DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
629 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
629 KB
Summary
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, presents an argument regarding the application of Section 3283 to charges against Maxwell for transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity. Maxwell contends the statute doesn't apply because a completed sex act isn't an element of the charge, but the document counters that trial evidence, including testimony from a victim named Jane, established that her offenses did involve completed sex acts. A footnote adds that Judge Nathan found another charge, Count Six, to be timely based on the retroactive application of a different statute, § 3299.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Landgraf | Party in a cited legal case |
Mentioned as part of a legal test or precedent ('step two of Landgraf').
|
| Weingarten | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55' for a legal principle.
|
| Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
The subject of the legal argument, arguing that Section 3283 does not apply to counts against her.
|
| Jane | Witness/Victim |
Mentioned as having testified against Maxwell.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Mentioned in a footnote as having made a finding regarding the timeliness of Count Six.
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | government agency |
Mentioned in a footnote as arguing a legal point regarding Count Six.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states that 'Jane testified that she was' (implying she was a victim of Maxwell's actions) and that Maxwell's crimes involved 'abusing one or more minor victims'.
The document outlines Maxwell's legal arguments against the charges and mentions the Government's counter-arguments in a footnote.
Key Quotes (3)
"If [a statute] would not [create impermissible retroactive effects], then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct."Source
— Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55
(Quoted as a legal principle supporting the retroactive application of Section 3283.)
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
Quote #1
"offense involving the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child."Source
— Statute (Section 3283)
(A legal definition from Section 3283 that Maxwell argues does not apply to her charges.)
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
Quote #2
"like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run"Source
— A.196 (court document)
(Cited in a footnote as a conclusion supporting the retroactive application of § 3299.)
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,571 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page55 of 93
42
step two of Landgraf is satisfied, and Section 3283 applies retroactively. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (“If [a statute] would not [create impermissible retroactive effects], then the court shall apply the statute to antecedent conduct.”). Accordingly, the charges were timely.10
2. Section 3283 Reaches Counts Three and Four
Maxwell separately argues that Section 3283 does not apply to Counts Three and Four because neither is an “offense involving the sexual or physical abuse . . . of a child.” Maxwell contends that these counts, which charged her with transporting a minor with intent that the minor engage in illegal sexual activity, and conspiracy to do the same, are not offenses involving the sexual abuse of a child because a completed sex act is not an essential element of either charge. But Maxwell does not dispute that the evidence at trial established that her commission of Counts Three and Four involved completed sex acts abusing one or more minor victims. Nor could she, as Jane testified that she was
10 As the Government argued below, and as Judge Nathan found, Count Six is also timely under 18 U.S.C. § 3299, which eliminated the statute of limitations for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1591 in 2006, and which also applies retroactively under Landgraf for the same reasons discussed above with respect to Section 3283. (A.196 (concluding that, “like § 3283, § 3299 applies retroactively to offenses for which the previous limitations period has not yet run”)).
DOJ-OGR-00021702
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document