The bill adds a new Section 3302 to Chapter 213 of Title 18, eliminating the statute of limitations for a set of enumerated non‑capital homicide offenses. Rather than changing definitions or penalties, the measure simply allows federal indictments or informations for those listed offenses to be filed “at any time.”
This matters because it shifts the prosecutorial timeline for a swath of serious violent crimes: cold cases that would have been time‑barred could be revived, and federal prosecutors gain an indefinite window to pursue charges for the specified offenses. The change raises practical questions for defense strategy, evidence preservation, and coordination between federal and state authorities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new §3302 that states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law,” an indictment or information may be brought at any time for nine categories of non‑capital homicide offenses listed by their Title 18 section numbers. It does not amend the substantive offense definitions or penalties in the cited sections.
Who It Affects
Directly affects federal prosecutors (DOJ), the U.S. Attorney community, federal law enforcement agencies that investigate homicides, and defendants charged under the specified federal homicide provisions. It also affects defense counsel handling older cases and courts that will adjudicate late‑filed prosecutions.
Why It Matters
By erasing the federal time barrier for these specific offenses, the bill changes incentives for investigations, evidence retention, and prosecutorial charging decisions. It preserves the option to pursue long‑dormant allegations at the federal level, with consequences for fairness, resource allocation, and interstate jurisdictional dynamics.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a single new statutory provision that removes any federal time limit for prosecuting a tight list of non‑capital homicide offenses. Instead of altering what conduct is criminal or how it is punished, it changes only when federal charges can be filed: if the conduct falls within the enumerated sections of Title 18, an indictment or information can be initiated at any point after the offense.
The enumerated provisions are referenced by section number rather than by descriptive captions; they cover second‑degree murder, voluntary and attempted manslaughter, and related non‑capital homicide offenses across Title 18 sections 1111 through 1121 as specifically listed in the bill. The removal is absolute in form—the text uses a “notwithstanding any other provision of law” clause—so the statutory limitation defense that previously blocked late prosecutions for these federal offenses would no longer be available.Practically, the bill empowers federal prosecutors to reopen or initiate cases long after an incident, which can make federal enforcement an option where state statutes of limitations have expired.
It leaves untouched other procedural and constitutional protections—such as rules on admissibility, due process claims, and the right to a speedy trial—but those protections take on different weight when prosecutions occur decades after the underlying events.Because the measure neither creates new offenses nor alters penalties, its primary effect is procedural: it shifts the balance toward prosecution for listed non‑capital homicides by removing a temporal bar. That shift interacts with evidence‑preservation policies, investigative priorities, and coordination frameworks between federal and state actors, which will determine how often and in what circumstances the new authority is used.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new statutory section—§3302—to Chapter 213 of Title 18 that eliminates the statute of limitations for a specific set of non‑capital homicide offenses.
The provision applies “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” creating an unconditional federal ability to charge the enumerated offenses at any time after the offense occurred.
The offenses covered are identified by Title 18 section numbers: 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, and 1121, which include second‑degree murder and various manslaughter offenses as listed in the bill.
The bill does not change offense elements or sentencing; it only removes the temporal bar to bringing charges under those provisions.
A clerical amendment adds §3302 to the chapter table of sections—this is a procedural, not substantive, housekeeping change.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
This brief provision names the measure “Kamisha’s Law.” It has no substantive legal effect but is the vehicle for citing the statute in implementing guidance, regulations, or internal DOJ memoranda.
Eliminates time limit for enumerated non‑capital homicide offenses
Subsection (a) is the operative change: it appends §3302 to Chapter 213, stating that indictments or informations “may be found or instituted at any time” for the listed offenses. The language is broad and unconditional—using “notwithstanding any other provision of law”—so it supersedes existing statutory limits at the federal level for those enumerated offenses. Practically, this empowers federal prosecutors to charge cases regardless of how much time has passed, subject only to other constitutional constraints and evidentiary rules.
Identifies crimes by Title 18 section numbers rather than descriptive headings
The bill lists nine section references (1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121) and specifies the covered offenses in relation to each (for example, second‑degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, attempted manslaughter). Because the bill references the existing statutory provisions, any definitions, jurisdictional reach, or special elements contained in those sections remain in force; §3302 affects only the timing of prosecutions, not scope or proof requirements.
Updates the chapter table of sections
This subsection inserts §3302 into the chapter table of sections for Chapter 213. The amendment is clerical: it ensures the new provision appears in the statutory index and is discoverable by reference, which aids prosecutors, defense counsel, and courts in locating the change.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims’ families and survivors seeking accountability: They gain an indefinite opportunity for federal prosecution when state limitations have expired or when federal jurisdiction is available, keeping avenues to justice open long after a crime.
- Federal prosecutors and DOJ leadership: They receive an expanded charging tool for serious homicide cases, particularly cold cases or incidents with federal nexus that were previously time‑barred at the federal level.
- Federal investigative agencies (FBI, ATF, etc.): Agencies investigating homicides with federal elements can sustain or reopen probes without a looming statutory deadline, which affects resource planning and evidence‑preservation priorities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants and prospective defendants in long‑dormant matters: They face the risk of prosecution where key witnesses, forensic samples, and records may be lost or degraded, complicating defense preparation and potentially undermining fair‑trial concerns.
- Defense counsel and public defenders: Representing clients in decades‑old cases requires substantial investigative work, forensic re‑testing, and locating witnesses, which raises costs and logistical burdens on defense systems with limited budgets.
- Federal courts and prosecutors’ offices: The indefinite liability window may increase caseloads for cold‑case litigation, forcing reallocation of resources and creating new administrative burdens for judges and court staff.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus adjudicative fairness: Kamisha’s Law advances the public interest in allowing late‑discovered or long‑unsolved homicides to be prosecuted, but it does so by removing a temporal safeguard that protects defendants from trials where evidence, witnesses, and memories have deteriorated—forcing a hard choice between reopening old wounds to pursue justice and preserving procedural conditions necessary for reliable verdicts.
The bill creates a sharp procedural change while leaving substantive criminal law untouched. That creates implementation questions that statute text does not resolve.
First, the measure does not address retroactivity explicitly: it authorizes charges “at any time,” but it does not state whether prosecutions for offenses committed before enactment are categorically permitted or whether any temporal constraints (for example, pre‑existing reliance interests) apply. Courts may confront due process and ex post facto arguments in late‑filed prosecutions, and those constitutional doctrines could shape how broadly §3302 is applied in practice.
Second, prosecutorial discretion and evidentiary realities pose operational tensions. Removing a time bar does not restore lost evidence or memories; the risk of wrongful conviction—or of trials that cannot reliably resolve disputed facts—increases as time passes.
That raises trade‑offs between the public interest in accountability and the procedural fairness owed to defendants. The bill also alters incentives for state‑federal coordination: federal prosecutors may pursue cases the states declined or could not prosecute, creating potential friction under dual‑sovereignty principles and practical conflicts over investigative ownership and resource allocation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.