1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

 _________________ 

United States of America, )

 ) CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Phoenix, Arizona 

 vs. ) September 2, 2021 

 ) 8:36 A.M. 

Michael Lacey, et al., )

 )

 )

 Defendants. ) 

______________________________) 

 

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE SUSAN M. BRNOVICH, JUDGE 

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

TRIAL - MORNING SESSION

Official Court Reporter: 

Barbara H. Stockford, RMR, CRR, CRC 

Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 312 

401 West Washington Street, Spc. 39 

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151 

(602) 322-7247 

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter 

Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 1 of 122
 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

A P P E A R A N C E S 

For the Government: 

 U.S. Attorney's Office 

 By: PETER S. KOZINETS, ESQ. 

 KEVIN M. RAPP, ESQ. 

 MARGARET WU PERLMETER, ESQ. 

 ANDREW C. STONE, ESQ. 

 Two Renaissance Square 

 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200 

 Phoenix, AZ 85004 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section 

 By: REGINALD E. JONES, ESQ. 

 1400 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 600 

 Washington, DC 20530 

For the Defendant Michael Lacey: 

 Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP 

 By: PAUL J. CAMBRIA, JR., ESQ. 

 ERIN McCAMPBELL PARIS, ESQ. 

 42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

 Buffalo, NY 14202 

For the Defendant James Larkin: 

 Bienert Katzman PC 

 By: THOMAS H. BIENERT, JR., ESQ. 

 WHITNEY Z. BERNSTEIN, ESQ. 

 903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350 

 San Clemente, CA 92673 

For the Defendant John Brunst: 

 Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim, Drooks, 

 Lincenberg & Rhow PC 

 By: GARY S. LINCENBERG, ESQ. 

 GOPI K. PANCHAPAKESAN, ESQ. 

 1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor 

 Los Angeles, CA 90067 

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 2 of 122
 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

A P P E A R A N C E S (Continued) 

For the Defendant Scott Spear: 

 Feder Law Office PA 

 By: BRUCE FEDER, ESQ. 

 2930 East Camelback Road, Suite 160 

 Phoenix, AZ 85016 

For the Defendant Anthony Padilla: 

 David Eisenberg PLC 

 By: DAVID EISENBERG, ESQ. 

 3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1155 

 Phoenix, AZ 85012 

For the Defendant Joye Vaught: 

 Joy Bertrand Esq. LLC 

 By: JOY MALBY BERTRAND, ESQ. 

 P. O. Box 2734 

 Scottsdale, AZ 85252 

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 3 of 122
 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

INDEX

SUMMARY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS PAGE

Jury Voir Dire 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 4 of 122
 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(In open court; jury not present.)

THE COURT: We are on the record outside the presence

of the jury.

All right. So we're going to talk about strikes for

cause before the jury comes back.

From the government, do you have any motions?

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, the government moves to

strike Juror No. 38 for cause.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. Can you speak up?

MS. PERLMETER: The government moves to strike number

38 for cause.

MR. LINCENBERG: Did you say number 38, please?

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 38 was the one whose

children were victimized in sex crimes. She made the

distinction yesterday that she could sit if the case did not

involve children, but that she would not be able to sit if the

case involved children. Although the government does not

anticipate calling any children as witnesses, some of the

people who we anticipate testifying were children when the

events happened to them.

MR. LINCENBERG: We have no objection.

THE COURT: Okay, okay. Juror 38 will be struck.

Any others?

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 39, Your Honor. 

Juror No. 39 is the 19-year-old who expressed that she did not

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 5 of 122
 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

think she could sit as a juror because she is a kid herself and

didn't understand some of the words that were being asked of

her yesterday.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. BERNSTEIN: No objection.

THE COURT: Juror No. 39 will be struck.

MS. PERLMETER: And then Juror No. 45, Your Honor.

Juror 45 was the gentleman sitting behind the prosecution area

in the courtroom yesterday. He was wearing a green-ish top.

He said he couldn't deliberate because the case involved

children.

MS. BERNSTEIN: No objection.

THE COURT: Okay. Juror 45 will be struck.

MS. PERLMETER: And that's it from the government.

THE COURT: Okay. From the defense?

MR. CAMBRIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Paul Cambria.

Juror No. 34, you may require -- you may recall he was

the retired police officer who made it very clear that he would

treat police witnesses differently than he would others. And

I think when the government attempted to rehab him, he dug in

even farther at that point.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. PERLMETER: No objection.

THE COURT: And, just for the record, if one of you

moves to strike someone, I'll assume you all do unless you tell

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 6 of 122
 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

me you disagree.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Cambria, do you have others?

MR. CAMBRIA: I do. Number 54, this was the lady who

had been on a prior case involving sexually-oriented material

and she said that, apparently, it had a traumatic effect on her

because she indicated that she continues to visualize, if you

will, the exhibits that were in that case. She said that it

would be very difficult for her to be able to engage with other

jurors and discuss any pictures, if you will. And I think

that, you know, based on the fact that -- I mean, I've got a

lot of cases in certain areas. I've never had anybody say that

they were traumatized by looking at certain things like this,

and she did. So I think that that's so engrained that she is

not someone who can be fair and impartial to the defendants.

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, would you like me to stand

when I respond or is it okay to remain seated?

THE COURT: You can remain seated.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. Your Honor, the government

objects. Juror No. 54, she did explain she was questioned

heavily by the defense. She stated that, while the --

specifically as to the photos, that she remembered the photos,

that it was still her memory, and she said it would be

uncomfortable deliberating. However, she did say she would be

able to deliberate. It's not materials that she will

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 7 of 122
 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

particularly want to see every day, but that she would be able

to do her duty and she understands her duty based on her prior

jury service.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, this is Ms. Bernstein.

I just want to add for the record that that question -- "Can

you deliberate about graphic sexual topics?" -- if you'll

recall, that was put into our questionnaire by Mr. Rapp

himself. He said that was crucial for the case. He fought for

that question and this is why -- because, if a juror is

uncomfortable discussing the subject matter we're going to go

through in laborious detail for the next couple of months, they

should not be on the jury. And I recall speaking with that

juror and she said it was twofold; that, one, she was unable

to -- she felt uncomfortable herself and she also felt

extremely uncomfortable speaking to others, strangers, on the

jury about it.

THE COURT: Sorry, I just want to get her

questionnaire because, although she did say it was

uncomfortable, I remember it that she was very clear that she

could do it. She -- even if it would be uncomfortable.

MS. BERNSTEIN: She did say that she would be able to

do it like she did four years ago where the images continue to

haunt her.

MR. LINCENBERG: And, Your Honor, this is

Mr. Lincenberg. You may want to check the transcript on it.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 8 of 122
 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Obviously, we went through a lot of jurors. My memory is a

little different from the Court's.

THE COURT: Okay. Well, that's not one where I --

I was paying particular attention because I knew what the issue

was when both sides were questioning her. And the motion to

strike is denied.

MR. FEDER: Number 40.

THE COURT: Do you want to put -- I mean, if there's

no objection, I don't have to hear argument.

MS. PERLMETER: We object.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. FEDER: One, he talked about his financial

hardship. This is in his jury questionnaire. Questionnaire

indicates hardship would be to loss of income and burden on

work as I'm a software project manager overseeing several large

software implementations during the timeframe. I think he

talked about that at some length.

When questioned about whether or not, if an

advice-of-counsel defense was proposed, he would indicate, even

if the advice was bad, that they're still breaking the law and

it wouldn't matter if a defendant relied on it which, of

course, undermines the good-faith defense which we believe will

be an issue in this case.

Then he equated prostitution and trafficking which, as

the Court knows, have been an ongoing problem in this case with

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 9 of 122
 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

the government asserting trafficking when they're not charged

with trafficking, and -- but that he would not back off of

that.

And then he couldn't really commit to saying that he

wouldn't give the law enforcement officers more credibility

than other witnesses notwithstanding what the instruction is.

THE COURT: And from the government?

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, Mr. Feder hit the nail on

the head when he said the juror was unable to commit. Jury

selection is not an attempt for jurors to commit one way or

another how they will vote. At this juncture, there has been

no evidence presented. We are just trying to figure out if

people can sit fairly and impartially based on life

circumstances they may have had.

As to the financial hardship, he stated that he would

not -- he would likely not lose his job if he sat on this jury.

He indicated that his projects would be delayed, but he thought

it would be unlikely that his clients would move to another

company.

Further, he stated he would be okay with someone like

himself on the jury when asked by the defense. He does have

some questions about what the law is, as many jurors do,

between what an escort is, what prostitution is, and what

trafficking means. And, at this point, that is to be expected

as they have received no instruction from the Court.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 10 of 122
 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

He further stated that, in his view, it's not about

whether or not escorting's a good thing or bad thing. It's

about whether or not someone broke the laws. He stated over

and over again that he would treat all witnesses fairly, that

he could be fair and impartial, and that he would abide by the

law. 

So, for those reasons, we ask for the defendant's

motion to be denied.

MR. FEDER: You do have to commit to following the

law. This is not committing to some side or the other. You

have to commit to following the law, and he said that he would

not do that as it regards law enforcement.

If you look at his questionnaire, he is bothered by

the fact that escorts are legal. He believes it should be

illegal. And there is just a whole host of questions -- or

answers in his questionnaire that indicate he couldn't -- he

couldn't and shouldn't be a good juror.

MS. PERLMETER: And, Your Honor, he further stated

that he could be fair and went so far as to discuss that he

would not -- if the evidence -- if the government failed to

prove its case, he would have no qualms about returning a not

guilty verdict and going home to tell his wife about it.

