Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`GARY M. RESTAINO
`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
`
`AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov)
`U.S. Department of Justice
`Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
`1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`Telephone (202) 412-4136
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`
`JOINT PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`In accordance with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 1524, 1546, 1621), the parties submit
`this Joint Pretrial Memorandum.
`Counts
`a.
`There are a total of 100 counts in this case. The United States intends to proceed in
`its case-in-chief on every count alleged in the Superseding Indictment (SI). (Doc. 230.)
`Forfeiture Allegations
`b.
`With respect to any forfeiture in this action, forfeiture has been alleged in the SI,
`and in the event of a conviction on one or more counts alleged in the SI, the United States
`intends to seek forfeiture consistent with the allegations of the SI. Defendants have not
`indicated whether they elect to try the forfeiture allegations to the jury or the Court.
`There is currently pending a related civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States
`District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 18-cv-82420, before the Hon.
`R. Gary Klausner. That proceeding is stayed by stipulation of the parties there pending
`resolution of this proceeding.
`Notices
`c.
`The United States has filed notices to rely on 902(11) certifications, which has
`already been ruled on by the Court. (Doc. 1317.) In that Order, the Court found that the
`bank records have been authenticated and are not excluded by the rule against hearsay.
`(Doc. 1317 at 3.) Defendants’ right to object for other reasons is preserved. (Id. at 1.) In
`that same Order, the Court also ruled on the admissibility of many of the United States’
`summary exhibits and held that the government’s summary exhibits A, D through I were
`admissible pursuant to Rule 1006 subject to foundational testimony, and Exhibits B and C
`were not admissible at that time. (Id. at 2-3.)
`d. Motions in Limine
`1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony, Statements, or
`Arguments that Escort Services, Dating Ads, Massage Services and Adult
`Advertising are Unlawful or Presumed to Involve Prostitution (Docs.
`1588, 1601) and the United States’ Response. (Doc. 1604.)
`
`- 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-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant and Prejudicial
`Testimony (Doc. 1589) and the United States’ Response. (Doc. 1613.)
`3. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to First
`Amendment and Free Speech (Doc. 1590) and the Defendants’ Response
`(Doc. 1602.)
`4. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Alleged Former
`Prostitution Marketing Strategies (Doc. 1591) and the United States’
`Response (Doc. 1603.)
`5. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Arguing
`Legality of Ads (Doc. 1592) and the Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1612.)
`6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant and Inadmissible
`Evidence Re: Mersey and Elms (Doc. 1593) and the United States’
`Response (Doc. 1607.)
`7. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Section 320
`of the Communication Decency Act (Doc. 1594) and the Defendants’
`Response (Doc. 1615.)
`8. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Certain Other
`Litigation (Doc. 1595) and the Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1609.)
`9. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Introducing
`Non-Witness or Non-Evidence (Doc. 1596) and the Defendants’
`Response (Doc. 1610.)
`10. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Court
`Decisions, Rulings, Opinions or Results from Prior Litigation Filed by or
`Against Backpage.com, LCC or its owner(s) (Doc. 1597) and the
`Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1616.)
`11. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Commenting
`on Legitimacy of Prosecution (Doc. 1598) and the Defendants’ Response
`(Doc. 1614.)
`
`- 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 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`12. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants’ Purported Good
`Faith Reliance on Advice of Counsel (Doc. 1599) and the Defendants’
`Response (Doc. 1608.)
`13. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Referencing
`Craigslist Meetings with Attorneys General (Doc. 1600) and the
`Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1611.)
`Other Motions
`e.
`Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to
`Dismiss the Superseding Indictment. (Doc. 1622.) The United States’ response is due July
`3, 2023 and Defendants’ reply is due July 6, 2023.
`Stipulations
`f.
`The Court made rulings about some of the evidence in a previous Order. (Doc.
`1212.)
`For the first trial, the Court ordered each side to provide opposing counsel the name
`of each witness and the exhibits it sought to admit through that witness 48 hours before the
`witness was expected to testify.1 (Doc. 1343 at 81-82.)
`The parties have not agreed on any stipulations of fact that may be read or otherwise
`presented to the jury.
`Number of Witnesses and Exhibits
`g.
`The United States expects to call around 50 witnesses. Defendants may call around
`50 witnesses. The United States has marked nearly 2000 exhibits, but will not seek to
`admit all of them. Defendants expect to mark approximately 1200 exhibits to be potentially
`admitted at trial.
`
`
`
`1 For the retrial, the United States offered a stipulation where the parties would
`identify witnesses and their corresponding exhibits one week before the witness’s expected
`testimony, in exchange for handling any objections to the exhibits outside of the jury’s
`presence. Because defendants rejected this offer, the United States requests the Court
`continue with the 48-hour rule as ordered in the first trial.
`
`- 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 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 5 of 6
`
`h.
`
`Estimated Length of Trial
`- 8-12 hours: Jury Selection
`- 1.5 hours: Opening Statement (United States)
`- 1.0 hours: Opening Statements (per Defendant, total of 6 hours)
`- 200 hours: Government’s Case (including rebuttal)
`- 200 hours: Defendants’ Case
`- 2.5 hours: Closing Argument (United States)
`- 2 hours: Closing Arguments (per Defendant, total of 12 hours)
`- 430 hours: Total
`Interpreter
`i.
`An interpreter will not be needed at trial.
`Procedures for Expediting Trial
`j.
`The parties will continue to discuss potential stipulations.
`Respectfully submitted this 30th day of June, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GARY M. RESTAINO
`United States Attorney
`District of Arizona
`
`KENNETH POLITE
`Assistant Attorney General
`Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
`
` s/Kevin M. Rapp
`KEVIN M. RAPP
`MARGARET PERLMETER
`PETER KOZINETS
`ANDREW STONE
`DANIEL BOYLE
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`
`AUSTIN M. BERRY
`Trial Attorney
`
`- 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 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on June 30, 2023, 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/Daniel Parke
`
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`
`- 5 -
`
`
