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

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-SMB

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Expert 

Testimony (Doc. 928.) to which the Government has responded. (Doc. 958.) The 

Government has also filed the United States’ Motion to Preclude Defendants’ Noticed 

Experts. (Doc. 905.) Defendants’ filed a response (Doc. 956.) and requested oral 

argument. The motions are related and so the Court enters a ruling on both motions in 

limine here. The Court has determined that oral argument is unnecessary to decide these 

motions. L.R. Civ. 7.2(f). 

I. BACKGROUND

Defendants are former officers, executives, and employees of Backpage.com, a 

classified advertisement website. On July 25, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a 100-

count Superseding Indictment against Defendants alleging their commission of numerous 

criminal acts—conspiracy, violations of the Travel Act, and money laundering—in the 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 1 of 21
- 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

operation of Backpage.com (“Backpage”). “The SI contains a lengthy summary of the 

alleged facts.” Lacey, 423 F.Supp.3d at 753. Within its 92 pages, it alleges Defendants 

“were aware that the overwhelming majority of the website’s ‘adult’ and ‘escort’ ads were 

actually ads for prostitution and took a variety of steps to intentionally facilitate that illegal 

activity.” (SI ¶ 34; see also id. ¶¶ 9-11.) It also alleges Defendants strategized to increase 

the number of prostitution ads on Backpage.com and evade detection by moderating the 

website and sanitizing the postings. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11, 13, 35-70, 72-73, 75, 77-96, 98-104, 108, 

110, 112, 116-26, 128-30, 132-34, 136, 139, 143, 145, 148.) It further alleges these 

strategies were created to “conceal the true nature of the ads on the website,” (Id. ¶ 11.), 

identify prostitutes currently advertising on rival websites and offer them free ads on 

Backpage.com in an attempt to secure future business (Id. ¶¶ 35-44.), engage with The 

Erotic Review to create reciprocal links, and enter into formal business arrangements with 

known prostitutes for repeat business. (Id. ¶¶ 45-67.)

The Government has disclosed ten experts to testify about sex trafficking and child sex 

trafficking. The proposed testimony was described as follows in the Government’s 

disclosure (Doc. 422.):

1. Christina Decouflé (Human Trafficking)

Detective Decouflé will provide testimony at trial about how human trafficking, 

with a focus on sex trafficking occurs, and how it occurs through online media, such as 

social networking websites, applications, and the internet in general. Detective Decouflé 

has been a law enforcement officer with the Phoenix Police Department since 2000. In 

2005, she became a detective in the Vice Enforcement Unit. In 2013, Detective Decouflé 

became a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Human Trafficking Task Force, 

Phoenix Division. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the expert testimony of Detective 

Decouflé in the area of human trafficking and this court should permit Detective Decouflé 

to testify as to her expert opinions here. See United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1195-

96 (9th Cir. 2010).

Detective Decouflé will describe how sex trafficking and prosecution industries 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 21
- 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

have changed with the advent of the internet, including websites such as 

www.craigslist.com, www.backpage.com, and others. Detective Decouflé will describe 

how law enforcement conducts human trafficking investigations; with a focus on how 

investigations shifted from craigslist.com to backpage.com. She will testify about her 

knowledge of The Erotic Review (TER), it’s owner David Elms, and TER’s connection to 

websites such as craigslist.com and backpage.com. Detective Decouflé will describe how 

she posted advertisements on online websites like craigslist.com and backpage.com 

advertising herself (undercover) as seller of commercial sex. She will compare and contrast 

how different prostitution websites (including craigslist and backpage) operated and how 

they responded to law enforcement. She will also testify about descriptors and definitions 

of terms often used in sex trafficking and the prostitution industry, such as “trick,” “John,” 

“pimp,” “the game,” “dates,” “choosing up,” as examples. Lastly, Detective Decouflé will 

discuss the relationship between sex traffickers and pimps and their victims. She will 

describe the methods and process traffickers and pimps utilize to entice, coerce, or control 

their victims.

The bases and reasons for the opinions summarized above centers around Detective 

Decouflé’s extensive experience conducting sex trafficking investigation. Detective 

Decouflé has an extensive experience interviewing prostitutes, pimps, and individuals who 

solicit commercial sex and has herself has engaged in numerous investigations requiring 

knowledge of the methods that sex traffickers and pimps utilize, whether through online 

media or through face-to-face contact, to recruit women into prostitution. Detective 

Decouflé has interviewed hundreds of victims and survivors, which enables her to 

understand the particular language and methods utilized in the prostitution industry.

