Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Congressional research reportNov 14, 2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Statute of Limitation in

Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

(name redacted)

Senior Specialist in American Public Law

November 14, 2017

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RL31253

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Summary

A statute of limitations dictates the time period within which a legal proceeding must begin. The

purpose of a statute of limitations in a criminal case is to ensure the prompt prosecution of

criminal charges and thereby spare the accused of the burden of having to defend against stale

charges after memories may have faded or evidence is lost.

There is no statute of limitations for federal crimes punishable by death, nor for certain federal

crimes of terrorism, nor for certain federal sex offenses. Prosecution for most other federal crimes

must begin within five years of the commitment of the offense. There are exceptions. Some types

of crimes are subject to a longer period of limitation; some circumstances suspend or extend the

otherwise applicable period of limitation.

Arson, art theft, certain crimes against financial institutions, and various immigration offenses all

carry statutes of limitation longer than the five-year standard. Regardless of the applicable statute

of limitations, the period may be extended or the running of the period suspended or tolled under

a number of circumstances, such as when the accused is a fugitive or when the case involves

charges of child abuse, bankruptcy, wartime fraud against the government, or DNA evidence.

Ordinarily, the statute of limitations begins to run as soon as the crime has been completed.

Although the federal crime of conspiracy is complete when one of the plotters commits an

affirmative act in its name, the period for conspiracies begins with the last affirmative act

committed in furtherance of the scheme. Other so-called continuing offenses include various

possession crimes and some that impose continuing obligations to register or report.

Limitation-related constitutional challenges arise most often under the Constitution’s ex post

facto and due process clauses. The federal courts have long held that a statute of limitations may

be enlarged retroactively as long as the previously applicable period of limitation has not expired.

The Supreme Court recently confirmed that view; the ex post facto proscription precludes

legislative revival of an expired period of limitation. Due process condemns pre-indictment

delays even when permitted by the statute of limitations if the prosecution wrongfully caused the

delay and the accused’s defense suffered actual, substantial harm as a consequence.

A list of federal statutes of limitation in criminal cases and a rough chart of comparable state

provisions are attached. This report is available in an abbreviated form as CRS Report RS21121,

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch, without the attachments, footnotes, or

attributions to authority found here.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Prosecution at Any Time ................................................................................................................. 2

Limits by Crime............................................................................................................................... 3

Suspension and Extension ............................................................................................................... 3

Child Protection ........................................................................................................................ 4

DNA .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Concealing Bankruptcy Assets .................................................................................................. 5

Wartime Statute of Limitations ................................................................................................. 5

Indictment or Information ......................................................................................................... 6

Foreign Evidence ...................................................................................................................... 8

Fugitives .................................................................................................................................. 10

Conspiracies and Continuing Offenses........................................................................................... 11

Constitutional Considerations ....................................................................................................... 14

Ex post Facto ........................................................................................................................... 14

Due Process ............................................................................................................................. 16

Attachment 1. Periods of Limitation for Specific Federal Crimes (Citations) .............................. 17

No Limitation .......................................................................................................................... 17

Death Penalty Offenses ..................................................................................................... 17

Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in or Involving the Risk of Death or

Serious Injury................................................................................................................. 20

Child Abduction and Sex Offenses ................................................................................... 21

20 years ................................................................................................................................... 22

10 years ................................................................................................................................... 22

8 years ..................................................................................................................................... 23

Generally........................................................................................................................... 23

Federal Crimes of Terrorism That Do Not Result in or Involve the Risk of Death

or Serious Injury ............................................................................................................ 23

7 years ..................................................................................................................................... 24

6 years ..................................................................................................................................... 25

5 years ..................................................................................................................................... 25

3 years ..................................................................................................................................... 25

1 year ....................................................................................................................................... 25

Attachment 2. Selected State Felony Statutes of Limitation ......................................................... 25

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 30

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Introduction

The Constitution’s Speedy Trial Clause1 protects the criminally accused against unreasonable

delays between his indictment and trial. Before indictment, the statutes of limitation, and in

extreme circumstances, the Due Process Clauses2 protect the accused from unreasonable delays.

This is an overview of federal law relating to the statutes of limitation in criminal cases, including

those changes produced by the act.

The phrase “statute of limitations” refers to the time period within which formal criminal charges

must be brought after a crime has been committed.3 “The purpose of a statute of limitations is to

limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence

of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is

designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic

facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official

punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary

effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal

activity.”4 Therefore, in most instances, prosecutions are barred if the defendant can show that

there was no indictment or other formal charge filed within the time period dictated by the statute

of limitations.5

Statutes of limitation are creatures of statute. The common law recognized no period of

limitation.6 An indictment could be brought at any time. Limitations are recognized today only to

the extent that a statute or due process dictates their recognition.7 Congress and most state

legislatures have enacted statutes of limitation, but declare that prosecution for some crimes may

be brought at any time.8

Federal statutes of limitation are as old as federal crimes. When the Founders assembled in the

First Congress, they passed not only the first federal criminal laws but made prosecution under

those laws subject to specific statutes of limitation.9 Similar provisions continue to this day.

U.S. CONST. amend. VI.

Id. amends. V and XIV.

Statute of Limitations, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (10th ed. 2014).

Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 (1970).

The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that can be lost either explicitly, by pleading guilty, or by failure to

raise it at or before trial. Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709, 717 (2016)( “[T]he statutory text, context, and

history establish that § 3282(a) imposes a nonjurisdictional defense that becomes part of a case only if a defendant

raises it in the district court.”); see also United States v. Fernandez, 722 F.3d 1, 27 (1st Cir. 2013) (signed waiver);

United States v. Woodard, 675 F.3d 1147, 1150 (8th Cir. 2012) (waived by unconditional guilty plea); United States v.

Wilbur, 674 F.3d 1160, 1177 (9th Cir. 2012) (waived if not raised at or before trial); United States v. Hsu, 669 F.3d

112, 117-18 (2d Cir. 2012) (waiver by guilty plea); United States v. Flood, 635 F.3d 1255, 1258 (10th Cir. 2011)

(express waiver). Musacchio resolved a split in the circuits when it declared that “[a] defendant thus cannot

successfully raise the statute-of-limitations defense in § 3282(a) for the first time on appeal.” Musacchio, 136 S. Ct. at

718.

Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 667 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing inter alia, 2 JAMES FITZJAMES

STEPHEN, A HISTORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND 1, 2 (1883)).

At some point events pass into history and due process restricts the extent to which they may be resurrected to build a

criminal accusation, with or without an applicable statute of limitations, United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324

(1971).

Capsulized descriptions of the various state criminal statutes of limitation governing felony prosecutions are

appended.

Except for murder and forgery, the statute of limitations for the prosecution of all federal capital offenses was three

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Federal capital offenses may be prosecuted at any time,10 but unless some more specific

arrangement has been made a general five-year statute of limitations covers all other federal

crimes.11 Some of the exceptions to the general rule identify longer periods for particular

crimes.12 Others suspend or extend the applicable period under certain circumstances such as the

flight of the accused,13 or during time of war.14

Prosecution at Any Time

Aside from capital offenses,15 crimes which Congress associated with terrorism may be

prosecuted at any time if they result in a death or serious injury or create a foreseeable risk of

death or serious injury.16 Although the crimes were selected because they are often implicated in

acts of terrorism, a terrorist defendant is not a prerequisite to an unlimited period for

prosecution.17 A third category of crimes that may be prosecuted at any time consists of various

designated federal child abduction and sex offenses.18

(...continued)

years; the statute of limitations for all noncapital crimes was two years, 1 Stat. 119 (1790).

18 U.S.C. § 3281.

“Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense,

not capital, unless the indictment is found or information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall

have been committed,” 18 U.S.C. § 3282.

18 U.S.C. § 3286.

18 U.S.C. § 3290.

18 U.S.C. § 3287.

“An indictment for any offense punishable by death may be found at any time without limitation.” 18 U.S.C. § 3281.

Between the Supreme Court’s decision in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), and passage of the Violent Crime

Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 108 Stat. 1796, the death penalty authorized by federal capital offense

statutes could not be constitutionally imposed. The question arose whether the term “offenses punishable by death” in

the statute of limitations referred to offenses made capital by statute or only to offenses for which the death penalty

might constitutionally be imposed. The courts concluded that Congress intended the term to refer to offenses which it

made capital by statute. United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921, 924 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Edwards, 159 F.3d

1117, 1128 (8th Cir. 1998); United States v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188, 1196 (9th Cir. 1995). A list of the federal capital

offenses is appended. The list includes those crimes made capital by operation of other provisions of law such as 18

U.S.C. § 3559(f) (murder of a child during the course a federal crime of violence) and 18 U.S.C. § 2245 (murder

committed during the course of designated federal sex offenses).

18 U.S.C. § 3286(b) (“Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at

any time without limitation for any offense listed in Section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted

in, or created a foreseeable risk of, death or serious bodily injury to another person”). A list of crimes cross referenced

in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B) is appended.

18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5) defines a federal crime of terrorism as “an offense that – (A) is calculated to influence or

affect the conduct of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a

violation of” one of list of terrorism-associated offenses. The list of crimes which Section 3286(b) makes prosecutable

at any time consists of those crimes listed in 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5)(B)(emphasis added). Had Congress wished the

waiver of the statutes of limitation to apply only to terrorists accused of these offenses presumably it would have

referred to 18 U.S.C. § 2332b(g)(5), i.e., both § 2332b(g)(5)(A) and (B), rather than simply to 18 U.S.C. §

2332b(g)(5)(B) as it did.

18 U.S.C. § 3299.

The felonies in Chapters 109A, 110 and 117 include violations of 18 U.S.C. 2241 (aggravated sexual abuse), 2242

(sexual abuse), 2243 (sexual abuse of a ward or child), 2244 (abusive sexual contact), 2245 (sexual abuse resulting in

death), 2250 (failure to register as a sex offender), 2251 (sexual exploitation of children), 2251A (selling or buying

children), 2252 (transporting, distributing or selling child sexually exploitive material), 2252A (transporting or

distributing child pornography), 2252B (misleading names on the Internet), 2260 (making child sexually exploitative

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Limits by Crime

Although the majority of federal crimes are governed by the general five-year statute of

limitations, Congress has chosen longer periods for specific types of crimes—20 years for the

theft of art work;19 10 years for arson,20 for certain crimes against financial institutions,21 and for

immigration offenses;22 and 8 years for the nonviolent terrorist offenses that may be prosecuted at

any time if committed under violent circumstances.23 Investigative difficulties24 or the seriousness

of the crime25 seem to have provided the rationale for enlargement of the time limit for

prosecuting these offenses beyond the five-year standard.26

Suspension and Extension

The five-year rule may yield to circumstances other than the type of crime to be prosecuted. For

example, an otherwise applicable limitation period may be suspended or extended in cases

involving child abuse,27 the concealment of the assets of an estate in bankruptcy,28 wartime fraud

(...continued)

material overseas for export to the U.S.), 2421 (transportation for illicit sexual purposes), 2422 (coercing or enticing

travel for illicit sexual purposes), 2423 (travel involving illicit sexual activity with a child), 2424 (filing false

immigration statement), 2425 (interstate transmission of information about a child relating to illicit sexual activity).

“No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of or conspiracy to violate Section 668 unless the

indictment is returned or the information is filed within 20 years after the commission of the offense,” 18 U.S.C. §

3294.

“No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any non-capital offense under Section 81 [arson in the special

maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States] or subsection (f), (h), or (i) of Section 844 [use of fire or

explosives to commit a federal offense, and burning or bombing of federal property or property used in or in activities

affecting interstate or foreign commerce] unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted not later than 10

years after the date on which the offense was committed,” 18 U.S.C. § 3295.

