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

MOTION TO LIMIT SVENDGARD TESTIMONY

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr. (CA Bar No.135311, admitted pro hac vice)

Whitney Z. Bernstein (CA Bar No. 304917, admitted pro hac vice)

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP

903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350

San Clemente, California 92673

Telephone: (949) 369-3700

Facsimile: (949) 369-3701

tbienert@bklwlaw.com

wbernstein@bklwlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

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

Erin 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.

Case No. 2:18-cr-00422-PHX-SMB

MOTION TO LIMIT TESTIMONY 

OF JESSIKA SVENDGARD

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1295 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 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

MOTION TO LIMIT SVENDGARD TESTIMONY

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

Ariel A. Neuman (CA Bar No. 241594, 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

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

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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1295 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 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

1

MOTION TO LIMIT SVENDGARD TESTIMONY

The Government’s case largely is predicated on purported “notice” evidence. The 

government’s charges, including the indictment’s conspiracy count, however, require a showing 

of specific, not general, intent. See United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1212 (9th Cir. 2016) (to 

prove a conspiracy charge, the government must prove the “requisite intent for the substantive 

crime.”). The Government must prove that Defendants had the specific intent to violate the 

Travel Act by facilitating business enterprises involved in prostitution in violation of state law. 

In connection with the conspiracy count, which, based on the Government’s opening, appears 

to be their sole focus in this case, as its opposition to Defendants’ motion for judgment of 

acquittal or mistrial made clear by essentially conceding the substantive Travel Act counts, the 

Government also must show an agreement to pursue an illegal objective, here, the violation of 

the Travel Act. Therefore, the Government cannot be allowed to introduce every piece of 

inflammatory, irrelevant evidence under a purported “notice” theory, which effectively blurs the 

line between a general intent and specific intent standard. See Gibson Specialty Co., 507 F.2d 446, 

450 (9th Cir. 1974) (“The presumption that one intends the natural and probable consequences 

of his actions is insufficient in this context to establish 

intent to facilitate criminal activity.”) (emphasis added).

Specifically, as to Jessika Svendgard, her anticipated testimony that she was trafficked at 

the hands of several pimps is not remotely relevant to demonstrate that these six Defendants had 

the requisite specific intent to facilitate particular business enterprises involved in prostitution 

offenses. There will be no evidence that, before Svendgard’s ads were published, any of the six 

Defendants knew of her, knew of her ads, knew of the pimps who posted her ads, or in any way 

directly aligned themselves with those pimps. See Gibson, 507 F.2d at 449 (“the prosecutor must 

show that the manufacturer in some significant manner associated himself with the 

purchaser’s criminal venture for the purpose of its advancement.”) (emphasis added). 

Critically, the government has conceded that the business enterprises at issue in Counts 2 – 51 

of the indictment are “the ongoing prostitution enterprises of Backpage’s customers.” 

See Dkt. 649 at 32 n.17 (emphasis added). None of Ms. Svendgard’s anticipated testimony will 

prove any nexus between Defendants and the pimps who posted Svendgard’s ads to the site. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1295 Filed 09/10/21 Page 3 of 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

2

MOTION TO LIMIT SVENDGARD TESTIMONY

And there is no evidence that Svendgard’s ads are at all tied to the “marketing strategies” that the 

Government continues to assert purportedly form the basis for Defendants’ “specific intent” 

here. 

The Court cannot allow this trial to become about every bad act associated with Backpage 

over a 14-year time period. Allowing the Government to proceed in that manner would violate 

Defendants’ rights to a fair trial and effectively amend the indictment beyond the 50 ads at issue. 

See Doc. No. 946 at 13 (Order denying motion to dismiss) (“[Defendants] were not indicted for 

facilitating the amorphous notion of ‘prostitution.’ They were indicted for facilitating (via 

publishing ads) on fifty distinct occasions where prostitutes, prostitution-related businesses, or 

other groups were involved in the business of prostitution.”).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 10th day of September 2021,

BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL 

WILLIAMS LLP

s/ Whitney Z. Bernstein

Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Attorneys for James Larkin

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

II(C)(3), Whitney Z. Bernstein 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.

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.

Erin McCampbell Paris

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT 

NESSIM DROOKS LINCENBERG AND 

RHOW PC

s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Attorneys for John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1295 Filed 09/10/21 Page 4 of 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

3

MOTION TO LIMIT SVENDGARD TESTIMONY

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

s/ Bruce Feder

Bruce Feder

Attorneys for Scott Spear

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

s/ Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1295 Filed 09/10/21 Page 5 of 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

1

3739131.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 10, 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/ Toni Thomas 

Toni Thomas

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1295 Filed 09/10/21 Page 6 of 6