United States v. Arthur Jones and Preston M. Jeter

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that compliance with section 1867(e) “is 21 necessary to question the validity of a plan adopted and approved pursuant to the [JSSA]”
• concluding that defendants could not challenge jury panel when they did not file motion with sworn statement of facts as required by § 1867(d)
• “[T]he court’s instruction correctly left the factual element—the locus of the crime—to the jury, while reserving the question of law— whether the federal government had accepted jurisdiction—to itself.”
• “[T]he court’s instruction correctly left the factual element – the locus of the crime – to the jury, while reserving the question of law – whether the federal government had accepted jurisdiction – to itself.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).