“No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate – (1) Section 215, 656,

657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344; (2) Section 1341 or 1343 [mail and wire fraud], if the offense affects a

financial institution; or (3) Section 1963 [(RICO) racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations], to the extent that the

racketeering activity involves a violation of Section 1344 [bank fraud] – unless the indictment is returned or the

information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense,” 18 U.S.C. § 3293.

“No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for violation of any provision of Sections 1423 to 1428, inclusive,

of Chapter 69 [nationality and citizenship offenses] and Sections 1541 to 1544, inclusive, of Chapter 75 [passport and

visa offenses] of Title 18 of the United States Code, or for conspiracy to violate any of such Sections, unless the

indictment is found or the information is instituted within 10 years after the commission of the offense,” 18 U.S.C. §

3291. See also 18 US.C. § 3298.

“Notwithstanding Section 3282, no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense

involving a violation of any provision listed in Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) [terrorist offenses], or a violation 112, 351(e),

1361, or 1751(e) of this title, or Section 46504, 46505, or 46506 of Title 49, unless the indictment is found or the

information is instituted within eight years after the offense was committed.... ” 18 U.S.C. § 3286(a).

See e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 82-167, at 2-3 (1951); H.R. Rep. No. 98-907, at 2 (1984).

Administration’s Draft Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001: Hearings Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 107th

Cong., 1st Sess. at 60 (2001).

E.g., H.R. Rep. No. 101-54, at 472 (1989) (“The longer period of limitations [in 18 U.S.C. § 3293] is necessary

because of the enormous backlog of thousands of pending investigations and prosecutions and the complexity of many

of these cases.”).

18 U.S.C. § 3283.

18 U.S.C. § 3284.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

against the government,29 dismissal of original charges,30 fugitives,31 foreign evidence,32 or DNA

evidence.33

Child Protection

The child protection section, 18 U.S.C. § 3283, permits an indictment or information charging

kidnaping, or sexual abuse, or physical abuse, of a child under the age of 18 to be filed within the

longer of 10 years or the life of the victim.34 Section 3283 extends the statute of limitations in

sexual abuse cases generally and is not confined to the offenses found in sexual abuse chapter of

the federal criminal code.35 In contrast, 18 U.S.C. § 3299 eliminates the statute of limitations in

child sexual abuse cases arising under the specific statutory provisions it cites.36

DNA

There are two DNA provisions. One, 18 U.S.C. § 3297, suspends any applicable statute of

limitations for the time required to identify an individual when DNA evidence implicates his

involvement in a felony offense.37 The other, 18 U.S.C. § 3282(b), suspends the statute of

limitations for federal sexual abuse violations by means of an indictment using a DNA profile

alone to identify the person charged.38 Neither provision comes into play when the offense

18 U.S.C. § 3287.

Id. §§ 3288, 3289.

Id. § 3290.

Id. § 3292.

Id. §§ 3282(b), 3297.

“No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical

abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child, or

for 10 years after the offense, whichever is longer.” Id. § 3283.

Weingarten v. United States, 865 F.3d 48, 58-60 (2d Cir. 2017) (applying the limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3283

to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2343 (foreign travel for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity with a child)); United

States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196-97 (3d Cir. 2015) (same); United States v. Diehl, 775 F.3d 714, 720 (5th Cir.

2015) (applying the limitations period in 18 U.S.C. § 3283 to a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (production of child

pornography)) (citing United States v. Carpenter, 680 F.3d 1101, 1103-1104 (9th Cir. 2012) and United States v.

Coutentos, 651 F.3d 809, 816-17 (8th Cir. 2011).

“Notwithstanding any other law, an indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without

limitation for any offense under Section 1201 [kidnaping] involving a minor victim, and for any felony under Chapter

109A [sexual abuse], 110 [child pornography] (except for Section 2257 and 2257A), or 117 [interstate or foreign travel

for unlawful sexual purposes], or Section 1591 [sex trafficking of an adult by force or fraud or of a child].” 18 U.S.C.

§ 3299. See e.g., United States v. Webster, 797 F.3d 531, 534 (8th Cir. 2015) (pointing out that there is no statute of

limitations for a prosecution for sexual abuse under 18 U.S.C. § 2241 found chapter 109A); United States v.

Fritzsching, 245 F. Supp. 3d 1269, 1274 (D. Utah 2017) (making the same observation with respect to a prosecution for

possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252 found in chapter 110); United States v. Reyna, 98 F. Supp. 3d

895, 899 (W.D. Tex. 2015) (same).

18 U.S.C. § 3297 (“In a case in which DNA testing implicates an identified person in the commission of a felony, no

statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of the offense shall preclude such prosecution until a

period of time following the implication of the person by DNA testing has elapsed that is equal to the otherwise

applicable limitation period.”).

Id. § 3282(b)(“(1) In general. - In any indictment for an offense under chapter 109A for which the identity of the

accused is unknown, it shall be sufficient to describe the accused as an individual whose name is unknown, but who has

a particular DNA profile. (2) Exception. - Any indictment described under paragraph (1), which is found not later than

5 years after the offense under chapter 109A is committed, shall not be subject to - (A) the limitations period described

under subsection (a); and (B) the provisions of chapter 208 until the individual is arrested or served with a summons in

connection with the charges contained in the indictment. (3) Defined term. - For purposes of this subsection, the term

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

involves sexual abuse of a child or child abduction. As noted earlier, prosecution for such crimes

may be brought at any time under 18 U.S.C. § 3299.

Section 3282(b) is the narrower of the two DNA provisions. It only applies to offenses proscribed

in 18 U.S.C. ch. 109A. Chapter 109A outlaws abusive sexual contact, sexual abuse, and

aggravated sexual abuse when any of these offenses is committed in a federal prison, or within

the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States.39 Section 3282(b) also

suspends the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act that would otherwise come to life with the filing

of an indictment in such cases.40 Section 3282(b), however, reaches only those cases in which the

statute of limitations has not already expired.41

Section 3297 applies to any federal felony. Rather than suspend the statute of limitations, it marks

the beginning of the period of limitation, not from the commission of the crime, but from the time

when DNA testing implicates an individual.42

Concealing Bankruptcy Assets

The statute of limitations on offenses which involve concealing bankruptcy assets does not begin

to run until a final decision discharging or refusing to discharge the debtor: “The concealment of

assets of a debtor in a case under Title 11 shall be deemed to be a continuing offense until the

debtor shall have been finally discharged or a discharge denied, and the period of limitations shall

not begin to run until such final discharge or denial of discharge.”43 When a discharge

determination is impossible, the statute of limitations runs from the date of the event when

discharge becomes impossible for whatever reason.44

Wartime Statute of Limitations

Section 3287 establishes a suspension of the statute of limitations covering wartime frauds

committed against the United States45 that allows for prosecution at any time up to five years after

(...continued)

‘DNA profile’ means a set of DNA identification characteristics.”).

18 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2242, and 2241, respectively. Chapter 109A also criminalizes sexual abuse of a ward and

aggravated sexual abuse of a child, but again those offenses may be prosecuted at any time by operation of 18 U.S.C. §

3299.

Id. § 3282(b)(2)(B); Id. §§ 3161-3174 (Speedy Trial Act).

Id. § 3282(b)(2)(A). The Constitution prohibits revival of an expired statute of limitations, Stogner v. California, 539

U.S. 607 (2003).

United States v. Lopez, 860 F.3d 201, 213 (4th Cir. 2017); United States v. Sylla, 790 F.3d 772, 774 (7th Cir. 2015).

18 U.S.C. § 3284

United States v. Gilbert, 136 F.3d 1451, 1454-455 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Dolan, 120 F.3d 856, 867-68

(8th Cir. 1997) (both citing United States v. Guglielmini, 425 F.2d 439 (2d Cir. 1970); and Rudin v. United States, 254

F.2d 45 (6th Cir. 1958)); see also United States v. Freeman, 864 F. Supp. 2d 1298, 1299 (M.D. Fla. 2012).

“When the United States is at war or Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces,

as described in section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)), the running of any statute of limitations

applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any

manner, whether by conspiracy or not, or (2) committed in connection with the acquisition, care, handling, custody,

control or disposition of any real or personal property of the United States, or (3) committed in connection with the

negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment for, interim financing, cancelation, or other termination or

settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the

war or directly connected with or related to the authorized use of the Armed Forces, or with any disposition of

termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency, shall be suspended until 5 years after the

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

the end of the war.46 At one time, it could be said with some conviction that Section 3287

“appears to have only been used in cases that involved conduct during or shortly after World War

II” and none since.47 That is no longer the case.48

In 2008, Congress amended the section to make it clear that the provision covers misconduct

during both declared wars and periods of armed conflict for which Congress has explicitly

authorized use of the Armed Forces.49 The same amendment extended the period of suspension

from three to five years.50 The provision applies to crimes related to conduct of the conflict as

well as those that are not.51 The offense, however, must “involve the defrauding of the United

States in [some] pecuniary manner or in a manner concerning property.”52 The provision’s fiveyear clock begins to run with the end of the war or conflict, but there is some difference of

opinion over whether a formal termination must come first.53

Indictment or Information

The statute of limitations runs until an indictment or information is found and returned to the

court.54 There is, however, some question about the impact of sealing the indictment upon its

return. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allow the magistrate to whom the indictment is

returned to seal it until the defendant is apprehended or released on bail.55 Some courts seem

(...continued)

termination of hostilities as proclaimed by a Presidential proclamation, with notice to Congress, or by a concurrent

resolution of Congress. Definitions of terms in section 103 of title 41 shall apply to similar terms used in this section.

For purposes of applying such definitions in this section, the term ‘war’ includes a specific authorization for the use of

the Armed Forces, as described in section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)),” 18 U.S.C. § 3287.

“Although the language of [18 U.S.C. § 3287] would seem to allow the Government to indict any frauds against the

United States that occurred up to the end of the suspension period plus the relevant statute of limitations, the Supreme

Court in United States v. Smith, 342 U.S. 225 (1952), held that § 3287 only applied to crimes committed after the

triggering of the suspension of limitation but before the termination of hostilities. Id. at 228.” United States v. Pfluger,

685 F.3d 481, 484 (5th Cir. 2012) (parallel Supreme Court citations omitted).

United States v. Shelton, 816 F.Supp. 1132, 1134-135 (W.D. Tex. 1993).

See e.g., United States v. Pfluger, 685 F.3d at 484 n.5, and the cases cited therein.

P.L. 110-329, § 8117, 122 Stat. 3647 (2008), 18 U.S.C. § 3287.

Id.

United States v. Prosperi, 573 F.Supp.2d 436, 441-42 (D. Mass. 2008) (citing United States v. Grainger, 346 U.S.

235 (1953)). Section 3287’s limitation period does not, however, apply to civil cases such as qui tam actions under the

False Claims Act. See Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter, 135 S. Ct. 1970, 1978

(2015).

Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, 220 (1953).

Pfluger, 685 F.3d at 443-64 (holding that formal termination is required and noting a conflicting view in Prosperi,

573 F.Supp.2d at 454-55); see also United States v. Frediani, 790 F.3d 1196, 1201(11th Cir. 2015); United States ex

rel. Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171, 179 (4th Cir. 2013), rev’d on other grounds sub nom., Kellogg, Brown &

Root Services, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1970. There has been at least one suggestion that the provisions should be construed

narrowly in light of the possible duration of the conflicts. Paul D. Swanson, Note, Limitless Limitations: How Wars

Overwhelms Criminal Statutes of Limitations, 97 CORNELL L. REV. 1575, 1584-85 (2012).

