Case 2:18-cr-00422-SMB Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`WO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SMB
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Court is in receipt of Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst,
`
`Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Presentation
`
`of Certain Evidence, (Doc. 908), to which the Government responded. (Doc. 961.)
`
`Defendants requested oral argument, but the Court declines to hold oral argument on the
`
`motion, finding that it is unnecessary. The Court has considered the pleadings and the
`
`applicable law and now grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for the reasons
`
`discussed below.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`On July 25, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a one hundred count superseding
`
`indictment against several of the Defendants in this case alleging that the Defendants
`
`engaged in various crimes related to the operation of the website Backpage.com
`
`(“Backpage”), including conspiracy to commit a violation of the Travel Act, substantive
`
`Travel Act violations, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive counts of
`
`money laundering. (Doc. 230.) The Travel Act charges related to allegations that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-SMB Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`Defendants facilitated business enterprises involved in prostitution. Defendants bring this
`
`motion to move the Court in limine for an order precluding the admission of certain
`
`evidence at trial that Defendants contend is irrelevant, prejudicial, and bears no connection
`
`to the crimes charged. Specifically, Defendants seek an order precluding the Government
`
`from presenting evidence of: (1) sex trafficking or child-sex trafficking; (2) third-party
`
`criminal conduct other than prostitution; (3) a third party’s Travel Act conviction from
`
`1987; and (4) purported prostitution ads from printed publications. (Doc. 908 at 1.) In
`
`addition to being irrelevant and prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403, Fed. R. Evid.,
`
`Defendants argue that this evidence would needlessly prolong trial, cause undue delay, and
`
`waste judicial resources. (Id.)
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Evidence may not be admitted at trial unless it is relevant, as defined by Rule 401
`
`of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” United States v. Vellejo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.
`
`2001). “Evidence is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that
`
`is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it
`
`would be without the evidence.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401). “Relevance is not a strict
`
`test.” United States EEOC v. Placer ARC, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2015)
`
`(quoting United States v. Miranda-Uriarte, 649 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). “As the
`
`words ‘any tendency’ suggest, it is typically quite a ‘low bar to the admissibility of
`
`evidence.’” Id. (quoting Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Beach Eatery & Surf Bar, LLC, 36
`
`F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1037 (E.D. Wash. 2014)). “The court may exclude relevant evidence if
`
`its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following:
`
`unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or
`
`needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. When evidence is
`
`minimally relevant, it is likely to be minimally probative as well. United States v. Wiggan,
`
`700 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). Excluding otherwise relevant evidence under Rule
`
`403 is “an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.” United States v. Mende, 43 F.3d
`
`1298, 1302 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-SMB Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`“The rule is well established that the government in a conspiracy case may submit
`
`proof on the full scope of the conspiracy; it is not limited in its proof to the overt acts
`
`alleged in the indictment.” United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Evidence Related to Sex Trafficking or Child Sex Trafficking
`
`Defendants first argue that allowing the Government to present “[e]vidence
`
`suggesting that Backpage ads were linked to sex trafficking or child-sex trafficking would
`
`be profoundly prejudicial and lack any probative value.” (Doc. 908 at 3.) Defendants point
`
`out that sex trafficking and child sex trafficking are not elements of the charged offenses
`
`under the Travel Act. Instead, the Travel Act merely requires that the Government prove
`
`that Defendants intended to “promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the
`
`promotion, management or carrying on” of prostitution offenses. 18 U.S.C. §§
`
`1952(a)(3)(A), (b). Thus, Defendants argue that the evidence has no probative value and
`
`instead “would only serve to mislead the jurors and provide them with an extra-judicial
`
`basis to convict Defendants.” (Id. at 5.) Lastly, Defendants argue that allowing the
`
`Government to admit evidence of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking through their
`
`website would result in “trials within a trial.” (Id. at 5-6.) In response, the Government
`
`argues that sex trafficking and child sex trafficking are both types of prostitution with both
`
`crimes requiring the victim to engage in sex for financial gain. (Doc. 961 at 4 (citing 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1591)).
`
`The Court agrees with the Government’s position. Sex trafficking and child sex
`
`trafficking are, by definition, both forms of prostitution. Both are simply a subset of the
`
`crime. Sex trafficking and child sex trafficking require victims to engage in sex in exchange
`
`for payment, and the Government must prove that Defendants intended to facilitate
`
`prostitution through Backpage.com. Evidence that tends to prove that Defendants were
`
`aware that Backpage.com was being used to facilitate sex trafficking and child sex
`
`trafficking are extremely probative to show notice to Defendants that the website was being
`
`used for illegal purposes. While the prejudicial value to Defendants is high, it does not
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-SMB Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence which is also very high. See
`
`United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 2001) (“All evidence introduced
`
`against a criminal defendant might be said to be prejudicial if it tends to prove the
`
`prosecution's case.”). Of course, the Court will not allow the Government to linger on the
`
`details of the abuse sex trafficking victims suffered as a result of being trafficked.1
`
`However, the Court will allow evidence of the fact that people were trafficked using
`
`Backpage.com at trial subject to specific objections from Defendants.
