UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN …

[Pages:25]Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------------------------x

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

:

:

v.

:

:

GHISLAINE MAXWELL,

:

Defendant.

: :

:

----------------------------------------------------------x

20 Cr. 330 (AJN)

MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR

OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED

Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-957-7600

Jeffrey S. Pagliuca Laura A. Menninger HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone: 303-831-7364

Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street - 4th Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-243-1100

Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 2 of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................. 2 ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................. 3 I. The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively....................................................... 3

A. Step One: Congress did not expressly prescribe retroactivity and rejected a proposal to do so. .................................................................................................... 6

B. Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's alleged offenses would have impermissible effects. ........................................................... 9

II. Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All. ............................................................................... 12 A. Section 3283 applies only to offenses that necessarily entail the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnapping, of a child.............................................................. 12 B. The offenses charged in Counts One through Four do not necessarily entail the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. ......................................... 15

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 18

i

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 3 of 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Bowen v .Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (1988).................................................................................................................... 5

Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953)................................................................................................ 12, 13, 15, 17

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 464 U.S. 89 (1983)...................................................................................................................... 8

Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014).................................................................................................................. 15

Comm'r v. Clark, 489 U.S. 726 (1989).................................................................................................................. 15

Food and Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000).................................................................................................................... 8

Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2005)........................................................................................................ 8

Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990).................................................................................................................... 6

Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012).................................................................................................................. 13

Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994)........................................................................................................... passim

Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................................... 7

Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004)...................................................................................................................... 13

Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999).................................................................................................................... 7

Shular v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) .......................................................................................................... 12, 13

ii

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 4 of 25

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003).................................................................................................................. 10

Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004)...................................................................................................... 10

Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970)........................................................................................................... passim

United States v. Broxmeyer, 616 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010)...................................................................................................... 17

United States v. Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809 (8th Cir. 2011) .................................................................................................... 14

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) .............................................................................................................. 13

United States v. Gentile, 235 F. Supp. 3d 649 (D.N.J. 2017) ............................................................................................. 9

United States v. Lawson, 683 F.2d 688 (2d Cir. 1982)........................................................................................................ 8

United States v. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................................... 11

United States v. McElvain, 272 U.S. 633 (1926).................................................................................................................. 15

United States v. Miller, 911 F.3d 638 (1st Cir. 2018) ..................................................................................................... 10

United States v. Morgan, 393 F.3d 192 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................ 13, 14

United States v. Napolitano, 761 F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1985)........................................................................................................ 8

United States v. Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) .............................................................................. 9

United States v. Rashkovski, 301 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) .................................................................................................. 16

United States v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 1995)........................................................................................................ 11

iii

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 5 of 25

United States v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (1932)................................................................................................................ 5, 9

United States v. Valle, 807 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2015)...................................................................................................... 15

Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2017)................................................................................................. passim

Statutes 18 U.S.C. ? 2422................................................................................................................. 2, 16, 17 18 U.S.C. ? 2423....................................................................................................................... 2, 17 18 U.S.C. ? 3237(a) ...................................................................................................................... 13 18 U.S.C. ? 3282................................................................................................................... 1, 3, 15 18 U.S.C. ? 3282 (1994) ................................................................................................................. 3 18 U.S.C. ? 3283.................................................................................................................... passim 18 U.S.C. ? 3283 (1994) ................................................................................................................. 3 18 U.S.C. ? 3283 (2003) ................................................................................................................. 4 18 U.S.C. ? 3287 (1950) ............................................................................................................... 12 New York Penal Law, Section 130.55........................................................................................ 2, 3 PL 103-322.................................................................................................................................... 17 PL 104-104...................................................................................................................................... 2 PL 108-21........................................................................................................................................ 3 Rules Fed. R. Evid. 410 ............................................................................................................................ 8 Other Authorities Child Abduction Prevention Act, H.R. 1104,108th Cong. ? 202 (2003)........................................ 6 PROTECT Act, S. 151, 108th Cong. (as engrossed in the Senate, Feb. 24. 2003) ........................ 7 Robert A. Katzmann, Judging Statutes (2014), at 3 ....................................................................... 7

iv

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 25 Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147 (2003) ......................................... 7

v

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 7 of 25

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Four of the Superseding Indictment as Time-Barred ("Motion"). The government's late-discovered zeal to attempt to prosecute Ms. Maxwell has forced it to reach back more than 25 years and bring charges that have long been time-barred. Counts One through Four charge Ms. Maxwell with offenses allegedly committed between 1994 and 1997. But the applicable statute of limitations, 18 U.S.C. ? 3282, expired five years after the alleged conduct. In an attempt to get around its statute of limitations problem, the government has invoked 18 U.S.C. ? 3283, as that statute was amended in 2003--many years after the alleged conduct occurred. But the government's reliance on that provision is improper for two separate and independent reasons, either of which, by itself, mandates dismissal of Counts One through Four. First, the charges are time-barred even under ? 3283 unless the Court retroactively applies the 2003 amendment to the statute to cover Ms. Maxwell's conduct from the 1990s, rather than the version of ? 3283 that was in effect at the time of the alleged offenses. But Congress made surpassingly clear that it did not intend the 2003 amendment to apply retroactively. To the contrary, the conference committee considered and rejected an express retroactivity provision in the House version of the bill, and one of the bill's original Senate cosponsors acknowledged on the Senate floor that the omission was intentional. Moreover, any such retroactive application would have a presumptively impermissible retroactive effect. Second, even if the 2003 amendment could be applied retroactively, ? 3283 does not apply to any of the offenses alleged in the indictment at all. Section 3283 is an exception to the general five-year statute of limitations, and it applies only to an "offense involving" the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 144 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 25

phrase "offense involving" particular conduct refers to an offense whose elements necessarily entail that conduct. Because none of the offenses with which Ms. Maxwell has been charged necessarily entails or requires the sexual or physical abuse or kidnapping of a child, ? 3283 does not apply here.

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS Counts One through Four of the indictment allege that Ms. Maxwell violated and conspired to violate two separate provisions of the Mann Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2421-2424. These counts are based on conduct that occurred at unspecified times between 1994 and 1997. Count One of the indictment alleges that Ms. Maxwell violated 18 U.S.C. ? 2422 (now ? 2422(a))1 by conspiring to entice "one or more individuals" to travel in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense." Indictment ?? 9-10. Count Two charges Ms. Maxwell with a substantive ? 2422(a) violation, claiming she "persuaded, induced, enticed, and coerced" an individual identified as Minor Victim-1 to travel from Florida to New York "with the intention that Minor Victim-1 would engage in one or more sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of New York Penal Law, Section 130.55." Id. ? 13. Count Three alleges that Ms. Maxwell conspired to transport "an individual" in interstate and foreign commerce to engage in "sexual activity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense" in violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 2423(a). Indictment ?? 15-16. Count Four charges Ms. Maxwell with a substantive ? 2423(a) violation, claiming she "arranged for Minor Victim-1 to be transported from Florida to New York, New York on multiple occasions with the intention

1 Prior to February 8, 1996, the provision at issue constituted the entirety of ? 2422; it became ? 2422(a) as a result of the enactment of additional subsections as of that date. Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104, Feb. 8, 1996, Title V, ? 508, 110 Stat. 56. Thus, the provision is referred to herein as ? 2422(a).

2

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download