E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) (“… [N]o person shall be prosecuted … unless the indictment is found or the information

is instituted within five years …”); United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982, 996 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. McMillian,

600 F.3d 434, 444 (5th Cir. 2010) (“Once an indictment is filed, the limitations period is tolled on the charges set forth

in the indictment.”); United States v. Milstein, 401 F.3d 53, 67 (2d Cir. 2005); United States v. Garcia, 268 F.3d 407,

411 (6th Cir. 2001).

FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(4).

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

troubled when they believe that the seal has been applied for purposes of tactical advantage rather

than to prevent the escape of the accused.56

The statute of limitations remains tolled if the original indictment is replaced by a superseding

indictment, as long as the superseding indictment does not substantially alter the original

charge.57

If the indictment or information is subsequently dismissed, federal law extends the statute of

limitations an additional six months (30 days if the indictment or information is dismissed on

appeal and there is a grand jury with jurisdiction in place).58 Beyond the extension here, when a

timely indictment is dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement under which the defendant pleads to

United States v. Ellis, 622 F.3d 784, 792 (7th Cir. 2010) (“The circuits are divided on whether the sealing of an

indictment affects when the indictment is ‘found’ for purposes of the statute of limitations. The Tenth Circuit has held

that an indictment is ‘found’ under §3284(a) whenever it is returned by the grand jury; sealing the indictment has no

effect on this date. United States v. Thompson, 287 F.3d 1244, 1248-252 (10th Cir. 2002). But other circuits have held

that sealing matters, at least in one sense; these circuits have held that an indictment is not ‘found’ for purposes of §

3284(a) if it was improperly sealed and the improper sealing prejudiced to the defendant. See, e.g. United States v.

Bracy, 67 F.3d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Sharpe, 995 F.2d 49, 51-52 (5th Cir. 1993)(per curiam);

United States v. Muse, 633 F.2d 1041, 1043-44 (2d Cir. 1980)(en banc)”); see also United States v. Richard, 943 F.2d

115, 118-19 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Larkin, 875 F.2d 168, 170-72 (8th Cir. 1989); United States v. Wright,

343 F.3d 849, 857 (6th Cir. 2003); John Stinson, Secret Indictments: How to Discourage Them, How to Make Them

Fair, 2 DREXEL L. REV. 104, 145 (2009) (arguing that “[c]urrent sealing practice raises serious due process concerns”).

United States v. Yielding, 657 F.3d 688, 703-704 (8th Cir. 2011) (“For limitations purposes, a superseding

indictment filed while the original indictment is validly pending relates back to the time of filing of the original

indictment if it does not substantially broaden or amend the original charges.... To determine whether a superseding

indictment substantially broadens or amends a pending timely indictment, we agree with other courts that it is

appropriate to consider whether the additional pleadings allege violations of a different statute, contain different

elements, rely on different evidence, or expose the defendant to a potentially greater sentence. The touchstone of this

analysis is whether the original indictment provided the defendant with fair notice of the subsequent charges against

him.”); see also United States v. Farias, 836 F.3d 1315, 1323 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Liu, 731 F.3d 982, 99697 (9th Cir. 2013); United States v. McMillan, 600 F.3d 434, 444 (5th Cir. 2010); cf. United States v. Edwards, 834

F.3d 180, 196 (2d Cir. 2016).

“Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason after the period prescribed by

the applicable statute of limitations has expired, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within

six calendar months of the date of the dismissal of the indictment or information, or, in the event of an appeal, within

60 days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final, or, if no regular grand jury is in

session in the appropriate jurisdiction when the indictment or information is dismissed, within six calendar months of

the date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of

limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the

dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of

limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.” 18 U.S.C. § 3288. E.g., United States v. Mathurin,

868 F.3d 921, 929 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Holden, 806 F.3d 1227, 1232-33; (9th Cir. 2015); McMillan, 600

F.3d at 444; see also United States v. Bert, 814 F.3d 70, 82 (2d Cir. 2016) (noting the options available to the

government when an indictment is dismissed without prejudice) (citing Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 499

(2006)).

“Whenever an indictment or information charging a felony is dismissed for any reason before the period prescribed by

the applicable statute of limitations has expired, and such period will expire within six calendar months of the date of

the dismissal of the indictment or information, a new indictment may be returned in the appropriate jurisdiction within

six calendar months of the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, or, in the event of an appeal, within 60

days of the date the dismissal of the indictment or information becomes final or, if no regular grand jury is in session in

the appropriate jurisdiction at the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, within six calendar months of the

date when the next regular grand jury is convened, which new indictment shall not be barred by any statute of

limitations. This section does not permit the filing of a new indictment or information where the reason for the

dismissal was the failure to file the indictment or information within the period prescribed by the applicable statute of

limitations, or some other reason that would bar a new prosecution.,” 18 U.S.C. § 3289.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

other charges, the statute of limitations ordinarily begins again for the dismissed charges unless

the defendant has waived as part of the plea agreement.59

Foreign Evidence

Section 3292 was enacted to compensate for the delays the Justice Department experienced when

it sought to secure bank records and other evidence located overseas.60 It provides the following:

(a)(1) Upon application of the United States, filed before return of an indictment,

indicating that evidence of an offense is in a foreign country, the district court before

which a grand jury is impaneled to investigate the offense shall suspend the running of

the statute of limitations for the offense if the court finds by a preponderance of the

evidence that an official request has been made for such evidence and that it reasonably

appears, or reasonably appeared at the time the request was made, that such evidence is,

or was, in such foreign country.

(2) The court shall rule upon such application not later than thirty days after the

filing of the application.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, a period of suspension under

this section shall begin on the date on which the official request is made and end on the

date on which the foreign court or authority takes final action on the request.

– (1) shall not exceed three years; and (2) shall not extend a period within which a

criminal case must be initiated for more than six months if all foreign authorities take

final action before such period would expire without regard to this section.

(d) As used in this section, the term “official request” means a letter rogatory, a

request under a treaty or convention, or any other request for evidence made by a court of

the United States or an authority of the United States having criminal law enforcement

responsibility, to a court or other authority of a foreign country.

Construction of Section 3292 has been something less than uniform, thus far.61 The courts are

divided over whether the target of the grand jury or the subject of the foreign evidence sought

may contest the government’s application when it is filed or whether the application may be filed

ex parte with an opportunity for the accused to contest suspension following indictment.62 By the

United States v. Gilchrist, 215 F.3d 333, 238-39 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Midgley, 142 F.3d 174, 177-79 (3d

Cir. 1998); United States v. Podde, 105 F.3d 813, 818-20 (2d Cir. 1997). 18 U.S.C. § 3296(a) (“Notwithstanding any

other provision of this chapter, any counts of an indictment or information that are dismissed pursuant to a plea

agreement shall be reinstated by the District Court if - (1) the counts sought to be reinstated were originally filed within

the applicable limitations period; (2) the counts were dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement approved by the District

Court under which the defendant pled guilty to other charges; (3) the guilty plea was subsequently vacated on the

motion of the defendant; and (4) the United States moves to reinstate the dismissed counts within 60 days of the date on

which the order vacating the plea becomes final.”).

H.R. REP. NO. 98-907, at 2-3 (1984); Foreign Evidence Rules Amendment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on

Criminal Justice of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1984) (testimony of Dep. Ass’t Att’y

Gen. Mark Richard).

Abraham Abramovsky & Jonathan I. Edelstein, Time for Final Action on 18 U.S.C. 3292, 21 MICH. J. INT’L L. 941

(2000).

Compare In re Grand Jury Investigation, 3 F. Supp. 2d 82, 83 (D. Mass. 1998) (“Nothing in section 3292, however,

expressly contemplates secretly extending certain statutes of limitation as to certain individuals.... Moreover, this Court

general eschews ex parte practice whenever possible, since action ex parte so fundamentally undercuts the values

secured by the adversary process.”), with United States v. Little, 667 F.3d 220, 225 (2d Cir. 2012) (“Nowhere in §3292

does it state that the party whose statute of limitation is being suspended is entitled to notice or a hearing”); United

States v. Hoffecker, 530 F.3d 137, 168 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Torres, 318 F.3d 1058, 1061 (11th Cir. 2003)

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

same token, it is less certain whether the phrase indicating that the application must be filed with

“the district court before which a grand jury is impaneled to investigate the offense,” means that

the application must relate to a specific grand jury investigation or may be filed in anticipation of

such an investigation.63 On the related issue of when an application may be filed, one court has

ruled that the government may seek the suspension either to allow it to obtain foreign evidence or

to compensate it for time expended to acquire the evidence prior to the application.64 Another has

held that the extension cannot be had when the evidence sought by the government is in its

possession at the time of the application.65 Still others cannot agree on whether the request may

revive an expired statute of limitations.66

The statute demands that the government bear the burden of establishing to the court its right to a

suspension by a preponderance of the evidence.67 The Second Circuit has pointed out, however,

that the statute sets out two slightly different preponderance standards, a simple preponderance

standard for the fact a request has been made, and slightly less demanding one (preponderance

that it “reasonably appears”) for the fact that the evidence sought exists overseas.68 The

government must do more than present unsworn, conclusory statements to meet its burden,69 but

“something of evidentiary value” on point will ordinarily do.70

(...continued)

United States v. Wilson, 249 F.3d 366, 371 (5th Cir. 2001); DeGeorge v. U.S. District Court, 219 F.3d 930, 937 (9th

Cir. 2000).

Compare United States v. O’Neill, 952 F.Supp. 831, 833 (D.D.C. 1996)(“The government can only request that

statutes of limitation be tolled for offenses under investigation by the grand jury”), with DeGeorge, 219 F.3d at 939-40

(denial of mandamus) (characterizing the statement in O’Neill as dicta and declining to find clear error in a contrary

lower court decision), on appeal, 380 F.3d 1203, 1214; but see United States v. Meador, 138 F.3d 986, 994 (5th Cir.

1998) (“The purpose of §3292, apparent from its structure and legislative history, is to compensate for delays attendant

in obtaining records from other countries. This provision should not be an affirmative benefit to prosecutors,

suspending the limitations period, pending completion of an investigation, whenever evidence is located in a foreign

land. It is not a statutory grant of authority to extend the limitations period by three years at the prosecutors’ option.”).

United States v. Miller, 830 F.2d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 1987).

United States v. Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354, 362-67 (3d Cir. 2005).

Compare United States v. Kozeny, 541 F.3d 166, (2d Cir. 2008) and United States v. Brody, 621 F.Supp.2d 1196,

1999-1201 (D. Utah 2009), with United States v. Bischel, 61 F.3d 1429 (9th Cir. 1995) and United States v. Hoffecker,

530 F.3d 137, 164 n.4 (3d Cir. 2008).

18 U.S.C. § 3292(a)(1); Wilson, 249 F.3d at 373; United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004).

United States v. Little, 667 F.3d 220, 225 (2d Cir. 2012) (“The statute therefore requires a district court to suspend

the running of a statute of limitations upon an appropriate application showing: (1) that evidence of an offense being

investigated by a grand jury is in a foreign country; and (2) that such evidence has been officially requested. According

to the statute, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when determining whether the United States has

made an official request. When deciding whether the evidence is in a foreign country, however, a lower standard

applies: a court must ‘find[] by a preponderance of the evidence ... that it reasonably appears, or reasonably appeared at

the time the request was made, that such evidence is, or was, in a foreign country.’ [§3292(a)(1)] (emphasis added). In

other words, this element is satisfied even if the court itself is not certain that a preponderance of the evidence shows

that the evidence is in a foreign country, so long as a reasonable factfinder could have come to that conclusion.”).