2. Dominique E. Roe-Sepowitz, M.S.W., Ph.D. (Sex Trafficking)

Dr. Roe-Sepowitz is expected to testify as a fact witness in this matter, regarding 

her interactions with Backpage, the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children 

(NCMEC), human sex trafficking prevention and outreach groups in relation to Backpage 

related prostitution advertising, as well as Backpage related interactions with state and 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 3 of 21
- 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

federal law enforcement. In an abundance of caution, however, the government provides 

notice identifying Dr. Roe-Sepowitz as a potential “expert” in the area of human 

trafficking, specifically, sex trafficking.

Dr. Roe-Sepowitz is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at Arizona 

State University. She is the director of the Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research 

at Arizona State University. Dr. Roe-Sepowitz’s area of specialty and expertise is in human 

sex trafficking with juveniles and adults, with an aim on prevention and awareness, 

intervention and treatment.

Dr. Roe-Sepowitz can testify about her research in the area of human sex trafficking. 

Specifically and recently, Dr. Roe-Sepowitz participated in (1) a six year analysis of sex 

trafficking of minors: exploring characteristics and sex trafficking patterns; (2) a Las Vegas 

based study on how violence is often tied to teen sex trafficking; and (3) a Hawaii based 

study exploring online sex buyers in Hawaii. Dr. Roe-Sepowitz has also researched the 

impact the Super Bowl had on sex trafficking. Dr. Roe-Sepowitz’s research can be found 

at https://socialwork.asu.edu/stir/research. While the government intends for Dr. RoeSepowitz to testify as a fact witness at trial, her education, training, and experience, could 

lead one to believe that she is an expert in the area of human sex trafficking.

3. Sharon W. Cooper, M.D. (Sex Trafficking)

Dr. Cooper will testify about (1) how a victim can fall into the world of sex 

trafficking, through the grooming process, force, or abduction, etc. and why certain victims 

may be targeted; (2) the harmful, lasting impact sex trafficking can have on its victims, 

primarily child victims; (3) the relationship and loyalty a child sex trafficking victim may 

have and show towards her trafficker; (4) common ways a sex trafficker can use force, 

fraud, and coercion to maintain control over his victims; (5) reasons why child sex 

trafficking is cited as the most underreported form of child abuse; and (6) the role Backpage 

played in the victimization of her patients and clients. 

Dr. Cooper is a developmental and forensic pediatrician who evaluates and treats 

children who have been victims of all forms of abuse, with a primary area of expertise in 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 4 of 21
- 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

sexual exploitation. She is a member of the Board of Directors for the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children and a retired Colonel with the United States Armed Forces. 

Dr. Cooper has testified before the United States Congress, the Russian Parliament, the 

Italian Senate and the European Commission on child sexual exploitation. She has also 

testified as an expert medical witness in over two dozen federal trials. Dr. Cooper is 

familiar with how victims were trafficked on Backpage and her opinions will be based on 

her education, training, and her clinical and forensic experiences treating victims of sex 

trafficking.

4. James Hardie

Supervisory Special Agent James E. Hardie will testify about (1) terminology 

commonly used the sex trafficking, such as pimp, “bottom bitch,” MOB (money over 

bitches), “date,” “roses” (money), “the game”, etc.: (2) common dynamics between sex 

traffickers and their victims and how a trafficker may use drugs, force, fraud, and coercion 

to maintain control over their victims; (3) how human trafficking takes place in our 

communities from a law enforcement prospective; and (4) the role of the internet and 

Backpage played in his knowledge and understanding of human trafficking and how 

Backpage became part of the law enforcement investigations for human trafficking over 

the years. 

Supervisory Special Agent Hardie began investigating sex trafficking cases 

involving both minor and adult victims in 2008, which has resulted in his experience in 

interviewing hundreds of victims and witnesses and two dozen pimps or traffickers. From 

2008 – 2013, Agent Hardie served as the coordinator of the FBI’s Violent Crimes Against 

Children Task Force in Ohio. From 2013 – 2015, he served as the FBI’s representative to 

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), where he coordinated 

sex trafficking reporting between NCMEC and the FBI child exploitation task forces. Since 

2011, Supervisory Special Agent Hardie has presented or provided instruction at 

conferences and seminars, internationally and domestically, in the area of sex trafficking. 

Supervisory Special Agent Hardie’s opinions are based on his training and 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 5 of 21
- 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

experience in the area of human trafficking.

5. Derek Stigerts 

Investigator Stigerts will testify about (1) how sex trafficking occurs; (2) common 

terminology used by individuals involved in sex trafficking; (3) the role of the internet and 

technology in human trafficking; (4) methods of recruitment, manipulation, and control by 

a trafficker with his victims; and (5) the role the internet and Backpage has played in human 

trafficking.

Investigator Stigerts has been involved in the investigation of human trafficking 

offenses for over a decade. Investigator Stigerts has interviewed over 300 females involved 

in prostitution, including 80 juvenile victims, as well as over 30 suspected pimps or 

traffickers. He has presented at instructional courses presented by NCMEC and the FBI. 

