Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321
`Joseph N. Roth, 025725
`Sarah P. Lawson, 036436
`OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
`2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793
`(602) 640-9000
`teckstein@omlaw.com
`jroth@omlaw.com
`slawson@omlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for James Larkin
`Additional counsel on following pages
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-DJH
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
`RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
`DENYING DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO DISMISS THE
`SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
`(Doc. 1587)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 15873, admitted pro hac vice)
`Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)
`LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP
`42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120
`Buffalo, New York 14202
`(716) 849-1333
`pcambria@lglaw.com
`emccampbell@lglaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Michael Lacey
`
`Bruce S. Feder (AZ 004832)
`FEDER LAW OFFICE PA
`2930 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 160
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016
`(602) 257-0135
`bf@federlawpa.com
`
`Eric Walter Kessler
`KESSLER LAW OFFICE
`6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85253
`(480) 644-0093
`Eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com
`
`Attorneys for Scott Spear
`
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Ariel A. Neuman
`Gopi K. Panchapakesan
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
`DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.
`1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`(310) 201-2100
`glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`gpanchapakesan.@birdmarella.com
`aneuman@birdmarella.com
`
`Attorneys for John Brunst
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`David S. Eisenberg
`DAVID EISENBERG PLC
`3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`(602) 237-5076
`david@eisenbergplc.com
`
`Attorneys for Andrew Padilla
`
`Joy Malby Bertrand
`JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC
`P.O. Box 2734
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85252
`(480) 656-3919
`joyous@mailbag.com
`
`Attorneys for Joye Vaught
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`Defendants move for reconsideration of the Court’s June 1, 2023 Order denying
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment. Doc. 1587. The United
`States Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, decision in United States v. Hansen is binding,
`intervening authority requiring reconsideration of that Order.1
`I.
`Legal Standard
`A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where, among other things, “there is
`an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
`AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Local R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)(1)
`(listing “new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the court’s]
`attention earlier” as a basis for a motion for reconsideration). United States v. Mendez,
`No. 07-cr-00011 MMM, 2008 WL 2561962, at *2 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2008) (“Courts
`have held that motions for reconsideration in criminal cases are governed by the rules
`that govern equivalent motions in civil proceedings.”).
`II.
`Argument
`
`Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss contended that the phrase “promote or facilitate”
`as used in the Travel Act is equivalent to “aid or abet.” Doc. 1557 at 10-13. And like
`any aiding and abetting offense, a violation of the Travel Act requires proof that each
`Defendant knew about and intended to commit each element of the underlying offenses
`and proof of a violation of the underlying state law. Id. at 12-13. See Rosemond v.
`United States, 572 U.S. 65, 76-77 (2014) (“To aid and abet a crime, a defendant must
`not just ‘in some sort associate himself with the venture,’ but also ‘participate in it as
`in something that he wishes to bring about’ and ‘seek by his action to make it
`succeed.’…We have previously found that intent requirement satisfied when a person
`actively participates in a criminal venture with full knowledge of the
`
`
`1 The Supreme Court released the United States v. Hansen slip opinion on June 23, 2023.
`Although this motion is brought outside the normal 14-day window for a reconsideration
`motion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Hansen, issued after the 14-day window, provides
`good cause for the motion.
`
`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-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`circumstances constituting the charged offense . . . . What matters for purposes of
`gauging intent, and so what jury instructions should convey, is that the defendant has
`chosen, with full knowledge, to participate in the illegal scheme . . . .” (emphasis
`added)); id. at 81 (holding that the jury must have been instructed that “Rosemond
`needed advance knowledge of [each element of the charged offense]”); see also United
`States v. Encarnacion-Ruiz, 787 F.3d 581, 588 (1st Cir. 2015) (“Under Rosemond, to
`establish the mens rea required to aid and abet a crime, the government must prove that
`the defendant participated with advance knowledge of the elements that constitute the
`charged offense.”). Because the indictment failed to allege both a state of mind
`extending to the specific and entire crimes purportedly facilitated and the commission
`of state law violations, the superseding indictment is deficient on its face. See United
`States v. Cecil, 608 F.2d 1294, 1297 (9th Cir. 1979) (“[T]he fact that an indictment may
`have tracked the language of the statute will not render it valid if it fails to allege an
`essential element of the offense or the minimum facts required to fulfill the purposes of
`indictments.”); see also Doc. 1557 at 14-15.
`In denying the motion, the Court ruled that “specific intent to promote or
`facilitate prostitution” is all the indictment is required to allege and that the indictment
`need not “allege the underlying offense has been committed.” Doc. 1587 at 8-9.
`Further, this Court rejected Defendants’ argument that the “intent element go to the
`specific and entire crime charged, as it must in an aiding and abetting charge.” Id. at
`12-13 (quotation marks omitted).
