Is the California Law At Issue in Stogner Ex Post Facto?
Given these background principles, here are a few questions the Court should be asking itself in Stogner: What are the purposes behind the original, three-year statute of limitation? Through this law, did the government send an important message inducing meaningful reliance by individuals? Suppose, on the one hand, that a statute of limitations is merely a rule of practical necessity. It exists only because memories fades, documents are lost, and we simply have reduced confidence in trials that take place long after crimes occur because of evidentiary problems. From this perspective, California’s retroactive change seems more defensible and less unfair. After all, the new 1994 law allows for prosecution only where there is independent corroborating evidence of the victim’s allegations. Indeed, perhaps retroactive changes similar to this one can actually improve justice: Consider a complaint that could not have been filed in the past because of evidence-collecting limitations – say, due
