American Indian Culture and Research Journal

For several weeks in 1994, I observed a federal court case held to determine the treaty rights of Washington state tribes to take shellfish-broadly defined to include all marine life other than fin fish. Having been an expert witness in other subproceedings of this same United States v. Washington (also known as the Boldt Case), I was particularly interested to watch and examine an important case as a non-participant. I was also a known quantity to the Native, or plaintiff, side and thus was able to overcome the great suspicion, or virtual paranoia, characteristic of such trials. Having seen and overheard racially charged expressions by non-Natives in the courtroom, I realized how justified these psychological defenses are. Herein, my aim is simply to present an ethnography of the trial, as I understood it with the help of friends and legal advisers, giving special attention to the terminology and ideology used throughout. Description and discussion of the event is divided into three parts. The trial led to the court’s memorandum decision and order of 20 December 1994, a week-long hearing on the decision’s implementation. Later, the court’s decision on 28 August 1995 turned on the issue of equity, or equitable factors, and compromised tribal hopes. Until that time, the judge had scrupulously upheld the priority of treaty over other rights, giving tribes a sense of fair hearing. Of particular note was a statement by the judge, in which he summarized his understanding of the legal issues, an unheard of revelation.