DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
748 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
748 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Senator Leahy | Senator |
Mentioned in the context that no intent to exclude previous perpetrators is manifest in his statement regarding a 200...
|
| Maxwell | Party to the case |
Mentioned as the subject whose rights, liabilities, and duties are being discussed in relation to the retroactive app...
|
| Cruz |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Cruz v. Maypa'.
|
|
| Maypa |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Cruz v. Maypa'.
|
|
| Vernon |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the case citation 'Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Discussed as the legislative body that passed an amendment in 2003 and whose intent is being analyzed.
|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Cited for its explanation of the Landgraf analysis regarding the retroactive effects of statutes.
|
| Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist. | school district |
Mentioned as a party in the case citation 'Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist.'.
|
| DOJ-OGR | government agency |
Appears in the footer of the document with a document number (DOJ-OGR-00002993).
|
Key Quotes (2)
"[a] statute does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment, or upsets expectations based in prior law."Source
— Supreme Court
(Quoted from the Landgraf case (511 U.S. at 269) to explain the first part of the analysis for retroactive effects of a statute.)
DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
Quote #1
"would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed."Source
— Supreme Court
(Quoted from the Landgraf case (511 U.S. at 280) to define the conditions under which a statute would have an impermissible retroactive effect.)
DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,214 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 59 of 239
defendant, in 2003, Congress wanted to ensure that every perpetrator who abused a minor in the future was subject to prosecution for the lifetime of the minor, but Congress simultaneously was content to let all previous perpetrators avoid prosecution whenever their victims turned twenty-five. No such intent is manifest in either the text or in Senator Leahy’s statement.
The reach of Section 3283 is clear. Because Congress has expressly extended the statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct, the Court should resolve its analysis at Landgraf step one and apply the statute as Congress intended. In the alternative, however, the statute is—at worst— ambiguous. If the Court takes that view, it should proceed to Landgraf step two.
The reach of Section 3283 is clear. Because Congress has expressly extended the statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct, the Court should resolve its analysis at Landgraf step one and apply the statute as Congress intended. In the alternative, however, the statute is—at worst— ambiguous. If the Court takes that view, it should proceed to Landgraf step two.
2. The 2003 Amendment Satisfies Step Two of Landgraf
If the Court were to determine that the legislative intent behind Section 3283 is ambiguous, the inquiry then extends to the second step of the Landgraf analysis, which examines the retroactive effects of the statute. As the Supreme Court explained in Landgraf, “[a] statute does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely because it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedating the statute’s enactment, or upsets expectations based in prior law.” 511 U.S. at 269. Instead, the question is whether the statute “would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley Cent. School Dist., 49 F.3d 886, 890 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280). Applying Section 3283 here would have none of those effects. Maxwell’s rights, liabilities, and duties were governed by the substantive criminal statutes governing her conduct. Until the statute of limitations expired, Maxwell had the same legal liability, the same rights, and the same incentives to retain evidence. A statute extending that period attaches no new legal consequences; rather, it preserves the status quo. Therefore, the statute does not operate “retrospectively” within the meaning of Landgraf. See Cruz v. Maypa,
32
DOJ-OGR-00002993
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document