`The Supreme Court’s June 23, 2023, opinion in Hansen requires reconsideration
`of these rulings. The Supreme Court held that “facilitation [is] also called aiding and
`abetting” which is “the provision of assistance to a wrongdoer with the intent to further
`an offense’s commission.” United States v. Hansen, No. 22-179, 2023 WL 4138994,
`at *6 (U.S. June 23, 2023). And liability for aiding and abetting—also known as
`facilitation—requires (1) “an intent to bring about a particular unlawful act” and (2)
`
`
`
`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-DJH Document 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`“that a wrongful act be carried out.” Id. The Court reached this decision by
`“transplant[ing]” the “old soil” of the traditional mens rea required for aiding and
`abetting to facilitation. Id. at *9 (citing Rosemond, 572 U.S. at 70-71). The Supreme
`Court’s holding in Hansen—that a federal criminal statute’s use of the word
`“facilitation” means “aiding and abetting” and requires proof of the same elements—is
`precisely the argument on which Defendants’ motion to dismiss turned.
`Under Hansen’s binding precedent, “facilitation,” as used in the Travel Act, is
`the same as “aiding and abetting” and comes with all the “old soil” of aiding and
`abetting. Accordingly, under Hansen, the indictment must allege that each Defendant
`had the specific intent to commit each element of each of the underlying prostitution
`offenses and that the prostitution offenses Defendants are alleged to have facilitated
`actually were committed. Hansen, 2023 WL 4138994, at *6. Accordingly, Defendants
`seek modification of the Court’s order (at 7-13) addressing the deficiencies in the Travel
`Act counts to hold that the superseding indictment must allege that each Defendant,
`having full and advance knowledge, specifically intended to complete each element of
`each of the underlying state prostitution offenses and that those crimes were
`committed—which the indictment plainly fails to do. See L. R. Civ. P. 7.2(g)(1).
`Moreover, in light of Hansen, Defendants seek reconsideration of the Court’s
`holding that “even if . . . the evidentiary burdens of an aiding and abetting offense
`govern the SI’s Travel Act charges, whether the Government has offered sufficient
`proof of the commission of an offense by another is an issue that goes to the
`Government’s burden at trial.” Doc. 1587 at 11. As recognized in Hansen, it is black
`letter law that “liability for aiding and abetting requires that a wrongful act be carried
`out.” 2023 WL 4138994, at *6. The superseding indictment alleges that some of the
`people who posted the advertisements in Counts 2-51 engaged in prostitution (and
`alleges nothing at all about some of the advertisements, other than citing language from
`the ads that the government claims is suggestive of prostitution). But that is not
`
`
`
`6
`
`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 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`enough—without an allegation that each Defendant, with full and advance knowledge,
`aided and abetted (i.e., facilitated) the prostitution offenses of specific business
`enterprises and intended that those particular offenses occur, the indictment fails to state
`offenses for facilitation of business enterprises involving prostitution offenses in
`violation of state law. See United States v. Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 449
`(9th Cir. 1974) (affirming dismissal of indictment “because neither the defendants’
`intention to facilitate nor the defendants’ actual facilitation of unlawful activities in
`Montana were shown”).
`III. Conclusion
`
`The United States Supreme Court’s decision in United State v. Hansen
`necessitates reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the Defendants’ motion to
`dismiss.
`
`DATED this 28th day of June, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.
`
`By
`
`
`
`s/ Joseph N. Roth
`Timothy J. Eckstein
`Joseph N. Roth
`Sarah P. Lawson
`2929 North Central, 20th Floor
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for James Larkin
`
`
`LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP
`
`By
`
`
`s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (w/permission)
`Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (pro hac vice)
`Erin E. McCampbell (pro hac vice)
`42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120
`Buffalo, New York 14202
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Michael Lacey
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`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 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Bruce S. Feder (w/permission)
`Bruce S. Feder
`2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016
`
`s/ Eric W. Kessler (w/permission)
`Eric W. Kessler
`6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85253
`
`FEDER LAW OFFICE PA
`
`By
`
`
`
`
`KESSLER LAW OFFICE
`
`By
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Scott Spear
`
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,
`NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG &
`RHOW P.C.
`
`By
`
`
`s/ Gary S. Lincenberg (w/permission)
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Gopi K. Panchapakesan
`Ariel A. Neuman
`1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for John Brunst
`
`DAVID EISENBERG PLC
`
`By
`
`
`
`s/ David S. Eisenberg (w/permission)
`David S. Eisenberg
`3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`
`
`Attorneys for Andrew Padilla
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1622 Filed 06/28/23 Page 9 of 9
`
`JOY BERTRAND LAW
`
`By
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Joye Vaught
`
`s/ Joy M. Bertrand (w/permission)
`Joy M. Bertrand
`P.O. Box 2734
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85252
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`