. On remand,

the court accepted the parties’ stipulations and found

that respondent is a member of the federally recognized

Choctaw Nation with 1/32 Indian blood quantum and

the crime occurred within the reservation of the

Chickasaw Nation. App.18a-19a, 23a.

The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that “the District Court appropriately

applied McGirt to determine that Congress did establish

a Chickasaw Reservation” and that the same had

never been disestablished. App.8a. The opinion’s

author, Judge Lumpkin, wrote in a footnote that he

“continue[s] to share the position of Chief Justice

Roberts’ dissent in McGirt, that at the time of

Oklahoma Statehood in 1907, all parties accepted the

5

fact that Indian reservations in the state had been

disestablished and no longer existed.” App.2a.

The four other Court of Criminal Appeals judges

all wrote separate opinions. Presiding Judge Kuehn

concurred in the result to express disagreement with

some aspects of the majority’s opinion, but agreed that

the “case must be dismissed.” App.11a.

Vice Presiding Judge Rowland concurred for the

reasons stated in his separate writing in another case,

in which he disagreed with certain aspects of Judge

Lumpkin’s majority opinion. App.13a; see Hogner v.

State, 2021 OK CR 4, ¶¶ 1-5, ___ P.3d ___ (Rowland,

V.P.J., concurring in results).

Judge Lewis also concurred in the result based on

previous concurrences in which he—in relevant part—

explained that McGirt required reversal. App.14a; see

Hogner v. State, 2021 OK CR 4, ¶¶ 1-5, ___ P.3d ___

(Lewis, J., concurring in results); Bosse v. State, 484

P.3d 286, 299 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (Lewis, J.,

specially concurring), withdrawn by Bosse v. State,

2021 OK CR 23, ___ P.3d ___.

Finally, Judge Hudson concurred in the result “as

a matter of stare decisis,” reiterating his “previously

expressed views on the significance of McGirt, its farreaching impact on the criminal justice system in

Oklahoma and the need for a practical solution by

Congress.” App.15a.

6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

In the decision below, the Oklahoma Court of

Criminal Appeals applied McGirt to free yet another

criminal from state custody, exacerbating the crisis in

the criminal-justice system in Oklahoma. As the State

of Oklahoma explains in its petition in Castro-Huerta,

reconsideration of McGirt is the only realistic avenue

for ending the ongoing chaos affecting every corner of

daily life in Oklahoma. See Pet. at 17-29, Oklahoma v.

Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429. This case presents yet

another opportunity to end the damage caused by

McGirt. If the petition in Castro-Huerta is granted,

this petition should be held pending a decision in

Castro-Huerta and then disposed of as is appropriate,

or this petition should be granted.

As explained more fully in Castro-Huerta, McGirt

was wrongly decided, and the Court’s review is urgently

needed because no recent decision has had a more

immediate and disruptive effect on life in an American

State. McGirt contravened longstanding precedent on

the disestablishment of Indian reservations. 140 S.Ct.

at 2485 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). It did so by wrongly

reasoning that historical materials showing the original

public meaning of statutes may be considered in the

disestablishment inquiry “only” to “clear up” statutory

ambiguity. See id. at 2467-2468, 2469-2470 (majority

opinion). But consideration of history is necessary

precisely because it is unclear whether Congress’s

alienation of Indian lands at the turn of the century

changed the Indian country status of the land. See id.

at 2488 (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). Under the correct

framework prescribed by this Court’s precedent, it is

7

clear that Congress disestablished the Creek territory

in Oklahoma, as well as the territories of the four

other Oklahoma tribes. And with that conclusion, it is

clear the decision below is incorrect and warrants

reversal.

Overruling McGirt and restoring the state jurisdiction it stripped is important not only for this case

and the victim of the terrible crime at issue. As the

Chief Justice correctly predicted, the “burdens” of the

McGirt decision on the State of Oklahoma have been

“extraordinary.” 140 S.Ct. at 2500. The challenges from

that seismic shift in jurisdiction have rippled through

every aspect of life in Oklahoma. Most immediately,

McGirt has jeopardized the State’s jurisdiction over

thousands of criminal cases—this case being just one

of them.

The question presented in this case is materially

identical to the second question presented in CastroHuerta. For the compelling reasons explained in the

petition in Castro-Huerta, review on this question is

warranted. Accordingly, the Court should either hold

the petition pending the resolution of the second

question presented in Castro-Huerta or grant review

in this case.

8

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari in CastroHuerta should be granted, and the petition in this

case should be held pending a decision there and then

disposed of as is appropriate. In the alternative, this

petition should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN M. O’CONNOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL

MITHUN MANSINGHANI

SOLICITOR GENERAL

COUNSEL OF RECORD

CAROLINE HUNT

JENNIFER CRABB

ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL

BRYAN CLEVELAND

RANDALL YATES

ASSISTANT SOLICITORS GENERAL

OFFICE OF THE OKLAHOMA

ATTORNEY GENERAL

313 N.E. TWENTY-FIRST STREET

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105

(405) 522-4392

MITHUN.MANSINGHANI@OAG.OK.GOV

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER

OCTOBER 22, 2021