Investigator Stigerts’ opinions are based on his training and experience in the area of 

human sex trafficking.

6. Shannon Wolf, Ph.D., LPC-S

Dr. Wolf will testify about the connection between trauma bonds and personal 

identity in victims of sex trafficking and how to understand them, including ways to interact 

with child sex trafficking victims to avoid secondary trauma, and the role Backpage has 

played in causing trauma victims trafficked through its website. Dr. Wolf is a licensed 

professional counselor with supervisory status and a Professor of Psychology and 

Counseling at B.H. Carroll Theological Institute. Dr. Wolf’s provides counseling and 

therapy to victims of sex trafficking and her current research focus is on child sex 

trafficking. 

7. Staca Shehan, Executive Director Case Analysis Division, NCMEC 

Ms. Shehan is a fact witness as she met on several occasions with Backpage 

Defendants. Ms. Shehan is the Executive Director of the Case Analysis Division at the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). As a result of her 

employment, Ms. Shehan’s testimony will cover topics that could be perceived as expert 

testimony. In an abundance of caution, the government provides notice identifying Ms. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 6 of 21
- 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

Shehan as a potential “expert” in the area of human trafficking, sex trafficking, and child 

exploitation.

Specifically, Ms. Shehan will testify to the creation of a dedicated Child Sex 

Trafficking Team at NCMEC to respond to the increased need for technical assistance and 

analysis in cases involving child sex trafficking. These unique resources include analysis 

of potential suspect names or aliases, unique tattoos, link analysis about child sex 

trafficking victims/potential victims, telephone numbers, addresses and/or link analysis 

about child sex trafficking victims/potential victims, telephone numbers, addresses and/or 

online postings.

The government reserves the right to question the expert regarding other matters 

that may be raised during cross-examination by Defendants, based upon testimony 

provided by defense experts (if any), or other witnesses and evidence introduced by 

Defendants. This disclosure of the government’s notice of expert witnesses also serves as 

the government’s request for notice of rebuttal or expert testimony by Defendants, pursuant 

to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

8. Donna Gavin 

From July 2009 to October 2016, Lieutenant Detective Donna Gavin served as a 

Sergeant Detective/Commander of the Boston Police Department’s Human Trafficking 

Unit. She later served, from May 2016 to April 2019, as the Lieutenant Detective for the 

Boston Police Department’s Crimes Against Children and Human Trafficking Units. She 

has extensive experience investigating prostitution, human trafficking and child sex 

trafficking crimes involving victims who were advertised on Backpage. On August 13, 

2015, Lieutenant Detective Gavin provided a declaration in the Northern District of Illinois 

that described Backpage’s role in the Boston-area sex trade. Lieutenant Detective Gavin is 

expected to testify consistent with her August 13, 2015 declaration, and will provide 

additional relevant details about Backpage’s operations in the Boston area. She is also 

expected to testify that, in her professional experience as a law enforcement officer for over 

30 years, the “adult” section of Backpage not only contained ads for illegal activity, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 7 of 21
- 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

including prostitution, solicitation and trafficking, but it was also the primary source for 

such ads and was well known for that purpose in the sex trafficking industry in Boston, 

Massachusetts, until the site was shut down in 2018. Further, Lieutenant Detective Gavin 

is expected to testify that Backpage “adult” section provided a vehicle and anonymity for 

its users who exploited and trafficked young women and girls, that it provided no legitimate 

service and that nearly all the cases the Boston Police Department’s Human Trafficking 

Unit found associated with Backpage involved pimp-controlled prostitution.

While the government does not believe that Lieutenant Detective Gavin’s testimony 

will involve any opinion testimony, it provides this information out of an abundance of 

caution and in the event that any of any her testimony is deemed to constitute expert opinion 

testimony. Lieutenant Detective Gavin’s opinions are based on her training and experience 

in the areas of human trafficking, crimes against children and sexual assault.

7. Thomas Adam Umporowicz, Jr. 

Detective-Sergeant Thomas Adam Umporowicz Jr. is the Detective-Sergeant in 

charge of the Seattle Police Department’s Vice/High Risk Victims Unit, a position that he 

has held since 2014. He has also served as the Human Trafficking Task Force Sergeant for 

the Seattle Police Department. He has more than 30 years of law enforcement experience, 

and has trained other law enforcement agencies in the United States in the areas of human 

trafficking and internet crimes against children.

