Epstein Secrets

444 Doperteilon 0 4/0 Racketeer Inlloroce. and COHEN Omenhations 3 4141Contoner Credit 0 4441C414.

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

HE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT AS TIME-BARRED Mark S. Cohen Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800

ecome obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past." Id. at 114-15. In Landgraf, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework to evaluate the proposed retroactive application of a statute to a particular case: [T]he court

ot to perform at the time the promise was made." Cohen v. Koenig, 25 F.3d 1168, 1172 (2d Cir. 1994). He

t has already occurred versus creating a new cause of action or a new civil remedy. The support for that, your Honor, is the U.S. Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which I cited in my papers for a different proposition, but it's found at 511 U.S. 244. In that case, your Honor, the U.S. S