DOJ-OGR-00014866.jpg
621 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
621 KB
Summary
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2003 PROTECT Act's amendment to § 3283 should be applied retroactively. The document asserts that Congress's intent was to eliminate the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, even for conduct that occurred before the law was enacted, and therefore it applies to the conduct of an individual named Maxwell as charged in an indictment.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Subject of indictment |
Mentioned as the individual whose conduct, as charged in the Indictment, is subject to the PROTECT Act's amendment to...
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as the legislative body that amended § 3283 in 2003 and intended for it to apply retroactively.
|
| Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC | company |
Mentioned in a case citation in footnote 24 regarding securities litigation.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity, a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects."Source
— Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55
(A quote from a legal precedent explaining the test for statutory retroactivity.)
DOJ-OGR-00014866.jpg
Quote #1
"No 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."Source
— § 3283 as amended by the PROTECT Act
(The text of the amended statute being discussed, which eliminates the statute of limitations for certain crimes.)
DOJ-OGR-00014866.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,513 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 1780-1 Filed 03/27/24 Page 16 of 26
statute as it is written.”24 If the statute “is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity, a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects.”25
Here, the inquiry is straightforward. In 2003, Congress amended § 3283 to provide: “No 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.”26 The text of § 3283—that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of these offenses will apply—plainly requires that it prevent the application of any statute of limitations that would otherwise apply to past conduct.
The statutory text makes clear that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for pre-enactment conduct as the prior statute of limitations was inadequate. This is enough to conclude that the PROTECT Act’s amendment to § 3283 applies to Maxwell’s conduct as charged in the Indictment.
24 In re Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280).
25 Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
26 PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 202, 117 Stat. 650, 660 (2003).
16
DOJ-OGR-00014866
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document