. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "172800.0"^^ . . . "Breyer"@en . . . . . . . "United States v. Lara"@en . "Scalia"@en . . . . . "43375"^^ . "United States v. Billy Jo Lara"@en . . "--05-11"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "24573947"^^ . . . . "United States v. Lara"@en . "El caso Estados Unidos contra Lara, vol. 541, p\u00E1g.193 (2004), fue un caso de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos por la cual dicho pa\u00EDs y una tribu nativa americana (india) pod\u00EDan procesar a un indio por actos que constitu\u00EDan un delito en ambas jurisdicciones. El Tribunal estim\u00F3 que los Estados Unidos y la tribu eran soberan\u00EDas separadas, por lo que no se violaba la Double Jeopardy Clause (\"Cl\u00E1usula de doble riesgo\"), seg\u00FAn la cual no se pod\u00EDa procesar a una persona dos veces por el mismo delito.\u200B En la d\u00E9cada de 1880, el congreso aprob\u00F3 el Major Crimes Act (\"Ley de cr\u00EDmenes graves\"), que privaba a las tribus de competencia penal con relaci\u00F3n a varios delitos graves. En 1990, la Corte Suprema dictamin\u00F3 en el caso Duro contra Reina que una tribu india carec\u00EDa de autoridad para procesar a un indio sin ser \u00E9ste miembro de la tribu. Al a\u00F1o siguiente, el congreso aprob\u00F3 una ley que reconoc\u00EDa la autoridad de las tribus indias para enjuiciar a indios no miembros por cr\u00EDmenes cometidos dentro de la jurisdicci\u00F3n territorial de la tribu, debido a su soberan\u00EDa inherente. Al reo, Billy Jo Lara, se le acusaba de actos considerados delito tanto por las leyes de la tribu Spirit Lake Sioux como por el C\u00F3digo federal de los Estados Unidos. Lara se declar\u00F3 a s\u00ED mismo culpable de los cargos tribales, pero reivindic\u00F3 el principio de \"non bis in \u00EDdem\"(double jeopardy en EE. UU.) ante los cargos federales. El Tribunal Supremo resolvi\u00F3 que el double jeopardy no se aplicaba a Lara, ya que \"los cargos los presentaban por separado dos \u00F3rganos soberanos distintos\".\u200B"@es . . . . . . "United States v. Billy Jo Lara"@en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "2004"^^ . . . . . "Stevens"@en . "United States v. Lara,"@en . . . . "As an Indian tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns, prosecuting a crime under both tribal and federal law does not attach double jeopardy."@en . . . . . . . . "--01-21"^^ . . . . . . . . "Kennedy"@en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "Thomas"@en . . "--04-19"^^ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "U.S. Const. Art. II, \u00A72; U.S. Const. amend. V;"@en . . . . . . . . . . . "541"^^ . . "Estados Unidos contra Lara"@es . . . . . "Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, Ginsburg"@en . . . . . . . . . . . "2004"^^ . . "El caso Estados Unidos contra Lara, vol. 541, p\u00E1g.193 (2004), fue un caso de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos por la cual dicho pa\u00EDs y una tribu nativa americana (india) pod\u00EDan procesar a un indio por actos que constitu\u00EDan un delito en ambas jurisdicciones. El Tribunal estim\u00F3 que los Estados Unidos y la tribu eran soberan\u00EDas separadas, por lo que no se violaba la Double Jeopardy Clause (\"Cl\u00E1usula de doble riesgo\"), seg\u00FAn la cual no se pod\u00EDa procesar a una persona dos veces por el mismo delito.\u200B"@es . . . . . "193"^^ . . . . . . . "United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. In the 1880s, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, divesting tribes of criminal jurisdiction in regard to several felony crimes. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled in Duro v. Reina that an Indian tribe did not have the authority to try an Indian criminally who was not a member of that tribe. The following year, Congress passed a law that stated that Indian tribes, because of their inherent sovereignty, had the authority to try non-member Indians for crimes committed within the tribe's territorial jurisdiction. The defendant, Billy Jo Lara, was charged for acts that were criminal offenses under both the Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe's laws and the federal United States Code. Lara pleaded guilty to the tribal charges, but claimed double jeopardy against the federal charges. The Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy did not apply to Lara since \"the successive prosecutions were brought by separate and distinct sovereign bodies\"."@en . . "1114047927"^^ . . . "Souter"@en . . . . . . "United States v. Lara, 541 U.S. 193 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case which held that both the United States and a Native American (Indian) tribe could prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions. The Court held that the United States and the tribe were separate sovereigns; therefore, separate tribal and federal prosecutions did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause."@en .