On August 14, 2015, Detective-Sergeant Umporowicz provided a declaration that 

was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The declaration described Backpage as the 

primary website in the Seattle, Washington area for those looking to solicit a prostitute, 

post prostitution ads or traffic prostitutes and minors. In the declaration, Detective-Sergeant 

Umporowicz opined that in his professional experience:

[T]he adult section of Backpage.com not only contains ads for illegal 

activity, including prostitution, solicitation and trafficking, but it is a primary 

source for such ads and is well known for that purpose in the sex trafficking 

industry in the city of Seattle and State of Washington. But the way 

Backpage.com operates and the anonymity it provides its users makes it more 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 8 of 21
- 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

difficult for us to identify and arrest and prosecute these offenders. It is the 

Seattle Police Department Vice/High Risk Victims Unit position that 

removing the adult section of Backpage.com would greatly assist to disrupt 

these sex traffickers’ easy means of communication and connection for these 

illegal activities and therefore would reduce demand for, and access to, the 

sex trafficking industry within the city of Seattle and the State of 

Washington. This would be useful in protecting the women and children who 

are victimized by those numerous individuals who use Backpage.com for 

these unlawful purposes. In our experience, the adult section of 

Backpage.com seems to serve no legal purpose.

Detective-Sergeant Umprowicz is expected to testify consistent with his declaration, 

and is expected to provide other pertinent details and observations about Backpage’s 

operations in the Seattle area through Backpage’s closure in 2018. He is also expected to 

testify about the evolution of prostitution and human trafficking in the Seattle area from 

the pre-internet era through the rise of Backpage to the post-Backpage era. He will explain 

how the ease-of-use, convenience and relative anonymity of using Backpage (both as a 

“john” and as a prostitute or pimp) increased the demand for prostitution services and the 

supply of persons who were advertised as prostitutes. He is expected to testify that 

Backpage established a near-monopoly on online prostitution advertising in the Seattle 

area. He will also explain how, following Backpage’s shutdown, the sex trade has partly 

reverted to street-level prostitution (in hotel lobbies, casinos and on the streets), which has 

reduced demand and supply and seriously disrupted the sex trade in the Seattle area. He 

will also explain that Backpage was continually put on notice by law enforcement of its 

facilitation of prostitution through the issuance of search warrants and subpoenas across 

the country.

Detective-Sergeant Umprowicz’s opinions are based on his training and experience 

in the areas of law enforcement, prostitution, and human and child sex trafficking.

10. Robert Spectre 

In April 2019, Spectre authored the report “Beyond Backpage, Buying and Selling 

Sex in The United States One Year Later.” The report summarizes the immediate online 

disruption following April 2018 when Backpage was seized and the Stop Enabling Sex 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 9 of 21
- 10 -

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

Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) were signed into 

law. Spectre’s analysis concluded that since the events in April 2018 (including Backpage’s 

shut down), the demand for purchasing sex online has been reduced drastically.

Spectre’s background includes tracking online sex trafficking beginning in 2014, 

when he was contacted by Polaris (https://polarisproject.org/human-trafficking/facts) 

through his company twilio.org, a start-up company that developed text (short code) 

technology. That technology is utilized by many different businesses, but was also used to

reach victims of sex trafficking. Since Twilio, Spectre has worked with the Cook County 

Sherriff’s Office and the New York Police Department to develop deterrence platforms 

focused on combating sex trafficking.

In 2017, Spectre, while working with the NYPD’s Human Trafficking Unit, 

developed a demand deterrence platform that focused on the demand side of human 

trafficking. The platform would capture phone numbers of “johns” who responded to decoy 

ads posted by NYPD on Backpage. When a decoy ad was posted, approximately 150 

responses would be captured in a two hour-time frame. Since Backpage was seized, 

responses have dropped to 20-30 per day, spread among approximately 12 different 

websites. Spectre’s additional qualifications will be provided separately to Defendants.

Defendants noticed 6 experts and 4 general categories where they anticipate expert 

testimony but have not yet retained anyone. 

Defendants’ expert witness are as follows (Docs. 500, 538.):

1. Bates Butler: The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on

informant/cooperating witness testimony and sentencing. Mr. Butler is anticipated to 

testify about the prosecution’s use of such witnesses, defense proffers, cooperation 

agreements and the interpretation and application of such agreements, preparation of 

informant cooperating witness testimony by the prosecution, plea agreements and 

sentencing recommendations and expectations. Mr. Butler’s opinions will be based on his 

experience as a former acting United States attorney in the District of Arizona, assistant 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 10 of 21
- 11 -

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

United States Attorney, defense lawyer, seminars he has presented and attended, and his 

over four decades of practicing criminal law.

2. Roman Weil: The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on the 

following topics: (1) the functions that a Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) performs in a 

corporate setting, including what is and is not required of a CFO in assessing allegations 

that a company or one of its subsidiaries has engaged in unlawful conduct; and (2) the loan 

covenants that are typically included in a seller-financed sale. Professor Weil’s opinions 

will be based on his education, extensive experience teaching and writing about corporate 

governance and accounting matters, and service on professional boards.

