Epstein Secrets

the child, or for ten years after the offense, whichever is longer."). Finally, later that same year, Congress enacted a new statute as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. That statute eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for certain

he defendant invites the Court to engage in a balancing test that weighs the prejudice to the defendant against the Government's reasons for delay. (Del Mot. 7 at 5,6 n.4). This Court should reject the defendant's invitation. The defendant cites United States v. Brand, 556 F.2d 1312, 1317 n.7 (5th Cir.

en years after the offense, whichever is longer."). 25 EFTA00077657 Finally, later that same year, Congress enacted a new statute as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. That statute eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for certain

ance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Del Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted a pane and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February

en years after the offense, whichever is longer."). 25 EFTA00039472 Finally, later that same year, Congress enacted a new statute as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587. That statute eliminated the statute of limitations entirely for certain

ance with the subpoenas. (Def. Mot. 3, Ex. C). Following a request by Judge Sweet for briefing supporting the Government's initial application, see Del Mot. 3, Ex. D at 4, 20; Ex. G at 6, the Government submitted a pane and sealed letters in support of its applications to each court on or about February