DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
656 KB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
656 KB
Summary
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against the retroactive application of a 2003 Amendment to the alleged offenses of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that Congressional intent was clear in rejecting retroactivity and that applying the amendment would have impermissible effects. The argument is supported by legal precedents, including Landgraf, Toussie, and Gentile, which favor interpreting criminal statutes of limitation in a way that provides 'repose' for the defendant.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant (implied) |
Mentioned as the subject of the legal argument regarding the application of the 2003 Amendment to her alleged offenses.
|
| Weingarten |
Cited as a legal case precedent related to the retroactivity of the 2003 Amendment.
|
|
| Landgraf |
Cited as a legal case precedent establishing a two-step analysis for retroactivity.
|
|
| Toussie |
Cited as a legal case precedent regarding the interpretation of criminal limitations statutes.
|
|
| Scharton |
Cited within the Toussie case precedent.
|
|
| Gentile |
Cited as a defendant in the case United States v. Gentile.
|
|
| Pierre-Louis |
Cited as a defendant in the case United States v. Pierre-Louis.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a bill that would have made the 2003 Amendment retroactive.
|
| Senate | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of a bill that did not make the 2003 Amendment retroactive.
|
| Court | government agency |
Referenced as the judicial body hearing the case.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as the plaintiff in the case names 'United States v. Gentile' and 'United States v. Pierre-Louis'.
|
| DOJ | government agency |
Appears in the footer as part of a document identifier (DOJ-OGR-00002663).
|
Timeline (4 events)
2017
2018-08-09
The date of the United States v. Pierre-Louis case cited in the footnote.
S.D.N.Y.
Relationships (1)
The document mentions "the defendant's counsel" in relation to arguments made on behalf of the defendant, who is identified as Ms. Maxwell.
Key Quotes (3)
"colorable"Source
— defendant's counsel (hypothetically)
(Describing arguments that could have been made that there was no express prescription for the 2003 Amendment to be retroactive.)
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
Quote #1
"criminal limitations statutes are ‘to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.’"Source
— Toussie case (quoting Scharton)
(Stating the legal principle for interpreting criminal statutes of limitation.)
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
Quote #2
"must interpret the statute of limitations in a manner favoring repose for Defendant."Source
— United States v. Gentile court
(A court's conclusion on how to interpret statutes of limitation when considering Landgraf and Toussie together.)
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,971 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 15 of 25
had expressly prescribed that the 2003 Amendment would not be retroactive; Weingarten
considered only whether there was an express prescription that the 2003 Amendment would be
retroactive, concluding that the defendant’s counsel could have made “colorable” arguments that
there was no such prescription. Id. at 58.3
considered only whether there was an express prescription that the 2003 Amendment would be
retroactive, concluding that the defendant’s counsel could have made “colorable” arguments that
there was no such prescription. Id. at 58.3
Congressional intent here could not be clearer. The House bill would have made the
2003 Amendment retroactive, the Senate bill did not, and the conference consciously rejected the
retroactivity provision. It is unnecessary to proceed to the second Landgraf step, and Counts
One through Four are time-barred.
2003 Amendment retroactive, the Senate bill did not, and the conference consciously rejected the
retroactivity provision. It is unnecessary to proceed to the second Landgraf step, and Counts
One through Four are time-barred.
B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell’s alleged
offenses would have impermissible effects.
offenses would have impermissible effects.
If the Court were to proceed to the second Landgraf step—whether application of the
2003 Amendment here would have an impermissible retroactive effect—that step also counsels
against retroactivity.
2003 Amendment here would have an impermissible retroactive effect—that step also counsels
against retroactivity.
Any analysis of the retroactivity of a criminal statute of limitations under the second step
of Landgraf must be undertaken in conjunction with the principle that unlike civil statutes of
limitation, “criminal limitations statutes are ‘to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.’”
Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). As one court recognized in
declining to extend a criminal statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct, if Landgraf and
Toussie “are read in conjunction,” courts “must interpret the statute of limitations in a manner
favoring repose for Defendant.” United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649, 655 (D.N.J.
2017).
of Landgraf must be undertaken in conjunction with the principle that unlike civil statutes of
limitation, “criminal limitations statutes are ‘to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.’”
Toussie, 397 U.S. at 115 (quoting Scharton, 285 U.S. at 522). As one court recognized in
declining to extend a criminal statute of limitations to pre-enactment conduct, if Landgraf and
Toussie “are read in conjunction,” courts “must interpret the statute of limitations in a manner
favoring repose for Defendant.” United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649, 655 (D.N.J.
2017).
3 Nor was this clear evidence of congressional intent raised or considered in United States v. Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL
4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018), which the government cites in support of its contention that the 2003
Amendment may be applied retroactively. Gov. Mem. at 6.
4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018), which the government cites in support of its contention that the 2003
Amendment may be applied retroactively. Gov. Mem. at 6.
9
DOJ-OGR-00002663
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document