A year and a half ago I wrote on this blog about a Supreme Court decision that I was pretty sure was going to wind up affecting some of the Charley Project missing persons cases. And, lo and behold, it has.
I just started writing up Faith Lindsey‘s a murder-without-a-body case. Charges were filed against her boyfriend, then dismissed because of this Supreme Court decision that meant the state of Oklahoma did not have jurisdiction, then charges were refiled in federal court and the murder case is pending there.
Now, I might have a slight interest in reading about legal rulings of this kind, but I am not sure the average Charley Project reader has the same interest. It seems to me that a paragraph about the McGirt ruling and its significance would probably just clog up Faith’s casefile.
My husband suggested I say “dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and then refiled in federal court”, and then add the McGirt info in a footnote or something. Hmm.
I’m an Oklahoma attorney and think your husband’s suggestion is a good one. “State charges dismissed on jurisdictional grounds and re-filed in federal court pursuant to McGirt . . . “
I would include this information. This ruling does directly affect her case, therefore it is relevant information.
I would include this information. This ruling does directly affect her case, after all.
This ruling does directly affect her case, after all. I would include this information
Wound up saying:
“The charges were subsequently dismissed because, due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, the state of Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction over crimes committed against tribal citizens. However, the case was refiled in federal court.”
It’s usually not a good sign when TCP hasn’t been updated in this long. Hoping you’re just enjoying your holidays, Meaghan.