DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This legal document presents an argument that all charges against the Appellant should be dismissed because they are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses. The document contends that the Government's reliance on a specific exception (18 U.S.C. § 3283) for crimes against children is an overreach and warns that a broad interpretation of this statute could have significant negative consequences within the judicial circuit.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Appellant |
The individual charged with noncapital offenses, arguing that the charges are barred by the statute of limitations.
|
| Defendant | Defendant |
Referred to as the person against whom charges were brought, synonymous with 'Appellant' in this context.
|
| Toussie |
Mentioned in a case citation (Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115) regarding the interpretation of criminal limitations statutes.
|
|
| Scharton |
Mentioned in a case citation (U.S. v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (1926)) quoted in the Toussie case.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned in the context of 'Maxwell's case', suggesting the potential ramifications of the court's decision would ex...
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
The prosecuting party that is attempting to use 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to bypass the statute of limitations.
|
| District Court | government agency |
The lower court whose 'capacious reading of §3283' is being challenged.
|
| this Court | government agency |
The appellate court being addressed in this document.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The Appellant argues that all charges are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses.
this Circuit
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The judicial circuit where the case is being heard, mentioned in the context of the potential 'wide-ranging ramificat...
|
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal dispute where the Government is prosecuting the Appellant, and the Appellant is arguing that the prosecution is legally barred.
Key Quotes (2)
"principle that criminal limitations statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose."Source
— Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting U.S. v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (1926))
(A legal principle cited to argue against a broad interpretation of an exception to the statute of limitations.)
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
Quote #1
"[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer."Source
— Section 3283
(The text of the statute (18 U.S.C. § 3283) that the Government is relying on to bring charges outside the standard limitations period.)
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,456 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page56 of 113
POINT II
ALL COUNTS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
For noncapital offenses such as those with which Appellant was charged, the statute of limitations is five years. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a). It is undisputed that a 5-year limitations period would bar all charges brought against Defendant.
To escape the consequences of its delay in bringing these charges, the Government hangs its hat on 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Section 3283 is a narrow exception to the statute of limitations, but its application can expose a person to criminal prosecution during the lifetime of anyone who accuses him or her of child abuse or kidnapping. To guard against overreach, it is important to recall the well-settled “principle that criminal limitations statutes are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.” Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting U.S. v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (1926)). Indeed, the Government’s and District Court’s capacious reading of §3283 would have wide-ranging ramifications in this Circuit—beyond Maxwell’s case—if blessed by this Court.
Section 3283 provides that “[n]o statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.”
41
DOJ-OGR-00021103
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document