3. Alexandra Levy: The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on the 

effect of imposing liability on Backpage for advertisements placed by third parties; the 

utility of online commercial advertisements to law enforcement in identifying and rescuing

victims of sex trafficking; sex trafficking and/or prostitution; causation or lack thereof; the 

practices of Backpage, Craigslist, Facebook, Google, and other Internet providers as such 

practices pertain to these issues, and rebuttal testimony of various plaintiff’s experts 

including but not limited to Professor Roe-Sepowitz. 

Dr. Levy’s anticipated testimony will be based on her quantitative and qualitative 

research, training, academic and outside teaching, practical experience, prior testimony, 

authorship of books, articles, and other academic or literary papers published in her field 

of expertise, discussions with other experts and persons responsible for editing and

moderation at some of the subject internet providers, review of the books, articles, studies, 

and seminars on these topics, and other related experience.

4. Dr. Alexandra Lutnick: The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on 

the effect of Imposing liability on Backpage for advertisements placed by third parties; the 

utility of online commercial advertisements to law enforcement in identifying and rescuing 

victims of sex trafficking; sex trafficking and/or prostitution; causation or lack thereof; the 

practices of Backpage, Craigslist, Facebook, Google, and other Internet providers as such 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 11 of 21
- 12 -

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

practices pertain to these issues, and rebuttal testimony of various plaintiff’s experts 

including but not limited to Professor Roe-Sepowitz. 

The bases of Dr. Lutnick’s anticipated testimony is her quantitative and qualitative 

research, training, academic and outside teaching, practical experience, prior testimony, 

authorship of books, articles, and other academic or literary papers published in her field 

of expertise, discussions with other experts and persons responsible for editing and

moderation at some of the subject internet providers, review of the books, articles, studies, 

and seminars on these topics, and other related experience.

5. Dr. Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco: The Defendants anticipate presenting expert 

testimony on the effect of imposing liability on Backpage for advertisements placed by 

third parties; the utility of online commercial advertisements to law enforcement in 

identifying and rescuing victims of sex trafficking; sex trafficking and/or prostitution; 

causation or lack thereof; the practices of Backpage, Craigslist, Facebook, Google, and 

other Internet providers as such practices pertain to these issues, and rebuttal testimony of 

various plaintiff’s experts including but not limited to Professor Roe-Sepowitz. 

Dr. Mehlman-Orozco’s anticipated testimony will be based on her quantitative and 

qualitative research, training, academic and outside teaching, practical experience, prior 

testimony, authorship of books, articles, and other academic or literary papers published in 

their field of expertise, discussions with other experts and persons responsible for editing 

and moderation at some of the subject internet providers, review of the books, articles, 

studies, and seminars on these topics, and other related experience.

6. William Norman: The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on the 

lawful formation of and lawful uses of offshore trusts. 

Professor Norman’s opinions will be based on his education, training, academic 

teaching, practical experience, scholarship, presentations, and other related experience.

7. The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on law enforcement officers’ 

investigation and prosecution of sex crimes, including but not limited to prostitution, child 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 12 of 21
- 13 -

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

prostitution, and other related crimes; how the assistance of Internet site owners and 

employees render and impede assistance in these investigations, the terminology used in 

the sex industry by legal escorts, strippers, fetishists, and illegal prostitution. The expert(s) 

in this field have not yet been retained, but may include former and/or current FBI agents 

and state law enforcement officers who worked with Backpage and publicly and privately 

commended Backpage on its cooperation. The correspondence, with the names, agencies 

and contact information, relating to this cooperation is in the possession of the government, 

and has not yet been fully disclosed, notwithstanding the government’s Rule 16 and Brady 

obligations.

8. The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on editing and moderating 

Internet sites by the owners and employees of the sites, the challenges and expense 

involved in editing and moderating, the evolving standards of editing and moderating in 

the Internet provider community from 2004 to the present, the editing and moderating 

practices of Backpage, Craigslist, Facebook, Google, and other Internet providers and the 

reasonableness of Backpage practices, the state and federal regulating standards relating to 

editing and moderating practices, impeachment of the government’s experts and other 

related topics. The expert(s) in this field have not yet been retained, but his/her/their 

anticipated testimony will be based on said experts’ training, academic teaching, practical 

experience, authorship of books, articles, and other academic or literary papers published, 

discussions with other experts and persons responsible for editing and moderation at many 

of the internet providers in the United States, review of the books, articles, studies, and 

seminars on these topics, impeachment of the government’s experts, and other related 

experience.

