may deprive a defendant of a fair trial,” but the law “requires the defendant to make a showing of prejudice ... which [defendant] has not done”). III. Other Due Process Issues A. Limitations on Challenging the Citizenship of Balram Maharaj One of the most contested issues in this case has concerned the U.S. citizenship of Balram Maharaj because his citizenship is the basis for the case being brought in the United States, and is a key element of the offense charged. The hostage taking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1203, makes it a federal offense to seize or detain another person for ransom, but, where the conduct occurs outside the United States, requires a connection to the United States in order for jurisdiction to lie here. See United States v. Yunis, 924 F.2d 1086, 1090 (D.C.Cir. 1991) (<HOLDING>). Specifically, the statute states: It is not
holding that  1203b1 offers the bases of jurisdiction where the offense occurred outside the united states  holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that because it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the united states court of international trade the united states court of federal claims lacked jurisdiction over a matter that was protested or protestable