MR. CAMBRIA: May I add, Your Honor, that my note

indicates that he could not commit to treating non-police or

law enforcement witnesses with equal credence as other

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 11 of 122
 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

witnesses. Indicated that he had two family members who are

police in Canada and he is accustomed to trusting law

enforcement. So he's -- in fact, there is no equivocation

there about his fact that he made it clear he could not treat

the two alike. And there will be a number of police officers

in this case, and that's sort of bedrock. I think that that

disqualifies him alone.

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, the jurors --

THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead.

MS. PERLMETER: The juror stated that he could treat

all witnesses fairly and then, when questioned about the

relationship with the law enforcement officers in Canada, he

indicated that they were his brothers-in-law and not his

brothers.

MR. CAMBRIA: The bottom line is he --

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria, enough. Juror 40 will be

struck over objection.

Any others?

MR. EISENBERG: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm 

David Eisenberg. And we're moving to strike Juror No. 46.

This refers to this juror's answers to the questionnaire. One

answer was that she could not -- she was -- she agreed with the

proposition that the defendant should prove his innocence and

she agreed with the proposition that the defendant should be

expected to testify which are both bedrock principles with

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 12 of 122
 13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

respect to the Constitution.

So many people have evidence that, in this -- both in

the jury questionnaires and during the voir dire, this one,

I think she just maintained that that's what her position

should be and that's what her position is. That is inherently

a biased juror.

THE COURT: The government's position?

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, I don't have her saying

that she -- if she -- as many jurors stated early on in their

questionnaire that they thought the defendant should testify

about their innocence or they thought they should do something

proactively in a criminal trial, however, many of them

rehabilitated. I don't have any notes that this one maintains

a defendant should need to testify.

This juror volunteered that she had no problem voicing

her opinion and would do what she needed to do if chosen to sit

as a fair and impartial juror. She said that she was open to

hearing facts and that, at the end of the day, she would hold

her ground as to this position.

THE COURT: Okay. So I'm left with her answer in the

questionnaire with no rehabilitation. So Juror 46 will be

struck.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, the next would be Juror

44.

This is Mr. Lincenberg.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 13 of 122
 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Juror No. 44, in the questionnaire, when asked about

the ability to discuss sexually explicit topics with fellow

jurors -- that was Question 79 -- said no, it would be

difficult. Question 88, when asked about any beliefs affecting

your ability to sit in judgment, said yes without explanation.

I think that's enough to disqualify the juror.

On top of that, juror also indicated that, with regard

to escort services, even if they are legal, it is -- they are a

sin. The juror was bothered that escorts are legal, and it is

a sin. And with regard to prostitution also being a sin, Juror

44 talked about her how her ex-husband was addicted to

pornography, was convicted and served time. Felt he deserved

it.

I don't believe that this juror, based on both her

answers in the questionnaire and in court, has the ability to

sit as a fair and impartial juror.

MS. PERLMETER: No objection.

THE COURT: 44 will be struck.

MR. LINCENBERG: With regard to Juror 56, Juror 56,

Your Honor, I would submit is a very easy call. Juror 56 said

it's hard to believe that the Backpage defendants wouldn't

understand that they were facilitating prostitution by posting

escort ads and then said "My belief in this is firm." The

juror said that the juror would not be able to distinguish

between illegal and adult sex ads even if the law does. And it

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 14 of 122
 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

bothers the juror that escorts are legal.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. PERLMETER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 56 will be struck.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, this is Whitney Bernstein.

I would like to move to strike Juror No. 37 for cause.

This was an individual who was seated over here. He said that

he worked in a career in law enforcement in Tempe and he knows

that escorts and prostitutes are synonymous despite what the

law says. He said "If I were a defendant in this case, I would

not want me on the jury" -- excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm reading

notes for a different juror.

Let me go back to 37, Your Honor. That was the juror

that said he had also formed a very firm belief that

prostitution and escorts are anonymous. He said, when asked if

he could still be impartial, that he has his doubts because

it's a moral question for him, and he said he has held these

beliefs for a long time.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. PERLMETER: Yes. Your Honor, the same issue

applies to Juror No. 37. He does not know what escorting and

prostitution is as defined by the Court.

With regard to morality, I don't think it's unexpected

that you will find a person that feels that prostitution is

immoral. Similarly, like you would not -- it would not be

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 15 of 122
 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

unexpected to find a juror who thinks that child pornography,

sexual exploitation or murdering somebody is immoral. This

juror said that he was not sure what this case was about

yesterday, and he said that he would do his duty and sit and

listen to the evidence if required.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, those are not my notes.

My notes show a direct quote.

THE COURT: Okay, stop. So Juror 37 will be struck.

I have him in with two other jurors that have already been

struck where they were unable to or unwilling to distinguish

between an expert -- I'm sorry -- an escort and a prostitute.

Juror 37 will be struck.

MR. BERTRAND: Your Honor, this is Joy Bertrand for

Ms. Vaught.

The defense moves to strike Juror 43. You might

recall that Juror 43 is our juror who also submitted a

questionnaire that was not completed and he had an excuse for

it we heard about for the first time yesterday. So there's

also an initial concern about him being able to follow

direction and fully participate.

Within the voir dire that occurred with him yesterday,

he had a strong feeling about pornography, saying pornography

takes advantage of people who need support, especially

teenagers. This Court talked with him, but he also had several

inconsistencies within his statements. He said his moral views

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 16 of 122
 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

he keeps inside and that websites should have accountability

and be responsible for illegal content hosted by users.

So he is coming with a preformed conclusion about what

is the crux of this case, and I would note that the standard

here is one of substantially impaired. It does not -- the

standard is not that they are so obviously biased. It's that

does their world view create a substantial impairment to being

able to fairly sit on this case and, at the end of the case,

deliberate. So we would move that Juror 43 be struck.

THE COURT: Any objection?

MS. PERLMETER: Yes. First, as to being unable to

follow directions, Juror No. 43's questionnaire did not -- it

was not complete, the version that the parties received. He

stated that he hitted "Submit" and he had an error and then he

resubmitted. So the government does not see any instance where

he failed to follow directions.

As to his ability to sit fairly and impartially, while

he did say that websites should bear some responsibility, that

is not -- that question was asked of everybody. So not

everybody who answers one way or another, or it would be

everybody who answers with -- suddenly had a preconceived

notion would be unable to sit, which is simply not the case.

He was very, very clear, after being pressed time and time

again, that he would be fair, that he would be impartial, and

he even went on to say that, if the law was such that it was

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 17 of 122
 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

against what he thought it should be or it was against his

morals, that it would win and he would follow the law.

THE COURT: Okay. The motion to strike Juror 43 is

denied.

Are there any others?

MR. BERTRAND: Yes, ma'am. Juror 57.

THE COURT: Did you say 57?

MR. BERTRAND: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BERTRAND: This is the gentleman in the back of

the room near the door. And we had a conversation yesterday

late in the day about distinguishing trafficking from

prostitution and, as noted in the defendant's pleadings

recently, this is a critical distinction, and he struggled.

THE COURT: Is it the critical distinction between

escorts and prostitutes or escorts and trafficking, not

prostitutes and trafficking, which are both illegal?

MR. BERTRAND: I think there is an additional

distinction because the defendants here are charged only with

facilitating prostitution. The government is doubling down on

its efforts to make this a case about contributing to human

trafficking. And this gentleman could not -- had difficulty

discerning between prostitution, which is illegal

understandably, but not nearly as serious as human trafficking.

And that's a big difference because, if he is going into the

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 18 of 122
 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

back -- going back to deliberate with his jurors and conflating

prostitution which does -- and sex work, which includes people

choosing to do this that are free agents, and trafficking where

people are trapped, forced to do things they do not want to do

for whatever reason, that is a very serious predisposition that

he is not going to be able to put aside. So we would move to

strike 57 for cause.

THE COURT: Okay. Government?

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, Juror No. 57 has not been

given an instruction or any guidance on what prostitution is

and how it may or may not be different from human trafficking.

So it's very difficult for him. There is no evidence right now

that he is going to conflate anything in a jury room if he is

selected to be a member of this jury. He indicated he could be

fair and impartial and he could follow the law.

THE COURT: Okay. The motion or request to strike

Juror 57 is denied. I agree. These are complicated things to

understand if you have no exposure. And just because he wasn't

out of the blue able to come up with the correct definition

doesn't mean he wouldn't be able to understand it or that it

would affect his ability to follow the instructions.

Are there any others?

No. Okay. All right. We will bring in the next

group.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, before we get started,

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 19 of 122
 20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I just wanted to ask for a break no later than 10:30, if I can

have a 30-minute break. I can go until about 10:30.

THE COURT: Okay. Thirty minutes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I will need a 30-minute break.

THE COURT: Are you going to need that through the

entire trial?

MS. BERNSTEIN: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. BIENERT: Your Honor, I'm yelling from the rafters

because I'm way up here. I am here and I can step in if

there's a reason, if you're not there when we need to get

going. I will be here throughout the trial.

THE COURT: We'll have to talk about that.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, while I'm handling jury

selection today, I would just ask to be able to get a break so

I'm not missing that.

THE COURT: Yes.

Before she goes down, I did want to let you know

I went and looked at statements by Juror 30 and 14 because

I took those under advisement yesterday. And there was an

objection by each side to one and, over objection, Juror 30 and

Juror 14 are going to be struck.

Okay, now you can unmute it and bring in the next

panel.

