United States v. Mitchell-Hunter

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 Confrontation Clause does not necessitate a pretrial hearing to consider whether a vessel is subject to United States jurisdiction within the meaning of the MDLEA
• noting that defendant \d[id] not point to a single case extending the right to confrontation beyond the context of trial\
• stating that jurisdiction under the MDLEA may be established \any time prior to trial\ (emphasis added)
• collecting \extensive case law declining to apply the confrontation right to various pre- and post-trial proceedings\
• applying the abuse- of-discretion standard to address whether a challenge to MDLEA jurisdiction required an evidentiary hearing
• requiring defendants to make “a sufficient threshold showing that material facts were in doubt or dispute” to get an evidentiary hearing on a challenge to jurisdiction under the MDLEA (citation modified)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).