9. The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on the marketing 

aggregation strategies and techniques used by newspapers both for print and online 

publications to boost readership and to generate advertising revenue. The expert(s) in this 

field have not yet been retained, but his/her/their anticipated testimony will be based on 

said experts’ training, academic teaching, practical experience, authorship of books, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 13 of 21
- 14 -

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

articles, and other academic or literary papers published, discussions with other experts 

and persons responsible for marketing and aggregation strategies and techniques at some 

of the subject Internet providers, review of the books, articles, studies, and seminars on 

these topics, impeachment of the government’s experts, and other related experience.

10. The Defendants anticipate presenting expert testimony on the lawful formation of 

and lawful uses of offshore trusts as a mater of United States and European Union law. The 

expert(s) in this field have not yet been retained, but his/her/their anticipated testimony will 

be based on said experts’ training, academic teaching, practical experience, authorship of 

books, articles, and other academic or literary papers published, review of books, articles, 

studies, and seminars on these topics, and other related experience. 

In addition to the information copied above, the Defendants and Government 

attached the Curriculum Vitae of each expert listed.

Defendant Spear filed a supplemental expert witness disclosure (Doc. 538.) to notice 

Eric Goldman, Professor of Internet Law at Santa Clara University as a witness. Professor 

Goldman intends to offer six opinions: (1) Virtually Every Internet Company Engages in 

Content Moderation; (2) Content Moderation Practices Are Diverse; (3) Internet Services 

Rarely Disclose Details About Their Content Moderation Operations; (4) Content 

Moderation is Socially Beneficial; (5) Congress Wants Internet Services to Moderate 

Content; (6) Content Moderation Cannot Be Done Perfectly.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Evidence 702 provides:

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, 

training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help 

the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 14 of 21
- 15 -

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

the case.

Basically, the rule requires (1) that an expert witness be qualified, (2) that the 

testimony is reliable, and (3) that the testimony assist the fact-finder. See Kumho Tire Co. 

v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149 (1999); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 

579, 589 (1993); United States v. Ruvalcaba-Garcia, 923 F.3d 1183, 1188 (9th Cir. 2019). 

“The Ninth Circuit has articulated a two-prong analysis for admissibility of a qualified 

expert's testimony.” United States v. King, 703 F.Supp.2d 1063, 1068 (D. Haw. 2010). 

The testimony must be reliable and meet the “fit” requirements of relevancy. Id. at 1068. 

The relevancy requirement in this situation requires the standard relevancy evaluation 

under Rule 402 plus an evaluation under Rule 403. Id. 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b)(1)(c) provides that a defendant’s expert 

disclosures must “describe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, 

and the witness’s qualifications.”

III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendant’s Motion in Limine

Defendants do not challenge the qualifications of the experts in this motion nor do 

they challenge reliability. Rather, they argue the relevance of the proposed expert 

testimony. Evidence is relevant if it has “any tendency to make the existence of any fact 

that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable 

than it would be without the evidence.” United States v. Vallejo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th 

Cir. 2001), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 246 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 

Fed.R.Evid. 401).

It’s Defendants’ position that the testimony is not relevant because Defendants are 

not charged with human trafficking, sex trafficking or child sex trafficking. They argue 

that none of the proposed testimony will shed light on whether Defendants “allowed ads to 

run on Backpage, knowing they were for unlawful prostitution, and with the specific intent 

to facilitate one or more business enterprises they knew were engaged in unlawful 

prostitution.” (Doc. 928, p. 14.) Defendants mainly rely on the decision in United States v. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 15 of 21
- 16 -

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

D’Ambrosio. No. 1:15-CR-003, 2016 WL 1385281, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2016), aff'd 

and remanded sub nom; United States v. Delgado, 677 F. App’x 84 (3d Cir. 2017). The 

defendants in D’Ambrosio were charged with sex trafficking, and the district court 

precluded Dr. Cooper’s testimony about the culture of pimping, the nature of enterprises 

associated with sex trafficking, victim vulnerabilities, barriers to exiting, and the multiple 

aspects of offender dynamics. Id. at *2. While Defendants discuss the first reason for 

precluding the expert testimony (i.e. – that the testimony did not relate to the elements of 

the offenses with which Defendants are charged), they do not discuss the second part of 

the court’s analysis with which this Court disagrees. 