United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325, 1330-335 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 322 F.3d 353,363 (5th

Cir. 2003); DeGeorge v. U.S. District Court, 219 F.3d 930, 937 (9th Cir. 2000).

United States v. Jenkins, 633 F.3d 788, 798 (9th Cir. 2011), quoting United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d at 1332-33

(“[T]he government must meet a ‘minimum evidentiary burden.’ ... The government can satisfy its burden of proof

under § 3289(a)(1) ‘by including a sworn or verified application containing the necessary factual information,

testimony by Government officials, affidavits, declarations, exhibits, or other materials of evidentiary value,’ even

including hearsay evidence.”); see also Little, 667 F.3d at 224; United States v. Minter, 45 F. Supp. 3d 1390, 1398

(N.D. Ga. 2014).

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

As for the nature of the overseas evidence, it is no bar to suspension that the evidence might be

obtained in this country or that without it the grand jury has enough evidence to indict.71 On the

other hand, the court may not suspend, if the government has already received the foreign

evidence at the time when it submits its application for suspension.72

The suspension begins when the government submits its official request to a foreign source.73 It

ends when the foreign entity takes “final action” on the request.74 When that occurs may be a

matter of some dispute. Some courts suggest that final action occurs with a dispositive response,

i.e., when the United States is satisfied its request has been answered;75 yet at least one believes

that final action occurs when the foreign government believes it has provided a final response.76

Fugitives

A provision exempting fugitives accompanied passage of the first federal statute of limitations.77

The language has changed little since,78 but its meaning remains a topic of debate.79 Most circuits,

taking their lead from Streep v. United States,80 hold that the government must establish that the

accused acted with an intent to avoid prosecution.81 Yet two have held that mere absence from the

jurisdiction is sufficient.82 Even in the more demanding circuits, however, flight is thought to

have occurred when the accused conceals himself within the jurisdiction;83 remains outside the

jurisdiction after becoming aware of the possibility of prosecution;84 flees before an investigation

begins;85 departs after an investigation has begun but before charges are filed;86 absconds to avoid

Little, 667 F.3d at 224-25.

United States v. Atiyeh, 402 F.3d 354, 362-63 (3d Cir. 2005).

18 U.S.C. § 3292(b); Jenkins, 633 F.3d at 798-99.

Id. § 3292(b).

United States v. Bischel, 61 F.3d 1429, 1432-434 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Torres, 318 F.3d 1058, 1061-65

(11th Cir. 2003).

United States v. Meador, 138 F.3d 986, 991-94 (5th Cir. 1998).

1 STAT. 119 (1790) (“[N]othing herein contained shall extend to any person or persons fleeing from justice.”).

18 U.S.C. § 3290 (“No statute of limitations shall extend to any person fleeing from justice.”).

See generally, What Constitutes “Fleeing From Justice” Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C.A. §3290 Which Provides

That No Statute of Limitations Shall Extend to Persons Fleeing From Justice, 148 ALR FED 573.

60 U.S. 128 (1895).

Choe v. Torres, 525 F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2008); United States v. Gibson, 490 F.3d 604, 608 (7th Cir. 2007);

United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145, 150-51 (2d Cir. 2006); Ross v. U.S. Marshal, 168 F.3d 1190, 1193-194 (10th

Cir. 1999); United States v. Greever, 134 F.3d 777, 780 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Foseca-Machado, 53 F.3d

1242, 1244 (11th Cir. 1995); Donnell v. United States, 229 F.2d 560, 565 (5th Cir. 1956); Brouse v. United States, 68

F.2d 294, 295 (1st Cir. 1933).

In re Assarsson, 687 F.2d 1157, 1162 (8th Cir. 1982); McGowen v. United States, 105 F.2d 791, 792 (D.C. Cir.

1939). Streep declared that it “unnecessary, for the purposes of the present case, to undertake to give an exhaustive

definition of these words [fleeing from justice]; for it is quite clear that any person who takes himself out of the

jurisdiction, with the intention of avoiding being brought to justice for a particular offense, can have no benefit of the

limitation, at least when prosecuted for that offense in a court of the United States,” 160 U.S. at 133. In context, it

might be thought unclear whether the Court meant flight with intent was required or merely sufficient.

Florez, 447 F.3d at 152; Greever, 134 F.3d at 780.

United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1070, 1072-73 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d 277, 28384 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Catino, 735 F.2d 718, 722-23 (2d Cir. 1984).

Ross, 168 F.3d at 1194-195.

Choe, 525 F.3d at 741 n.10.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

prosecution on another matter;87 or flees to avoid civil or administrative justice rather than

criminal justice.88

Conspiracies and Continuing Offenses

Statutes of limitation “normally begin to run when the crime is complete,”89 which occurs when

the last element of the crime has been satisfied.90 The rule for conspiracy is a bit different.91 The

general conspiracy statute consists of two elements: (1) an agreement to commit a federal crime

or to defraud the United States and (2) an overt act committed in furtherance of the agreement.92

Conspirators left uninterrupted will frequently continue on through several overt acts to the

ultimate commission of the underlying substantive offenses which are the objectives of their

plots. Thus, the statute of limitations for such conspiracies begins to run not with the first overt

act committed in furtherance of the conspiracy but with the last.93 The statute of limitations under

conspiracy statutes that have no overt act requirement begins to run with the accomplishment of

the conspiracy’s objectives, with its abandonment,94 or with the defendant’s effective withdrawal

from the conspiracy.95

Concealment of the criminal plot after its completion is considered a natural component of all

conspiracies. Consequently, overt acts of concealment after the objectives of the conspiracy have

been accomplished may not be used to delay the running of the statute of limitations.96 Overt acts

United States v. Morgan, 922 F.2d 1495, 1496-497 (10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d at 283;

United States v. Gonzalez, 675 F.2d 1050, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 1982).

Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d at 284.

Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 115 (1970) (quoting Pendergast v. United States, 317 U.S. 412, 418 (1943));

see also United States v . Ongaga, 820 F.3d 152, 159-60 (5th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bennett, 765 F.3d 887, 893

(8th Cir. 2014); United States v. Perry, 757 F.3d 166, 173 (4th Cir. 2014); United States v. Venti, 687 F.3d 501, 503

(1st Cir. 2012); United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25, 46 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Reitmeyer, 356 F.3d 1313,

1317 (10th Cir. 2004); United States v. Najjor, 255 F.3d 979, 983 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dees, 215 F.3d 378,

380 (3d Cir. 2000); United States v. Yashar, 166 F.3d 873, 875 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Lutz, 154 F.3d 581,

586 (6th Cir. 1998); United States v. Gilbert, 136 F.3d 1451, 1453 (11th Cir. 1998).

Ongaga, 820 F.3d at 159-60; Bennett, 765 F.3d at 893; Reitmeyer, 356 F.3d at, 1317; United States v. Carlson, 235

F.3d 466, 470 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Crossley, 224 F.3d 847, 859 (6th Cir. 2000); Yashar, 166 F.3d at 875;

United States v. Vebeliunas, 76 F.3d 1283, 1293 (2d Cir. 1996).

See generally, When Is Conspiracy Continuing Offense for Purposes of Statute of Limitations Under 18 USCS §3282,

106 ALR FED. 616.

“If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United

States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect

the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.... ” 18

U.S.C. § 371.

Fiswick v. United States, 329 U.S. 211, 216 (1946); see also United States v. Martinez, 862 F.3d 223, 232-33 (2d

Cir. 2017); United States v. Farias, 836 F.3d 1315, 1324 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Chhun, 744 F.3d 1110, 1122

(9th Cir. 2014); United States v. Stewart, 744 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2014); United States v. Cunningham, 679 F.3d 355,

374 (6th Cir. 2012).

Martinez, 862 F.3d at 232 (“[T]he limitations period begins only when the purposes of the conspiracy have been

accomplished or abandoned.”); United States v. Wilbur, 674 F.3d 1160, 1176 (9th Cir. 2012); United States v. Nunez,

673 F.3d 661, 663 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175, 1191 (10th Cir. 2011); United States v.

McNair, 605 F.3d 1152, 1213 (11th Cir. 2010).`

United States v. Smith, 568 U.S. 106, 107 (2013); Martinez, 862 F.3d at 232-33; United States v. Heard, 709 F.3d

413, 427 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Arias, 431 F.3d 1327, 1340 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hitt, 349 F.3d

1010, 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2001); United States v. Monaco, 194 F.3d 381, 387 n.2 (2d Cir. 1999).

Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 406 (1957); see also United States v. Qayyum, 451 F.3d 1214, 1219 (10th

Cir. 2006); United States v. Grenoble, 413 F.3d 569, 575-76 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Arnold, 117 F.3d 1308,

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

of concealment which are among the original objectives of the conspiracy as charged in the

indictment, however, may serve as the point at which the statute of limitations begins to run.97

Distinguishing between the two is sometimes difficult.

There are other crimes, which, like conspiracy, continue on long after all the elements necessary

for their prosecution fall into place. The applicable statute of limitations for these continuing

crimes is delayed if either “the explicit language of the substantive criminal statute compels such

a conclusion, or the nature of the crime involved is such that Congress must assuredly have

intended that it be treated as a continuing one.”98 Continuing federal offenses for purposes of the

statutes of limitation include the following:



escape from federal custody;99

flight to avoid prosecution;100

failure to report for sentencing;101

possession of the skin and skull of an endangered species;102

possession of counterfeit currency;103

(...continued)

1314 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Maloney, 71 F.3d 645, 659 (7th Cir. 1995); cf. United States v. Tanke, 743 F.3d

1296, 1304 (9th Cir. 2014).

Grunewald, 353 U.S. at 406; see also Qayyum, 451 F.3d at 1219; United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 859 (5th Cir.

1998); United States v. Arnold, 117 F.3d at 1314; Maloney, 71 F.3d at 659-60; United States v. Rabinowitz, 56 F.3d

932, 934 (8th Cir. 1995).

Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. at 115; see also United States v. Ongaga, 820 F.3d 152, 160 (5th Cir. 2016);

United States v. Holden, 806 F.3d 1227, 1231 (9th Cir. 2015); United States v. Smith, 373 F.3d 561, 563-64 (4th Cir.

2004); United States v. Reitmeyer, 356 F.3d 1313, 1322 (10th Cir. 2004). One commentator has characterized as

“haphazard” the lower federal court’s application of Toussie. See Jeffrey R. Boles, Easing the Tension Between Statutes

of Limitations and the Continuing Offense Doctrine, 7 NW. J. L. & SOC. POL’Y 219, 256 (2012).

“Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of the Attorney General or his authorized representative, or

from any institution or facility in which he is confined by direction of the Attorney General, or from any custody under

or by virtue of any process issued under the laws of the United States by any court, judge, or commissioner, or from the

custody of an officer or employee of the United States pursuant to lawful arrest, shall, if the custody or confinement is

by virtue of an arrest on a charge of felony, or conviction of any offense, be fined under this title or imprisoned not

more than five years, or both; or if the custody or confinement is for extradition, or for exclusion or expulsion

proceedings under the immigration laws, or by virtue of an arrest or charge of or for a misdemeanor, and prior to

conviction, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 751(a); United States v.

Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 636 (1980).

100

“Whoever moves or travels in interstate or foreign commerce with intent either (1) to avoid prosecution, or custody

or confinement after conviction, under the laws of the place from which he flees, for a crime, or an attempt to commit a

crime, punishable by death or which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the fugitive flees, or (2) to

avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings in such place in which the commission of an offense punishable by

death or which is a felony under the laws of such place, is charged, or (3) to avoid service of, or contempt proceedings

for alleged disobedience of, lawful process requiring attendance and the giving of testimony or the production of

documentary evidence before an agency of a State empowered by the law of such State to conduct investigations of

alleged criminal activities, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.... ” 18 U.S.C.