MS. PERLMETER: Just for scheduling, are we doing

Panel 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 20 of 122
 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. LINCENBERG: I can't hear you, Ms. Perlmeter.

THE COURT: We can't hear you.

MS. PERLMETER: Just for scheduling purposes, it looks

like, from the seating chart that was handed out yesterday,

there is Panel No. 3 that's full and then there's a few people

left on Panel No. 4, right?

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay, thank you.

MR. LINCENBERG: I'm sorry. So this panel is going to

be 62 through what number?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 63.

THE COURT: 63.

MR. LINCENBERG: 63 through what?

THE COURT: 94.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: No, 93, Your Honor.

THE COURT: 93?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Yes. Is that 31?

MR. LINCENBERG: That's 31.

(Recess taken from 9:02 a.m. to 9:11 a.m.)

(Prospective jurors present.)

THE COURT: Okay. Counsel, in this group, Juror 78 is

late. So we're just going to put Juror 78 with the next group

just so you know. And I believe we left the seat empty so

you'll know.

All right. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 21 of 122
 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

your time and patience. I know you had to listen downstairs

all day yesterday; so I'm sure it was a long day. As I have

explained and, hopefully, you heard, because of COVID

procedures, we have to do this in much smaller groups than we

normally would. So it does take a little bit longer.

We are set to continue jury selection in this case.

Would all prospective jurors please stand and raise your right

hand to be sworn?

(Prospective jurors sworn.)

THE COURT: And I'm going to re-go over some ground

rules that you might have heard me tell the jurors yesterday,

but I just want to go over them again.

During this process here in person, we will be using

your juror number to talk to you. So I will call you by your

number. The attorneys will call you by your number. And I'll

ask that, when you identify yourself, that you use your number.

I've explained that the reason we do that, because

everything said here in court is being taken down word for word

by the court reporter. So we do this to keep your names out of

the record and it's not meant to be impersonal, and I hope you

don't take offense to it, but that's why we're doing it.

This morning you will be asked a number of questions

about yourselves and you have been asked a number of questions

about yourselves. These questions are not intended to pry

unnecessarily into your private lives and affairs. However, it

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 22 of 122
 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

is necessary that we ask these questions to find out if you

have any knowledge about this case or any of the people

involved in the case, to find out if you have any preconceived

opinions about the case which you might find difficult to lay

aside and find out if you've had any personal or family

experiences that might cause you to identify yourself with one

party or the other. So, in other words, we're asking these

questions so we can assure all the parties that the jurors who

are selected to decide this case can be fair and impartial.

When answering a question, don't be concerned with

whether your answer to a question is right or wrong. Just be

honest and candid in your answers.

During this in-person process, if your answer to a

question is no, you need do nothing. If your answer to a

question is yes, please raise your hand and I or the attorneys

may follow up with you.

If, at any time, you are asked a question, I'm going

to ask that you stand up because it helps. We're also going to

have microphones brought to you. It is very difficult for all

of us to hear if you don't use the microphone. So it's a

little -- and sometimes they're a little tricky. So you have

to keep it pretty close-up, but we'll remind you if we can't

hear you. Anyway, so if you're asked a question, if you could

please stand and state your number before you answer it. That

way, it's on the record who's talking.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 23 of 122
 24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

All right. That is my introduction. And the only

question I have for -- well, actually I have two questions.

One is: Is there anybody that has read, heard or seen anything

about this case after you left here last night?

Okay. I don't see any hands.

And is there anything that's changed after you

submitted the questionnaire that you think would affect your

ability to sit as a juror in this case?

Okay. I'm just going to write down everybody's number

and you can put your hands down. 68, 70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 79,

80, 81, 82. Thank you. 86, 87, 88, 89.

Okay. Juror 68.

JUROR: Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning.

JUROR: I'm Juror 68. Yesterday, Your Honor asked

potential jurors if anything had changed since we filled out

the survey. My circumstances have remained the same. However,

upon hearing questions posed both by the prosecution,

defense -- and defense lawyers, subsequent answers I provided

for potential jurors, I would like to add the four following

items in the hope that they may be helpful to the Court.

First, I work as a software engineer at CVS Health

Aetna. I had assumed all along that I would be able to serve

as a juror for an extended period of time without any financial

hardship. Based on what I heard yesterday that some answers

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 24 of 122
 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

were given, I am not sure that something was correct or not.

I asked my manager for input. So far, I haven't gotten any.

Second, questions arose about witnesses who may be

homeless or about prior drug use. I grew up on welfare in the

home of an alcoholic. For a brief period around the age of 12

and 13, I used drugs, mostly marijuana. At age 14, along with

my father, we were homeless for a short period of time.

I wanted to make it clear that I always thought it was

temporary, and it was, but I am confident I can process the

credibility of witnesses without bias attached to their

homelessness and prior drug use.

Third, I do not recall the answers I provided on the

survey, but I would like to ensure the Court -- know that I am

a member of the Free Software Foundation, a nonprofit that

works to produce free software. Examples of free software

include Linux Kernel that is found in most cell phones and the

Apache web server that runs many websites.

Questions about platforms, content and responsibility

and technology is of general deep interest to me in particular

as it centers on questions regarding user control over the

programs they use.

Several years ago I deleted my Facebook account and

switched to a social media platform called Diaspora. I did so

because Diaspora is based on free software.

Fourth, much of my work involves securing data via

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 25 of 122
 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

encryption. My interest -- my work interest generated an early

interest in Bitcoin. I owned just over two Bitcoins before

giving them to my daughter and son-in-law as a wedding gift.

I eventually sold my remaining Bitcoins and concluded I had

ethical concerns with the technology. In particular, I was

bothered by the enormous energy consumption by Bitcoin. The

ability to process financial transactions outside the normal

financial system is clearly attractive to criminal actors such

as ransomware authors and the infamous Silk Road website.

That said, like cash itself, Bitcoin itself can be

used by any two actors whether they be law abiding or

criminals. Although many assume Bitcoin is anonymous, in fact,

the ledger is entirely public and cryptographically beyond

tampering. It has to be; otherwise, the system would not work.

Anonymity within Bitcoin is only insured when the

relationship between the Bitcoin address and the private key

used to produce it is a secret. If the identity of the owner

of the Bitcoin address is known, the entire transactions

associated with that address can also be known. Thus, I would

view the Bitcoin ledger that is Bitcoin itself non-disputed.

However, the burden of any who would use such evidence to

establish -- pardon me. However, the burden of any who use

such evidence would be to establish who owns the Bitcoin

address involved in the transaction, what goods and services

were used, were being paid for or sold. This latter

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 26 of 122
 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

information is not in the public ledger.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

Juror 70.

JUROR: Number 70. Your Honor, since I filled out the

questionnaire, I've been diagnosed with Felty syndrome and four

weeks ago I started weekly chemotherapy treatments.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

MR. LINCENBERG: Can the Court just repeat that?

I just didn't hear it.

THE COURT: She was recently diagnosed with something

that I probably can't pronounce, but has started weekly

chemotherapy for that. Does that help?

Okay, Juror 72.

JUROR: Good morning, Your Honor. Juror 72.

Since filling out the questionnaire, I have had two

things come up. I have been waiting -- I'm a victim in a crime

out of my area. It happened back in January and, due to the

pandemic, it was postponed. And we just recently got

notification that it will be started on November 2nd, and this

is through the San Tan Justice Court out in Chandler.

And also there was a trip that was scheduled without

my knowledge, October 21st through the 25th. Airline tickets

have been purchased. Venues have been purchased.

Accommodations have been purchased.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 27 of 122
 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Juror 74.

JUROR: Good morning. Juror 74.

Since I filled out the questionnaire last Thursday, my

son received a positive COVID test and I had emailed you on

Friday the test results. And he does reside in my house.

I have tested negative, but I felt that was something important

to share.

Additionally, my son who is a senior at ASU, criminal

justice major, has received an internship job just this last

week and he will be doing some surveys with the Glendale Police

Department.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Juror 76.

JUROR: I have lupus in my questionnaire, but I wanted

to provide more detail: that I started a new job about six

weeks ago with a small nonprofit. I play a leadership position

and it would be an extreme hardship for me to be gone. And

I would be working at night and on weekends to try and complete

work which would create a distraction for me throughout this

trial.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Juror 77.

JUROR: Good morning.

THE COURT: Good morning.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 28 of 122
 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Juror 77. Since I filled out the survey, my

job at work -- I work for a large aerospace firm. The recovery

has turned sort of the other way and, while I still could be an

impartial juror for a long trial like this, I would have to

work nights and weekends to keep up at work because there are

certain leadership things that I have to participate in if

things go south and we end up having to reduce our force or

something like that.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

JUROR: Good morning. Juror 79.

Since filling out the questionnaire, I put that I was

moving, that I was supposed to move at the end of August. But

I became a holdover tenant and we're having trouble finding a

place. So I'm ongoingly searching for a rental place. So

I yet don't know where I'm going to live, but I will be moving

at the start of this trial. I don't think it should affect my

juror status too much because I should be able to move on a

weekend, but I don't know where I'm living yet.

THE COURT: Okay. So you're moving locally?

JUROR: Yes. I'm staying in the area.

THE COURT: You're not moving out of state. Okay. 

JUROR: And then also I am a graduate student on a

research project and I am the only graduate student on my

research project. There is no one else that can take over and

I'm just kind of concerned that I won't be able to graduate on

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 29 of 122
 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

time next year and it might affect my funding.

THE COURT: Where are you a graduate student?

JUROR: Arizona State.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Juror 80.

