DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg

724 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court opinion / appellate decision (page 15)
File Size: 724 KB
Summary

This is page 15 of an appellate court decision (likely the Second Circuit) dated September 17, 2024, affirming legal interpretations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The court rejects Maxwell's argument regarding the statute of limitations for Counts Three, Four, and Six, citing the 'facts of the case' approach over the 'categorical approach' and referencing testimony from a victim named 'Jane' regarding interstate transportation and sexual abuse.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Maxwell Defendant/Appellant
Argues that Counts Three, Four, and Six are barred by the statute of limitations.
Jane Victim/Witness
Testified at trial that she was sexually abused when transported across state lines as a minor.

Organizations (3)

Name Type Context
Supreme Court
Referenced in citations (Taylor v. United States, Landgraf v. USI Film Products).
Congress
Mentioned regarding legislative history and intent of § 3283.
Department of Justice
Inferred from footer 'DOJ-OGR'.

Timeline (2 events)

2003
Amendment to § 3283 providing extended statute of limitations.
USA
Unknown (Trial)
Jane testified regarding sexual abuse.
Court

Relationships (1)

Jane Accuser/Accused Maxwell
Jane testified at trial regarding abuse relevant to the counts against Maxwell.

Key Quotes (3)

"Jane, one of the women who testified at trial, gave evidence that she had been sexually abused when transported across state lines as a minor."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell argues that Counts Three, Four, and Six of the Indictment are barred by the statute of limitations because the extended statute of limitations provided by the 2003 amendment to § 3283 does not apply to pre-enactment conduct."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
Quote #2
"Counts Three and Four thus qualify as offenses, and § 3283 applies to those offenses."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00000016.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,115 characters)

Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, Page15 of 26
approach as opposed to a "categorical approach."22 We see no reason to depart from our reasoning in Weingarten. Accordingly, the question presented here is whether the charged offenses involved the sexual abuse of a minor for the purposes of § 3283 based on the facts of the case. Jane, one of the women who testified at trial, gave evidence that she had been sexually abused when transported across state lines as a minor. Counts Three and Four thus qualify as offenses, and § 3283 applies to those offenses.
Second, Maxwell argues that Counts Three, Four, and Six of the Indictment are barred by the statute of limitations because the extended statute of limitations provided by the 2003 amendment to § 3283 does not apply to pre-enactment conduct. In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, the Supreme Court held that a court, in deciding whether a statute applies retroactively, must first "determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach."23 If Congress has done so, "the inquiry ends, and the court enforces the
__________________________________________________________________
22 The "categorical approach" is a method of statutory interpretation that requires courts to look "only to the statutory definitions of the prior offenses, and not to the particular facts underlying those convictions" for sentencing and immigration purposes. Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 600 (1990). We properly reasoned in Weingarten that § 3283 met none of the conditions listed by Taylor that might require application of the categorical approach. See Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 58-60. First, "[t]he language of § 3283[] . . . reaches beyond the offense and its legal elements to the conduct 'involv[ed]' in the offense." Id. at 59-60. Second, legislative history suggests that Congress intended § 3283 to be applied broadly. Id. at 60. Third, a case-specific approach would not produce practical difficulties or potential unfairness. Id.
23 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994); see also Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 54-55.
15
DOJ-OGR-00000016

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document