Corruption in Indian Country: Defending Against Federal Charges

Day 4 of a 5-Part Series

When people think of corruption cases, they often imagine the evidence is obvious and the outcome is inevitable. In reality, these cases are rarely that simple.

As someone who prosecuted corruption cases in Indian Country and now defends them, I have seen how fragile these cases can be once they are tested in court. The government usually builds them with paperwork, audits, and witness statements, but that evidence is not always as strong as it looks on the surface.

Jurisdiction

One of the first places to challenge a corruption case is jurisdiction. The government almost always leans on federal funding to claim authority under laws like 18 U.S.C. § 666. But the details matter. Was the money in question really federal, or was it tribal money? Was the transaction actually connected to the federal program, or was the government stretching the statute to cover it? Those are not academic questions — they can change the entire outcome of the case.

The Evidence

Audits and financial reports form the backbone of most prosecutions. When I was a prosecutor, I relied heavily on them. Now, as defense counsel, I often find that the numbers are wrong or that the auditors made assumptions that don’t hold up under scrutiny.

A simple bookkeeping error, or even a difference in how accounts were labeled, can be twisted into something that looks criminal when it really is not. Defense work often means slowing down the rush to judgment and showing a jury the full picture.

Politics and Selective Prosecution

Another layer in Indian Country is politics. Many of these cases begin with internal disputes or rivalries within tribal governments. I have seen situations where accusations of corruption were really about power struggles, and those accusations were handed to federal investigators.

Defense strategy in those cases means exposing the political backdrop and reminding the court that criminal prosecutions should not be tools for settling political scores.

Cultural and Governance Context

Finally, there is the issue of context. Tribes have their own governance structures, customs, and decision-making processes. What might look suspicious to an outside auditor may be entirely normal within the tribe’s system. Explaining that context to a federal judge or jury is critical. It can turn what looks like misconduct into something far less sinister once cultural understanding is added to the picture.

Key Takeaway

Corruption cases in Indian Country are not open-and-shut. Jurisdiction, flawed audits, political motivations, and cultural context all create opportunities for defense. Having stood on both sides of the courtroom in these cases, I know how the government frames them and I know how to challenge that framing.

Tomorrow’s post will focus on what happens after conviction — how sentencing works, what collateral consequences follow, and how these cases affect tribal sovereignty and public trust long after the trial ends.