Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fortino Alvarez v. Randy Tracy

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided August 30, 2016No. 12-15788Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Scannlain, Circuit Judge

I concur in the court’s determination that the Gila River Indian Community deliberately waived its non-exhaustion defense. I respectfully dissent, however, from the court’s conclusion that the Community denied Fortino Alvarez his “right, upon request, to a trial by jury” when Alvarez never requested a jury. Rather than analyze the scope of Alvarez’s jury-trial right under the Indian Civil Rights Act, the majority simply applies an unmoored balancing test without giving a single reason to do so.

I

As the majority recounts, in 2003 Forti-no Alvarez struck his girlfriend with a flashlight,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. United States v. LanierSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  3. Santa Clara Pueblo v. MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. Singer v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API