Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`Joy Bertrand, Esq.
`
`PO Box 2734
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734
`
`Telephone: 602-374-5321
`
`Fax: 480-361-4694
`
`joyous@mailbag.com
`www.joybertrandlaw.com
`
`Arizona State Bar No. 024181
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT JOYE VAUGHT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice)
` glincenberg@birdmarella.com
`
`Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice)
` aneuman@birdmarella.com
`
`Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice)
` gkp@birdmarella.com
`
`BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,
`DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.
`
`1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90067-2561
`
`Telephone: (310) 201-2100
`Facsimile: (310) 201-2110
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst
`
`Additional Counsel listed on next page
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`
`United States,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Joye Vaught,
`
`Defendant.
`
`v.
`
`
` Case No. CR-18-422-SMB
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BAR
`THE GOVERNMENT FROM
`ASSERTING PRIVILEGE ON
`BEHALF OF ITS WITNESSES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
`29
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 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
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`
`Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)
` pcambria@lglaw.com
`Erin McCampbell Paris (admitted pro hac vice)
` eparis@lglaw.com
`LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP
`42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120
`Buffalo, New York 14202
`Telephone: (716) 849-1333
`Facsimile: (716) 855-1580
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey
`
`Bruce S. Feder, 004832
` bf@federlawpa.com
`FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.
`2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160
`Phoenix, Arizona 85016
`Telephone: (602) 257-0135
`
`Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear
`
`David Eisenberg, 017218
` david@deisenbergplc.com
`DAVID EISENBERG PLC
`3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155
`Phoenix, Arizona 85012
`Telephone: (602) 237-5076
`Facsimile: (602) 314-6273
`
`Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`NOW COME the Defendants, by their attorneys of record, to move this
`
`Court to bar the Government from asserting privilege on behalf of its witnesses.
`
`The Defendants further submit the following:
`
`I. When the Government Objects, Asserting Privilege for its Witness, it
`Invites this Court to Abuse its Discretion.
`
`
`The Government lacks standing to assert privilege for its cooperating
`
`
`
`witnesses. United States v. Martoma, 962 F.Supp.2d 602, 604-05 (SDNY 2013).
`
`A government objection to assert privilege for a testifying witness is
`
`improper. United States v. Smith, 454 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir.2006) (“Although the
`
`government did not act inappropriately in bringing the privilege issue to the
`
`court's attention, this was not a proper basis for a government objection to the
`
`defense questioning of [the witness].”). In Smith, the Seventh Circuit found that
`
`the district court abused its discretion in sustaining the Government’s objections
`
`that asserted privilege for the witness. Id. at 713.
`
`The Smith decision discussed decisions from the Eighth and Eleventh
`
`Circuits, which offered similar analyses. Id. (citing United States v. Rainone, 32
`
`F.3d 1203, 1206 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 (1995) (noting that the
`
`attorney-client privilege of a government witness belongs to the witness, not the
`
`government, and that the privilege is waivable); United States v. White, 743 F.2d
`
`488, 494 (7th Cir. 1984) (the government lacks standing to bring an appeal based
`
`on attorney-client privilege of the government's witness; that privilege belongs
`
`Page 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
`
`29
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`solely to the witness who must bring the issue to the trial court himself if he
`
`believed the court was not adequately protecting his privilege); United States v.
`
`Fox, 396 F.3d 1018, 1023 (8th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by United States
`
`v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc ) (the attorney-client privilege
`
`is personal and cannot be asserted by anyone other than the client); United States
`
`v. Almeida, 341 F.3d 1318, 1321 n. 10 (11th Cir. 2003) (the government ordinarily
`
`lacks standing to assert the attorney-client privilege for a witness); United States
`
`v. Ortega, 150 F.3d 937, 942 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1087
`
`(1999) (same).)
`
`II. The Sixth Amendment Can Override Attorney-Client Privilege.
`
`
`
`Even if the Government had standing to assert privilege on behalf of its
`
`cooperating witness, the Sixth Amendment’s right of confrontation can
`
`override a witness’ assertion of privilege. Rainone, 32 F3d. at 1206 (citing Olden
`
`v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988) (per curiam); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308
`
`(1974); John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 74.2, at pp. 279–81 (4th ed.
`
`1992). “Even the attorney-client privilege, therefore, hallowed as it is, yet not
`
`found in the Constitution, might have to yield in a particular case if the right of
`
`confrontation, whether in its aspect as the right of cross-examination or in
`
`some other aspect, would be violated by enforcing the privilege. So at least
`
`dicta in two cases intimate.” Id., citing United States ex rel. Blackwell v.
`
`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
`
`29
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`Franzen, 688 F.2d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1982); Jenkins v. Wainwright, 763 F.2d 1390,
`
`1392–93 (11th Cir. 1985).
`
`III. The Government’s Repeated Assertion of Privilege, in the form of
`Objections During Carl Ferrer’s Cross-Examination is Improper.
`
`
`
`By Counsel’s count, in the past two days, the Government has objected at
`
`least three times during Mr. Ferrer’s cross-examination, asserting that a question
`
`invades either Mr. Ferrer’s attorney-client privilege or his marital privilege. The
`
`Government lacks standing to make these assertions. These objections are
`
`improper. By this Motion, the Defense asks this Court to bar the Government
`
`from making further objections asserting privilege, during Mr. Ferrer’s testimony
`
`or that of any of its other witnesses.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of September, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Joy Bertrand
`Joy Bertrand
`Attorney for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and
`Procedures Manual (May 2023) § II(C)(3), Gary S. Lincenberg hereby attests that all
`other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s
`content and have authorized its filing.
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`DATED: September 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: September 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: September 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: September 29, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`29
`
`
`
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`Ariel A. Neuman
`Gopi K. Panchapakesan
`Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,
`Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Gary S. Lincenberg
`Gary S. Lincenberg
`
`Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst
`
`Paul J. Cambria
`Erin McCampbell Paris
`Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Paul J. Cambria
`Paul J. Cambria
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey
`
`Feder Law Office, P.A.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Bruce S. Feder
`Bruce S. Feder
`
`Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear
`
`The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC
`
`By:
`
`/s/ David Eisenberg
`David Eisenberg
`
`Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`On September 29, 2023, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, filed
`
`the foregoing with the Arizona District Court’s electronic filing system. Based on
`
`my training and experience with electronic filing in the federal courts, it is my
`
`understanding that a copy of this pleading will be electronically served upon
`
`opposing counsel and co-defendants’ counsel, upon its submission to the Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted this 29th day of September, 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Joy Bertrand
`Joy Bertrand
`Attorney for Defendant
`
`
`
`Page 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
`
`29
`
`
`
`

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.