Whether preventing a defendant from testifying on the sole disputed element of an offense, his subjective intent, amounts to structural constitutional error requiring reversal?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Igor Polshyn’s case presents the following questions: 1. Whether preventing a defendant from testifying on the sole disputed element of an offense, his subjective intent, amounts to structural constitutional error requiring reversal? 2. Whether prosecution under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”) of a foreign citizen who was traveling on a vessel in international waters and whose offense had no nexus to the United States violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment? i