“A fact is also of consequence if it bears upon the evaluation of the probative value 

to be given to other evidence in the case, such as demonstrative aids and witness 

credibility.” Id. at *2 (citing 2 Handbook of Fed. Evid. § 401.1 (7th ed.)). The court in 

D’Ambrosio held that the Government would not be allowed to introduce Dr. Cooper’s 

testimony during its case in chief to aid the jury in evaluating the victim’s testimony. In 

this case, the Court finds that some testimony about the how victims are recruited and 

controlled and how the internet has changed the dynamics between the pimp and prostitute 

will help the jury understand and evaluate testimony of any victims in this case. “By and 

large, the relationship between prostitutes and pimps is not the subject of common 

knowledge.” United States v. Taylor, 239 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Note, Men 

Who Own Women: A Thirteenth Amendment Critique of Forced Prostitution, 103 YALE 

L. J. 791, 793-96 (1993)).

Dr. Cooper could also explain certain terms unique to the vernacular of the 

prostitution and sex trafficking subculture. Such terms include “new in town,” “roses,” 

“amber alert,” “lollipop special,” “GFE,” “PSE,” “DATY,” “in-call, “out-call,” “Lolita,” 

and others. (Doc. 958, p. 5.) Such information is not common knowledge for most jurors 

and would be useful.

Defendants also argue that the testimony should be precluded because it is being 

used by the Government to present otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence. Defendants 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 16 of 21
- 17 -

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

do not explain this argument at all but rather simply make this allegation. This issue is 

better dealt with through objections at trial if the Government attempts to go beyond the 

proper scope of the experts’ testimony.

Finally, Defendants argue that the testimony should be precluded under Rule 403, 

Fed. R. Evid. “The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is 

substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, 

confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly 

presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. Defendants argue that the testimony 

should be precluded because of the risk the evidence will be unfairly prejudicial, confuse 

the issues, and will be cumulative. The Court agrees that allowing ten experts to testify 

about this same general area of expertise would be unnecessarily cumulative and unfairly 

prejudicial. The Government responded that it intends to designate only one witness as 

their expert, Dr. Cooper. However, the Government then continues to explain how the 

other 9 witnesses at issue will also testify as hybrid witnesses. The Court has reviewed the 

descriptions given for the proposed testimony of the witnesses and finds that they overlap 

in many ways. Allowing all of them to testify would be unnecessarily cumulative and 

unfairly prejudicial. The Government will be limited to one expert witness as to each topic. 

The Court finds the following areas of expertise to be relevant during the Government’s 

case in chief:

1. How human/sex trafficking occurs through online media;

2. How law enforcement conducts trafficking investigations, with a focus on 

how investigations shifted from craigslist.com to backpage.com;

3. Explanation of terminology often used in trafficking and prostitution 

industry;

4. The relationship between traffickers and pimps and their victims, including 

common methods a sex trafficker uses to maintain control over a victim.

The Court finds the following areas of expert testimony would not be relevant in 

this case:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 17 of 21
- 18 -

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. Dr. Roe-Sepowitz proposed testimony about general sex trafficking patterns or 

the impact of the Super Bowl on sex trafficking (excluding any testimony she 

may provide as a fact witness);

2. Dr. Wolf’s proposed testimony about how to interact with victims of sex 

trafficking to avoid secondary trauma and the role Backpage played in causing 

trauma to victims trafficked through its website;

3. Proposed testimony about the benefits of shutting Backpage down or opinion 

testimony that the adult section of Backpage.com serves no legal purpose;

4. Testimony about the impact that the shutdown of Backpage.com had on online 

sex trafficking.

B. United States’ Motion in Limine

The Government’s first argument is that the disclosures are insufficient under Rule 

16. However, as pointed out by Defendants, the disclosures are made in the same format 

as the Government used to disclose its experts. This argument fails.

The Government’s next argument is related to relevance. As to Mr. Butler, the 

Government says that his proposed testimony will not assist the jury. In United States v. 

Davis, 457 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2006), the defendant was precluded from introducing expert 

testimony about substantial assistance and the mechanics of the federal sentencing process 

in order to impeach the credibility of the Government’s cooperating witness. The 8th 

Circuit agreed that the jury did not need this expert testimony to understand that a 

cooperating witness may have an incentive to incriminate the defendant. Id. at 824. The 

Defendants argue that Davis is not on point because Mr. Butler is not going to testify about 

the fact that a cooperator may be biased, but rather about how the cooperation process 

works in practice. Defendants have not explained, however, how that testimony would be 

relevant or necessary. The Court finds that cross-examination of the cooperating witnesses

will be sufficient to emphasize to the jury why the witnesses may be biased. Additionally, 

the Court finds that such testimony is properly excluded after an analysis under Rule 403 

as such testimony would be confusing the issues.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 18 of 21
- 19 -

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

As to Mr. Weil, the Government argues that testimony about the general functions 

of a Chief Financial Officer are irrelevant to whether Defendant Brunst, CFO for Backpage, 

engaged in the alleged conspiracies. Defendants point to many cases that have allowed 

this kind of testimony, including United States v. Heine, 2017 WL 449632, at *10 (D. Or. 

