Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf off the National Association of Criminal Defense  Lawyers in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing en Banc

Argument: On appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, NACDL’s Amicus Brief is in Support of a Petition for Rehearing En Banc. Issue: The issue raised is the court’s refusal to instruct on a statute of limitations defense, which seriously impaired Ravenell’s ability to present his defense, resulted in the denial of the constitutional right to have a jury decide if the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution does not violate the statute of limitations. The panel found the district court need not instruct the jury on a statute of limitations defense timely raised by the defendant. NACDL argues that the panel majority failed to protect the rights of the accused and undermined the fundamental protections of our criminal justice system when it concluded that a district court need not instruct a jury on a statute-of-limitations defense and also improperly substituted its own evaluation of the trial evidence for that of the jury. If the panel majority’s decision, which conflicts with Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent, is not corrected it will adversely affect criminal defendants in the future and undermine the fair administration of justice in criminal cases within the Circuit: the denial of the constitutional right to have a jury decide if the government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution does not violate the statute of limitations.

Brief for Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Cato Institute in Support of Appellee and Urging Affirmance. 

Argument: Statutes of limitations must be interpreted in favor of repose. Statutes must be interpreted to avoid absurd results. The government's proposed interpretation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3282 and 3288-- under which it obtains a six-month extension of the statute of limitations by filing a defective information the day before the statute runs and moving to dismiss it the day after--flouts the Toussieprinciple. That interpretation also violates the rule that courts will not interpret statutes in a way that produces an absurd result. The Seventh Circuit case on which the government principally relies--United States v. Burdix-Dana, 149 F.3d 741 (7th Cir. 1998)--overlooks both these principles and is poorly reasoned in other respects as well. The government seeks to obtain through a tortured interpretation of §§ 3282 and 3288 an outcome that Congress refused to enact when the Department of Justice proposed it as legislation last year, at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic. The district court correctly rejected the government's approach. This Court should affirm.