§ 1073; United States v. Merino, 44 F.3d 749, 753-54 (9th Cir. 1994).

101

“Whoever, having been released under this chapter knowingly – (1) fails to appear before a court as required by the

conditions of release; or (2) fails to surrender for service of sentence pursuant to a court order; shall be punished as

provided in subsection (b) of this section,” 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a); United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1419 (9th Cir.

1989).

102

“It is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to engage in any trade in any specimens

contrary to the provisions of the Convention [on International Trade in Endangered Species], or to possess any

specimens traded contrary to the provisions of the Convention, including the definitions of terms in article I thereof,”

16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1); United States v. Winnie, 97 F.3d 975, 975-76 (7th Cir. 1996).

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview



kidnaping;104

failure to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act;105

failure to register under the Selective Service Act;106

being found in the United States having reentered this country after

deportation;107

embezzlement under some circumstances;108

possession of unregistered pipe bombs;109

(...continued)

103

“Whoever, with intent to defraud, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish, or sell, or with

like intent brings into the United States or keeps in possession or conceals any falsely made, forged, counterfeited, or

altered obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15

years, or both,” 18 U.S.C. § 472; United States v. Kayfez, 957 F.2d 677, 678 (9th Cir. 1992).

104

“(a) Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom

or reward or otherwise any person, except in the case of a minor by the parent thereof, when—(1) the person is

willfully transported in interstate or foreign commerce, regardless of whether the person was alive when transported

across a State boundary if the person was alive when the transportation began; (2) any such act against the person is

done within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; (3) any such act against the person is

done within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States as defined in section 46501 of Title 49; (4) the person

is a foreign official, an internationally protected person, or an official guest as those terms are defined in section

1116(b) of this title; or (5) the person is among those officers and employees described in section 1114 of this title and

any such act against the person is done while the person is engaged in, or on account of, the performance of official

duties; shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall

be punished by death or life imprisonment.” 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a); United States v. Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d 999, 1018-19

(10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Garcia, 854 F.2d 340, 343 (9th Cir. 1988) (the statute of limitations does not begin to

run until the victim is released); if the victim is killed, the offense is a capital crime and the prosecution may be brought

at any time.

105

“Failure to file any such registration statement or supplements thereto as is required by either section 612(a) or

section 612(b) of this title [relating to registration requirements] shall be considered a continuing offense for as long as

such failure exists, notwithstanding any statute of limitation or other statute to the contrary ,” 22 U.S.C. § 618(e);

United States v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071, 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

106

“No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for evading, neglecting, or refusing to perform the duty of

registering imposed by Section 3 of this title [50 U.S.C. § 3802] unless the indictment is found within five years next

after the last day before such person attains the age of twenty-six, or within five years next after the last day before

such person does perform his duty to register, whichever shall first occur.” 50 U.S.C. § 3811(d); United States v.

Kerley, 838 F.2d 932, 935 (7th Cir. 1988); United States v. Jacob, 781 F.2d 643, 648-49 (8th Cir. 1986).

107

“Subject to subsection (b) of this section, any alien who – (1) has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or

removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and

thereafter (2) enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States, unless (A) prior to his

reembarkation at a place outside the United States or his application for admission from foreign contiguous territory,

the Attorney General has expressly consented to such alien’s reapplying for admission; or (B) with respect to an alien

previously denied admission and removed, unless such alien shall establish that he was not required to obtain such

advance consent under this chapter or any prior Act, shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two

years, or both,” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a); United States v. Gomez, 38 F.3d 1031, 1035 (8th Cir. 1994);, United States v.

Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d 593, 597 (5th Cir. 1996) (“Likewise, the five year statute of limitations under Sec. 1326

begins to run at the time the alien is found barring circumstances that suggest that the INS should have known of his

presence earlier, such as when he reentered the United States through an official border checkpoint in the good faith

belief that his entry was legal.”); United States v. DiSantillo, 615 F.2d 128, 132 (3d Cir. 1980).

108

“We believe that the specific conduct at issue here is more properly characterized as a continuing offense rather than

a series of separate acts. The facts found by the district court were sufficient to prove that he set into place and

maintained an automatically recurring scheme whereby funds were electronically deposited in his account and retained

for his own use without need for any specific action on his part.” Id. See also United States v. Smith, 373 F.3d 561, 568

(4th Cir. 2004).

109

“It shall be unlawful for any person ... (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview



failure to pay child support;110

possession of an immigration document obtained fraudulently;111

bank fraud;112 and

health care fraud.113

Constitutional Considerations

Ex post Facto

Historically, constitutional challenges to the application of various statutes of limitation have

arisen most often under the ex post facto or due process clauses. The Constitution prohibits both

Congress and the states from enacting ex post facto laws.114 More precisely, the words of the

Supreme Court in Calder v. Bull, it prohibits the following:

(...continued)

National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.... ” 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d); “For the purpose of this chapter ... (a) ...

The term ‘firearm’ means ... (8) a destructive device.... (f) ... The term ‘destructive device’ means (1) any explosive,

incendiary, or poison gas (A) bomb,.... ” 26 U.S.C. § 5845(d)(8), (f)(1); United States v. Berndt, 530 F.3d 553, 554-55

(7th Cir. 2008).

110

“Any person who - (1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State,

if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000; (2) travels in interstate

or foreign commerce with the intent to evade a support obligation, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period

longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000; or (3) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who

resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 2 years, or is greater than

$10,000; shall be punished as provided in subsection (c).” 18 U.S.C. § 228(a); United States v. Edelkind, 525 F.3d 388,

393-94 (5th Cir. 2008).

111

“Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit,

border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into

or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses,

obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other

document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the

United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of

any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained.... Shall be fined

under this title or imprisoned not more than.... ” 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a); United States v. Krstic, 558 F.3d 1010, 1017-18

(9th Cir. 2009).

112

Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice - (1) to defraud a financial institution; or

(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or

control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises; shall be fined

not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1344; United States v. Najjor,

255 F.3d 979, 983-84 (9th Cir. 2001).

113

“Whoever knowingly and willfully executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice - (1) to defraud any health

care benefit program; or (2) to obtain, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, any of

the money or property owned by, or under the custody or control of, any health care benefit program, in connection

with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned

not more than 10 years, or both. If the violation results in serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of this title),

such person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and if the violation results in

death, such person shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 1347(a); United States v. Holden, 806 F.3d 1227, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing United States v. Hickman, 331 F.3d

439, 445-46 (5th Cir. 2003)).

114

“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.... No State shall ... pass any Bill of Attainder, [or] ex post

facto Law.... U.S. CONST. art. I, §§ 9, 10.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was

innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a

crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the

punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when

committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or

different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in

order to convict the offender.115

The lower federal appellate courts had long felt that a statute that extended a period of limitation

before its expiration did not offend the ex post facto clauses, but that the clauses do ban laws that

attempt to revive and extend an expired statute of limitations.116 Until the United States Supreme

Court confirmed that view in Stogner v. California,117 however, there were well regarded contrary

opinions. The California Supreme Court in Frazer, for example, at one point concluded that the

ex post facto clauses in fact pose no impediment to the revival of an expired statute of

limitations.118 In so holding, the California court relied heavily on the United States Supreme

Court’s Collins v. Youngblood decision where the Court seemed to repudiate at least the

evidentiary component of the traditional Calder understanding. As the California court read

Collins, the Supreme Court had not only indicated that evidentiary changes were beyond the

realm of ex post facto protection but that ex post facto protection reached no further than

retroactive changes in a crime’s elements or punishment.119

The Supreme Court subsequently warned that Collins should not be read as a repudiation of

Calder’s four prohibited classes, but instead that “Collins held that it was a mistake to stray

beyond Calder’s four categories.”120 In another case, the Court seemed to further signal its

reluctance to reach beyond the limits of Calder when it declined to extend the ex post facto

proscription to cover a retroactive application of a judicial (rather than a legislative) change in the

law.121 These developments did not necessarily undermine the California decision in Frazer,

however, because its revival of a statute of limitations that had run did not appear to fit easily

within any of the Calder categories. The Frazer analysis was in error nonetheless.

The United States Supreme Court in Stogner characterized the California legislative revival of an

expired period of limitation as not only “manifestly unjust and oppressive,” but among those laws

that run afoul of Calder’s second standard, i.e., “[e]very law that aggravates a crime, or makes it

115

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 612 (2003), quoting Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) 386, 390 (1798) (seriatim

opinion of Chase, J.).

116

E.g., United States v. De La Mata, 266 F.3d 1275, 1286 (11th Cir. 2001); United States v. Morrow, 177 F.3d 272,

294 (5th Cir. 1999); United States v. Chandler, 66 F.3d 1460, 1467 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Taliaferro, 979

F.2d 1399, 1402-403 (10th Cir. 1992); United States v. Knipp, 963 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir. 1992); United States ex rel.

Massarella v. Elrod, 682 F.2d 688, 689 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105, 196 (3d Cir. 1975);

United States v. Clemens, 266 F.2d 397, 399 (9th Cir. 1959); Falter v. United States, 23 F.2d 420, 425-26 (2d Cir.

1928).

117

539 U.S. 607 (2003).

118

People v. Frazer, 982 P.2d 180, 194 (Cal. 1999).

119

Id. at191-92 (citing Collins v. Youngblood, 497 U.S. 37, 43 n.3, 50 (1990)).

120

Carmell v. Texas, 529 U.S. 513, 539 (2000) (emphasis in the original).

121

See Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 462 (2001) (“Justice Scalia makes much of the fact that at the time of the

framing of the Constitution, it was widely accepted ... that (according to Justice Scalia) there is no doubt that the ex

post facto clause would have prohibited a legislative decision identical to the Tennessee court’s decision here. This

latter argument seeks at bottom merely to reopen what has long been settled by the constitutional text and our own

decisions: that the ex post facto clause does not apply to judicial decisions.”) Rogers arose when the Tennessee

Supreme Court abrogated a previous common law rule that barred a murder prosecution unless the victim died within a

year and a day of the defendant’s assault upon the victim.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

greater than it was, when committed.”122 As properly understood and alternatively characterized

in Calder, this second category embraces statutes like the California statute that “inflicted

punishments, where the party was not by law, liable to any punishment,” at the time.123

Due Process

Retroactivity aside, the due process clauses may be implicated when a crime has no statute of

limitations or when the period of limitation has not run. Although statutes of limitation alone

generally govern the extent of permissible pre-indictment delay, extraordinary circumstances may

trigger due process implications. The Supreme Court in Marion observed that even “the

Government concedes that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment would require

dismissal of [an] indictment if it were shown at trial that the pre-indictment delay ... caused

substantial prejudice to [a defendant’s] rights to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional

device to gain tactical advantage over the accused.”124 The Court declined to dismiss the

indictment there, however, because the defendants failed to show they had suffered any actual

prejudice from the delay or to show “that the Government intentionally delayed to gain some

tactical advantage over [them] or to harass them.”125

The Court later made clear that due process contemplates more than a claimant’s showing of

adverse impact caused by pre-indictment delay: “Thus Marion makes clear that proof of prejudice

is generally a necessary but not sufficient element of a due process claim, and that the due process

inquiry must consider the reasons for the delay as well as the prejudice to the accused.”126

Perhaps because so few defendants have been able to show sufficient prejudice to necessitate

further close inquiry,127 the lower federal appellate courts seem at odds over exactly what else due

process demands before it will require dismissal. Most have held that the defendant bears the

burden of establishing both prejudice and government deficiency;128 others, that once the

122

Stogner, 539 U.S. at 611-12.

