Kamisha’s Law adds a new section (18 U.S.C. §3302) to Chapter 213 that eliminates any period of limitations for specified non‑capital homicide offenses, allowing federal prosecutors to bring charges “at any time” for those offenses. The list in the bill covers second‑degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and attempted manslaughter as they appear across a set of Title 18 provisions.
This is a targeted, narrowly worded removal of time limits for certain serious killings prosecuted under federal law. For compliance officers, defense counsel, and prosecutors, the bill changes the calculus around cold cases, evidence preservation, interstate coordination with state authorities, and constitutional defenses that arise when prosecutions are revived after long delays.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts 18 U.S.C. §3302 into Chapter 213 and states that an indictment or information may be filed “at any time” without limitation for a defined list of non‑capital homicide offenses. It explicitly overrides conflicting time‑bar provisions by its “notwithstanding any other provision of law” language.
Who It Affects
Federal prosecutors and the Department of Justice, defense counsel (including federal public defenders), FBI and other investigative units, and victims’ families in cases falling within federal jurisdiction (e.g., killings on federal property or of federal officers). It does not alter state statutes of limitation.
Why It Matters
Removing time limits for serious non‑capital homicides narrows the procedural gap between capital and non‑capital homicide prosecutions and makes cold federal cases prosecutable regardless of age. That shift has practical consequences for evidence management, resource allocation, and likely constitutional litigation over retroactive revival of previously time‑barred claims.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is short and surgical. It creates a standalone provision in Title 18 that says certain non‑capital homicide charges can be brought at any time: prosecutors need no longer worry that the five‑year (or other) limitation that normally bars federal non‑capital felonies will prevent an indictment.
The provision applies to offenses listed by cross‑reference to existing Title 18 sections that define second‑degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and attempted manslaughter in various venue‑specific contexts.
Practically, the change removes a bright procedural deadline that previously forced early charging decisions, plea negotiations, and investigative prioritization in eligible federal homicide matters. Prosecutors retain ordinary charging discretion, but the absence of a time bar means prosecutors can reopen long‑dormant inquiries where new evidence (for example, DNA or witness statements) emerges.
It also means investigative units have stronger incentives to preserve and reexamine evidence tied to federal homicide statutes.However, the statute is a procedural device rather than a substantive redefinition of offenses: it does not alter elements of the crimes, sentencing ranges, or venue rules. It does, though, interact with constitutional doctrines—most immediately due process and ex post facto limitations—because the text contains no savings clause limiting revival to offenses that were not already time‑barred.
That omission creates a plausible line of challenge that defendants are likely to raise if prosecutions proceed on ancient conduct.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds 18 U.S.C. §3302 to Chapter 213 and uses “notwithstanding any other provision of law” to eliminate time bars for the listed homicides.
It authorizes an indictment or an information “at any time” for nine enumerated categories tied to second‑degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and attempted manslaughter across Title 18 provisions.
The text contains no explicit effective date or savings clause preserving the finality of prosecutions previously time‑barred, which raises questions about retroactive revival.
Capital homicide prosecutions already have no statute of limitations; this bill narrows the procedural difference by removing limits for specified non‑capital cases.
The bill includes a clerical amendment to the chapter table of sections to insert §3302 (i.e.
a straightforward codification change).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'Kamisha’s Law'
A one‑line naming provision that supplies the public and legal shorthand for the amendment. This does not affect substantive law but matters for citations, DOJ memoranda, and reference in subsequent legislative or regulatory materials.
Creates an exception to federal time limits for listed non‑capital homicides
This is the operative change: a new statutory provision that declares indictments or informations for the listed homicide offenses may be filed “at any time.” Because the text is framed as an exception “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” it is intended to supersede the general limitations in Chapter 213 (including 18 U.S.C. §3282’s default five‑year limit for non‑capital felonies). The provision accomplishes its ends by cross‑referencing existing substantive sections rather than restating elements, meaning the underlying definitions and venue rules in those sections remain controlling.
Updates the chapter table of sections
This line updates the table of sections to include the new §3302. It has no legal effect on criminal procedure but ensures published codifications and electronic references list the new provision and aids practitioners and researchers in locating the change.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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 advocacy groups — they can press for federal prosecutions in cold cases where federal jurisdiction exists and time‑bar concerns previously prevented charging.
- Federal prosecutors and DOJ — gain broader authority to prosecute serious federal homicides regardless of elapsed time, enabling reopened investigations when new evidence surfaces.
- Cold‑case and forensic units in law enforcement — receive stronger legal justification for long‑term evidence preservation and reinvestigation because cases remain prosecutable.
- Forensic laboratories and private investigative contractors — stand to see increased demand for post‑conviction or late discovery testing and reanalysis of aged material.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants facing revived prosecutions — may confront charges where witnesses have died or memories faded, undermining defense preparation and increasing risk of wrongful conviction.
- Federal public defenders and defense counsel — will face heavier caseloads and more complex factual defenses in older matters, often with degraded evidence and sparse records.
- DOJ and investigative agencies (FBI, U.S. Marshals) — must allocate sustained resources to investigate and litigate long‑dormant matters, potentially diverting attention from contemporary priorities.
- Federal courts — judges and clerks will absorb additional pretrial work resolving evidentiary disputes tied to stale records, and trial dockets could see resource‑intensive historic cases.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill embodies a classic tension: expanding the temporal reach of prosecution to pursue accountability for grave wrongdoing versus preserving long‑recognized procedural protections that guard against unfair prosecutions when evidence and memories age; resolving that tension forces a choice between victims’ interests in eventual justice and defendants’ rights to repose and a fair trial.
The bill’s drafting choice to state that charges may be brought “at any time” while invoking a blanket “notwithstanding any other provision of law” is legally potent but also creates predictable litigation fodder. A central implementation question is whether §3302 can revive prosecutions that were already time‑barred before enactment.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Stogner v. California (2003) invalidated retroactive revival of state prosecutions barred by final time limits on ex post facto grounds; that precedent will be the touchstone for challenges here.
Because the text lacks a savings clause or explicit prospective limitation, courts will likely confront whether Congress can constitutionally resurrect claims that were previously expired.
Beyond constitutional doctrine, the provision sharpens practical fairness tensions. Evidence degrades, witnesses die, recollections dim, and records get lost.
While removal of the limitation supports accountability in cold cases, it shifts the evidentiary balance against defendants and increases the chance of reliance on forensic methods (like degraded DNA) and testimonial reconstruction that defense counsel will aggressively contest. The statute also imports administrative costs: DOJ must decide how to prioritize reopened investigations, coordinate with state authorities to avoid duplicative or forum‑shopping prosecutions, and prepare for an uptick in pretrial motions contesting statute‑of‑limitations revival and due process fairness.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.