WAGONER COUNTY, Okla. — If you live in Oklahoma, you've likely heard the name McGirt.
When McGirt is mentioned, it's likely someone is referring to the landmark Supreme Court case McGirt v. Oklahoma, which decided 5-4 that state governments don't have jurisdiction to prosecute Native Americans because the Major Crimes Act of 1885 was never disestablished.
The Major Crimes Act defines these as major crimes:
- Murder
- Manslaughter
- Rape
- Assault with intent to kill
- Arson
- Burglary
- Larceny
The original case of Jimcy McGirt, which led to that Supreme Court decision, is sometimes overlooked and still ongoing.
His case began in 1997 when McGirt was convicted of first-degree rape instrumentation, lewd molestation, and forcible sodomy by the Oklahoma state court. He'd also been convicted twice before.
The victim in the case was McGirt's wife's granddaughter, who turned four years old when the rape occurred. The crime occurred in Wagoner County, which is in Muscogee Creek Nation territory.
The state sentenced him to 500 years in prison for each of the first two charges and life without parole for the third. The sentences were to be served one after the other.
McGirt appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. He argued and won that only the federal government could prosecute him.
Fast forward to August 2020, the federal government took the case, and McGirt was federally indicted on three charges for the 1996 assault. By November 2020, McGirt was tried and convicted of all three counts.
The court sentenced him to life for all three counts in August 2021. Here's our coverage from that day:
McGirt again appealed the decision in June 2023 due to a jury instruction issue.
The appellate court decided the federal court made a mistake by instructing the jury that it could consider prior inconsistent statements given within sworn testimony only for impeachment rather than for their substance.
While the appellate court said the case needed a new trial, it noted that there was enough evidence to sustain verdicts.
Court documents read, "The jury could certainly have convicted Mr. McGirt even if the court had permitted it to use the prior testimony for substantive purposes."
The trial was set for September 2023. After several continuances, it was pushed back to Dec. 11, 2023. A week before,McGirt pleaded guilty with a plea agreement. This was the first time McGirt confessed to his crimes.
The plea agreement said McGirt would be guilty of one of the three counts and serve 30 years in jail. It also recommended that he earn time served, meaning he would only have a few years of his sentence left.
Before the court could accept or reject the plea agreement, McGirt's legal team filed a motion to dismiss in March 2024 — claiming only the Muscogee Creek Nation could try him and the federal government lacked jurisdiction.
In response, the court quoted the Supreme Court saying:
"When Congress adopted the Major Crimes Act, it broke many treaty promises that had once allowed tribes like the Creek to try their own members. But, in return, Congress allowed only the federal government, not the States, to try tribal members for major crimes. All our decision today does is vindicate that replacement promise."
McGirt argued that an amendment to the Major Crimes Act in 2010 said tribes must grant jurisdiction to the federal government to try a tribal member and that the Muscogee never did that.
The court denied his motion on March 27, saying McGirt was mistaken and that the amendment was referring to state governments.
Furthermore, the court said McGirt is violating Rule 11 because he's caused unnecessary delays, needless expenses to the courts, and harassing emotional turmoil for the victims.
2 News expects the court to set a date for sentencing in the near future.
Stay in touch with us anytime, anywhere --
- Download our free app for Apple, Android and Kindle devices.
- Sign up for daily newsletters emailed to you
- Like us on Facebook
- Follow us on Instagram
- SUBSCRIBE on YouTube