Id. at 612 (quoting Calder, 3 Dall. (3 U.S.) at 389).

124

United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324 (1971); see also United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 192 (1984)

(“But applicable statutes of limitations protect against the prosecution’s bringing stale criminal charges against any

defendant, and, beyond that protection, the Fifth Amendment requires the dismissal of an indictment, even if it is

brought within the statute of limitations, if the defendant can prove that the Government’s delay in bringing the

indictment was a deliberate device to gain an advantage over him and that it caused him actual prejudice in presenting

his defense.”).

125

Marion, 404 U.S. at 325.

126

United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977); see also Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 57 (1988) (“Our

decisions in related areas have stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on the part of the

Government when the claim is based on the loss of evidence attributable to the Government.”).

127

United States v. Lively, 852 F.3d 549, 566 (6th Cir. 2017) (“The standard for pre-indictment delay is nearly

insurmountable…”) (quoting United States v. Rogers, 118 F.3d 466, 477 n.10); United States v. Gilbert, 266 F.3d 1180,

1187 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he burden of showing actual prejudice is heavy and is rarely met.”) (quoting United States v.

Doe, 149 F.3d 945, 948 (9th Cir. 1998)); United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2d Cir. 1999). The defendant

must show more than mere speculative harm; he “must specifically identify witnesses or documents lost during the

delay properly attributable to the government, relate the substance of the testimony which would have been offered by

the missing witnesses or the information contained in lost documents in sufficient detail to permit a court to assess

accurately whether the information was material to his defense, and show that the missing testimony or other evidence

is not available from alternative sources.” United States v. Al-Muqsit, 191 F.3d 928, 938 (8th Cir. 1999); see also

United States v. Irizarry-Colon, 848 F.3d 61, 70-1 (1st Cir. 2017); United States v. Beckman, 183 F.3d 891, 895 (8th

Cir. 1999); United States v. Trammell, 133 F.3d 1343, 1351 (10th Cir. 1998); United States v. Crouch, 84 F.3d 1497,

1514-516 (5th Cir. 1996).

128

Irizarry-Colon, 848 F.3d at 70 (“Even when an indictment is brought within the statute of limitations, ‘excessive

(continued...)

123

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

defendant establishes prejudice the burden shifts to the government to negate the second prong;129

and still others, that once the defendant shows prejudice the court must balance the harm against

the justifications for delay.130

Attachment 1. Periods of Limitation for

Specific Federal Crimes (Citations)

No Limitation

Death Penalty Offenses

8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) (bringing in or harboring aliens where death results) 131

15 U.S.C. § 1825(a)(2)(C) (killing those enforcing the Horse Protection Act)

18 U.S.C. §§ 32, 33, 34 (destruction of aircraft, commercial motor vehicles or their facilities where death

results)

18 U.S.C. § 36 (drive-by shooting resulting in 1st degree murder)

18 U.S.C. § 37 (violence at international airports where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 43, 3559(f) (animal enterprise terrorism constituting murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. § 115 (kidnaping with death resulting of the member of the family of a federal official or

employee to obstruct or retaliate)

18 U.S.C. § 115 (murder of the member of the family of a federal official or employee to obstruct or

retaliate)

18 U.S.C. § 175 (development or possession of biological weapons)

18 U.S.C. §§ 175c, 3559(f) (variola virus offense constituting murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. §§ 229, 229A (use of chemical weapons where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against civil rights where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 242 (deprivation civil rights under color of law where death results)

(...continued)

pre-indictment delay can sometimes , albeit rarely, violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause if the defendant

shows both that the delay caused substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial’ and that ‘the government intentionally

delayed indictment … to gain a tactical advantage’”) (quoting United States v. Bater, 594 F.3d 51, 54 (1st Cir. 2010))

(emphasis in the original); see also United States v. Farias, 836 F.3d 1315, 1325 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v.

Ross, 703 F.3d 856, 876 (6th Cir. 2012); United States v. Seale, 600 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v.

Madden, 682 F.3d 920, 929 (10th Cir. 2012); United States v. Uribe-Rios, 558 F.3d 347, 358 (4th Cir. 2009); United

States v. Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Galdney, 474 F.3d 1027, 1030 (8th

Cir. 2007); United States v. Beckett, 208 F.3d 140, 150 (3d Cir. 2000).

129

United States v. Hagler, 700 F.3d 1091, 1099 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v. Benshop, 138 F.3d 1229, 1232 (8th

Cir. 1998).

130

United States v. Lopez, 860 F.3d 201, 213 (4th Cir. 2017) (“In order to prevail on a due process claim based on pretrial delay, a defendant first must show that he suffered actual prejudice. If that threshold requirement is met, then a

court will consider the government’s reasons for the delay, to evaluate whether there has been a violation of

fundamental conceptions of justice or the community’s sense of fair play and decency.”) (internal citations omitted);

see also United States v. Barken, 412 F.3d 1131, 1134 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. DeGeorge, 380 F.3d 1203,

1210-211 (9th Cir. 2004)(internal quotation marks omitted) (“DeGeorge must satisfy a two-part test to establish that

pre-indictment delay has violated his due process rights: 1) he must prove that he suffered actual, non-speculative

prejudice from the delay; and 2) he must show that the delay when balanced against the government’s reasons for it,

offends those fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.”).

131

“An indictment for any offense punishable by death may be found at any time without limitation.” 18 U.S.C. §

3281.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

18 U.S.C. § 245 (discriminatory obstruction of enjoyment of federal protected activities where death

results)

18 U.S.C. § 247 (obstruction of the exercise of religious beliefs where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 249 (hate crime resulting in death) 132

18 U.S.C. § 351 (murder of a Member of Congress)

18 U.S.C. § 351 (conspiracy to kill or kidnap a Member of Congress if death results)

18 U.S.C. § 351 (kidnaping a Member of Congress if death results)

18 U.S.C. § 794 (espionage)

18 U.S.C. §§ 831, 3559(f) (nuclear material offense constituting murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. § 844(d) (use of fire or explosives unlawfully where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(burning or bombing federal property where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 844(i)(burning or bombing property affecting interstate commerce where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 924(j)(1) (murder while in possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of

violence or drug trafficking)

18 U.S.C. § 930(c) (murder while in possession of a firearm in a federal building)

18 U.S.C. § 1091 (genocide)133

18 U.S.C. § 1111 (murder within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.)

18 U.S.C. § 1121(b) (killing a state law enforcement officer by a federal prisoner or while transferring a

prisoner interstate)

18 U.S.C. § 1114 (murder of a federal officer or employee)

18 U.S.C. § 1116 (murder of a foreign dignitary)

18 U.S.C. § 1118 (murder by a federal prisoner)

18 U.S.C. § 1119 (murder of an American by an American overseas)

18 U.S.C. § 1120 (murder by an escaped federal prisoner)

18 U.S.C. § 1121 (murder of one assisting in a federal criminal investigation)

18 U.S.C. § 1201 (kidnaping where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 1203 (hostage taking where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 1365, 3559(f) (tampering with consumer products constituting murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. § 1503 (murder committed to obstruction of federal judicial proceedings)

18 U.S.C. § 1512 (tampering with a federal witness or informant involving murder)

18 U.S.C. § 1513 (retaliating against a federal witness or informant involving murder)

18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2245 (murder committed during the course of sex trafficking by force, fraud or of a

child)

18 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 1652, 3559(f) (piracy involving murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. § 1716 (mailing injurious articles with intent to injure or damage property where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 1751 (kidnaping the President where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 1751 (conspiracy to kill or kidnap the President where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 1751 (murder of the President)

18 U.S.C. §§ 1952, 3559(f) (travel in aid of racketeering involve the murder of child)

18 U.S.C. § 1958 (use of interstate facilities in furtherance of a murder-for-hire where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 1959 (murder in aid of racketeering activity)

132

There is no statute of limitations for a hate crime resulting in death notwithstanding the fact that the offense is not

punishable by death. 18 U.S.C. § 249(d)(2).

133

Genocide may be prosecuted at any time regardless of whether the offense results in a death. 18 U.S.C. § 1091(f).

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

18 U.S.C. § 1992 (terrorist attacks on trains and mass transit)

18 U.S.C. § 2113(e) (robbing a federally insured bank if death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2118, 3559(f) (robbery or burglary involving controlled substances constituting murder of a

child)

18 U.S.C. § 2119 (carjacking where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2199, 3559(f) (murder of a child by a stowaway)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2245 (aggravated sexual assault of a child under 12 years of age in the special maritime

or territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2242, 2245 (coercing or enticing interstate travel for sexual purposes where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2245 (transporting minors for sexual purposes resulting in the death of a child under 14

years of age)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2245 (abusive sexual contact where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2251A, 2245 (selling or buying children where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2260, 2245 (production of material depicting sexually explicit activities of a child where

death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2261, 2261A, 2262, 3559(f) (murder of a child involved in interstate domestic violence,

stalking, or interstate violation of a protective order)

18 U.S.C. § 2280 (violence against maritime navigation where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2281 (violence against maritime fixed platform where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2282A (interference with maritime commerce where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2283 (transportation of explosive, nuclear, chemical, biological or radioactive material

resulting in death)

18 U.S.C. § 2291 (destruction of a vessel or maritime facility)

18 U.S.C. § 2332 (terrorist murder of an American outside the U.S.)

18 U.S.C. § 2332a (use of weapons of mass destruction where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2332b (acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2332f (bombing public places)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2332g, 3559(f) (anti-aircraft missile offense constituting murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2332h, 3559(f) (radiological dispersal device offense constituting murder of a child)

18 U.S.C. § 2340A (torture where death results)

18 U.S.C. § 2381 (treason)

18 U.S.C. § 2441 (war crimes where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2421, 2245 (transportation of illicit sexual purposes where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2422, 2245 (coercion or inducement to travel for illicit sexual purposes where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2423, 2245 (transportation of minors for illicit sexual purposes where death results)

18 U.S.C. §§ 2425, 2245 (interstate transportation of information concerning a minor where death results)

21 U.S.C. § 461 (killing a poultry inspector)

21 U.S.C. § 675 (killing a meat inspector)

21 U.S.C. §§ 848(c), 3591(b) (major drug kingpin violations)

21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1) (killing in furtherance of a serious drug trafficking violation or killing a law

enforcement official in furtherance of a controlled substance violation)

21 U.S.C. § 1041(c) (murder of an egg inspector)

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-13 (murder of EEOC personnel)

42 U.S.C. § 2283 (murder of federal nuclear inspectors)

49 U.S.C. § 46502 (air piracy where death results)

49 U.S.C. § 46506 (murder in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

Terrorism-Related Offenses Resulting in or Involving the Risk of Death or

Serious Injury

18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities) 134

18 U.S.C. § 37 (violence at international airports)

18 U.S.C. § 81 (arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction)

18 U.S.C. §§ 175, 175b (biological weapons offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 175c (variola virus)

18 U.S.C. § 229 (chemical weapons offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 351(a),(b),(c), or (d) (congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping)

18 U.S.C. § 831 (nuclear materials offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 832 (participation in a foreign atomic weapons program)

18 U.S.C. § 842(m) or (n) (plastic explosives offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(2) or (3)(arson and bombing of federal property risking or causing death)

18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (burning or bombing of property used in, or used in activities affecting, commerce)

18 U.S.C. § 930(c) (killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous

weapon)

18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) (conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad)

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(1) (protection of computer systems containing classified information)

18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A)(i) (resulting in damage defined in 1030(a)(5)(B)(ii) through (v) (protection of

computers)

18 U.S.C. § 1114 (protection of officers and employees of the United States),

18 U.S.C. § 1116 (murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected

persons)

18 U.S.C. § 1203 (hostage taking)

18 U.S.C. § 1361 (destruction of federal property)

18 U.S.C. § 1362 (destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems)

18 U.S.C. § 1363 (injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the

United States)

18 U.S.C. § 1366(a) (destruction of energy facilities)

18 U.S.C. § 1751(a),(b),(c), or (d) (Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping)

18 U.S.C. § 1992 (terrorist attacks on trains and mass transit)

18 U.S.C. § 2155 (destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities),

18 U.S.C. § 2156 (production of defective national defense material)

18 U.S.C. § 2280 (violence against maritime navigation)

18 U.S.C. § 2280a (violence against maritime navigation involving weapons of mass destruction)

18 U.S.C. § 2281 (violence against maritime fixed platforms)

18 U.S.C. § 2281a (addition offenses involving violence against maritime fixed platforms)

18 U.S.C. § 2332 (certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of

the United States)

18 U.S.C. § 2332a (use of weapons of mass destruction)

18 U.S.C. § 2332b (acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries)

18 U.S.C. § 2332f (bombing public places)

134

“[A]n indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense listed in

section 2332b(g)(5)(B), if the commission of such offense resulted in, or created a foreseeable risk of death or serious

bodily injury to another person.” 18 U.S.C. § 3286(b).