JUROR: Good morning, Your Honor. Subsequent to

filling out the questionnaire, I just wanted to share with the

Court that the chief financial officer of the company where I'm

employed, which is a public company located in Scottsdale, has

announced her retirement. And her replacement and the

transition for that individual is slated to occur over the next

three months. In my role at the company, I will be directly

involved in that transition process and they've expressed

concern about my inability to be around for the timeframe

required by this case. And would also require night and

weekend work just to keep up and maintain with day-to-day

responsibilities.

THE COURT: And what company is that?

JUROR: It's STORE Capital Corporation.

And I just further wanted to share that my

daycare-aged child is in speech therapy twice a week and I am

responsible for taking him to his appointments and back to

daycare. For a long-term basis, it would be challenging for me

to find accommodations or alternative logistics of getting him

to those appointments for the trial period.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 30 of 122
 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Okay, and are there any other adults

living with you?

JUROR: Yes, my husband.

THE COURT: And does he work?

JUROR: He does. He is in a senior leadership

position as well.

THE COURT: And do you have any other family in the

area?

JUROR: My husband's parents live in the area.

THE COURT: Do they drive?

JUROR: They do.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Juror 81.

JUROR: Juror 81. My wife and I both work full time.

And we have three young children; ages nine, seven and four.

And when I filled out the questionnaire, my expectation was

that three kids would all be in school or preschool full time

during the time of trial. And with the explosion of the Delta

variant, COVID, we have decided it's not safe to have them in

school all the time. So the four-year-old is staying home full

time now. And the seven and nine-year-old, they're in school

only during the times they have to be which means we drop them

off in the morning and pick them up for lunch and take them out

of school for lunch, take them back after lunch, and pick them

up as soon as they are released.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 31 of 122
 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

So if they were in school full time, I thought it

would be, you know, kind of a burden, but we could get through.

My wife would be -- she would have the whole day mostly to

work. We both work from home full time, by the way.

So, since they're not in school full time, I'm just

concerned it would be a very heavy burden on her. She was

already very stressed at work and considering quitting her job,

and literally just yesterday she got a promotion which means

the stress level is going to be increased. She'll have more

responsibility. And I'm almost certain, if I have to do jury

duty for three months, she'll be effectively a single mom for

three months. I think she will end up quitting her job and it

would put a heavy financial burden on us. That's all.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Juror 82.

JUROR: Juror 82. Since filling out the

questionnaire, I have seen my doctor and they are treating me

for IBS that has been flaring up for the last three weeks. And

I also talked with my employer. They are unaware of the

policy, if it would extend more than 10 days.

I am a single provider in my household as well as

going through a bankruptcy and a divorce case that are both

filed with the courts here in Arizona.

THE COURT: And who do you work for?

JUROR: Walgreens.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 32 of 122
 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: And did you check with the HR department

about their jury policy?

JUROR: My manager reached out to our corporate office

when we -- I first heard about the trial a couple weeks ago,

but we have not heard back from corporate.

THE COURT: Well, that's disappointing. Okay, thank

you.

Juror 86.

JUROR: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm asking to be

dismissed from this case because of crimes against women. My

sister was murdered and my mother was murdered. I feel it

would be too emotional for me, and I have already formed an

opinion and I would just like to be dismissed from the case.

THE COURT: And how did you form an opinion? Just

based on the little description?

JUROR: Based on the information I received yesterday

from listening, I've decided that it's -- I've already made a

decision.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

And Juror 87.

JUROR: Hi, yes. 87. I have a compromised immune

system and, since the increase in the Delta variant, my

rheumatologist has suggested that it would be too large of a

risk to participate in, you know, potential exposure. So in a

leadership position full time in my job, and it would be a risk

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 33 of 122
 34

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

to my employment.

THE COURT: And I'm sorry, I lost you at the end

there.

JUROR: I'm sorry. It would be a risk to my

employment. I have only been there about four weeks in a

leadership position and they don't pay for service beyond the

time that is.

THE COURT: And who do you work for?

JUROR: Item 9 Labs.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Juror 88.

JUROR: Juror 88. I submitted a request to the Court

that my service be postponed for six months. I am revoking

that request. My circumstances have changed.

Secondarily to that is, when I filled out the

questionnaire, the question about do I have any relatives

affiliated with law enforcement, I said no. In fact, that's

not true. I have an uncle who is retired from the Montana

State Patrol and I have a cousin employed by the sheriff of San

Jose County, California.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Well, let me just ask

you a follow-up on that. Your relatives that are in law

enforcement, do you talk them to about their job?

JUROR: I rarely see them and I rarely talk to them.

The last time I talked to the uncle was four years ago and the

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 34 of 122
 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

last time I talked to my cousin was probably six to seven years

ago.

THE COURT: Okay. And is there anything about what

you do know about their job that would affect your ability to

be fair and impartial?

JUROR: No. They've never discussed anything with me

about what they do.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

JUROR: Just to let you know.

THE COURT: Juror 89.

JUROR: Juror 89. Since filling out the

questionnaire, my six-year-old son is back in school and he is

in first grade now. And, on the questionnaire, I indicated

that we didn't know the status of the after-school program.

And his school has not opened that up at this point and there

is not a date that that will occur. We're on the wait list for

when that does become a possibility.

So, at this time, he is with me after school which is

1:00 p.m. on Wednesdays and 3:30 the other days of the week.

We also have a planned one-week break in October as well as a

planned one-week break in November, and next week there are

three early release days at 1:00 p.m.

My husband is the other adult in the household, but he

works in construction and is required to be at job sites and my

son cannot go with him after school. And my husband is also on

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 35 of 122
 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

call for any emergencies that arise at the job sites, kind of

all hours.

We have one other family member in town and that is my

husband's grandma and she's 101 and lives in a home care

facility.

THE COURT: You, obviously, listened to questions

I have asked before. So I appreciate that.

And do you work?

JUROR: Yes. I work full time from home.

THE COURT: From home. Okay, thank you.

JUROR: Thank you.

THE COURT: Okay. That's all I wrote down. Is there

anyone else?

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, this is Mr. Lincenberg.

Could we have a sidebar?

THE COURT: Yes.

(Sidebar conference heard, reported as follows:)

MR. LINCENBERG: Thank you, Your Honor. Two points:

I don't know how the Court wants to handle the juror who had a

COVID-positive son in the home. She said she tested negative.

I know that -- I know the Court has, you know, taken extensive

measures to try to keep this matter safe and so forth. It

concerns me in terms of the precedent there. My suggestion

would be that we let her go.

The other juror -- I have something with a second

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 36 of 122
 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

juror, but I don't know if other counsel wanted to discuss.

MS. PERLMETER: I thought we were just talking about

the COVID issue. I'm happy to discuss other things. I would

just need to know what they were.

MR. LINCENBERG: I said there is one other.

THE COURT: Okay. What are your thoughts about

excusing her? That was, obviously, running through my head

while we were talking about the other people.

MS. PERLMETER: I have no objection about the COVID

person.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LINCENBERG: Okay. Other one -- and,

Ms. Perlmeter, if you need to get your notes, fair enough.

With regard to Juror 86 who made the comments about

sister and mother murdered, he's formed an opinion and his

questionnaire -- his answers are very consistent with that.

I'm concerned, frankly, that any voir dire of him is only going

to infect the jury. I can go through the questions if 

Ms. Perlmeter has a different view.

MS. PERLMETER: No, I agree. I remember his

questionnaire. He wrote things like "I don't trust anybody,"

"I don't want to be here." He talked about the crimes against

his family members. He pretty much put "I don't trust anybody"

in every single question on the "Credibility of Witnesses"

section.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 37 of 122
 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. So I don't like letting

people go this early because it gives signals to other people.

But Juror 86 will be struck; so do not follow up with Juror 86.

Also Juror 70 who is undergoing chemo.

MR. LINCENBERG: That's fine too.

MS. PERLMETER: What's her number?

THE COURT: 70. 70, 86. I'm going to release 74 now.

MS. PERLMETER: What number is the COVID lady?

THE COURT: 74.

MR. LINCENBERG: 70, 74 and 86.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

MR. LINCENBERG: 70, 74 and 86.

MS. PERLMETER: 70, 74 and 86.

THE COURT: Since I have you, if we can resolve Juror

81, I would excuse for hardship since they are -- he's the one

that has the three kids --

MS. PERLMETER: Oh.

THE COURT: -- where he is pulling them out at lunch.

MS. PERLMETER: Yes. No objection. What is his

number?

MS. BERNSTEIN: That's 81.

Your Honor, we agree that there's an extreme hardship,

but I also think its worth noting for the record --

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I'm sorry. We agree that there's a

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 38 of 122
 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

hardship for Juror No. 81 who has the three children who,

because of the Delta variant, has to pull them out of school

and be home and his wife's going to lose her job. 

I also think it's worth noting for the record, though,

that we had, by my calculations, four jurors in this panel

alone whose circumstances have changed because of the Delta

variant and the rise in COVID. And, you know, I know we're

here, but going to trial at this point, it's kind of nuts and

it's really affecting our client's due process rights to get

the jury of their peers.

MR. FEDER: There's a question --

THE COURT: Okay. Are you talking about a juror or

are you going to talk about the COVID issue?

MR. FEDER: Well, this juror that is exposed to COVID

and then comes to court, I mean, under the protocols at least

as I understand them, there's been an exposure where everybody

is technically at least have to quarantine.

THE COURT: No, no. That's absolutely not right.

MS. PERLMETER: Yeah.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Did she say she was vaccinated?

MS. PERLMETER: I don't know.

