DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
667 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
3
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
667 KB
Summary
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, particularly in the context of criminal law. It references several court cases and legal principles, arguing that statutes of limitations should not be applied retroactively unless Congress clearly states otherwise.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Rakoff | Judge |
Judge Rakoff in this circuit observed that an expansion of a statute of limitation is "retroactive"
|
| Morales |
Morales v. Irizarry, 976 F.Supp. 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
|
|
| Irizarry |
Morales v. Irizarry, 976 F.Supp. 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)
|
|
| Scharton |
quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522
|
|
| Gentile |
See U.S. v. Gentile
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government Agency |
agreeing with Government's concession
|
| Congress | Legislative Body |
unless Congress has clearly stated that it should
|
Key Quotes (4)
"retroactive"Source
— Judge Rakoff
(Judge Rakoff in this circuit observed that an expansion of a statute of limitation is "retroactive" if it applies to past conduct)
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
Quote #1
"In the absence of some such legislative indication, such a retroactive expansion of a substantive provision like the statute of limitations will not be presumed"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
Quote #2
"presumption against retroactive legislation"Source
— Landgraf
(But Landgraf's "presumption against retroactive legislation," which is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence,)
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
Quote #3
"criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of respose.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021121.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,609 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page74 of 113
3656027, at *1 & n.1 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) (agreeing with Government's
concession that the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, Pub.L. 109-248, 120 Stat.
587 (Jul. 27, 2006) (codified in relevant part at § 3299), which abolished the statute
of limitations for certain offenses against minors, did not apply retroactively to
allow prosecution of defendant under the Mann Act, even though the prior five-
year statute of limitations had not yet expired).
concession that the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, Pub.L. 109-248, 120 Stat.
587 (Jul. 27, 2006) (codified in relevant part at § 3299), which abolished the statute
of limitations for certain offenses against minors, did not apply retroactively to
allow prosecution of defendant under the Mann Act, even though the prior five-
year statute of limitations had not yet expired).
Judge Rakoff in this circuit observed that an expansion of a statute of
limitation is "retroactive" if it applies to past conduct, even when it merely extends
the time to bring an action that is not yet time-barred. Morales v. Irizarry, 976
F.Supp. 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 279) ("In the
absence of some such legislative indication, such a retroactive expansion of a
substantive provision like the statute of limitations will not be presumed").
Morales was a civil case. But Landgraf's "presumption against retroactive
legislation," which is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence," 511 U.S. at 265,
applies with even stronger force in the criminal context. Unlike civil statutes,
"criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of respose."'
Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). See U.S. v. Gentile,
235 F.Supp.3d 649, 655 (D.N.J. 2017). Consequently, the extension of a criminal
statute of limitations will not apply to pre-enactment conduct unless Congress has
clearly stated that it should.
limitation is "retroactive" if it applies to past conduct, even when it merely extends
the time to bring an action that is not yet time-barred. Morales v. Irizarry, 976
F.Supp. 256, 258 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 279) ("In the
absence of some such legislative indication, such a retroactive expansion of a
substantive provision like the statute of limitations will not be presumed").
Morales was a civil case. But Landgraf's "presumption against retroactive
legislation," which is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence," 511 U.S. at 265,
applies with even stronger force in the criminal context. Unlike civil statutes,
"criminal limitations statutes are 'to be liberally interpreted in favor of respose."'
Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). See U.S. v. Gentile,
235 F.Supp.3d 649, 655 (D.N.J. 2017). Consequently, the extension of a criminal
statute of limitations will not apply to pre-enactment conduct unless Congress has
clearly stated that it should.
59
DOJ-OGR-00021121
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document