should have been submitted for determination by the jury. Because Defendants objected to the district court’s response — that jurisdiction was no concern for the jury — to the jury’s question, we can no longer review the district court’s failure to instruct the jury on the jurisdictional element just for plain error. Instead, we must review the entire jury charge, including the judge’s response to the jury question, to determine if the issues of law were presented accurately. See United States v. Turner, 871 F.2d 1574, 1578 (11th Cir.1989). The government argues that whether the jurisdictional element under 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903 is a question of fact for the jury or one of law for the court is debatable. See United States v. Mena, 863 F.2d 1522, 1532-33 & n. 8 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rojas, 53 F.3d 1212, 1215 n.
recognizing the conflict recognizing conflict between prior precedents on whether jurisdiction is question of law or fact holding it is a question of fact recognizing conflict recognizing conflict between circuits