THE COURT: We're done. I'm going to send her home.

Those three -- there's more, but --

MR. LINCENBERG: Those three we will not do any voir

dire.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 39 of 122
 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Four people.

THE COURT: Yes. But 74 is actually physically going

to be gone.

MR. LINCENBERG: Four or three?

THE COURT: Three. Three that are still going to be

here that you shouldn't question because --

MR. LINCENBERG: And one who is going to go.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Are we letting the COVID-positive

juror go right now? 

THE COURT: Yes.

(The following proceedings were heard in the presence

of the jury:)

THE COURT: Okay. Juror 74, I'm going to excuse you

to go home.

All right. I have -- really, because we asked the

questionnaire, that was the only question I wanted to ask is if

anything had changed. So the attorneys may have some follow-up

questions for you based on your questionnaires.

Ms. Perlmeter?

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you.

All right. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for

being here today. My name is Peggy Perlmeter. I am one of the

attorneys representing the government. And, as the Court has

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 40 of 122
 41

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

stated, I would like to follow up with a few of you based on

some of your answers in the questionnaires that you have

prepared.

Juror No. 64, if, at any point in time, you can't hear

me, please let me know and I will speak up.

JUROR: 64.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, sir. In your

questionnaire, you indicated that either you or someone you

know is involved in a sex or sex trafficking crime?

JUROR: No, it wasn't me.

MS. PERLMETER: No?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: Let me make sure I have...

We asked some questions of individuals yesterday about

what a criminal defendant may or may not have to do at a trial.

We talked about how, in a criminal case, the burden of proof

resides on the government and how a criminal defendant has a

right to remain silent and need not testify.

I have that you indicated that you expected a criminal

defendant to testify. Is that a belief that you have?

JUROR: Yeah, it is.

MS. PERLMETER: Can you please explain?

JUROR: Again, back to the questions about the

presumption of innocence and the not presenting or not

defending yourself just creates an atmosphere.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 41 of 122
 42

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: What does it create an atmosphere of?

If you are instructed that a criminal defendant need not prove

their innocence, it's the government's job to do it.

JUROR: Right. But, still, it creates a perception

that the person is giving up, in essence.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry. Could you please speak up?

JUROR: That the person is giving up, in essence, that

they're not defending themselves.

MS. PERLMETER: They -- a criminal defendant may elect

to defend themselves in a different way that does not include,

you know, testifying in a trial or making a statement. But

knowing that now, would you still expect or want to see a

criminal defendant make a statement or testify?

JUROR: No. It's not necessary, no.

THE COURT: But if someone -- if a defendant elected

not to do it, would you hold that against them?

JUROR: No, I would not.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you, Juror No. 64.

Juror No. 65.

JUROR: Juror No. 65.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, Juror No. 65. I have in

your questionnaire that you know someone who pleaded no contest

to a sexual predator charge in Tucson.

MR. LINCENBERG: I'm sorry, Ms. Perlmeter, I can't

hear you.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 42 of 122
 43

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: Was that from Juror 64 or from one of

the --

MR. LINCENBERG: That was from me. I apologize.

I just couldn't hear you.

MS. PERLMETER: Oh, it was from Mr. Lincenberg. Okay.

Can you please tell us about -- so I had asked Juror

65 if he knew someone who had pleaded no contest to a sexual

predator charge in Tucson. And he said yes and I asked him to

explain or expound on that.

JUROR: Back in 1980s, I'm not sure exactly the date,

my brother was charged with sexual misconduct and he pleaded no

contest.

MS. PERLMETER: And you said that was 20 years ago?

JUROR: 1980s.

MS. PERLMETER: 1980.

JUROR: It was more than 20 years.

MS. PERLMETER: You stated in your questionnaire that

you felt he was innocent?

JUROR: Yes. Not that he was innocent of the act,

but -- well, what he was modeling was a cultural thing that was

acceptable in a different generation which is not acceptable in

the generation in which he lived.

MS. PERLMETER: What did his conduct entail? What was

he accused of doing?

JUROR: Inappropriate touching.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 43 of 122
 44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: Of an adult or child?

JUROR: Child.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you know how old the child was

alleged to have been?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: So you don't know if it was a

teenager?

JUROR: It was younger than a teenager.

MS. PERLMETER: Prepubescent child?

JUROR: I'm not sure.

MS. PERLMETER: But not a teenager?

JUROR: Not a teenager.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you have any opinions on whether

your brother was treated fairly when he was partaking in the

criminal justice system?

JUROR: He was treated according to the law at that

time.

MS. PERLMETER: So you felt like he was treated fairly

by the government, by the law enforcement agencies and the

court systems as he was moving through.

JUROR: At that time, yes. If this had occurred the

generation before, that it never would have come to trial.

MS. PERLMETER: And since you make the distinction at

that time, would you have a different opinion if he had -- if

he was being charged with that kind of offense now?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 44 of 122
 45

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: If he was charged with the offense now, he

would still have to plead no contest.

MS. PERLMETER: Why do you say that?

JUROR: Because, according to the law, he violated it.

MS. PERLMETER: Sometimes people -- why do you think

that? Why would he have to plead no contest?

JUROR: Because he did the act. He did the act and it

was against the law at the time.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So if you do the act and it's

against the law and you know that you do the act, what is the

reason why he could not plead guilty and had to plead no

contest?

JUROR: I'm not sure why he did that. I just know

that what he -- the act that he did was acceptable in my

parents' generation and the generation before that, but it was

not acceptable during his time. He was modeling behavior that

he had actually seen when it was acceptable.

MS. PERLMETER: So what was the act that he did that

was criminal?

JUROR: Touching genitalia.

MS. PERLMETER: Which genitalia? And I ask this

because you indicate, if it had been the generation before, it

would not have been a crime.

JUROR: Below the waist genitalia.

MS. PERLMETER: Is there anything about your brother's

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 45 of 122
 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

case, knowing that this case has some sexual connotations to

it, that would make you unable to sit and listen to the

evidence?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you have any concerns about whether

or not you would be able to give the victims who are going to

appear in this case a fair shake and consider what happened to

them?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: You indicated that you might have some

trouble deliberating based on your questionnaire. Hearing --

did you hear the discussion that we had in court yesterday

through the television?

JUROR: Yes, I did.

MS. PERLMETER: Hearing the questioning process and

some of the answers, do you still have that concern?

JUROR: I didn't hear what the concern was.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So the question about being

able to deliberate is: Knowing that the case involves evidence

of sexually-related offenses, being able to deliberate on and

speaking to other members of the jury on topics like sexual

intercourse, oral sexual contact, being able to use words,

hearing and being able to speak words like "penis," "vagina,"

different kinds of sex, words like that will be used throughout

the trial and then, if you're selected as a member of the jury,

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 46 of 122
 47

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

then you're going to be able to need to talk about with -- with

each other. So is that something that you think you would be

able to do based on your life circumstances and experiences?

JUROR: Yes, I'll be able to do -- speak about those

items.

MS. PERLMETER: Can you say that again?

JUROR: Yes, I can. I'm able to speak about those.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you very much, sir.

Can I just circle back to Juror No. 64 for one minute?

JUROR: 64.

MS. PERLMETER: Sorry. Juror No. 64, I just wanted to

clarify something here. In your questionnaire, and just tell

me if it was a typo because, in the question where it says

"Have you, any members of your family or close friends ever

engaged in, been accused of or engaging in, or convicted of sex

trafficking or sex-related crime?" you wrote "yes."

JUROR: That's an error.

MS. PERLMETER: That's a typo. Okay, thank you.

That's all. I just wanted to clarify.

Okay, Juror No. 66.

JUROR: Juror No. 66.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, Juror No. 66. In your

questionnaire, you indicated your father had been arrested for

a crime and you did not feel he was treated fairly by law

enforcement.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 47 of 122
 48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Can you please tell us about that?

JUROR: He was arrested for -- I believe it was

domestic abuse, of which he applied little to just about none,

but he was still arrested and was in jail for, I want to say,

almost a solid month.

MS. PERLMETER: When did this happen and where did it

happen?

JUROR: It happened -- I know I was like 12 or so

around the time. I'm 20 now. So like eight years ago. And

this happened in Phoenix. And oodles of our family members --

or a lot of our family members were brought over, disputing and

debating about whether or not this was justified, whether or

not he acted the way he did around the time where they were

even considered as abuse, but, by law, they were. And, for

that, he was brought to jail and was in jail for about a month.

MS. PERLMETER: And then were charges filed? Was he

prosecuted? Anything like that?

JUROR: I don't think charges were filed. Around the

time, I was explained very vaguely about the entire endeavor.

And even today they still explained it very vaguely to me. But

as far as I know, no charges were filed.

MS. PERLMETER: Who is the person your father was

accused of harming?

JUROR: My mother.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 48 of 122
 49

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: And then so it sounds like you feel

like the police officers were not fair in how they dealt with

your father's case?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. Now, with that in your life and

knowing that, if you're selected as a member of the jury in

this case, there will be police officers that come to court and

testify, would you be okay or would you have any problems

considering the testimony of the police officers for what they

said or will you be impacted and influenced by your prior

encounter with law enforcement?

JUROR: No. I would still hear the testimony and

still understand their side of the story. Each police officer

is different from one another.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So you understand that the

officers involved in your father's case, that was one day, one

event or, like, a set of facts and circumstances, and then the

other officers who may come to testify in this case are also

talking about a different set of circumstances?

JUROR: Indeed.

MS. PERLMETER: And then would you be able to consider

each group of people or officers that come with a fair shake

and being able to set aside what happened to you when you were

12?

