This legal document argues that the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 is not applicable to Counts Three and Four of an indictment. The reasoning provided is that the relevant offenses, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and § 2422(a), are crimes of intent and do not require sexual abuse, physical abuse, or kidnapping as an essential element. The document cites case law, including *United States v. Broxmeyer* and *Bridges*, to support the claim that the nature of the offense, not the specific facts alleged in the indictment, determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Bridges | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case 'Bridges, 346 U.S. at 222' regarding the principle that embellishing an indictment does not extend ...
|
| Broxmeyer | Party in a legal case |
Cited in the case 'United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120, 129 n.8 (2d Cir. 2010)' to support the argument that the...
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'United States v. Broxmeyer'.
|
"with intent that the [minor] engage in . . . any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense"Source
"the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child."Source
"crime of intent and a conviction is entirely sustainable even if no underlying criminal sexual act ever occurs."Source
"The embellishment of the indictment does not lengthen the time for prosecution."Source
"[U]nder the statute[s] creating the offense[s],” physical or sexual abuse of a minor, or kidnaping, is not “an essential ingredient.”"Source
"offense[s] involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,802 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document