with the statute of limitations by presenting evidence that the crime was committed within the limitations period or by establishing an exception to the limitations period. When a defendant fails to press a limitations defense, the defense does not become part of the case and the Government does not otherwise have the burden of proving that it filed a timely indictment. When a defendant does not press the defense, then there is no error for an appellate court to correct—and certainly no plain error. Turning to decisions of other states, we find less uniformity than the federal courts, due at least in part to the varying provisions of state procedural rules and statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Arizona v. Tom, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0088-PR, 2016 WL 1601706 (Ariz. Ct. App. April 20, 2016) (<HOLDING>); Kansas v. Cormack, 248 P.3d 784 (Kan Ct. App.
holding that the statute of limitations in a criminal case is a nonjurisdictional affirmative defense that is waived if not raised in the trial court recognizing requirement of knowing intelligent waiver holding that the running of the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense holding that the constitutional right to a sixmember jury may be waived by a knowing and intelligent waiver holding that statute of limitations is an affirmative defense is waived if not raised in the trial court and does not require a knowing and intelligent waiver