Feb. 2, 2017), United States v. Brooks, 2010 WL 291769, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2010),

and In re Safety-Kleen Corp. Rollins Shareholders Litig., 2004 WL 5504972, at *1-2 

(D.S.C. Aug. 30, 2004). The Court agrees that this testimony is relevant and useful 

specifically as to Defendant Brunst for the jury to understand his role in the overall 

corporate structure. The testimony of Mr. Weil will be limited to describing what a CFO 

does, his role and obligations, but Mr. Weil will be precluded from providing testimony 

about what Mr. Brunst may have done in the context of this case or anything about his state 

of mind.

The Government next argues that the testimony of Alexandra Levy, Dr. Alexandra 

Lutnick, and Dr. Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco should be precluded as cumulative and

because their testimony is irrelevant. The description of their testimony as quoted above 

is largely the same. All three are listed to testify about the effect of imposing liability on 

Backpage for advertisements placed by third parties; the utility of online commercial 

advertisements to law enforcement in identifying and rescuing victims of sex trafficking; 

sex trafficking and/or prostitution; causation or lack thereof; the practices of Backpage, 

Craigslist, Facebook, Google, and other Internet providers as such practices pertain to these 

issues, and rebuttal testimony of various plaintiff’s experts. The Court finds that some of 

this testimony is irrelevant to this case. First, the propriety of holding someone accountable 

for violating a criminal statute is not the role of the jury. The jury is to decide if the 

Government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular defendant committed 

a charged offense. Secondly, it is not relevant to this case whether online commercial 

advertising has some use in identifying and rescuing victims of sex trafficking. Testimony 

about the practices of Backpage may be relevant in rebuttal to the Government’s expert 

testimony, but it is hard to tell because the disclosure is so vague. At this time, the Court 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 19 of 21
- 20 -

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

is prepared to say that Defendants will be limited to one expert per topic as the Government 

is limited. No testimony will be allowed as to the effect of imposing liability on Backpage 

for advertisements placed by third parties or any other policy testimony. The Government 

also argues that it does not have enough information to determine whether Dr. MehlmanOrozco’s testimony is reliable. Therefore, if Dr. Mehlman-Orozco is called to testify, then 

the Government may request to voir dire the witness. 

As to Mr. Norman, the Government argues that the topic of “lawful uses of offshore 

trusts” is not relevant. Defendants argue that this expert should be permitted to testify that 

offshore trusts are a lawful investment vehicle and not useful for concealment of assets. In 

short, the Court agrees that his testimony would help the jury to evaluate Mr. Lacey’s intent 

in putting money overseas. The Court will allow the testimony.

The Government seeks to preclude the testimony of Professor Goldman as it relates

to Section 230 of the CDA. Defendants’ notice elaborates on the topics listed for Professor

Goldman’s testimony to include the following: 

Section 230’s immunity does not apply to federal criminal prosecutions. 

However, the mere fact that an Internet service moderates content cannot 

support federal criminal liability. A contrary result completely undercuts 

Section 230. If a service increases its federal criminal exposure by 

moderating unlawful content, Section 230’s civil liability protections would 

not be enough to encourage Internet services to undertake socially valuable 

content moderation efforts. Congress did not eliminate the Moderator’s 

Dilemma for civil liability purposes, yet simultaneously recreate it for federal 

criminal liability. (Doc. 538, p. 5.) 

Defendants state that they do not intend to elicit a legal conclusion from Professor Goldman 

regarding whether Section 230 bars the Government charges. However, a plain reading of 

the disclosure shows that they intend to elicit testimony that section 230 should bar 

prosecution. Again, that is a policy argument outside the scope of this trial. Testimony 

related to the policy behind Section 230 or how it should work will be precluded. 

Testimony that Section 230 was meant to incentivize internet providers to engage in 

moderation practices will be allowed.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 20 of 21
- 21 -

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

Finally, the Government seeks to preclude Defendants from presenting expert 

testimony on the four additional subject matters for which they have failed to identify a 

witness. Defendants do not address this failure at all in their response. Defendants have 

failed to disclose a witness for these four areas with no explanation and will be precluded 

from calling a witness on those four areas.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED granting in part Defendants’ Motion In Limine To Preclude 

Expert Testimony. (Doc. 928.) The Government will be limited to one expert for any one 

area of relevance. Areas of expert testimony not listed above as relevant are precluded.

IT IS ORDERED granting in part United States’ motion (Doc. 905.) to preclude 

any expert not yet named (as identified in sections 7, 8, 9, and 10) and the testimony of Mr.

Butler and to limit the testimony of Professor Goldman, Alexandra Levy, Alexandra 

Lutnick, Dr. Kimberly Mehlman-Orozco, and Mr. Weil as described above and denying

the motion as to William Norman.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2020.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1081 Filed 10/27/20 Page 21 of 21