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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 Case No. CR-18-422-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

PRECLUDE THE TESTIMONY OF 

SHARON COOPER, M.D., OR, 

ALTERNATIVELY, TO HOLD A 

HEARING OUTSIDE THE 

PRESENCE OF JURY TO 

DETERMINE HER 

QUALIFICATIONS TO TESTIFY AT 

THIS TRIAL AND THE 

RELEVANCE OF HER TESTIMONY

NOW COME the Defendants, by their attorneys of record, to ask the Court 

to preclude the testimony of Sharon Cooper, M.D.. Alternatively, the Defendants 

ask this Court to hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine her 

qualifications to testify at this trial and the relevance of her testimony. The 

Defendants further submit the following:

As the Court saw in the first two weeks of this trial, the Government seeks 

to prove the specific intent crimes alleged in the Superseding Indictment by 

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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 1 of 9
Page 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

29

proffering “notice evidence. ” The Government also persists in attempting to 

present evidence to this jury about irrelevant, inflammatory evidence regarding 

third party crimes. Sharon Cooper, M.D.’s proffered testimony appears to follow 

the Government’s pattern. 

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:

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; 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 2 of 9
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

4. Testimony about the impact that the shutdown of Backpage.com 

had on online sex trafficking.1

On July 9, 2021, Counsel for Ms. Vaught asked the Government to:

. . . advise whether or not the Government has updated its notice of experts 

it intends to call. We are working with a massive record, so perhaps my 

searches missed an updated notice.

Would you please advise whether or not the Government has update its 

expert notices to conform with the Court’s with the Court’s October 2020 

Order? If not, please advise before close of business on July 15, 2021. That 

clarification may save valuable court time.2

On August 9, 2021, the Government replied:

Hi Joy,

We have received the Court’s order regarding expert witness testimony 

(Doc. 1081) and intend to comply with it. We do not believe Rule 16(G) 

requires the filing of an “updated expert notice,” however, if you are 

aware of authority that requires as such, please bring it to our 

attention. The Court’s order addresses the defense expert witnesses as 

well - does the defense plan to file a similar updated expert notice?

We will note that five witnesses originally identified in the government’s 

notice of expert witnesses, Supervisory SA James Hardie, Investigator 

Derek Stigerts, Dr. Shannon Wolf, SA Donald Ellsworth and Rob Spectre 

have been removed from the government’s witness list.3

1 ECF Doc. 1081 at 17-18. 

2 The letter sent to the Government comprises Exhibit 1 to this Motion. 

3 The Government’s August 9, 2021 email to Counsel comprises Exhibit 2 to this 

Motion.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 3 of 9
Page 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

29

The Government now has announced that intends to call this week both 

Christina Decoufle and Sharon Cooper, M.D. Their proffered testimony appears 

to overlap, in addition to being duplicative of the testimony of Agent Fitchner, 

regarding the language and imagery in sex work advertising. Their proffered 

testimony also appears to be wholly irrelevant to any element of the 

Government’s burden of proof. 

The Government’s expert notice, which has not been amended, proffers 

Dr. Cooper’s testimony as follows:

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.4

The only topic of those listed above that is consistent with the parameters 

established in the Court’s October 27, 2020 Order is “(4) common ways a sex

trafficker can use force, fraud, and coercion to maintain control over his 

4 ECF Doc. 422 at 6-7.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 4 of 9
Page 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

29

victims.”5 This topic, however, contradicts the Court’s more recent rulings on 

the Government’s proffered evidence.

Regarding crimes committed by third parties, this Court ruled in May 

2021:

Generally, the Court agrees that the crimes of third parties are only 

relevant to the extent that they gave notice that prostitutes were 

advertising on Backpage.com. However, the specific details of crimes 

committed by third parties are irrelevant to whether Defendants violated 

the Travel Act, and in most instances, evidence of such third-party crimes 

is likely improper. But without reference to specific contexts where the 

Government intends to introduce such evidence, the Court will not 

categorically conclude that all evidence of crimes committed by third 

parties is inadmissible. If the Government attempts to introduce such 

evidence at trial, it will only be admitted to the extent that it gave 

Defendants notice that prostitutes were utilizing Backpage.com, and the 

Government will not be allowed to introduce evidence showing the details 

of the crimes . . . 

6

Moreover, last week, this Court specifically told the Parties that the 

pimps’ coercion of sex workers is not a relevant topic. As the Defendants 

recall, the Government did not object to this ruling.

Given this Court’s clear limitations on the Government’s proofs, 

nothing in the Government’s proffer of Dr. Cooper’s testimony pertains to 

the Government’s burden to prove that each of the Defendants had specific 

5 ECF Doc. 1081 at 17-18.

6 ECF Doc. 1156 at 5.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 5 of 9
Page 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

29

knowledge that the ads listed in the Superseding Indictment were for 

prostitution. The proffered testimony of Dr. Cooper also does nothing to 

make more or less likely that the Defendants each knowingly joined an 

agreement to facilitate an illegal prostitution enterprise. 

Dr. Cooper’s proffered testimony, even if it had a shred of relevance 

to the issues in this case, is inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 403. It is 

highly inflammatory; it creates new, evidentiary rabbit holes for the jury, 

the Court, and the Parties to fall down regarding third party conduct; and 

duplicates the testimony already offered through Agent Fitchner regarding 

how ads were placed on Backpage.com – be they for used couches or adult 

entertainment. 

At the least, the Defendants ask this Court to require the 

Government to proffer how any of Dr. Cooper’s proffered testimony is 

relevant. 

If the Court finds that some tailored version of Dr. Cooper’s 

testimony could be relevant, then the Defendants ask this Court to hold a 

Daubert hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine both her 

qualifications to offer any limited expert testimony and the methodologies 

she used to draw those conclusions. For example, if Dr. Cooper were to 

assert, as she has in other cases, that Backpage.com was responsible for 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 6 of 9
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

more than 70% of reports to NCMEC, then the Government must disclose 

what data and measurements of that data that she uses to form that 

conclusion.7

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 12th day of September, 2021.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant Vaught

DATED: September 13, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Bienert | Katzman PC

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin

DATED: September 13, 2021 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

7 Fed. R. Evid. 702.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 7 of 9
Page 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

29

DATED: September 13, 2021 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

DATED: September 13, 2021 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

DATED: September 13, 2021 The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 8 of 9
Page 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

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On September 12, 2021, 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 Twelfth day of September, 2021.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1300 Filed 09/12/21 Page 9 of 9