JUROR: Yes.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 49 of 122
 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you

very much, sir.

Juror No. 67.

JUROR: Juror No. 67.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, Juror No. 67. In your

questionnaire, I just wanted to follow up. Your participation

in the criminal jury where you indicated you had a positive

experience, it was a murder trial?

JUROR: Yes. It was a cold case murder.

MS. PERLMETER: Cold case murder? What was the

verdict? Because that part happened to be left blank.

JUROR: The verdict actually went to deadlock.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So hung jury?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: And what about that do you find --

what about the overall experience did you find to be so

positive?

JUROR: I think everything from both standpoints was

presented very well. Just I think the testimony experience

just -- I guess you would say that how we've been talking about

the evidence was presented, and I guess that's all I can say

about it. It just went very smoothly. I never had been in one

before and it was more than I expected.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you remember when that was?

MS. BERNSTEIN: When that was? I believe I was 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 50 of 122
 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19. So about 12 years ago.

MS. PERLMETER: And that was here in the Valley?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: And you also indicated that you have

had some prior victimization, it sounds like, when you were

much younger, a child?

JUROR: Yes. I think I was about six or seven.

MS. PERLMETER: And that you've forgiven and moved on?

JUROR: Um-hmm. Yes, that's correct.

MS. PERLMETER: Who was the defendant to you?

JUROR: Teenager that lived down the street or the

next block over. One of our neighbors.

MS. PERLMETER: Is there anything about your

experience in that circumstance that would make you hesitant,

unable to -- unable to sit as a fair and impartial juror in

this trial because you know now that there's going to be some

sexual evidence presented and discussed?

JUROR: No, I don't believe so.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. All right. Thank you.

Juror No. 73.

JUROR: Number 73.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, No. 73. My question for

you is in line with the obligations or lack of obligation of a

criminal defendant, how one need not testify, and that one's

decision to remain silent cannot be used against them in court

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 51 of 122
 52

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

because the burden of proof in a criminal case resides on the

government.

Do you think -- because, in your questionnaire, it

looks like you checked the box where you said you would expect

a defendant to testify. So now that you have been in court for

the past day, do you have any more thoughts on that?

JUROR: I might have checked the wrong box because,

again, I think it's up to the government to prove whether

somebody is guilty or not. And the defendant has the ability

to stay silent.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So you do not expect a criminal

defendant to testify on their behalf in a criminal case?

JUROR: They don't have to, no.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay, thank you very much.

Juror No. 76.

JUROR: Juror No. 76.

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 76, good morning. You

indicated that your boss was the former executive director at

the ACLU?

JUROR: Arizona, yes.

MS. PERLMETER: What is his or her name? 

JUROR: Alessandra Navidad.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry. Can you speak up a little

bit?

JUROR: Alessandra Navidad.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 52 of 122
 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: And, in your questionnaire, you talked

about how you are against or not for prostitution when it

involves underaged children. Do you have any opinion on -- on

whether or not -- do you have any opinion on adults who may

engage in acts of commercial sex?

JUROR: As long as it's legal, but it's not.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry. Could you please hold the

microphone up to your face and speak directly into it?

JUROR: I understand if it's, like, legal as part of

the law, but when it's not, I don't agree with it.

MS. PERLMETER: So when the Court instructs on the

law, if you're selected as a juror, would you be willing to

listen to it and follow it?

JUROR: Yes, I would follow the law and not my

opinion. 

MS. PERLMETER: And if the law is something that

you -- if what you thought was the law was not actually the

law, would you follow what you thought it was or what the judge

instructs?

JUROR: What the judge instructs.

MS. PERLMETER: You had also indicated that you

weren't sure in your questionnaire if you would be able to

deliberate. So my question for you, now that you've been in

court for a little bit, do you have any additional opinion on

whether or not you would be able to deliberate as a juror

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 53 of 122
 54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

knowing that there will be some sexual aspects discussed during

this trial?

JUROR: I mean, if it was asked of me, I would do it.

I would prefer not to.

MS. PERLMETER: And I understand that. It can be an

uncomfortable topic. It's not something people typically talk

about with strangers but, if you are chosen and you were asked

to do it for the purposes of a court case, would you be willing

to serve?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Thank you.

Juror No. 78. Oh, not here. Okay.

Juror No. 79.

JUROR: Number 79.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry. What did you say?

JUROR: Number 79.

MS. PERLMETER: I know you've spoken a little bit

already. In your questionnaire, you had checked the box that

you expected or would expect a defendant to testify. Do you

still have that expectation or do you have any additional

thoughts on that?

JUROR: No, I changed my mind. I wouldn't expect them

to testify. I was educated yesterday hearing all of the

discussion, and so I wouldn't have that expectation any longer.

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Juror No. 80.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 54 of 122
 55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Juror No. 80.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, Juror No. 80. Do you

still have -- or do you have any plans to visit your father --

JUROR: Sorry. I don't think your mic is working.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you have plans to visit your father

in Utah on October 20th for his birthday?

JUROR: We have not made accommodations yet, but it is

his 70th birthday; so he is expecting a party.

MS. PERLMETER: Is it something that you anticipate

needing to fly to or would you plan to drive?

JUROR: We would fly. I have a two- and a

four-year-old and would not want to be in the car with them for

12 hours.

MS. PERLMETER: And is it just the one day that would

be impacted, October 20th?

JUROR: I'm not sure when the party would be. I would

assume the weekend as most of my family still works.

MS. PERLMETER: Your questionnaire, you also -- I want

to clarify something. You mentioned that you have a nephew

that is going through some criminal charges.

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Is it one nephew? Is it one nephew or

two nephews?

JUROR: Just one nephew.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So is he going through both the

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 55 of 122
 56

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

firearms charges as well as child pornography charges?

JUROR: Yes. That case has actually moved further

along and he has pled guilty to two felonies; one related to

assault with a firearm and one related to possession of child

pornography, and he has been sentenced and is currently in a

prison in California.

MS. PERLMETER: So his case has already progressed and

has concluded?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: It sounds like you participated in the

court process with him. You helped him find counsel and --

JUROR: I did, yes. I paid for his lawyer and has

been his primary, you know, support system and family member

involved in helping him. I actually went to California a

couple of weeks ago, moved all of his belongings out of his

apartment and tried to pack up everything as best I could. So

I have a power of attorney and overseeing his financial affairs

as well.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. How do you feel -- do you have

any -- what are your thoughts on how he was treated as he was

going through the criminal justice system?

JUROR: I would say fairly. I wasn't present at any

of the court hearings. They were all done virtually via Zoom,

and I did not participate in any of them. But, based off

everything that I have heard through him and through his

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 56 of 122
 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

lawyer, I believe he was treated fairly.

MS. PERLMETER: So you feel like he -- that there was

overall justice served for what he did and the punishment that

he may have received?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Is there anything about that case and

that experience that would impact your ability to sit fairly

and impartially in this case?

JUROR: No, I don't believe so.

MS. PERLMETER: Based on your participation in your

nephew's case, you know, finding his attorney, you know,

working with the attorneys, do you feel like you have more

insight on what the criminal justice system would be like than

someone who has never been through the process?

JUROR: I would say yes. I mean, I definitely learned

about the process, the approach, kind of the timing of things,

and just, you know, the various defenses that I spoke with his

attorney about. So I would say yes compared to kind of the

average person that hasn't been involved in the criminal

system.

MS. PERLMETER: And would you be able to -- since you

have some background knowledge based on your experience, you

bring that with you. Would you be able to be fair and

impartial to the defendants in this case as they go through

their process through the criminal justice system?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 57 of 122
 58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Yes, I believe so.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay, all right. Thank you.

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Oh, wait, one second. One more

question for you. I'm sorry.

JUROR: Juror No. 80.

MS. PERLMETER: Yes, Juror No. 80. I think you had

also checked the box that you expect defendants to testify on

their behalf. Do you still hold that opinion? I know you

filled out the questionnaire a couple months ago.

JUROR: No, I don't believe that.

MS. PERLMETER: Why is that?

JUROR: I understand the law and their right to remain

silent and I don't believe that they should or would need to

testify on their behalf, and it's kind of up to the prosecution

to plead their case and then the defense to litigate it as best

they see fit. That includes them testifying or not testifying.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you.

Juror No. 82.

I'm sorry. Juror No. 81, please sit down. Thank you.

JUROR: Juror 82.

MS. PERLMETER: Hi, Juror 82. Same question I posed

to Juror No. 80 just now. When you filled out the

questionnaire a couple months ago, I think you also marked that

you would expect the defendant to testify. After being part of

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 58 of 122
 59

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

the proceedings yesterday and today, do you still hold that

belief?

JUROR: I don't believe the defendant themselves

should testify. I understand that the burden of proof is on

the government. I believe, in some cases, especially like

white collar crimes where it's a little bit harder to find

evidence because it can be easily hidden, that at least, like,

the attorney should at least stand up and have some defense to

the defendant, but I also know that the law states that all

they have to do is just sit there and the State has to prove

what happened.

MS. PERLMETER: So sounds like you are -- you would

not hold it against a defendant if he chose to remain silent

and say nothing?

JUROR: No, I would not.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. Now that concept kind of

applies to the entire defense. Everyone can just sit there and

say nothing. Their defense attorneys can say nothing. They

can ask no questions and they can call no witnesses. If they

elect to do that in this case -- would you expect them to do

something or would you be okay if they just sat there and asked

no questions and called no witnesses --

JUROR: So --

MS. PERLMETER: -- and just said, you know, it's the

government's burden of proof; so we're just going to let them

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 59 of 122
 60

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

prove it?

