DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
647 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion (motion to dismiss)
File Size:
647 KB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a court order filed on April 16, 2021, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text addresses the timeliness of the indictment, specifically analyzing the Statute of Limitations under the Mann Act and the PROTECT Act of 2003. The Court rejects Maxwell's argument that the charges are time-barred, concluding that the extended limitations period for offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors applies to her case.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Contending that charged offenses do not qualify under the PROTECT Act and are untimely; allegedly enticed minors to t...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Associate/Alleged Abuser |
Indictment charges that he sexually abused each of the alleged minor victims.
|
| AJN | Judge |
Initials in case number 1:20-cr-00330-AJN (Alison J. Nathan).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-04-16
Filing of Document 207 (Court Order denying dismissal based on timeliness).
Court
Relationships (1)
Maxwell allegedly enticed minors to travel or transported them for the purpose of Epstein sexually abusing them.
Key Quotes (4)
"The Court concludes that statute of limitations in the PROTECT Act applies and that the charges are timely."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
Quote #1
"Maxwell does not dispute that the facts alleged in the S1 superseding indictment involve the sexual abuse of minors."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
Quote #2
"The indictment charges that Epstein sexually abused each of the alleged minor victims and that Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel or transported them for that purpose."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
Quote #3
"Congress further extended the limitations period in the PROTECT Act of 2003... to allow prosecution any time during the life of the victim."Source
DOJ-OGR-00020768.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,140 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 57, 02/28/2023, 3475900, Page150 of 208
A-146
A-146
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 9 of 34
II. The indictment is timely
A. The indictment complies with the statute of limitations
Federal law imposes a five-year limitations period for most non-capital offenses. 18
U.S.C. § 3282(a). Recognizing the difficulty of promptly prosecuting crimes against children,
Congress has provided a longer limitations period for “offense[s] involving the sexual or
physical abuse, or kidnaping” of a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Until 2003, the operative version
of § 3283 allowed prosecution of these offenses until the victim reached the age of twenty-five.
Congress further extended the limitations period in the PROTECT Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-
21, 117 Stat. 650, to allow prosecution any time during the life of the victim.
U.S.C. § 3282(a). Recognizing the difficulty of promptly prosecuting crimes against children,
Congress has provided a longer limitations period for “offense[s] involving the sexual or
physical abuse, or kidnaping” of a minor. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Until 2003, the operative version
of § 3283 allowed prosecution of these offenses until the victim reached the age of twenty-five.
Congress further extended the limitations period in the PROTECT Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-
21, 117 Stat. 650, to allow prosecution any time during the life of the victim.
The parties agree that the Mann Act charges are timely if subject to the PROTECT Act,
but untimely under the general statute of limitations for non-capital offenses or the pre-2003
version of § 3283. Maxwell contends that the charged offenses do not qualify as offenses
involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and are thus governed by the
general statute of limitations. Alternatively, she contends that the pre-2003 version of § 3283
applies because the charged conduct occurred prior to 2003. The Court concludes that statute of
limitations in the PROTECT Act applies and that the charges are timely.
but untimely under the general statute of limitations for non-capital offenses or the pre-2003
version of § 3283. Maxwell contends that the charged offenses do not qualify as offenses
involving the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a minor and are thus governed by the
general statute of limitations. Alternatively, she contends that the pre-2003 version of § 3283
applies because the charged conduct occurred prior to 2003. The Court concludes that statute of
limitations in the PROTECT Act applies and that the charges are timely.
1. The Mann Act charges are offenses involving the sexual abuse of minors
Maxwell does not dispute that the facts alleged in the S1 superseding indictment involve
the sexual abuse of minors. The indictment charges that Epstein sexually abused each of the
alleged minor victims and that Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel or transported them for
that purpose. Instead, Maxwell contends that charged offenses do not qualify as offenses
involving the sexual abuse of minors because sexual abuse is not an essential ingredient of each
statutory offense. See Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 221 (1953). In Maxwell’s view,
the sexual abuse of minors. The indictment charges that Epstein sexually abused each of the
alleged minor victims and that Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel or transported them for
that purpose. Instead, Maxwell contends that charged offenses do not qualify as offenses
involving the sexual abuse of minors because sexual abuse is not an essential ingredient of each
statutory offense. See Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 221 (1953). In Maxwell’s view,
9
DOJ-OGR-00020768
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document