Summary and Conclusions
One of our main research goals is to make comparisons between Public Law 280 and
non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, and here we have data comparing several measures of judicial
fairness, such as speed of case processing, jury selection, sentencing patterns, and the effects of
sentencing limits. Most of the direct comparisons on fairness issues come from Public Law 280
and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents; our data only rarely support direct comparisons
between criminal justice personnel in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions.
This resulted from extreme difficulty of obtaining data from United States attorneys. The data
we have, however, give us information and results about differences in how court fairness is
viewed by Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents,
and Public Law 280
criminal justice workers.
Reservation residents in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions do not
express significantly different views on fairness measures between Public Law 280 and nonPublic Law 280 jurisdictions. Reservation residents say that state/county and federal courts are
about equally fair on a variety of measures, such as rate of disposition of cases, judge and jury
responses, jury selection, and disadvantageous sentencing. Differences in the administration and
organization of courts in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions do not lead to
different perception of unfairness in state/county or federal courts, according to reservation
residents.
The reservation-resident respondents, however, establish a series of markers for
understanding how well justice is administered in Indian country. Generally, Public Law 280
and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents agree that justice is not fairly administered in
Indian country. Only 40.5% of Public Law 280 reservation residents and 43.9% of non-Public
Law 280 reservation residents say that the cases of Indian victims or defendants are handled at
the same speed as non-Indian cases. Most Public Law 280 (53.7%) and non-Public Law 280
reservation residents (63.9%) say that judges and juries respond differently to Indian-related
cases.
Between 17% and 25% of reservation-resident respondents believe that jury selection is
disadvantageous for Indian victims and defendants. Public Law 280 reservation residents
(52.2%) and 41.7% of non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that courts give
disadvantageous sentences in cases involving Indian defendants or victims. Reservation
residents in both Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions have similar perceptions
of the administration of justice. Jurisdictional differences between Public Law 280 and nonPublic Law 280 court systems do not create differences in the experience or perception of court
fairness by reservation residents; respondents agree that there are significant and comparable
degrees of unfairness in both jurisdictions.
Since we do not have comparative data for criminal
justice workers in Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, we cannot make a
comprehensive assessment of the effects of jurisdiction on the several fairness measures. So our
results are tentative.
202
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and reservation residents make several
comparative evaluations of court fairness in federal, state/county, and tribal courts. In Public
Law 280 jurisdictions, criminal justice personnel and reservation residents disagree over the
speed with which Indian-related cases are disposed, and over whether cases with Indian
defendants or victims receive disadvantageous sentencing more so than non-Indian cases in state/
county courts. Public Law 280 criminal justice personal (71.1%) say Indian-related court cases
move through the courts at the same rate as non-Indian cases, while fewer Public Law 280
reservation residents (43.9%) say the same. In Public Law 280 jurisdictions, a significantly
higher proportion of criminal justice personnel say that Indian-related cases are managed at the
same rate as non-Indian cases than do reservation residents. In addition, fewer Public Law 280
criminal justice personnel (20.9%) believe that Indian victims or defendants receive
disadvantageous sentencing than do Public Law 280 reservation residents (52.2%). Public Law
280 reservation residents believe that Indians receive more disadvantageous sentencing in state/
county courts than criminal justice workers say. Public Law 280 reservation residents and
criminal justice personnel have significantly different understandings, and disagree over the
speed and sentencing of Indian cases. Public Law 280 reservation residents believe that Indian
defendants and victims in state/county courts are managed differently, and their cases are
sentenced differently than non-Indian cases.
Similar proportions of Public Law 280 reservation residents and criminal justice workers
agree that judges and juries in state/county courts treat Indian cases differently than non-Indian
cases. However, most Public Law 280 criminal justice workers (50.0%) and reservation
residents (53.7%) agree that Indian-related cases are handled differently and more negatively
than non-Indian cases. Criminal justice personnel and reservation residents in Public Law 280
jurisdictions show similar awareness of court-diversion programs (22.7% to 33%) and double
jeopardy cases (18% to 33%).
Although Public Law 280 and non-Public Law 280 reservation residents report that state/
county and federal courts are similar for fairness, the disagreements among Public Law 280
reservation residents and criminal justice personnel over sentencing and speed of disposition of
cases suggest a significant difference in understanding and interpretation of court fairness in
Public Law 280 jurisdictions. There is agreement among Public Law 280 criminal justice
workers and reservation residents that judges and juries treat Indian cases differently than nonIndian cases, and similar awareness of court-diversion programs and double jeopardy cases.
However, the significant differences over the disposition rates of Indian cases and sentencing
suggest that Public Law 280 criminal justice workers believe that state/county courts are fairer
than is believed by reservation residents. Most Public Law 280 criminal justice workers and
reservation residents agree that judges and juries in state/county courts give disadvantageous
treatment to Indian defendants and victims. Half of Public Law 280 criminal justice respondents
agree with slightly over half of reservation residents that judges and juries are treating Indianrelated cases differently.
Most Public Law 280 reservation residents view the state/county court
system as relatively unfair in case speed, judge and jury responses, and sentencing, while the
trend for Public Law 280 criminal justice personnel is to believe that the state/county courts are
203
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not
been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
fair for case speed and sentencing, and unfair for judge and jury responses when considering
Indian-related cases.
For non-Public Law 280 jurisdictions, there is less data, but reservation residents say that
judges and juries in federal courts are less fair than in tribal courts, although sentencing patterns
are not significantly different between tribal and federal courts. These data are too few to make a
reliable statement, but the trends are in the direction that non-Public Law 280 reservation
residents tend to believe that federal courts are less fair than tribal courts.
There is general agreement among Public Law 280 reservation residents, non-Public Law
280 reservation residents, and Public Law 280 criminal justice respondents that judges and juries
respond differently and unfairly to Indian-related cases. Most Public Law 280 reservation and
non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that Indian cases work through the courts at
different rates that non-Indian cases, while most Public Law 280 criminal justice workers
disagree, saying that Indian cases go through state/county courts at about the same speed as nonIndian cases. Public Law 280 reservation residents and non-Public Law 280 reservation
residents are in statistical agreement about disadvantageous sentencing in Indian-related cases,
but most Public Law 280 reservation residents say that sentencing in state/county courts is
disadvantageous, while less than half of non-Public Law 280 reservation residents say that
sentencing in federal courts is disadvantageous for Indian defendants or victims.
Public Law 280
criminal justice workers significantly disagree with Public Law 280 reservation residents about
the degree of disadvantageous sentencing for Indian defendants and victims, but agree with nonPublic Law 280 reservation residents. A minority of Public Law 280 reservation residents agree
with non-Public Law 280 reservation residents that jury selection in unfair for Indian-related
cases.
In three out of four measures of fairness, most Public Law 280 reservation residents say
that they are experiencing unfairness for the rate of case dispositions, sentencing, and judge and
jury responses. Public Law 280 criminal justice workers agree that judges and juries are
responding negatively to Indian cases, but disagree that the speed of Indian-related cases and
sentencing are different from non-Indian cases. Most non-Public Law 280 reservation residents
agree with Public Law 280 reservation residents that the disposition of Indian-related cases is
different from non-Indian cases, and that judges and juries respond negatively to Indian-related
cases; but a minority say that sentencing and jury selection are unfair.