JUROR: Even that, that's just stating they are --

they are defending them, but still saying that "Well, we'll

respond if something shows like it's guilty," but the -- like

say they say that there is -- well, here's a transaction.

They're just standing up that that was a business transaction

or something like that, like just even just responding while

the State is prosecuting or asking witnesses.

MS. PERLMETER: Would you hold it against the

defendants if they presented no evidence, called no witnesses

and simply argued that the government, at the end of the day,

has not met its burden of proof?

JUROR: I would not hold it against them. There would

be a small thought in the back of my mind. Like if I feel the

State has proved its case and upon a reasonable doubt, then

I would question a little bit about, okay, so why didn't they

stand up and defend if, in my mind, this is beyond a reasonable

doubt that the person did it?

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So let me ask you this way: If

the State has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt with

its own evidence and the defense did not present any evidence

of their own -- first of all, you understand that the defense

does not have to, right?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. If you feel that the government

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 60 of 122
 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

or the State met its burden of proof, would you be willing to

find the defendants guilty just based on the government meeting

its burden of proof?

JUROR: Yes, I would not penalize the defendant or the

defense for not speaking.

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Thank you, Juror No. 82.

Juror No. 83.

JUROR: Juror No. 83.

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 83, I think your

questionnaire indicated that your wife serves as a court

reporter?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Does she report for the courts?

JUROR: Depositions.

MS. PERLMETER: Depositions. So in offices and not so

much in the courthouses?

JUROR: Correct.

MS. PERLMETER: Does she work in -- does she

transcribe and take testimony for cases that appear before this

court, the District Court of Arizona?

JUROR: No. California.

MS. PERLMETER: California, okay.

You had indicated that you have some experiences with

law enforcement?

JUROR: Thirty years.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 61 of 122
 62

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: Yes, sir. Do you think that you would

be able to be fair and impartial to all parties in this case in

light of your experiences with law enforcement?

JUROR: Yes, absolutely.

MS. PERLMETER: Why do you think that?

JUROR: That's what I stood for. Thirty years of

making sure everybody's rights were upheld and understanding

what their constitutional rights are and doing everything

I could to make sure both sides were listened to equally.

MS. PERLMETER: So you're able to balance the

upholding the laws of the state or -- the state or the country

along with the constitutional rights of individual defendants?

JUROR: Absolutely.

MS. PERLMETER: Would you treat a law enforcement

officer's testimony with more credence than the testimony of

somebody else?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: Why not?

JUROR: Officers are human beings and they're

fallible. So you have to weigh everyone and their statements

on the stand.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you very much, Juror No. 83.

Juror No. 85.

JUROR: Juror 85.

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 85, what is your experience

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 62 of 122
 63

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

with journalism, media and radio broadcasting?

JUROR: Back in 1969, I worked for a small radio

station in Iowa as a broadcaster. We did a little bit of

everything because it was a very small station.

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Thank you very much,

Juror No. 85.

I'm sorry, Juror No. 85. Can you stand up again,

please? You've been a juror before?

JUROR: Yes, I have.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. When you served as a juror

previously, do you recall if the Court instructed you to follow

the law as stated by the Court?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So do you agree that -- to

follow the law as stated by the Court, as this Court shall give

it, if you are selected as a member of the juror -- jury?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. The reason I ask is because, in

your questionnaire, the box is checked where you said that you

would not follow the law if you disagreed with it. So I just

wanted to make sure that that was a typo of some sort.

JUROR: Just from my perspective, you can argue the

law. It's -- everybody has got a different opinion how to

interpret it and that's probably why I answered the way I did.

It would be an interpretation. But, as instructed, as

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 63 of 122
 64

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I remember being on the jury, we got very specific

instructions.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay.

JUROR: And that's what we followed.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So would you be willing to

follow the Court's instructions in this case?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: If, in part of those instructions, the

Court said this particular law is this and it was not what you

expected, would you be willing to follow the law as the Court

instructed?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: If it was -- if the instruction the

Court provides is not something that you personally agree with,

would you be willing to follow what the Court instructs?

JUROR: That's a tough one. Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Why do you say that?

JUROR: Well, because whether a person agrees with

something or not, if that is, in fact, what it is, they have to

go along with it. Does that make sense?

MS. PERLMETER: Yes, thank you. Now, what if -- you

had mentioned subject to interpretation.

JUROR: Well, I guess I just go back on my

experiences. I was a labor negotiator for a while and we would

negotiate contracts with our company. And once the contract

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 64 of 122
 65

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

was written and agreed on and everything else for the next

years of that contract, there was constant disputes or

disagreements on the interpretation.

Everybody -- most everybody interprets things

differently to bend them toward their point of view. And

I think that laws were written years ago and the Constitution

was written years ago and things have changed in this world.

So there is some interpretation of it and that's what the

courts do.

MS. PERLMETER: So it sounds to me like the law in

your previous case may not have been clear or as clear as it

could have been?

JUROR: It was pretty clear. It was against Sherman

antitrust laws.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. Is there anything about that

experience that you had as a prior juror that would prevent you

from being able to sit fairly and impartially here in this

trial?

JUROR: I really don't look forward to a ten-week

trial. The last trial I was on was six weeks, and it gets old.

It's almost like having a job again, and I haven't had a job

for years. I've been retired. So, you know, I really don't

want a job again.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you just not want to be chosen as a

member of the jury?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 65 of 122
 66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: I really don't want to be chosen as a member,

but, if I am, I will serve.

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Do you have -- okay.

Thank you very much, 85. That was very honest and I appreciate

that. Yeah. Thank you.

What is the highest number juror we have in court

right now? What number are we up to?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: 93.

MS. PERLMETER: 93. Okay.

Juror No. 91, good morning. In your questionnaire,

you started to talk about your partner's work and then it

didn't complete. So what does your partner do for a living?

JUROR: My partner is a real estate agent and her

business --

MS. BERNSTEIN: We can't hear you.

JUROR: My partner is a real estate agent and her

business partner is a DPS officer as well.

MS. PERLMETER: One second, Your Honor.

Juror No. 91, you also stated that you had read some

articles about Backpage in this case. I just wanted to

clarify, was that a while back? Last week? Today?

JUROR: When it was first brought around, the charges

were first filed.

MS. PERLMETER: Is there anything -- did you know

anything about Backpage? Is there anything that you read that

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 66 of 122
 67

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

would give you an idea on what the evidence in this case is

expected to be?

JUROR: No more than what was presented yesterday in

the jury selection process.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you have any concerns about whether

or not you would be able to sit as a fair and impartial juror

in this case involving the website?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay, and why not?

JUROR: It's -- evidence is going to be presented by

you and by these gentlemen and ladies and we have to decide

which one is accurate based on the instructions the judge will

provide us.

MS. PERLMETER: In your questionnaire, sir, you

indicated that the criminal justice system -- let me make sure

I have the right -- makes it too hard for the criminal

justice -- the criminal justice system makes it too hard for

prosecutors to convict people who have committed crimes?

JUROR: I may have selected that radio in error.

MS. PERLMETER: Can you please speak up since I'm very

far away from you?

JUROR: I may have selected that radio incorrectly.

I'm sorry.

MS. PERLMETER: What is your belief about the criminal

justice system? Do you think that the burden of proof is too

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 67 of 122
 68

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

high on the government and that it's something that is

unachievable or do you think that the burden of proof is

appropriate, that it's the government's burden, or do you have

some other opinion?

JUROR: The government needs to provide sufficient

data to make the decision.

MS. PERLMETER: If the government provides enough

evidence to satisfy proof beyond a reasonable doubt, would you

be willing to vote guilty?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you very much, Juror No. 91.

Can I circle back to Juror No. 76, please?

JUROR: Juror No. 76.

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 76, I know you started a new

job recently. You shared that with us today. There are --

this is a longer trial. It's expected to last several months,

but, within the trial calendar, there are several days where we

will not have trial and there is a two-week period in November

where court will not be held.

Knowing that, do you still think that it would be a

hardship to serve as a member of this jury?

JUROR: I mean, we're a really small organization and

our marketing team is two people including me. And it's a lot

to put on my direct report who, before I came on, was by

herself for the last six months. So it would be undue hardship

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 68 of 122
 69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

to put that all on her to figure it out and then have to work

outside of jury hours.

MS. PERLMETER: I understand that it would be

difficult for your nonprofit to carry on without you. But

would you be able to complete your work -- did you get the

trial schedule, by chance, when you filled out the

questionnaire?

JUROR: Yeah. I don't know if that changed now that

the trial was pushed back a little bit. But, yeah,

I understand there is a -- and if I'm asked to, I can serve.

I understand my civic duty, but it also will be -- I will be

working outside of being a juror.

MS. PERLMETER: Would you have enough time to get your

work done with the days off?

JUROR: I do a lot of writing projects. So it's all

about if I can get in the zone to write. And I have to say,

when I went home yesterday, I was completely exhausted from

this long day. And I know that's how the trial will be which

will make it difficult to create content, write.

MR. LINCENBERG: I missed that. I'm sorry.

JUROR: After yesterday, going home and being

completely drained from the day, I know that's how jury duty

will be, and I will still need to work and create content after

work -- or after jury duty.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you very much, Juror No. 76.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 69 of 122
 70

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Yep.

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 77.

JUROR: Juror No. 77.

MS. PERLMETER: Sir, you had also indicated you may

need to work nights or weekends if you are selected to serve as

a member of this jury.

