DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED “LIMITING 

INSTRUCTION”

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

Joy Malby Bertrand (AZ Bar No. 024181)

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Telephone: (602)374-5321

Facsimile: (480)361-4694

joy.bertrand@gmail.com

Attorney for Joye Vaught

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice)

Erin E. McCampbell (NY Bar No. 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

pcambria@lglaw.com

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

Additional counsel listed on next page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO THE 

GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED 

“LIMITING INSTRUCTION”

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1730 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 6
ii

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO THE GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED “LIMITING INSTRUCTION”

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

Gary S. Lincenberg (CA Bar No. 123058, admitted pro hac vice)

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (CA Bar No. 279856, admitted pro hac vice)

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW PC

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for John Brunst

Bruce Feder (AZ Bar No. 004832)

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

Attorney for Scott Spear

Eric Kessler

KESSLER LAW GROUP

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Telephone: (480) 644-0093

eric@kesslerlawgroup.com

Attorney for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg (AZ Bar No. 017218)

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

david@deisenbergplc.com

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1730 Filed 08/24/23 Page 2 of 6
1

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED “LIMITING INSTRUCTION”

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

OBJECTION

Defendants Michael Lacey, John Brunst, Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught

(“Defendants”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, object to the proposed “limiting 

instruction.” The Defendants further submit the following:

In accordance with the Court’s direction at the August 18, 2023, status hearing, Defendants 

object to the government’s proposed “limiting” instruction relating to human trafficking, sex 

trafficking, or child sex trafficking. Rather than distinguishing the misdemeanor state law prostitution 

offenses that Defendants allegedly facilitated from the felony offenses of human trafficking, sex 

trafficking, and child sex trafficking, to limit the prejudice that will result from references to the 

latter offenses, the government’s proposed instruction invites the jury to equate the two sets of 

offenses. The government’s proposed instruction would instead magnify the prejudice of the 

evidence the government seeks to introduce. 

The government could have premised at least some of its Travel Act charges on trafficking 

offenses, but has chosen not to do so, thereby avoiding the substantially higher evidentiary burdens

attendant to proving specific intent to facilitate each element of a trafficking offense. With its 

proposed instruction equating trafficking offenses and common prostitution offenses, the 

government improperly seeks to have its cake and eat it, too. The government asks this Court’s

permission to freely tar Defendants with the trafficking brush, while avoiding the specific intent 

burdens that otherwise would accompany Travel Act charges premised on trafficking offenses. 

If the Court provides a limiting instruction to attempt to reduce what the Court has 

recognized will be highly prejudicial testimony and evidence relating to trafficking, the instruction --

at a minimum -- must draw a clear line between misdemeanor state law prostitution offenses and 

felony trafficking offenses. Any instruction on this issue must clearly state that Defendants are not 

charged with the latter. Moreover, given that the government expressly said in its trial brief not 

only that it seeks to introduce dozens of exhibits related to sex trafficking, but also that most of 

those exhibits will not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the limiting instruction should 

instruct the jury about the nature of such evidence and inform the jury that the Court will provide 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1730 Filed 08/24/23 Page 3 of 6
2

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED “LIMITING INSTRUCTION”

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

further instruction each time such evidence may be admitted. Defendants’ proposed instruction 

would be:

Defendants are charged with violating the Travel Act by facilitating misdemeanor, state-law prostitution offenses, conspiracy to violate the Travel Act, and money 

laundering. Although some testimony and evidence at the trial occasionally may refer 

to “human trafficking,” “sex trafficking,” or “child sex trafficking,” Defendants are 

not charged with crimes relating to “human trafficking,” “sex trafficking,” or “child 

sex trafficking” or with facilitating such crimes.

The jury should not conclude from any use of the terms “human trafficking,” “sex 

trafficking,” or “child sex trafficking” during the trial that any Defendant has been 

charged with, or may be guilty of, a trafficking crime or facilitating a trafficking crime. 

Moreover, when the government proposes to present evidence containing the terms 

“human trafficking,” “sex trafficking,” or “child sex trafficking,” that testimony or 

evidence often will be presented for a purpose other than for the truth of the matters 

asserted in the evidence. That means that the jury must not presume that any

statements in that evidence are true—including any statements relating to “human 

trafficking,” “sex trafficking,” or “child sex trafficking.” Each time the government 

proposes to offer evidence for a purpose other than for the truth of the matter 

asserted, I will instruct you on the narrow purpose for which you may consider that

evidence and also will instruct you that you must not consider the evidence for the 

truth of the matters asserted in that evidence.

To be clear, Defendants maintain that the Court should preclude the government from 

introducing evidence relating to trafficking offenses, for the reasons they previously have stated in 

their various filings (including Docs. 908, 1589, and 1648) and during related argument. Even 

accepting, for argument’s sake, the government’s claim that trafficking offenses are prostitution 

offenses, the government does not intend to prove that Defendants violated the Travel Act by 

facilitating trafficking offenses, allowing the government to once again make this trial about 

trafficking just invites another mistrial.

1 

Moreover, by proposing an alternative limiting instruction, Defendants do not suggest that 

the Court’s providing of such a limiting instruction will negate or even materially offset the 

prejudice that will result from the government’s plan to repeatedly interject highly prejudicial 

evidence relating to child sex trafficking into the trial. It won’t. The responses to the juror 

1 Following the government’s logic, it could charge a defendant under the Travel Act with 

facilitating the sale of a marijuana cigarette, but then spend much of the trial putting on evidence 

relating to facilitating the importation of large quantities of fentanyl, because the sale of a joint and 

the importation of large quantities of fentanyl both are offenses involving “narcotics or controlled 

substances.” 18 U.S.C. § 1952(b)(i)(1). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1730 Filed 08/24/23 Page 4 of 6
3

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED “LIMITING INSTRUCTION”

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

questionnaires demonstrate that child sex trafficking is incendiary. If the Court allows the 

government to repeatedly ring the child sex trafficking bell and present evidence that numerous

people claimed Backpage.com facilitated child sex trafficking -- whether offered for the truth of the 

matter asserted or not -- any instruction from the Court that Defendants are not charged with 

facilitating child sex trafficking will land on ears completely deafened by the child sex trafficking 

bell. No instruction will unring that bell. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of August, 2023, 

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Joye Vaught

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Jan. 2020) § II (C) 

(3), Joy Bertrand 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.

Paul Cambria

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

By: /s/Paul Cambria

Paul Cambria

Attorney for Michael Lacey

Gary S. Lincenberg

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary Lincenberg

Gary Lincenberg

Attorneys for John Brunst

Bruce Feder

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1730 Filed 08/24/23 Page 5 of 6
4

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED “LIMITING INSTRUCTION”

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

By: /s/ Bruce Feder

Bruce Feder

Attorneys for Scott Spear

David Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG, P.L.C.

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

Joy Bertrand

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ.

By: /s/ Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

On August 24, 2023, a PDF version

of this document was filed with

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

Following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1730 Filed 08/24/23 Page 6 of 6