This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
For the second time, prosecutors in Uintah County have dismissed assault charges against an American Indian whose case helped reignite a long-running jurisdictional feud between the Ute Tribe and two Utah counties.
The dismissal of Keith Blackhair's case comes in the wake of an appeals court ruling that scolded Utah prosecutors for going after Ute tribal members who commit crimes on Indian land — a place where they have no jurisdiction.
It's one of about two dozen cases Uintah County Attorney Mark Thomas said his office will now review.
In 2009, Blackhair was accused of beating a man along a Uintah County back road within the old Uncompahgre Reservation boundaries in 2009 and charged in Vernal's 8th District Court.
Prosecutors initially agreed to drop the case, so federal prosecutors could take over. In 2012, Blackhair pleaded guilty in federal court and was sentenced to several months in prison.
But soon after Blackhair's plea deal, Uintah County refiled its case. Blackhair's attorney, Ron Yengich, asked for a dismissal, arguing that the state lacked authority to prosecute his client in Indian Country.
The case has been on hold since 2013, after the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation sued several Utah counties, claiming each prosecuted crimes in areas where only the federal government and the Ute Tribal Court can bring charges.
The Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the tribe in June, saying that the court long ago had ruled that tribal land was off-limits to state officials. Justices added that the appeal was a "reminder" to state and county officials to respect and accept previous rulings — and to expect court sanctions if they don't.
Thomas said Tuesday's dismissal of the Blackhair case was only partially driven by the 10th Circuit's conclusions.
"It wasn't [the] exclusive [reason] though," he said Thursday. "The case has been in the process since 2009 and the availability of witnesses has been diminished. So the evidence is not the same that it would have been at an earlier stage and time frame. … We just felt that it was the appropriate time to dismiss that case."
The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning prosecutors won't be able to file charges against Blackhair again in connection with the 2009 assault.
The boundary dispute examined by the 10th Circuit dates back nearly 40 years — to a lawsuit filed by the Ute Tribe against the state of Utah and several local governments.
In that case, the appeals court found the tribe retained jurisdiction over three regions in dispute: the Uncompahgre Reservation, the Uintah Valley Reservation and some national forest areas.
The state and local governments appealed, but when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, "that should have been the end of the matter," appeals court Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote in the June ruling.
It wasn't.
Instead, state officials began prosecuting tribal members for alleged crimes within the tribal boundaries set by the 10th Circuit, setting off more litigation. Eventually, the Denver court said one of the three contested areas — the Uintah Valley Reservation — was no longer under tribal jurisdiction.
"Naturally, the state wanted more," Gorsuch wrote. "It asked this court to extend [that] reasoning to the national forest and Uncompahgre lands," too.
The 10th Circuit refused, but the local governments once again began prosecuting tribal members for alleged crimes inside those boundaries, Gorsuch wrote.
"The time has come to respect the peace and repose promised by settled decisions," the opinion reads. "In the event our hope proves misplaced and the defendants persist in failing to respect the [previous] rulings ... they may expect to meet with sanctions in the district court or in this one."
The appellate court's ruling only reinstated a preliminary injunction, which means U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins will now be tasked to decide whether the injunction will become permanent.
Thomas said an Aug. 31 pretrial conference date has been set in that matter.
Twitter: @jm_miller