DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
650 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
1
Organizations
4
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
1
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
650 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses the court's reasoning for why the sex trafficking charges against Maxwell are not time-barred. The court argues that U.S. Code § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, citing several other district court decisions. The document also addresses Maxwell's motion to dismiss certain counts as multiplicitous, concluding that such a motion is premature at the pretrial stage.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout as the subject of legal motions regarding limitations periods and multiplicitous charges.
|
| Nader | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Nader'.
|
| Pierre-Louis | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Pierre-Louis'.
|
| Vickers | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Vickers'.
|
| Sensi | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Sensi'.
|
| Josephberg | Defendant in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'United States v. Josephberg'.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Party in several cited legal cases, such as 'United States v. Nader'.
|
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the court in the 'United States v. Nader' case citation.
|
|
|
Location of the court in the 'United States v. Pierre-Louis' case citation.
|
|
|
Location of the court in the 'United States v. Vickers' case citation.
|
|
|
Location of the court in the 'United States v. Sensi' case citation.
|
Relationships (1)
The document details legal arguments between Maxwell (the defendant) and the Government (the prosecution) in a criminal case.
Key Quotes (1)
"other law[s]"Source
— Unknown
(Used to describe laws of limitation that would otherwise bar prosecution for certain offenses.)
DOJ-OGR-00020818.jpg
Quote #1
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,170 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page200 of 208
A-196
A-196
applicable limitations period has not yet run – offenses that by definition are those for which
“other law[s]” of limitation would otherwise bar prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. Moreover,
as the Court also explained, not only does this kind of language unambiguously require
retroactivity, it also does not result in any impermissible retroactive effects so long as it does not
revive time-barred claims. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *7-8. The Court therefore joins
multiple other district courts in concluding that, like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to
offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run. See United States v. Nader,
425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 629 (E.D. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM),
2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A,
2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253
(WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010).
The sex trafficking charges are therefore not time-barred. Regardless of whether it was
the general five-year limitations period in § 3282(a) or the extended limitations period for sexual
abuse of minors in § 3283 that was applicable to Maxwell’s alleged conduct prior to the
enactment of § 3299 in 2006, neither had expired by that date. Thus, as Maxwell does not
contest, § 3299 applies retroactively to the sex trafficking offenses in the indictment and the
Government is permitted to bring those charges without time limitation.
IV. Maxwell’s motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as
multiplicitous is premature
In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that either count one or count three of the S1
indictment, the Mann Act conspiracy charges, must be dismissed because the counts are
multiplicitous. In the Court’s April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court joined many other
courts in this Circuit holding that pretrial motions of this sort are premature in light of United
States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), and the Court dismissed without
“other law[s]” of limitation would otherwise bar prosecution. See 18 U.S.C. § 3299. Moreover,
as the Court also explained, not only does this kind of language unambiguously require
retroactivity, it also does not result in any impermissible retroactive effects so long as it does not
revive time-barred claims. Maxwell, 2021 WL 1518675, at *7-8. The Court therefore joins
multiple other district courts in concluding that, like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to
offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run. See United States v. Nader,
425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 629 (E.D. Va. 2019); United States v. Pierre-Louis, No. 16 CR 541 (CM),
2018 WL 4043140, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018); United States v. Vickers, No. 13-CR-128-A,
2014 WL 1838255, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014); United States v. Sensi, No. 3:08-CR-253
(WWE), 2010 WL 2351484, at *3 (D. Conn. June 7, 2010).
The sex trafficking charges are therefore not time-barred. Regardless of whether it was
the general five-year limitations period in § 3282(a) or the extended limitations period for sexual
abuse of minors in § 3283 that was applicable to Maxwell’s alleged conduct prior to the
enactment of § 3299 in 2006, neither had expired by that date. Thus, as Maxwell does not
contest, § 3299 applies retroactively to the sex trafficking offenses in the indictment and the
Government is permitted to bring those charges without time limitation.
IV. Maxwell’s motion to dismiss count five and either count one or count three as
multiplicitous is premature
In her previous motions, Maxwell argued that either count one or count three of the S1
indictment, the Mann Act conspiracy charges, must be dismissed because the counts are
multiplicitous. In the Court’s April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court joined many other
courts in this Circuit holding that pretrial motions of this sort are premature in light of United
States v. Josephberg, 459 F.3d 350, 355 (2d Cir. 2006), and the Court dismissed without
9
DOJ-OGR-00020818
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document