`
`B. Evidence of Crimes Committed by Third Parties
`
`Defendants also urge the Court to preclude evidence of crimes committed by third
`
`parties.2 Defendants argue the fact that violent crimes were perpetrated against those
`
`advertising on Backpage.com has nothing to do with Defendants or whether they violated
`
`the Travel Act by facilitating prostitution. (Doc. 908 at 6-7.) Defendants urge the Court to
`
`preclude this evidence as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. They move the Court for an
`
`order “limiting the testimony of such individuals to those facts relevant to the Travel Act”
`
`charges. (Id. at 9.) In support, Defendants discuss several cases which they purport support
`
`their argument that the evidence of other crimes should be excluded. (Doc. 908 at 7-8
`
`(citing United States v. Bradley, 5 F.3d 1317, 1319-22 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v.
`
`Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hitt, 981 F.2d
`
`422, 423-425 (9th Cir. 1992)).) The Government’s Response argues that the evidence is
`
`relevant because “it shows Defendants were placed on notice and knew the website was a
`
`hub for prostitution activity and their actions following the notice show that rather than try
`
`to stop it, they took steps to promote and facilitate the unlawful activity.” (Doc. 961 at 6.)
`
`
`1 See United States v. Garcia De Leon, 137 F. App’x 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that
`the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that the testimony of sex
`trafficking victims was not unduly prejudicial, especially since the government “was
`precluded from dwelling on the details of the abuse.”).
`2 The Court is also in receipt of and has considered the Government’s Motion to Admit
`Evidence of Murders Implicating Backpage. (Doc. 920.) The Court will address
`Defendants’ arguments that the Court should preclude evidence of third-party murders in
`that order.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-SMB Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`The Government contends that the cases cited by Defendants are easily distinguishable
`
`because they involve crimes where the Government did not need to prove the knowledge
`
`or intent of a defendant.
`
`Generally, the Court agrees that the crimes of third parties are only relevant to the
`
`extent that they gave Defendants’ notice that prostitutes were advertising on
`
`Backpage.com. However, the specific details of crimes committed by third parties are
`
`irrelevant to whether Defendants violated the Travel Act, and in most instances, evidence
`
`of such third-party crimes is likely improper. But without reference to specific contexts
`
`where the Government intends to introduce such evidence, the Court will not categorically
`
`conclude that all evidence of crimes committed by third parties is inadmissible. If the
`
`Government attempts to introduce such evidence at trial, it will only be admitted to the
`
`extent that it gave Defendants notice that prostitutes were utilizing Backpage.com, and the
`
`Government will not be allowed to introduce evidence showing the details of the crimes.
`
`As to the evidence of third-party murders, as the Court mentioned above, the Court will
`
`address those arguments in a separate order.
`
`Defendants also seek to limit the scope of testimony of witnesses involved in
`
`prostitution and seek an order precluding the Government from introducing lengthy
`
`testimony regarding the witnesses’ lifestyle. The Court will not allow the Government to
`
`introduce lengthy testimony from witnesses who were engaged in prostitution about their
`
`lives, lifestyles, or other details of their time working as prostitutes. Testimony from people
`
`involved in prostitution is only relevant as it relates to their use of Backpage.com and notice
`
`to Defendants that prostitutes were using their website. Testimony concerning the lifestyle
`
`and impact that prostitution had on witnesses’ lives is irrelevant to the crimes charged and
`
`may unduly prejudice Defendants. However, prior to using the phrase “a day in the life” in
`
`the response, the Government described areas of testimony that would be relevant and
`
`admissible. (Doc. 961 at 5.) Those areas included how ads were created, drafted, edited,
`
`and paid for. That information is all relevant to the Government’s theories behind the
`
`conspiracy discussed in other motions, including moderation and money laundering. The
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cr-00422-SMB Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`Government will not be allowed to introduce lengthy testimony of their time as prostitutes
`
`pursuant to Rules 401 and 403, Fed. R. Evid.
`
`C. Third Party’s Travel Act Violation from 1987
`
`Defendants urge the Court to preclude evidence of a Travel Act conviction from
`
`1987 from an individual unrelated to Backpage. (Doc. 908 at 9.) In response, the
`
`Government states that it does not intend to introduce this evidence at trial. (Doc. 961 at
`
`2.) Thus, Defendants’ request is moot.
`
`D. Evidence of Prostitution Ads in Printed Publications
`
`Lastly, Defendants ask the Court to preclude evidence related to the Government’s
`
`allegation in the Indictment that publications within the Village Voice Media Holding
`
`newspaper routinely featured illegal prostitution ads because evidence of this fact is not
`
`relevant, is prejudicial, would confuse jurors, and waste time at trial. (Doc. 908 at 10.) In
`
`response, the Government asserts that it does not intend to introduce ads from print
`
`publications at trial. (Doc. 961 at 2.) Accordingly, this request is also moot.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly,
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Presentation of
`
`Certain Evidence is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 908.) The motion is granted
`
`to preclude testimony from people engaged in prostitution regarding the details of their
`
`lifestyle except as it relates to their use of Backpage.com. The motion is also granted to
`
`preclude evidence related to details of crimes committed by third parties, evidence of a
`
`third party’s Travel Act violation from 1987, and evidence of prostitution ads from print
`
`publications. The rest of Defendants’ motion is denied.
`
`Dated this 7th day of May, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`