Title

Carpenter v. Murphy

Document Type

Oral Presentation

Campus where you would like to present

Ellensburg

Event Website

https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/source

Start Date

16-5-2019

End Date

16-5-2019

Abstract

Our nation has developed several rights and protections for indigenous tribes and people; However, what happens to these protections and rights when a ruling on whether or not an area of land massing over 3 million acres belongs to the state, or to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation must be made. Carpenter v. Murphy follows the petitioner, Mike Carpenter, an interim warden of the Oklahoma state penitentiary representing the Oklahoma state government, arguing that the state had personal jurisdiction over the Respondent, Patrick Murphy, and his murder conviction. The Respondent, Patrick Murphy, maintains that the federal government lacked personal jurisdiction in his conviction as the federal government failed to disestablish the Muscogee reservation. While yes, a large portion of Oklahoma could potentially be deemed Tribal Reservation, the effects of the court’s decision clearly go much further than land. Riding on the decision of the court is the conviction of thousands of criminals tried for crimes including rape, murder, child molestation, etc. in courts that lacked personal jurisdiction. In this presentation, I will provide a comprehensive approach to the case, including procedural history, statutory analysis of the act of Congress in question, and the arguments developed by both the petitioner and the respondent. Finally, I will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, along with their potential ruling, and what their decision means for not only Patrick Murphy and the State of Oklahoma, but for the 2000+ convictions made in Oklahoma courts lacking personal jurisdiction.

Faculty Mentor(s)

Robert Claridge

Department/Program

Law and Justice

Share

COinS
 
May 16th, 1:00 PM May 16th, 2:30 PM

Carpenter v. Murphy

Ellensburg

Our nation has developed several rights and protections for indigenous tribes and people; However, what happens to these protections and rights when a ruling on whether or not an area of land massing over 3 million acres belongs to the state, or to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation must be made. Carpenter v. Murphy follows the petitioner, Mike Carpenter, an interim warden of the Oklahoma state penitentiary representing the Oklahoma state government, arguing that the state had personal jurisdiction over the Respondent, Patrick Murphy, and his murder conviction. The Respondent, Patrick Murphy, maintains that the federal government lacked personal jurisdiction in his conviction as the federal government failed to disestablish the Muscogee reservation. While yes, a large portion of Oklahoma could potentially be deemed Tribal Reservation, the effects of the court’s decision clearly go much further than land. Riding on the decision of the court is the conviction of thousands of criminals tried for crimes including rape, murder, child molestation, etc. in courts that lacked personal jurisdiction. In this presentation, I will provide a comprehensive approach to the case, including procedural history, statutory analysis of the act of Congress in question, and the arguments developed by both the petitioner and the respondent. Finally, I will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, along with their potential ruling, and what their decision means for not only Patrick Murphy and the State of Oklahoma, but for the 2000+ convictions made in Oklahoma courts lacking personal jurisdiction.

https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/source/2019/Oralpres/195