United States v. Danielle Lenise Brown

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the omission of an element of the charged offense is not a jurisdictional error “[s]o long as the indictment charges the defendant with violating a valid federal statute as enacted in the United States Code”
• holding failure to include mens rea element in indictment was non-jurisdictional defect waived by guilty plea
• holding “that the omission from indictment of an element of the charged 28 Case: 18-12533 Date Filed: 05/28/2020 Page: 29 of 31 offense is a non-jurisdictional defect”
• rejecting a jurisdictional challenge based on a missing mens rea element in the indictment
• rejecting a jurisdictional challenge based on a missing mens rea element in the indictment
• analyzing in detail the difference between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional defects in an indictment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).