DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg

695 KB

Extraction Summary

6
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
5
Events
5
Relationships
5
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal document
File Size: 695 KB
Summary

This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.

People (6)

Name Role Context
Christopher Party in a lawsuit
Mentioned as the plaintiff/petitioner in the case Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
Burgess Party in a lawsuit
Mentioned as the plaintiff/petitioner in the case Burgess v. United States.
Schneider Party in a lawsuit
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Schneider.
Vickers Party in a lawsuit
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Vickers.
Carpenter Party in a lawsuit
Mentioned in the citation for the Carpenter case, likely a party.
Diehl Party in a lawsuit
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Diehl.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
SmithKline Beecham Corp. company
Mentioned as the defendant/respondent in the case Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
United States government agency
Mentioned as a party in the cases of Burgess v. United States, United States v. Schneider, United States v. Vickers, ...
Congress government agency
Mentioned as the legislative body that did not require actual sexual contact as an element for certain offenses.

Timeline (5 events)

2008
The ruling in Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124, 131 n.3.
U.S. Supreme Court
2012
The ruling in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 162.
U.S. Supreme Court
2014-05-08
The ruling in United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA), 2014 WL 1838255.
W.D.N.Y.
2015
The ruling in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 197.
3d Cir.
2015
The ruling in United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 720.
5th Cir.

Locations (3)

Location Context
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided United States v. Schneider.
The Western District of New York, where the case United States v. Vickers was heard.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided United States v. Diehl.

Relationships (5)

Christopher legal adversary SmithKline Beecham Corp.
The document cites the case Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
Burgess legal adversary United States
The document cites the case Burgess v. United States.
United States legal adversary Schneider
The document cites the case United States v. Schneider.
United States legal adversary Vickers
The document cites the case United States v. Vickers.
United States legal adversary Diehl
The document cites the case United States v. Diehl.

Key Quotes (5)

"illustrative, not exhaustive."
Source
— Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. court (Quoted to describe a legal definition.)
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
Quote #1
"involving"
Source
— Section 3283 (Used to describe the scope of crimes related to the sexual abuse of a child covered by the statute.)
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
Quote #2
"as defined here encompasses a wider set of behavior than just rape or other unwanted sexual touching."
Source
— United States v. Schneider court (A quote defining the expansive nature of sexual abuse in the context of the law.)
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
Quote #3
"a sexual act between a defendant and a specific child"
Source
— United States v. Vickers court (A phrase describing an element that is not required for Section 3283 to apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
Quote #4
"physical contact with the victim"
Source
— Carpenter case (A phrase describing an element that is not required for Section 3283 to apply.)
DOJ-OGR-00021705.jpg
Quote #5

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (1,780 characters)

Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page58 of 93
45
illustrative, not exhaustive.” Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142, 162 (2012) (citing Burgess v. United States, 552 U.S. 124, 131 n.3 (2008)). And the text of Section 3283 goes even further beyond the definition provided in Section 3509 by covering any crime “involving” the sexual abuse of a child. Congress therefore did not require that a particular statute have actual sexual contact with a minor as an element of its offense, but rather swept broadly to cover any crime that in any way involves sexual abuse as broadly defined. Given this expansive language, sexual abuse “as defined here encompasses a wider set of behavior than just rape or other unwanted sexual touching.” United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 197 (3d Cir. 2015). Thus, courts throughout the country have concluded that Section 3283 applies to a variety of offenses that do not require “a sexual act between a defendant and a specific child,” United States v. Vickers, No. 13 Cr. 128 (RJA), 2014 WL 1838255, at *11 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014), or “physical contact with the victim,” Carpenter, 680 F.3d at 1103; accord United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 720 (5th Cir. 2015).
Section 3283’s definition thus captures crimes of intent where a perpetrator seeks to have a minor engage in sexual contact even if such sexual contact does not occur. Transportation of a minor with intent to engage in an illegal sex act (as charged in Count Four) and conspiracy to commit the same (as charged in Count Three) fall comfortably within that definition. Even though a completed sex act is not required to commit those two crimes, Count Four has “sexual abuse” as an element because it requires the defendant to
DOJ-OGR-00021705

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document