Alberty v. United States Essay - 275 Words

Alberty v. United States (Essay Sample) Content: Alberty v. United States - D 1896; 162 U.S. 499; 231NameInstitution AffiliationAlberty v. United States - D 1896; 162 U.S. 499; 231This was a case involving the Defendant who was a Cherokee Negro and who was known by both his Dadà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s name of Burns and that of his former master, Alberty. He was sentenced for the murder of Phil Duncan at the Cherokee Nation situated in the Indian Terrain. The impeachment claimed that the offense was committed on 15th may 1879, but evidence showed that it was engaged in a year ahead, that was in 1880.The defendant sued out a court order upon the announcement of death judgment. The Defendant assigned a want of jurisdiction in the court and some faults in the charge to the bench of judges connected with the law of homicide. The Defendant extrapolated to be strained from the flight of the alleged.It was noted that the query of this law in this scenario demanded to be given a primary consideration. Although Alberty was a Negro born i n slavery and therefore not a native Indian, he was recognized as a citizen of the Cherokee entitled by the ninth article of the 1866 Treaty. Under the 1866 Treaty, the Cherokee Nation agreed to eradicate slavery and granted that all freedmen liberated by intentional acts of the by-laws as well as all free colored persons are now recognized as residents. Besides, those who were in the country at the inauguration of the Rebellion and now residing within or those who may return within a period of six months will have all the freedoms of the native Cherokees. Though this article provides him with the rights of a native Cherokee, it did not guarantee him Indian citizenship or pardon him from role to the criminal decrees of the United States.The deceased was recognized by name as Duncan. He was the unlawful child of a Choctaw Indian, by a colored mother, who was not his companion, but a slave in the Cherokee State. The mother was a Negro slave and therefore, the son was treated as a Negr o by birth and not a Choctaw Indian. There is an additional reason for this in the fact that he was an illegitimate child and took the status of the mother as previously ruled in Williamson v. Daniel, and Fowler v. Merrill cases.The Accused went to the Cherokee Nation when he turned 17 years old and married a freed woman who was a Cherokee Citizen. Though the Accused was married to a Cherokee citizen, it did not confer upon him the freedoms and rights of Cherokee citizenship, beyond that of residing and holding personal property in the Cherokee Nation. The law courts of the United States cannot entitle jurisdiction over such persons in crime or civil issues. Such people are also not allowed to taking part in any election activities. Therefore, for the laws of the United States to be applied, the Accused had to be treated as a citizen of the Cherokee Nation not an Indian and the Plaintiff as a colored citizen of the United States. The court also ruled out that, the general laws of th e United States shall extend to cover crimes in the Indian Nation, but these laws will not apply to offences committed by one Indian against a person or property of another Indian. The law will not apply to an Indian committing any offense in the Indian Republic who was penalized by the Indian legislation of the tribe. The law will not apply to any case where, by agreement Provisions, exclusive judgment over such crimes may be secured to the Local Indian tribes singly (Levy Mellor, 2008).The act to provide a temporary government for the state of Oklahoma, and the need to enlarge the law of the United States court in the Indian Nation, gave Indian courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s jurisdiction over all cases. Citizens of the state by nativity or even by adoption will be the only parties. Section 31 provided that not anything in the act will be interpreted as to deny any of the judicial tribunals of enlightened states of complete authority over issues emerging in which citizens of these states by ag reement, nature or adoption are the main parties. These parties are required by law to respond to the right and supremacy to discipline the wrongdoers for defilement of the statutes implemented by their respective councils, and such statutes are not conflicting with the laws of America.There is a difficulty concerning criminality issues where the offender is considered as the only party. The other party is not given much recognition, that is, the party to whom the sovereignty in whose identity the trial is being carried. The seventh article of the treaty provide that, if a special request is made for the prerogative of the American courts, the district courts closest to Cherokee will have complete control over the cases. The homicide was not committed within the Canadian boundaries and, therefore, article seven does not apply directly but it could have an indirect effect on demonstrating an intention to treat the prosecuting attorney as the other party to the cause.In Alberty, v Un ited States it was ruled out that it was natural for a husband to investigate when he sees another man trying to get into his wifeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s room window at night. The law further confirmed that the husband was not allowed to retreat when attacked with a knife under such circumstance. It is required that the man uses only as much force as is considered necessary to deter the attack. It was agreed that if in a resulting confrontation the husband shoots and kills the plaintiff and then flees away, his actions of running away would not be evident of his guilt (Martin, 2010).The case of Alberty v. United States demanded the Supreme Court to reviewing capital punishments from the Western District of Arkansas. After a depth analysis about whether the civic court carefully had jurisdiction on this issue, Mr. Billings Brown, a Judge, provided his opinion for the undisputed Supreme Court had in the truthful heart of the case. On a particular night, the Defendant saw a te...