Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`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
`
`NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI
`Acting 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
`
`
`
`
`
`United States of America,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`Michael Lacey, et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`CR-18-422-PHX-DJH
`
`UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO
`DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO
`PROPOSED LIMITING
`INSTRUCTION [Doc. 1730]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`In its Trial Brief, the United States proposed several safeguards to address any
`potential risk of unfair prejudice to Defendants from the use of exhibits and testimony that
`reference terms like “sex trafficking,” “child sex trafficking,” or “human trafficking.” Doc.
`1642 at 4-9. Defendants now take issue with the limiting instruction that the United States
`proposed. Doc. 1730. The United States respectfully submits that the Court should use the
`government’s instruction, either as originally proposed in the Trial Brief or as modified
`below.
`
`Jurors: The evidence and testimony that you will receive at trial will
`occasionally involve terms such as “sex trafficking,” “child sex trafficking,”
`or “human trafficking.” As used in this case, those terms should be
`understood as referring to the exchange of sex for money—what is
`commonly known as “prostitution.” Any use of those terms is not meant to
`imply that any Defendant has been charged with, or may be guilty of, the
`separate crimes of sex trafficking, child sex trafficking, or human trafficking,
`or promoting or facilitating those crimes. Instead, Defendants are charged
`only with the crime of conspiracy to promote, or facilitate the promotion of,
`business enterprises involving prostitution offenses (Count 1); individual
`crimes of promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, business enterprises
`involving prostitution offenses (Counts 2-51); and money laundering
`(Counts 52-100).
`
`When evidence that includes the word “trafficking” is offered at trial, it often
`will be presented for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matters
`asserted in that evidence. When such evidence is offered for a purpose other
`than for the truth, I will instruct you on the purpose for which you may
`consider the evidence.
`
`
`- 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 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`This modified instruction addresses Defendants’ concern about “clearly stating”
`
`that Defendants are not charged with crimes involving trafficking. Doc. 1270 at 3. It also
`incorporates Defendants’ suggestion that the instruction inform the jury that “trafficking”-
`related evidence often will not be offered for the truth, and that the Court will provide
`instruction on the purpose for which the jury may consider the evidence. Doc. 1270 at 3-4.
`The remainder of Defendants’ instruction misdescribes the charges in the Superseding
`Indictment, and is lengthy and repetitive. It should not be adopted.
`
`The rest of Defendants’ Objection attempts to relitigate the Court’s prior orders,
`including Docs. 1156 and 1643. The Court has already held that evidence showing
`Defendants’ knowledge of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking is admissible and not
`unfairly prejudicial, particularly when linked to Defendants’ notice, knowledge, or intent
`concerning their website’s operations. Doc. 1156 at 3-4. The Court recently reaffirmed its
`rulings regarding this evidence. See Doc. 1643 at 4 (agreeing with the United States that
`“there are no new facts, and the law of the case permits them to show that Defendants knew
`about and intended to promote or facilitate prostitution, and that sex trafficking and child
`sex trafficking are both subsets of prostitution”); id. at 5 (“reiterating the prior court’s
`Order (Doc. 1156) that the Government may not illicit irrelevant and cumulative testimony
`about the abuse sex trafficking victims suffered”). The Court should reject Defendants’
`latest attempt to relitigate these rulings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 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 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on August 28, 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
`Daniel Parke
`U.S. Attorney’s Office
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`GARY M. RESTAINO
`
`
`
`
`
`United States Attorney
`
`
`
`
`
`District of Arizona
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI
`Acting Assistant Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`
`Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice
`
` s/ Peter S. Kozinets
`KEVIN M. RAPP
`MARGARET PERLMETER
`PETER KOZINETS
`ANDREW STONE
`DANIEL BOYLE
`Assistant U.S. Attorneys
`AUSTIN M. BERRY
`Trial Attorney
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.