mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002658.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "144",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 25\n\nNo statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years.\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). Thus, if an individual committed an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a 16-year-old person on June 1, 1994, and the victim reached age 17 on July 1, 1994, then the statute of limitations as to that offense would have expired on July 1, 2002, when the victim reached age 25—such that an indictment in 2020 would be time-barred. There is no dispute that all three of the accusers here turned 25 long ago, and thus the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the offenses has expired.\n\nIn 2003, however, Congress amended the statute and extended the time in which a prosecution could be brought to within the life of the victim. See 2003 Amendment at 660.2 18 U.S.C. § 3283, as amended in 2003, provided as follows:\n\nNo 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.\n\n18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). While the government would apply the 2003 Amendment retroactively to offenses Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed years earlier, nothing in the text suggests that the statute may be applied retroactively.\n\nTo the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed a strong “presumption against retroactive legislation” that is “deeply rooted in our jurisprudence.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994) (emphasis added). “[T]he principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). “Retroactivity is not favored in law.”\n\n2 The statute was amended again in 2006 to its current version, which further modifies the limitations period to the life of the victim or 10 years after the offense, whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Because all three of the alleged victims identified in Counts One through Four are alive, the 2006 amendment does not affect the analysis here. Moreover, the government relies on the 2003 Amendment. Gov. Mem. at 5-6.\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00002658",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 25",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution before the child reaches the age of 25 years.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 U.S.C. § 3283 (1994). Thus, if an individual committed an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a 16-year-old person on June 1, 1994, and the victim reached age 17 on July 1, 1994, then the statute of limitations as to that offense would have expired on July 1, 2002, when the victim reached age 25—such that an indictment in 2020 would be time-barred. There is no dispute that all three of the accusers here turned 25 long ago, and thus the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the offenses has expired.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In 2003, however, Congress amended the statute and extended the time in which a prosecution could be brought to within the life of the victim. See 2003 Amendment at 660.2 18 U.S.C. § 3283, as amended in 2003, provided as follows:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "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.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 U.S.C. § 3283 (2003). While the government would apply the 2003 Amendment retroactively to offenses Ms. Maxwell is alleged to have committed years earlier, nothing in the text suggests that the statute may be applied retroactively.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed a strong “presumption against retroactive legislation” that is “deeply rooted in our jurisprudence.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994) (emphasis added). “[T]he principle that the legal effect of conduct should ordinarily be assessed under the law that existed when the conduct took place has timeless and universal appeal.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). “Retroactivity is not favored in law.”",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The statute was amended again in 2006 to its current version, which further modifies the limitations period to the life of the victim or 10 years after the offense, whichever is longer. 18 U.S.C. § 3283. Because all three of the alleged victims identified in Counts One through Four are alive, the 2006 amendment does not affect the analysis here. Moreover, the government relies on the 2003 Amendment. Gov. Mem. at 5-6.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002658",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "June 1, 1994",
      "July 1, 1994",
      "July 1, 2002",
      "2003",
      "2020",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 144",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3283",
      "511 U.S. 244",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002658"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Ms. Maxwell, discussing the statute of limitations for certain offenses."
}