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

18 U.S.C. § 2332g (anti-aircraft missiles)

18 U.S.C. § 2332h (radiological dispersal devices)

18 U.S.C. § 2332i (acts of nuclear terrorism)

18 U.S.C. § 2339 (harboring terrorists)

18 U.S.C. § 2339A (providing material support to terrorists)

18 U.S.C. § 2339B (providing material support to terrorist organizations)

18 U.S.C. § 2339C (financing terrorism)

18 U.S.C. § 2339D (receipt of military training from a foreign terrorist organization)

18 U.S.C. § 2340A (torture committed under color of law)

21 U.S.C. § 960A (narcoterrorism)

42 U.S.C. § 2122 (atomic weapons)

42 U.S.C. § 2284 (sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel)

49 U.S.C. § 46502 (aircraft piracy)

49 U.S.C. § 46504 (second sentence)(assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon)

49 U.S.C. § 46505(b)(3) or (c) (explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means

of weapons, or aircraft)

49 U.S.C. § 46506 (if homicide or attempted homicide involved, application of certain criminal laws to acts

on aircraft)

49 U.S.C. § 60123(b) (destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility)

Child Abduction and Sex Offenses

18 U.S.C. § 1201 (kidnaping a child)135

18 U.S.C. § 1591 (sex trafficking by force, fraud or of a child)

18 U.S.C. ch.109A

18 U.S.C. § 2241 (aggravated sexual abuse)

18 U.S.C. § 2242 (sexual abuse)

18 U.S.C. § 2243 (sexual abuse of a ward or child)

18 U.S.C. § 2244 (abusive sexual contact)

18 U.S.C. § 2245 (sexual abuse resulting in death)

18 U.S.C. § 2250 (failure to register as a sex offender)

18 U.S.C. ch. 110

18 U.S.C. § 2251 (sexual exploitation of children)

18 U.S.C. § 2251A (selling or buying children)

18 U.S.C. § 2252 (transporting, distributing or selling child sexually exploitive material)

18 U.S.C. § 2252A (transporting or distributing child pornography)

18 U.S.C. § 2252B (misleading names on the Internet)

18 U.S.C. § 2260 (making child sexually exploitative material overseas for export to the U.S.)

18 U.S.C. ch. 117

18 U.S.C. § 2421 (transportation of illicit sexual purposes)

18 U.S.C. § 2422 (coercing or enticing travel for illicit sexual purposes)

18 U.S.C. § 2423 (travel involving illicit sexual activity with a child)

18 U.S.C. § 2424 (filing false immigration statement)

18 U.S.C. § 2425 (interstate transmission of information about a child relating to illicit sexual activity)

135

“[A]n indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any offense under

section 1201 involving a minor victim, for any felony under chapter 109A, 110 (except section 2257 and 2257A), or

117, or section 1591.” 18 U.S.C. § 3299.

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

20 years

18 U.S.C. 668 (major art theft)136

10 years

18 U.S.C. § 81 (arson in the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States not involving a

risk of death or serious injury)*137

18 U.S.C. § 215 (receipt by financial institution officials of commissions or gifts for procuring loans)** 138

18 U.S.C. § 656 (theft, embezzlement, or misapplication by bank officer or employee)**

18 U.S.C. § 657 (embezzlement by lending, credit and insurance institution officers or employees)**

18 U.S.C. § 844(f) (burning or bombing federal property not involving a risk of death or serious injury)*

18 U.S.C. § 844(h) (carrying explosives during the commission of a federal offense or using fire or

explosives to commit a federal offense)*

18 U.S.C. § 844 (i) (burning or bombing property used in or used in activities affecting commerce not

involving a risk of death or serious injury)*

18 U.S.C. § 1005 (fraud concerning bank entries, reports and transactions)**

18 U.S.C. § 1006 (fraud concerning federal credit institution entries, reports and transactions)**

18 U.S.C. § 1007 (fraud concerning Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions)**

18 U.S.C. § 1014 (fraud concerning loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop

insurance)**

18 U.S.C. § 1033 (crimes by or affecting persons engaged in the business of insurance)**

18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud)**

18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud affecting a financial institution)**

18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud affecting a financial institution)**

18 U.S.C. § 1423 (misuse of evidence of citizenship or naturalization) (or conspiracy to commit)+ 139

18 U.S.C. § 1424 (personation or misuse of papers in naturalization proceedings) (or conspiracy to

commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1425 (procurement of citizenship or naturalization unlawfully) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1426 (reproduction of naturalization or citizenship papers) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1427 (sale of naturalization or citizenship papers) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1428 (surrender of canceled naturalization certificate) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1541 (passport or visa issuance without authority) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1542 (false statement in application and use of passport) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1543 (forgery or false use of passport) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1544 (misuse of passport) (or conspiracy to commit)+

18 U.S.C. § 1581 (peonage; obstruction of justice)++ 140

18 U.S.C. § 1583 (enticement into slavery)++

18 U.S.C. § 1584 (sale into involuntary servitude)++

18 U.S.C. § 1589 (forced labor)++

18 U.S.C. § 1590 (slave trafficking)++

136

18 U.S.C. § 3294.

* Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3295, 3286(b).

138

** Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3293.

139

+ Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3291.

140

++ Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3298.

137

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

18 U.S.C. § 1592 (document offenses involving slave trafficking)++

18 U.S.C. § 1963 (RICO violation involving bank fraud)**

18 U.S.C. § 2442 (recruiting or using child soldiers) 141

42 U.S.C. § 2274 (communication of restricted data)† 142

42 U.S.C. § 2275 (receipt of restricted data)†

42 U.S.C. § 2276 (tampering with restricted data)†

50 U.S.C. § 783 (disclosure of classified information (with suspension until the end of any federal

employment of the accused))143

8 years

Generally

18 U.S.C. § 112 (assaults upon diplomats) 144

18 U.S.C. § 351(e) (assaulting a Member of Congress)

18 U.S.C. § 1751(e) (assaulting the President or presidential staff)

49 U.S.C. § 46506 (certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft)

Federal Crimes of Terrorism That Do Not Result in or Involve the Risk of

Death or Serious Injury

18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities)145

18 U.S.C. § 37 (violence at international airports)

18 U.S.C. § 81 (arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction)

18 U.S.C. § 175, 175b (biological weapons offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 175c (variola virus)

18 U.S.C. § 229 (chemical weapons offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 351(a),(b),(c), or (d) (congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping)

18 U.S.C. § 831 (nuclear materials offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 832 (participation in a foreign atomic weapons program)

18 U.S.C. § 842(m) or (n) (plastic explosives offenses)

18 U.S.C. § 844(f)(2) or (3) (arson and bombing of federal property)

18 U.S.C. § 844(i) (burning or bombing of property used in, or used in activities affecting, commerce)

18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) (conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad)

18 U.S.C. § 1203 (hostage taking)

18 U.S.C. § 1361 (destruction of federal property)

141

18 U.S.C. § 3300.

† Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2278.

143

50 U.S.C. § 783(d).

144

“[N]o person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense involving a violation of any

provisions listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(b), or a violation of section 112, 351(e), 1361, or 1761(e) of this title, or section

46504, 46505, 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted without 8 years after the

offense was committed.” 18 U.S.C. § 3286(a). Offenses listed in Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) that involve a risk of death or

serious bodily injury may be prosecuted at any time. 18 U.S.C. § 3286(b).

145

“[N]o person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any noncapital offense involving a violation of any

provisions listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(b), or a violation of section 112, 351(e), 1361, or 1761(e) of this title, or section

46504, 46505, 46506 of title 49, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted without 8 years after the

offense was committed.”

142

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

18 U.S.C. § 1362 (destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems)

18 U.S.C. § 1363 (injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the

United States)

18 U.S.C. § 1366(a) (destruction of energy facilities)

18 U.S.C. § 1751(a),(b),(c), or (d) (Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping)

18 U.S.C. § 1992 (terrorist attacks on trains and mass transit)

18 U.S.C. § 2155 (destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities),

18 U.S.C. § 2156 (production of defective national defense material)

18 U.S.C. § 2280 (violence against maritime navigation)

18 U.S.C. § 2280a (violence against maritime navigation involving weapons of mass destruction)

18 U.S.C. § 2281 (violence against maritime fixed platforms)

18 U.S.C. § 2281a (addition offenses involving violence against maritime fixed platforms)

18 U.S.C. § 2332 (certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of

the United States)

18 U.S.C. § 2332a (use of weapons of mass destruction)

18 U.S.C. § 2332b (acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries)

18 U.S.C. § 2332f (bombing public places)

18 U.S.C. § 2332g (anti-aircraft missiles)

18 U.S.C. § 2332h (radiological dispersal devices)

18 U.S.C. § 2232i (acts of nuclear terrorism)

18 U.S.C. § 2339 (harboring terrorists)

18 U.S.C. § 2339A (providing material support to terrorists)

18 U.S.C. § 2339B (providing material support to terrorist organizations)

18 U.S.C. § 2339C (financing terrorism)

18 U.S.C. § 2339D (receipt of military training from a foreign terrorist organization)

18 U.S.C. § 2340A (torture committed under color of law)

21 U.S.C. § 960A (narcoterrorism)

42 U.S.C. § 2122 (atomic weapons)

42 U.S.C. § 2284 (sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel)

49 U.S.C. § 46502 (aircraft piracy)

49 U.S.C. § 46504 (second sentence) (assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon)

49 U.S.C. § 46505(b)(3) or (c) (explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means

of weapons, or aircraft)

49 U.S.C. § 46506 (if homicide or attempted homicide involved, application of certain criminal laws to acts

on aircraft)

49 U.S.C. § 60123(b) (destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility)

7 years

18 U.S.C. § 247 (damage to religious property) 146

18 U.S.C. § 249 (hate crime not resulting in death) 147

18 U.S.C. § 1031 (major fraud against the United States) 148

146

18 U.S.C. § 247(g).

18 U.S.C. § 249(d)(1).

148

18 U.S.C. §1031(f).

147

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

6 years

15 U.S.C. § 77x (Securities Act violations)¤149

15 U.S.C. § 77yyy (Trust Indenture Act violations)¤

15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a) (Securities Exchange Act violations)¤

15 U.S.C. § 80a-48 (Investment Company Act violations¤

15 U.S.C. § 80b-17 (Investment Advisers Act violations)¤

18 U.S.C. § 1348 (securities and commodities fraud)¤

26 U.S.C. § 6531 (tax crimes) 150

5 years

All crimes not otherwise provided for151

3 years

31 U.S.C. § 333 (misuse of Treasury Department names, symbols, etc.)152

1 year

18 U.S.C. § 402 (contempt of court)153

Attachment 2. Selected State Felony Statutes

of Limitation

State

Felonies (Generally)

Various Exceptions

(Not Exhaustive)

ALABAMA

3 years (Ala. Code § 15-3-1)

Any time: (a) capital offense; (b)

felony involving: - arson; forgery;

drug trafficking; death or serious

injury; use, attempted use, or threat

to use violence; or counterfeiting; or

Code § 15-3-5)

ALASKA

5 years (Alaska Stat.§ 12.10.010)

(a) Any time: murder; kidnaping;

class A, B, or unclassified felony

sexual assault; felony sexual abuse of

minor; various sexual offenses w/ a

minor victim;

(b) 10 years: 1st degree indecent

exposure; manslaughter (Alaska Stat.

