DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
40 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / court filing
File Size:
40 KB
Summary
This document is a legal analysis concerning the timeliness of an indictment, specifically addressing the statute of limitations for charges involving the sexual abuse and kidnapping of minors. It discusses the PROTECT Act of 2003, which extended the limitations period for such offenses, and concludes that the charges against Maxwell and Epstein, including Mann Act charges, are timely under this act because they involve the sexual abuse of minors, with Maxwell allegedly enticing them to travel and Epstein allegedly abusing them.
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress |
Provided longer limitations periods for crimes against children, enacted the PROTECT Act of 2003.
|
Relationships (3)
Maxwell allegedly enticed minors to travel, while Epstein allegedly sexually abused them, as stated in the indictment.
Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel.
Epstein sexually abused each of the alleged minor victims.
Key Quotes (6)
"Federal law imposes a five-year limitations period for most non-capital offenses. 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a)."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
Quote #2
"Until 2003, the operative version of § 3283 allowed prosecution of these offenses until the victim reached the age of twenty-five."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
Quote #3
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
Quote #4
"The Court concludes that statute of limitations in the PROTECT Act applies and that the charges are timely."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
Quote #5
"The indictment charges that Epstein sexually abused each of the alleged minor victims and that Maxwell allegedly enticed them to travel or"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,701 characters)
62a
II. The indictment is timely
A. The indictment complies with the statute of
limitations
Federal law imposes a 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.
II. The indictment is timely
A. The indictment complies with the statute of
limitations
Federal law imposes a 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.
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.
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
DOJ-OGR-00000125
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.
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
DOJ-OGR-00000125
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document