- 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

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting 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

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

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.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF 

SUBMISSION OF THE PROPOSED 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE,

VERDICT FORM, AND JURY 

INSTRUCTIONS

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1216 Filed 08/13/21 Page 1 of 5
- 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

The United States submits its proposed statement of the case, verdict form, and jury 

instructions.

I. Statement of the Case

The United States attaches its proposed statement of the case as Exhibit A. The 

government agrees that the Superseding Indictment does not need to be read to the jury in 

this case. But the jury is entitled to some explanation about the case beyond the actual 

charges. Defendants’ proposed statement offers only one sentence about Backpage—that 

it was an online classified advertising website. (Doc. 1199 at 17.) The United States has 

attempted to provide relevant information about the case in a condensed and efficient 

manner.

II. Verdict Form

The parties have submitted diametrically different proposed verdict forms. (United 

States’ Verdict Form attached as Exhibit B.) Defendants’ submission is bereft of any 

information (typically, only dates are provided) for a jury to connect a particular count to 

a victim, advertisement, or money laundering transaction. Simply stated, “[a] jury form is 

intended to assist the jury in analyzing and presenting its decision.” Cooper v. Paychex,

Inc., 960 F. Supp. 966, 973 (E.D. Va. 1997). Defendants’ submission will not assist the 

jury in tracking the evidence and presenting its decision, and Defendants’ form should not 

be used here.

Rather, the Court should employ the United States’ proposed verdict form. This 

case involves a 211-paragraph, 92-page, 100-count Superseding Indictment that will not 

be read to the jury. The United States’ proposed verdict form condenses the substantive 

counts in the Superseding Indictment to sufficient information that will allow the jury to 

follow the evidence, differentiate among the charged counts, and clearly present its 

decision. Moreover, it is standard practice in multi-count cases tried in this District for 

verdict forms to track, on a count-by-count basis, the identifying information in the 

indictment. See, e.g., United States v. Slade, et al., 09-CR-1492-PHX-ROS, Doc. 1336, 

Verdict Form (providing dates and specific descriptions of items mailed for mail fraud 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1216 Filed 08/13/21 Page 2 of 5
- 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

counts; providing dates, amounts and other descriptive information for wire fraud counts; 

identifying transaction dates, amounts and other descriptors for money laundering counts); 

United States v. Audette, 14-CR-00858-PHX-SPL, Doc. 209, Verdict Form (for wire fraud 

counts, identifying financial institutions involved, dates, amounts, and account numbers 

for each charged transaction; for counts involving specific text messages or phone calls, 

providing detailed identifying information for each text or call); United States v. Hinkeldey, 

15-CR-01118-PHX-SPL, Doc. 520, Verdict Form (for mail and wire fraud counts, 

identifying dates, items mailed or transaction amounts, and senders and recipients). Unlike 

Defendants’ proposed verdict form, the United States’ form is consistent with longstanding 

practice in this District and should be used here. 

III. Jury Instructions

The United States attaches its proposed jury instructions as Exhibit C. These jury 

instructions include the parties’ proposed instructions and objections. To facilitate review, 

the United States has consolidated both parties’ instructions and objections into a single 

document. 

On August 5, 2021, Defendants submitted their proposed jury instructions. (Doc. 

1199.) Defendants also attached several emails between the parties. (Id. at 98-113.) Based 

on Defendants’ submission (Doc. 1199) the government believes some clarification is 

needed.

On June 26, 2020, the government sent drafts of its proposed jury instructions, 

verdict form, and the statement of the case to Defendants. (Doc. 1199 at 112-113.) With 

each trial continuance, Defendants delayed providing comments to government’s drafts. 

(Id. at 105, 109-110, 112.) When the Court continued the trial to August 23, 2021, 

Defendants proposed sending their comments by July 7, 2021. (Id. at 105.) The parties 

ultimately agreed to a June 15, 2021 deadline, with the government to then file the parties’ 

proposed jury instructions, verdict form, and statement of the case with the Court on July 

26, 2021. (Id. at 102.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1216 Filed 08/13/21 Page 3 of 5
- 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

When the government agreed to the July 26, 2021 date, it had not yet received 

Defendants’ instructions and objections. (Doc. 1199 at 101-106.) At that time, the 

government did not anticipate that Defendants would submit 18 non-model instructions 

and modify nearly every model instruction that related to the substantive counts. (Id. at 

Ex. F.) As the government has since informed Defendants, responding to Defendants’ 

proposed instructions and objections has been a time consuming task, especially 

considering that the last two months have been the government’s busiest period for trial 

preparation. (Id. at 98.) The United States has diligently worked to complete its responses 

to Defendants’ proposed instruction and objections, which are incorporated in Exhibit C.

Respectfully submitted this 13th day of August, 2021.

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Andrew C. Stone

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1216 Filed 08/13/21 Page 4 of 5
- 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 13, 2021, 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/ Marjorie Dieckman U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1216 Filed 08/13/21 Page 5 of 5