§ 12.10.010)

149

18 U.S.C. § 3301.

26 U.S.C. § 6531.

151

18 U.S.C. § 3282.

152

31 U.S.C. § 333 (d)(2).

153

18 U.S.C. § 3285.

150

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

State

Felonies (Generally)

Various Exceptions

(Not Exhaustive)

ARIZONA

7 years (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13107)

Any time: attempted commission or

commission of - homicide; class 2

felony sex offense or sexual

exploitation of children; violent

sexual assault; misuse of public

money; felony falsification of public

records (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13107)

ARKANSAS

(a) 6 years: Class Y or A crimes;

(b) 3 years: Class B, C, D, or

unclassified crimes (Ark. Code Ann.

§ 5-1-109)

Any time: murder and various sex

offenses (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-109)

CALIFORNIA

3 years (Cal. Penal Code § 801 )

(a) Any time: crime punishable by

death or life imprisonment; various

sex offenses; or embezzlement of

public money

(b) 6 years: felony punishable by

imprisonment for 8 years or more

(Cal. Penal Code §§ 799, 800)

COLORADO

3 years (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-5401)

Any time: committing, attempting,

conspiring to commit, or soliciting

commit - murder, treason, kidnaping,

forgery, or sex offenses against a

child (Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-5401)

CONNECTICUT

5 years (Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54193)

Any time: capital or class A felony;

arson-murder; or 1st degree escape

(Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 54-193)

DELAWARE

5 years (Del. Code Ann. tit. 11 §

205)

Any time: commit or attempt to

commit murder, class A felony, or

various sex offenses (Del. Code Ann.

tit. 11 § 205)

FLORIDA

3 years (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 775.15)

(a) Any time: capital or life felony,

felony resulting in death, or perjury

in a capital case;

(b) 10 years: felony from use of

destructive device resulting in injury;

Stat. Ann. § 775.15)

GEORGIA

4 years (Ga. Code Ann. § 17-3-1)

(a) Any time: murder;

(b) 15 years: rape;

by death or life imprisonment; or

felonies w/ victims <14 (Ga. Code

Ann. § 17-3-1)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

State

Felonies (Generally)

Various Exceptions

(Not Exhaustive)

HAWAII

3 years (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 701-108)

(a) Any time: commit, attempt,

conspire to commit, or solicit

murder; or sexual assault

(b) 10 years: vehicular manslaughter;

Stat. § 701-108)

IDAHO

5 years (Idaho Code § 19-402)

Any time: murder, voluntary

manslaughter, rape, sexual abuse of a

child, or terrorism (Idaho Code §

19-401)

ILLINOIS

3 years (720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. §

5/3-5)

Any time: homicide, attempted

murder, treason, arson, or forgery

(720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/3-5)

INDIANA

5 years (Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2)

Any time: murder or a 1st or 2d level

felony (Ind. Code Ann. § 35-41-4-2)

IOWA

3 years (Iowa Code Ann. § 802.3)

(a) Any time: murder;

(b) 10 years: various sex offenses

(Iowa Code Ann. §§ 802.1 to 802.3)

KANSAS

5 years (Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5107)

Any time: murder, terrorism, rape,

or use of weapons of mass

destruction

(Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5107)

KENTUCKY

Any time (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

500.050)

LOUISIANA

4 years (La. Code Crim. P. art. 572)

(a) Any time: crime punishable by

death or life imprisonment; or 1st or

2d degree rape;

(b) 30 years: various sex crimes

against minors;

labor) (La. Code Crim. P. arts. 571,

571.1. 572.)

MAINE

(a) 6 years: Class A, B, or C crime;

(b) 3 years: Class C or D crime (Me.

Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A § 8)

Any time: murder, 1st or 2d degree

homicide, or various sexual offenses

against a minor (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann.

tit. 17-A § 8)

MARYLAND

Any time subject to occasional

individual statutory exceptions, e.g.,

computer crimes (3 years) (Md. Cts.

& Jud. Proc. § 5-601)

MASSACHUSETTS

6 years (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.

277 § 63)

Congressional Research Service

(a) Any time: murder

(b) 15 years: commit or conspire to

commit rape or assault w/ intent to

rape or murder;

commit robbery or assault w/ intent

to rob (Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.

277 § 63)

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

State

Felonies (Generally)

Various Exceptions

(Not Exhaustive)

MICHIGAN

6 years (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §

767.24)

(a) Any time: murder, terrorism, or

1st degree sexual conduct;

(b) 10 years: kidnaping, extortion,

conspiracy or assault w/ intent to

murder (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann.

§ 767.24)

MINNESOTA

3 years (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 628.26)

Any time: crime resulting in death,

kidnaping (Minn. Stat. Ann. § 628.26)

MISSISSIPPI

2 years (Miss. Code Ann. § 99-1-5)

Any time: murder, rape, kidnaping,

arson, manslaughter, burglary,

aggravated assault, forgery,

counterfeiting, robbery, larceny,

fraud, embezzlement, or various

sexual offenses against minors (Miss.

Code Ann. § 99-1-5)

MISSOURI

3 years (Mo. Ann. Stat. § 556.036)

Any time: murder, rape or a class A

felony (Mo. Ann. Stat. § 556.036)

MONTANA

5 years (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-1205)

(a) Any time: homicide

(b) 10 years: sexual assault (Mont.

Code Ann. § 45-1-205)

NEBRASKA

3 years (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-110)

Any time: treason, murder, arson,

forgery or various sexual offenses

(Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-110)

NEVADA

3 years (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

171.085)

(a) Any time: murder or terrorism;

(b) 20 years: sexual assault;

murder;

(d) 4 years: theft, arson, robbery,

burglary, sexual assault, or forgery

(Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 171. 080,

171.083, 171.085)

NEW HAMPSHIRE

6 years (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §

625:8)

Any time: murder (N.H. Rev. Stat.

Ann. § 625:8)

NEW JERSEY

5 years (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-6)

(a) Any time: murder, manslaughter,

sexual assault

(b) 10 years: environment offenses;

offenses involving misconduct in

office (N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-6)

NEW MEXICO

(a) 6 years: 2d degree felony;

(b) 5 years: 3d or 4th degree felony

(N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-8)

Any time: capital or 1st degree felony

(N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-8)

NEW YORK

5 years (N.Y. Crim. P. Law § 30.10)

Any time: class A felony or 1st

degree rape, sexual criminal act, or

sexual conduct against a child (N.Y.

Crim. P. Law § 30.10)

NORTH CAROLINA

Any time (no statute)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

State

Felonies (Generally)

Various Exceptions

(Not Exhaustive)

NORTH DAKOTA

3 years (N.D. Cent. Code §29-0402)

(a) Any time: murder (N.D. Cent.

Code § 29-04-01)

(b) 10 years: various sex offenses

against a minor (N.D. Cent. Code §

29-04-03.1)

OHIO

6 years (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §

2901.13)

(a) Any time: murder;

(b) 20 years: commit, attempt, or aid

and abet kidnaping, robbery, riot,

manslaughter, sexual assault,

burglary, or arson (Ohio Rev. Code

Ann. § 2901.13)

OKLAHOMA

3 years (Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 §

152)

(a) Any time: murder;

(b) 12 years: rape, sodomy, or

certain other sexual offenses (Okla.

Stat. Ann. tit. 22 §§ 151, 152)

OREGON

3 years (Ore. Rev. Stat. § 131.125)

(a) Any time: commit, attempt,

conspire to commit, or solicit

murder;

(b) variable: various sexual offenses

against minors;

131.125)

PENNSYLVANIA

2 years (Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 42 § 5552)

(a) Any time: commit, conspire to

commit, or solicit murder;

manslaughter; various sex offenses

against a minor; or aggravate assault

of a police officer;

(b) 12 years: major sex offenses;

Ann. tit. 42 §§ 5551, 5552)

RHODE ISLAND

3 years (R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-12-17)

(a) Any time: treason, homicide,

arson, burglary, counterfeiting,

forgery, robbery, rape, assault, drug

trafficking, any other felony

punishable by life imprisonment, or

various sex offenses against a minor;

(b) 10 years: larceny, bribery,

racketeering, perjury, or extortion

(R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-12-17)

SOUTH CAROLINA

Any time

SOUTH DAKOTA

7 years (S.D. Cod. Laws § 23A-42-2)

Any time: Class A, B, or C felonies

(S.D. Cod. Laws § 23A-42-1)

TENNESSEE

(a) 15 years: Class A felony;

(b) 8 years: Class B felony;

(d) 2 years: Class E felony (Tenn.

Code Ann. § 40-2-101)

Any time: crime punishable by death

or life imprisonment (Tenn. Code

Ann. § 40-2-101)

Congressional Research Service

Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overview

State

Felonies (Generally)

Various Exceptions

(Not Exhaustive)

TEXAS

3 years (Tex. Code Crim. P. art.

12.01)

(a) Any time: murder, manslaughter,

rape, certain human trafficking

offenses, or various sexual offenses

against minors;

(b) 10 years: forgery, embezzlement,

arson (Tex. Code Crim. P. art.

12.01)

UTAH

4 years (Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-302)

Any time: capital felony, murder,

manslaughter, various sex offenses

against a minor, or kidnaping (Utah

Code Ann. § 76-1-301)

VERMONT

3 years (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit.13 § 4501)

(a) Any time: rape, murder,

arson(causing death), or kidnaping;

(b) 11 years: arson;

grand larceny, robbery, burglary,

embezzlement, forgery, bribery, false

claims, fraud, human trafficking, or

felony tax offenses (Vt. Stat. Ann.

tit.13 § 4501)

VIRGINIA

Any time

WASHINGTON

3 years (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §

9A.04.080)

WEST VIRGINIA

Any time

WISCONSIN

6 years (Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.74)

WYOMING

Any time

(a) Any time: homicide;

(b) 10 years: arson, rape, or certain

offenses involving misconduct in

office;

certain sexual offenses against

minors (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §

9A.04.080)

(a) Any time: 1st degree murder,

felony murder

(b) various times: certain sex

offenses committed against a child

(Wis. Stat. Ann. § 939.74)

Source: CRS from the statutes cited above.

Note: Recently, state legislatures have regularly enlarged or eliminated the statute of limitations for a number of

offenses.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Senior Specialist in American Public Law

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.