is the Jan 6th case subject to statues of limitations?

[Takket]

google tells me this:

"Under federal law, the statute of limitations for obstruction of an official proceeding is generally five years as per 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which applies to most non-capital offenses; meaning a prosecution for obstruction must be initiated within five years of the offense occurring."

But does "prosecution for obstruction must be initiated within five years" mean the trial? the grand jury indictment? the arraignment?

trump has been indicted and the case dismissed "without prejudice". Is there a statute of limitations clocking on this? Because if there is, that clock expires on 2026, right? (5 years after the crime)

and yes i realize how naive it is to think this prosecution will just be "picked up" again in 2029 with a Dem AG. I'm just grasping out a sliver of hope.

[bottomofthehill]

1. He will pardon himself, it's over

[JoseBalow]

3. A self-pardon is probably not legal, it wouldn't be over then

It would go to the Supreme Court, where scRotus would give him the win. That might take a while.

[bottomofthehill]

9. Article 2 section 2 makes it pretty clear he can in all things but impeachment pardon

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[JoseBalow]

10. Do you believe if he self-pardons that it wouldn't go to court?

[bottomofthehill]

11. It could go to court but would be quickly decided.

It is pretty clear he can pardon himself or anyone else in all cases but for senate impeachment.

[Ponietz]

2. And he has an absolute right to a speedy trial

It’s over.

[JoseBalow]

4. After being charged

[Ponietz]

6. Unfortunately in this instance a superseding Indictment doesn't restart the speedy trial clock

[JoseBalow]

8. Since these charges are dismissed, wouldn't it start after being re-charged?

Of course there is still the issue of statute of limitations I suppose.

[Ponietz]

12. There's a Federal speedy trial act that says you're right -- in principle

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-628-speedy-trial-act-1974

If the indictment is dismissed at the request of the government, the 70-day clock is tolled during the period when no indictment is outstanding, and begins to run again upon the filing of the second indictment. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6)

But the Barker v. Wingo factors would probably rule it out. In my State the right attaches on the original filing.
1. Length of the delay;
2. Reasons for the delay;
3. Assertion of the right;
4. Prejudice to defendant.

It’s academic anyway since there will be a slew of more recent (and probably more serious) crimes.

[JoseBalow]

13. True, there will certainly be much more criming ahead

That is a sure bet

[Igel]

14. Yes, but if things suspend that timeline then they suspend it.

Note that this has also been claimed as a rationale for rushing a trial. He has a right to it--like I have a right to free speech and freedom of assembly, but that doesn't mean I must speak or must assemble on any given issue.

He wants to reasonably delay a trial for some reason, it's a case of the defendant infringing on his own right--and he has a right to do that. At the same time, the constraint is that he cannot be allowed to delay for the sake of simply avoiding trial. In fact, one reason that at least one Civil War "criminal" was set free was because he were arrested and confined for years, no new evidence coming forth against them during that time, but the prosecutors saw no reason to try him--they were in jail, unconvicted, and the prosecutors were just fine with that state of unconstitutional affairs and avoided a trial that might be problematic in getting a conviction given that the trial would have to be held in formerly "rebel" territory and the jury might well be sympathetic and vote their personal views instead of evidence + law.

[arthritisR_US]

5. None of the replies in this thread give me any confidence for

the future of your country. Damnit

[Igel]

15. If he lives, in 4.25 years he will be out of office.

I don't see a pathway for him staying past inauguration day 2029, whatever he may bullshit on the campaign trail or in his multi-year pout after losing in 2020.

Note that "bullshit" can be a scholarly term: See Harry G. Frankfurt 2005. On Bullshit. Princeton University Press, Princeton & Oxford. "He [ the bullshitter ] does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all" (p. 61). Page 63 includes, "Bullshit is unavoidable whenever circumstances requires omeone to talk without knowing wht he is talking about. Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person's obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic exceed his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic. This discrepancy is common in public life...". It contrasts with lying, which has in most educated speech (overridden by the needs of hyperbole and just using derogatory language against a foe) some sense of knowing one thing is true and saying something in opposition in an attempt to deceive. If bullshitting is a lie about anything, it's a claim that the person speaking has a clue about what he's speaking about or much cares.

It's a useful term and worthy of being used in this sense. (I also dislike when "lie" just means "saying something false"--one can be mistaken instead of being intentionally deceptive and that's a rather important distinction that should be preserved, if communication has to deal with facts and not just emotions and attitudes.)

[MrWowWow]

7. He's (Justice in Murica) Dead Jim