Sally and All,



This information Brief from the Minnesota House of Representatives offers a short summary of the reasons for and against statutes of limitations:

 

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/statlmt.pdf





Jean



Jean M. Didier

Assistant Professor

Department of Global Business Leadership

College of Saint  Benedicts/Saint John Univeristy

164 Simons Hall

Collegeville, MN 56321







-----Original Message-----

From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kurt Schulzke

Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2015 8:25 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: Question



Sally,



Yes, it is true that for many criminal charges, there is a statute of limitations. For others, however, there is none. For example, there is no statute of limitations for federal income tax fraud. The statutes vary depending on the crime and the jurisdiction. In Georgia, most felonies -- other than rape (15) and murder (none) -- have a four-year SOL.



One rationale for statutes of limitations is that over time, evidence degrades as memory fades and entropy works its wonders. 



Kurt S. Schulzke, JD, CPA, CFE

Associate Professor of Accounting & Business Law Director - Law, Ethics & Regulation Corporate Governance Center Kennesaw State University 

+ 1-470-578-6379 (O)

+ 1-404-861-5729 (C)

LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kurtschulzke/  



----- Original Message -----

From: "Sally Gunz" <[log in to unmask]>

To: [log in to unmask]

Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 8:53:07 AM

Subject: Question



Colleagues:



We keep on hearing here that there is a statute of limitations for 

laying criminal charges in the US.  Is this the case? And if so, what 

would be the rationale? I understand that time makes charges harder to 

prove but the onus remains with the prosecution (I won't say "crown"!) 

to prove and if they can't, they can't. But why, particularly with 

charges where there are known obstacles to bringing forward accusations, 

such as in sexual assault cases, would there be such an obstacle?



I raise this issue as we hear people say things about a certain 

gentleman from the US who is currently touring Canada as being 'innocent 

until proven guilty'. Of course that is correct in the true sense of the 

law. But it does allow for the inference that 'if he was guilty he would 

be charged' to come into the conversation. And if he can't be charged we 

will never know.



Sally