Whether an indictment defect can strip federal courts of jurisdiction

Question Presented for Review 1. After Jackson was charged with and convicted of unlawful firearm possession, this Court overturned near-unanimous circuit authority by holding the government must prove the defendant knew at the time of alleged possession that he belonged to the category of persons barred from possessing a firearm. Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019). This Court emphasized the critical distinction between innocent and criminal conduct turns on the defendant’s mental state. Yet Jackson’s indictment failed to charge this essential mens rea element, necessary to establish a federal crime. Should this Court grant review to resolve the circuit split over whether an indictment “defect,” such as omission of the element necessary to render conduct criminal, can ever strip federal courts of jurisdiction? 2. The Speedy Trial Act prohibits trial continuances for “lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(C). Here, however, the Ninth Circuit affirmed Jackson’s conviction finding he was not deprived of his statutory or constitutional rights to speedy trial after a continuance was granted over his objection as a remedy for a discovery violation. Should this Court grant review to correct the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation that 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(C) does not include delay caused by government agencies? ii