DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
663 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
663 KB
Summary
This page from a legal brief (dated Feb 28, 2023) argues that the District Court erroneously relied on the non-controlling case *Weingarten v. U.S.* regarding the statute of limitations (specifically § 3283 vs § 3282) and Mann Act violations. The text analyzes the legislative history of the 2003 amendment to argue that the statute was intended for cases involving the actual abduction and rape of a child, distinguishing it from crimes that do not categorically involve minor abuse.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Appellant/Defendant |
The party whose interpretation is being corroborated by the legislative history.
|
| Weingarten | Petitioner in cited case |
Referenced in the case citation Weingarten v. U.S.; his legal representation is discussed.
|
| Petitioner's trial counsel | Attorney |
Counsel for Weingarten, discussed regarding potentially deficient representation.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court |
The lower court whose decision is being critiqued.
|
|
| Second Circuit Court of Appeals |
Referred to as 'this Court' and '2d Cir.', the court hearing the current appeal.
|
|
| Government |
The prosecution entity.
|
|
| U.S. House of Representatives |
Implied by citation H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-66.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Relationships (1)
District Court relied almost exclusively on an inapposite decision from this Court, Weingarten v. U.S.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Joint Report accompanying the 2003 amendment to this provision opined that the prior statute of limitations would not go far enough to allow the Government to prosecute “a person who abducted and raped a child.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #1
"This legislative history makes no mention of crimes, such as Mann Act violations, that do not categorically involve the actual abuse of minors."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #2
"The District Court conceded, as it had to, that Weingarten is not controlling (A147), but it essentially and erroneously treated Weingarten as though it were."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #3
"“[i]t was not obvious at the time of Weingarten’s motion to dismiss, nor is it today, that a court must apply a categorical approach, rather than a fact-specific analysis, to determine whether an offense is subject to § 3282 or § 3283.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021111.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document