`
`
`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 1360 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`GLENN B. McCORMICK
`Acting United States Attorney
`District of Arizona
`
`KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov)
`MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov)
`PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov)
`ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov)
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800
`Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408
`Telephone (602) 514-7500
`
`DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov)
`Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
`312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90012
`Telephone (213) 894-2426
`
`KENNETH POLITE
`Assistant Attorney General
`Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
`
`REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov)
`Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice
`Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
`950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116
`Washington, D.C. 20530
`Telephone (202) 616-2807
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB
`
`
`UNITED STATES’ OBJECTIONS TO
`DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED
`SUPPLEMENTAL/REVISED
`QUESTIONS FOR JUROR
`QUESTIONNAIRE (Doc. 1348)
`
`The United States files its objections to Defendants’ proposed supplemental/revised
`questions for juror questionnaire. (Doc. 1348.)
`The United States has no objections to revised questions 50, 57(a), 61, or 77.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 1360 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`The United States objects to supplemental questions 76(a) and 76(b). Defendants
`also revised original question 76 and have renumbered it as 76(c). The United States
`believes that the original question 76 is sufficient to obtain relevant information from the
`prospective jurors on the subject of whether websites should be responsible for the content
`posted by the website’s users. Question 76 as written in the United States’ proposed juror
`questionnaire (Doc. 1349-1 at 22) should be included.
`Defendants’ proposed question 76(a) reads:
`Do you believe that websites hosting third-party content (such as Google/YouTube,
`Rumble, Facebook/Instagram, Parler, Twitter, Gab, and others) should be able to decide
`what content will be allowed on their websites? Please explain. (Doc. 1348-1 at 1.)
`The principal purpose of voir dire is to identify bias. See Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S.
`1025, 1038 (1984); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1994). It is not to
`indoctrinate, inculcate, influence, insinuate, inform, or ingratiate. Mixed Chicks LLC v.
`Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 879 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2012). This
`proposed question is confusing and irrelevant. First, the question fails to add anything
`beyond what is already covered in original question 76. Second, this question doesn’t
`relate to any material issues in dispute at trial. The issue before the jury will not involve
`Defendants’ inability “to decide what content will be allowed on their website,” but rather
`whether they are guilty of the 100 counts charged in the Superseding Indictment. Third, it
`is hornbook law that prostitution advertisements and solicitations are forms of commercial
`speech that are not constitutionally protected. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations
`Comm’n, 413 U.S. 376, 388 (1973) (“We have no doubt that a newspaper constitutionally
`could be forbidden to publish a want ad…soliciting prostitutes.”). With this proposed
`question, Defendants seek to argue and indoctrinate the jury on their theory of the case and
`what they think the law should be, which is impermissible voir dire. This proposed
`question should not be given.
`
`
`
`- 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 1360 Filed 10/22/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`Defendants’ proposed question 76(b) reads:
`Websites hosting third-party content often engage in ‘content moderation’? Do you
`know what ‘content moderation’ is? If yes, please describe. (Doc. 1348-1 at 1.)
`
`The principal purpose of voir dire is to identify bias. See Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S.
`1025, 1038 (1984); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1994). It is not to
`indoctrinate, inculcate, influence, insinuate, inform, or ingratiate. Mixed Chicks LLC v.
`Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 879 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2012). Asking a
`juror to “describe” his or her understanding of “content moderation” during voir dire is
`inappropriate. If a juror even has an idea about “content moderation,” it’s wholly irrelevant
`and immaterial to his or her duties as a juror. The jurors will need to evaluate the evidence
`presented at trial and how Backpage’s “content moderation” played a role in the criminal
`case against Defendants. How other websites may or may not utilize “content moderation”
`is not relevant. Defendants are attempting to relate Backpage’s practices with other
`websites that are currently in operation in an effort to provide a positive association of
`Backpage for the jury panel. This is nothing more than an attempt to argue and indoctrinate
`the jury on Defendants’ theory of the case, which is impermissible voir dire. This proposed
`question should not be given.
`Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2021.
`
`GLENN B. McCORMICK
`Acting United States Attorney
`District of Arizona
`
`s/ Andrew C. Stone
`KEVIN M. RAPP
`MARGARET PERLMETER
`PETER S. KOZINETS
`ANDREW C. STONE
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`
`DAN G. BOYLE
`Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
`KENNETH POLITE
`Assistant Attorney General
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`
`- 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 1360 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`REGINALD E. JONES
`Senior Trial Attorney
`U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division
`Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on October 22, 2021, I electronically transmitted the attached
`
`document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a
`Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance
`as counsel of record.
`
`s/ Marjorie Dieckman
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`
`- 4 -
`
`