`
`
`
`
`
`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-DJH Document 1417 Filed 12/01/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`WO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-DJH
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Parties have filed Proposed Supplemental Questions for the Juror Questionnaire
`
`(Docs. 1348 and 1349). This prompted objections by the Government to the Defendants’
`
`Notice (Doc. 1360) and Defendant’s Response to the Government’s Notice. (Doc. 1352).
`
`Then, Defendants’ filed a Reply in support of their own Notice. (Doc. 1365). The Court
`
`has considered the same and now provides its ruling.
`
`
`
`As an initial matter, the Court has reviewed the previously used juror questionnaire.
`
`The Court has sua sponte determined it to be over-lengthy (prompting complaints by the
`
`former panel to the district court’s Jury Administrator), much of its content to be redundant,
`
`irrelevant to the voir dire process regarding the parties and subject matters. The Court has
`
`revised the juror questionnaire to address these, and some of the parties suggestions and
`
`objections.1
`
`/ / / /
`
`
`1 A track-change juror questionnaire and non-track change juror questionnaire is provided
`to all parties under seal. The parties may place their positions related to this Order on the
`record at the conclusion of the hearing set for December 13th.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-DJH Document 1417 Filed 12/01/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`a. Defendants’ Proposed Supplement/Revised Questions (Doc. 1348):
`
`The Court has incorporated, with slight modification, proposed Question 50 (now
`
`at No. 42). Proposed Questions 57a, 61, 76a – c, and 77 are irrelevant, calling for legal
`
`knowledge, and/or confusing. Potential jurors should not be expected to identify every
`
`single internet platform that he/she has ever used. Nor should he/she be expected to
`
`understand or comment on the legal complexities involved with third-party platforms or
`
`content moderation. Nor should this screening questionnaire attempt to educate them of
`
`the same.
`
`
`
`Accordingly, the Governments objections to Defendant’s proposed Questions 76a –
`
`76b are sustained.
`
`
`b. Governments Proposed Supplemental/Revised Questions (Doc. 1349)
`
`
`
`The Court agrees with the Government that the juror questionnaire should be
`
`revised to gauge the potential jurors willingness to serve in the current COVID-19 climate.
`
`For example, it is irrelevant if a potential juror had flu like symptoms in the last two-weeks
`
`of filling out the questionnaire. Accordingly, the Defendants’ objections to revised
`
`questions 15 – 20 are overruled.
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ do not object to the Governments’ revised questions 38-39 and the
`
`Court has incorporated those changes into the revised questionnaire.
`
`
`
`The Government’s proposed revised question 42 has been considered, along with
`
`the Defendants’ responses thereto. The Court has sua sponte revised the same as reflected
`
`in Question No. 36.
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ objection to Governments proposed revised question 64 is
`
`overruled. The revised question appears at Question No. 63. Potential jurors should not
`
`be presumed to be aware of the legal distinctions and nuances of escort service or legal or
`
`illegal adult entertainment industries. Nor should this screening questionnaire be the
`
`vehicle to educate them on the same. The prior question, and subsequent question relating
`
`to adult escort services are confusing, and may appear redundant. Accordingly, the Court
`
`has modified the question to avoid the same.
`
`- 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-DJH Document 1417 Filed 12/01/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`The Defendants’ objection to Government’s proposed revised question 79 is
`
`sustained in part and overruled in part. The Court has revised the question accordingly at
`
`Question No. 76.
`
`
`
`The Court has incorporated Government’s proposed question 82, now at Question
`
`No. 78.
`
`Dated this 1st day of December, 2021.
`
`
`Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Attachments cc: AUSA Kevin Rapp, Margaret Perlmeter, Reginald Jones, Andrew Stone,
`
`Peter Kozinets; Counsel for Defendants Lacey, Larkin, Spear, Brunst, Padilla and Vaught)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
