EFTA00028903.pdf

Type

pdf

Source set

data-set-8

Original source

Extracted text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
v. 
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, 
Defendant. 
20 Cr. 330 (AJN) 
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF GHISLAINE MAXWELL 
IN SUPPORT OF HER MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGH FOUR 
OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED 
Christian R. Everdell 
COHEN & GRESSER LLP 
Phone: 
Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 
Laura A. Menninger 
HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. 
Phone: 
Bobbi C. Stemheim 
Law Offices of Bobbi C. Stemheim 
Phone: 
Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell 
EFTA00028903


TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 
I. 
The 2003 Amendment Does Not Apply Retroactively 
2 
A. 
Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and 
Rejected a Proposal to Do So 
3 
1. 
Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the 
inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor. 
3 
2. 
Cases applying the 2003 Amendment retroactively are readily 
distinguishable. 
5 
3. 
The government cannot prevail at step one. 
7 
B. 
Step Two: Application of the 2003 Amendment to Ms. Maxwell's Alleged 
Offenses Would Have Impermissible Effects 
8 
II. 
Section 3283 Does Not Apply at All.  
 10 
A. 
Section 3283 Applies Only to Offenses that Necessarily Entail the Sexual 
Abuse or Physical Abuse, or Kidnapping, of a Child 
 11 
B. 
The Offenses Charged in Counts One Through Four Do Not Necessarily 
Entail the Sexual or Physical Abuse or Kidnapping of a Child 
 14 
CONCLUSION 
16 
EFTA00028904


TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 
Page(s) 
Cases 
Bridges v. United States, 
346 U.S. 209 (1953) 
 11, 13, 14 
Burrage v. United States, 
571 U.S. 204 (2014) 
 14 
Cisneros v. Alpine Ridge Group, 
508 U.S. 10 (1993) 
7 
Falter v. United States, 
23 F.2d 420 (2d Cir. 1928) 
 10 
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex reL Schumer, 
520 U.S. 939 (1997) 
8, 9 
In re Enter prise Mortgage Acceptance Co., 
391 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2004) 
6, 9 
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 
494 U.S. 827 (1990) 
3 
Kawashima v. Holder, 
565 U.S. 478 (2012) 
Landgraf v. USI Film Product…

Open in the interactive archive →