Really interesting.
The relevant bits for people who don't want to click:
>Utah, like a number of other states, has a provision that stops the clock on the statute of limitations whenever the potential defendant is out of the state. In legal terminology, stopping the clock is referred to as “tolling” the statute of limitations.
>Weinstein was out of the state of Utah for most of the 1997-2008 period, since he presumably visited the state usually just for Sundance. That would probably amount to less than two weeks a year in state. While he was out of the state, the statute of limitations clock would have been paused.
>Is absentee tolling against a easily locatable defendant constitutional? Maybe not. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause — not usually referenced in criminal cases — might provide the basis for a challenge. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that civil absentee tolling placed an undue burden on interstate commerce — and therefore violated the Commerce Clause — when applied against an out-of-state corporation that could have been sued before the statute of limitations ran out.
>Lower courts have extended the ruling to also protect out-of-state individuals from tardy civil suit... Criminal law may be a different matter.
>“I am not sure whether the Commerce Clause analysis would apply the same way to a criminal, as opposed to a civil, statute of limitations,” said University of San Diego law professor Walter Heiser, who has written on civil absentee tolling. “A State’s interests in deterring and punishing criminal conduct may well outweigh any concerns about the effect on interstate commerce.”
>Yet, in a 1941 case, the U.S. Supreme Court did indeed use the Commerce Clause to invalidate a California criminal law, an “anti-Okie” statute that barred relocation of indigents into the state. However, that crime was inherently interstate, whereas rape is not. But Weinstein’s trips to Utah were for business purposes; he was engaged in interstate commerce. That’s a lot of “on the one hand” and “on the other hand.”
>Yet another Supreme Court precedent is adverse to Weinstein, a 2000 case that struck down portions of the federal Violence Against Women Act. The Court held that the “non-economic, criminal nature” of such violence took such assaults outside the ambit of the Commerce Clause. That narrow view ignores the economic aspects that many say is inherent in all oppression of women but, ironically, could mean that absentee tolling would survive and Weinstein would lose.
>Or a court might be swayed by the intertwined nature of Weinstein’s economic and alleged criminal activity. After all, his alleged victims and his Sundance visits were work-related. A court might decide that under those circumstances, the Commerce Clause could indeed come into play and hand Weinstein a win.