DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg

706 KB

Extraction Summary

2
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Legal filing (court document - likely government brief)
File Size: 706 KB
Summary

This document is page 53 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on April 16, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding the statute of limitations for sex crimes involving minors, specifically arguing that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 applies retroactively to crimes committed between 1994 and 1997. The text cites relevant case law (US v. Leo Sure Chief, US v. Jeffries) to support the position that the indictment is timely because the victims are still alive.

People (2)

Name Role Context
Leo Sure Chief Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Leo Sure Chief regarding statute of limitations
Jeffries Defendant in cited case
Cited in United States v. Jeffries regarding statute of limitations

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Congress
Enacted the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 and amended Section 3283
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Source of document (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002987)
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Court that decided United States v. Leo Sure Chief
8th Circuit Court of Appeals
Court that decided United States v. Jeffries

Timeline (3 events)

1994-1997
Timeframe for crimes charged in Counts One through Four of the Indictment
Unspecified
2003
Congress amended 18 U.S.C. § 3283 extending limitations period
USA
2006
Enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
USA

Relationships (1)

Congress Legislative Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
Congress enacted a new statute as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

Key Quotes (3)

"Counts One through Four of the Indictment charge crimes that occurred between 1994 and 1997."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg
Quote #1
"Because the victims are all alive, the Indictment is timely under the 2003 amendment."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg
Quote #2
"Put simply, the 2003 amendment applies to any conduct that could have been charged at the time of its enactment."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00002987.jpg
Quote #3

Full Extracted Text

Complete text extracted from the document (2,109 characters)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 53 of 239
preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer.”).
Finally, later that same year, Congress enacted a new statute as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. That statute eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for certain crimes involving the sexual exploitation of minors. Id. tit. II, § 211(1), 120 Stat. at 616 (codified at 18 U.S.C. § 3299).
B. The 2003 Amendment to Section 3283 Applies Retroactively
Counts One through Four of the Indictment charge crimes that occurred between 1994 and 1997. At the time of the offense conduct, the applicable statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994), ran until “the child reaches the age of 25.” However, in 2003, while the statute of limitations had not yet run for the crimes charged in the Indictment, 12 Congress amended the statute, extending the limitations period to permit a prosecution at any time “during the life of the child.” 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). Because the victims are all alive, the Indictment is timely under the 2003 amendment.
Put simply, the 2003 amendment applies to any conduct that could have been charged at the time of its enactment. The legislative purpose behind Section 3283 and a plain reading of the statute compel this conclusion, and courts have repeatedly held that the 2003 amendment applies retroactively, provided that the statute of limitations had not run for the offense at the time of the amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920, 922-25 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Because Congress evinced a clear intent to extend, rather than shorten, the statute of limitations applicable to sexual abuse crimes, and because there is no ex post facto problem here, the prosecution was timely.”) (citing United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2005), cert.
____________________
12 The timeliness of the charges in the Indictment in 2003 is discussed in greater detail below.
26
DOJ-OGR-00002987

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document