EFTA00212960Set 9
2009-05-1836p13,958w
Post Facto clause.
The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly
illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based ... before) the original statute of limitations had
expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's
new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime ... clause precludes the revival of claims predicated on past crimes.
The precise concerns animating Stogner are present in this case. As in Stogner,
Defendant was liable to punishment" under
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00212960.pdf
EFTA00221363Set 9
2009-05-1836p13,958w
Post Facto clause.
The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly
illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based ... before) the original statute of limitations had
expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's
new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime ... clause precludes the revival of claims predicated on past crimes.
The precise concerns animating Stogner are present in this case. As in Stogner,
Defendant was liable to punishment" under
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00221363.pdf
EFTA00212893Set 9
2009-05-1836p13,958w
Post Facto clause.
The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly
illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based ... before) the original statute of limitations had
expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's
new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime ... clause precludes the revival of claims predicated on past crimes.
The precise concerns animating Stogner are present in this case. As in Stogner,
Defendant was liable to punishment" under
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00212893.pdf
EFTA00221460Set 9
2009-05-1836p13,928w
Post Facto clause.
The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly
illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based ... before) the original statute of limitations had
expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's
new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime ... clause precludes the revival of claims predicated on past crimes.
The precise concerns animating Stogner are present in this case. As in Stogner,
Defendant was liable to punishment" under
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00221460.pdf
EFTA00189749Set 9
2009-05-1836p13,958w
Post Facto clause.
The Supreme Court's decision in California v. Stogner, 539 U.S. 607 (2003), perfectly
illustrates the point. In Stogner, the defendant was charged in 1998 based ... before) the original statute of limitations had
expired, a party such as Stogner was not "liable to any punishment." California's
new statute therefore "aggravated" Stogner's alleged crime ... clause precludes the revival of claims predicated on past crimes.
The precise concerns animating Stogner are present in this case. As in Stogner,
Defendant was liable to punishment" under
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00189749.pdf
EFTA00102999Set 9
2019-03-26239p78,398w
Smith v. Maryland,
442 U.S. 735 (1979) 117, 118
Stogner v. California,
539 U.S. 607 (2003) 45
Swain v. Alabama,
380 U.S. 202 (1965) 300
Taylor v. Louisiana
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00102999.pdf
EFTA00103709Set 9
2018-08-0925p6,523w
Shular v. United States,
140 S. Ct. 779 (2020) 12, 13
EFTA00103711
Stogner v. California,
539 U.S. 607 (2003) 10
Thom v. Ashcroft,
369 F.3d ... merely an impermissible effect under Landgraf; it violates the
Ex Post Facto Clause. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 618 (2003).4 As Landgraf itself
recognized, however, the principle against
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103709.pdf
EFTA00086736Set 9
2017-08-0416p3,819w
AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Grunewald v. United States,
353 U.S. 391 (1957) 8
Stogner v. California,
539 U.S. 607 (2003) 7
United States v. Benussi,
216 F. Supp ... limitations to
revive a time-barred claim would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Stogner v. California, 539
U.S. 607, 618 (2003). Thus, there can be no prosecution
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00086736.pdf
EFTA00105663Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00105663.pdf
EFTA00092886Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00092886.pdf
EFTA00020261Set 8
2021-07-1234p11,082w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00020261.pdf
EFTA00090494Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00090494.pdf
EFTA00022091Set 8
2021-07-1234p11,082w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00022091.pdf
EFTA00103238Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103238.pdf
EFTA00103273Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103273.pdf
EFTA00104652Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00104652.pdf
EFTA00103343Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00103343.pdf
EFTA00092755Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00092755.pdf
EFTA00085225Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00085225.pdf
EFTA00154640Set 9
2021-07-1234p11,087w
Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations
does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co-
sponsored the PROTECT
https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00154640.pdf