Back to Results

DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg

Source: IMAGES  •  Size: 755.0 KB  •  OCR Confidence: 93.9%
View Original Image

Extracted Text (OCR)

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 5/7 of 239 The defendant argues that Congress did not intend for Section 3283 to apply to pre- enactment conduct, and asserts that the legislative history supports this interpretation. Specifically, the defendant points to an earlier version of the bill, which contained an express retroactivity provision that was not included in the final version of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant’s argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy’s comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that “the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively.” (Def. Mot. 2 at 7). This is a selective quotation; the full statement regarding retroactivity is as follows: A final point on section 202: I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government’s authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality. We are already pushing the constitutional envelope with respect to several of the “virtual porn” provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. 149 Cong. Rec. $5137, $5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 3283, it declined to adopt the language in the House-passed bill because it wanted the lengthened statute of limitations to apply only prospectively. Instead, Senator Leahy’s comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for 2018 WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (2016 indictment covering conduct going back to 1998); United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 622 (E.D. Va. 2019) (2019 indictment for conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim. 30 DOJ-OGR-00002991

Document Preview

DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg

Click to view full size

Extracted Information

Dates

Document Details

Filename DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg
File Size 755.0 KB
OCR Confidence 93.9%
Has Readable Text Yes
Text Length 2,261 characters
Indexed 2026-02-03 16:29:25.217651