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: So same question that I just posed to

76: Knowing that there are going to be some days where we

don't have court and knowing that we have a long break in early

November for two weeks, would you be able to serve as a member

of this jury?

JUROR: Yes, I would make it work.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay, thank you.

THE COURT: Ms. Perlmeter, we're going to take a

break.

MS. PERLMETER: Oh, okay.

THE COURT: Okay. We've been going about 90 minutes

now. So we're going to take a break for a half an hour so that

everybody has an opportunity to go to the bathroom, get

something to drink. So when you come back, please stay outside

the courtroom until you are all called back in. Try to

remember where you sit because you'll go to the same spot. If

you forget, of course, you can ask when you come back in.

We'll see you in half an hour.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 70 of 122
 71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(Recess taken from 10:29 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.)

(In open court; jury not present.)

THE COURT: You can have a seat. I just want to ask

you about four more hardship excuses. If you have any

objection, let me know.

Juror 68, for financial reasons, is there any

objection from the government?

MS. PERLMETER: No objection.

THE COURT: He works for CVS Aetna. Worries about

money.

MR. LINCENBERG: 68 was the guy to who read the

speech?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LINCENBERG: What was financial hardship again,

Your Honor?

THE COURT: Because he wasn't going to be paid after

10 days.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, my note says he was going

to ask his manager about that, that he wasn't sure. Is your

note -- is the Court's note different?

THE COURT: I do not have that he was checking with

his manager.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Your Honor, I have that it was a

possible financial hardship. I didn't write much more than

that.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 71 of 122
 72

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. LINCENBERG: Does anybody else have notes on that?

MR. EISENBERG: I have some notes not on that matter,

Your Honor. He talked about Bitcoin and being encrypted. He

had ethical concerns with the technical -- I've got "aspects of

it."

MR. FEDER: My notes are also that he was checking

with his manager.

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. LINCENBERG: The note was that he asked, but that

he did not get an answer is what I'm informed. Can we ask him

about that?

THE COURT: Yeah, I'll ask him.

Juror 79 who is the grad student working on a research

project, she's concerned that it would delay her graduation.

Is there any objection?

MS. PERLMETER: We'd just like the opportunity to ask

some follow-up questions.

MR. LINCENBERG: We don't have an objection on 79.

THE COURT: Okay. Over objection of the government,

I'm going to strike Juror 79 for hardship.

89 for child care issues. Unlike another juror who

answered that they do have other family, this juror was very

clear that there wasn't anybody else.

MS. PERLMETER: 89?

THE COURT: Yeah.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 72 of 122
 73

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. PERLMETER: No objection.

THE COURT: Child is in school and the school doesn't

have any aftercare.

MS. PERLMETER: Yeah, and she said her husband is the

contractor on construction sites and the grandmother is in a

care facility.

MR. LINCENBERG: Did the Court already make a decision

on 89 at sidebar? I may have written down the wrong number.

THE COURT: I did not. It was 81.

MR. LINCENBERG: 81. That's right, okay.

THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, with regard to 89, if

I may, this is part of making a record related -- in connection

with doing the trial during COVID that we are -- we are seeing

jurors who, I think, could be good jurors to be able to sit,

and there's more and more excuses coming up because of COVID.

This one, I guess, because he didn't have this issue

necessarily before, at the time of the questionnaire, but now

because of COVID, the kids have to come home early from school,

if I have the right juror.

THE COURT: That was 81. Juror 86 has a six-year-old

in school, but the school is not offering aftercare.

MR. LINCENBERG: Right. And there's early release.

I thought that was related to COVID is what the juror was

saying.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 73 of 122
 74

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: I don't remember why they weren't, just

that they weren't.

MR. LINCENBERG: My understanding is there was no

after-school program and various release dates because of

COVID. We understand the Court's position on that. For the

record, we do think that's a concern, Your Honor. I think with

regard to 89, we'd like to question him further.

THE COURT: Okay. Over objection, I'm going to excuse

Juror 89.

Juror 72 has prepaid travel. I checked the calendars

and it would conflict with three days of trial. Although I'm

hopeful that we won't need actually every day we're in trial

because we've already delayed it.

MR. FEDER: 72?

THE COURT: Yeah.

MS. PERLMETER: We have no objection, Your Honor. No

objection.

MR. LINCENBERG: No objection.

THE COURT: Okay, Juror 72 is struck.

Okay. So I'm going to release 70, 81 -- these are not

in order. Hold on. I'll put them in order. 70, 72, 79, 81,

86 and 89.

MR. LINCENBERG: 70, 72, 79, 81, 86 and 89?

THE COURT: Yeah. Okay. You can bring the jurors

back in.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 74 of 122
 75

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. LINCENBERG: The juror number who was earlier let

go was 74?

THE COURT: Yes.

 (In open court; jury present.)

THE COURT: All right. And we are back on the record

with the jury present.

Before we proceed any farther, I'm going to excuse

some of the jurors. So if your number is called, you're free

to leave and you're excused.

Jurors 70, 72, 79, 81, 86 and 89.

Ms. Perlmeter?

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 78, please.

THE COURT: There is no 78.

MS. PERLMETER: Oh, that's right. He is coming later.

THE COURT: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you.

Juror No. 75.

JUROR: Juror No. 75.

MS. PERLMETER: Good morning, Juror 75.

JUROR: Good morning.

MS. PERLMETER: You had indicated on your

questionnaire that you had a trip planned to Cabo from

October 4 to October 8?

JUROR: Canceled.

MS. PERLMETER: You had also mentioned that you had

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 75 of 122
 76

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

learned about this case from your wife and read some articles

about it?

JUROR: That's correct.

MS. PERLMETER: Tell us about that.

JUROR: Well, my wife works for New Times which is

connected to Backpage. I don't know how. But so her boss is

one of the defendant's brothers. So I get some info from --

even before I knew the case started.

MS. PERLMETER: So you had info before the case even

started?

JUROR: Correct.

MS. PERLMETER: Info about what?

JUROR: About what went down, like, the --

THE COURT: Ms. Perlmeter, I don't want to get into

any details.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. What does your wife do for the

New Times?

JUROR: She does national accounts payable.

I believe. I'm not quite sure of her title.

MS. PERLMETER: How long has she worked for there?

JUROR: It's not -- she doesn't work for New Times.

It's above New Times. It's the parent company.

What was the question again?

MS. PERLMETER: Your wife -- she works for the parent

company that owns the New Times?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 76 of 122
 77

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: I believe -- yes, she does the national

accounts payable, something like that.

MS. PERLMETER: She does accounts payables and stuff

--

JUROR: I believe so. I'm not quite sure.

MS. PERLMETER: And how long has she had that

position?

JUROR: Thirteen years.

MS. PERLMETER: Thirteen years. And you mentioned

that her boss is the brother or sister -- is a sibling of one

of the defendants?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Who is her boss?

JUROR: Her boss is Joe -- Joe Lancy.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. And -- Hensley?

JUROR: Lancy. Joe Lancy.

MS. PERLMETER: Could you spell that for me, please?

THE COURT: The defendants, Michael Lancy. Joe Lancy,

I believe.

MS. PERLMETER: Lacey?

JUROR: Lacey, yeah. Sorry about that.

MS. PERLMETER: No problem. And so -- and then the

first name?

JUROR: Joe.

MS. PERLMETER: Joe. So the brother of Mr. Lacey?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 77 of 122
 78

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So has your wife talked to you

about her work and -- for the past 13 years that she has had

the position?

JUROR: We talk about work, yes.

MS. PERLMETER: You also mentioned that you have a

close friend who is a Phoenix police officer?

JUROR: That's correct.

MS. PERLMETER: Does your friend work sex crimes or

financial-related crimes?

JUROR: He just started. It's his second year,

I believe. He graduated last year from the academy. So he is

on patrol right now. So I get to hear some stories about what

he does.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. So he's a patrol officer?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: And you hear some stories about what

he does?

JUROR: Correct.

MS. PERLMETER: So anything that you have learned from

your relationship with your friend that would impact your

ability to be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

JUROR: No.

MS. PERLMETER: And then you also mentioned in your

questionnaire that -- and I just want to make sure I have it

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 78 of 122
 79

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

correct, but it sounds like you think someone's race or

socio-economic status may have an impact on how you evaluate

that person's credibility as a witness?

JUROR: Yeah, but also instructed not to take those

accounts. I would put those -- those crimes aside -- those

thoughts aside.

MS. PERLMETER: So you would be able to treat people

of different races equally and consider their testimony?

JUROR: Yeah.

MS. PERLMETER: On the same level?

JUROR: I would treat everybody equally. I treat

people the way they treat me.

MS. PERLMETER: I'm sorry?

JUROR: I said I treat people the same way they treat

me. So if one messes with me or has done anything to me, I'm

not going to do anything.

MS. PERLMETER: Is that -- did you -- is that

something that you have decided since coming to court or did

you check the wrong box when you filled this out a couple --

JUROR: I might have read it wrong and entered it

wrong, so...

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Thank you very much.

Oh, wait. Sorry. One more second.

Juror No. 75, do you think you could be fair knowing

that your wife works for one of the defendants' brothers?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 79 of 122
 80

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Would you be able to consider all the evidence?

JUROR: Yeah, I would be fair.

MS. PERLMETER: If you are instructed -- if you are

selected, you're not going to be able to talk about the case

outside of the courtroom.

JUROR: Correct, I know that.

MS. PERLMETER: So would you be able to spend the next

three months not talking to your wife about the case?

JUROR: That would be a blessing.

(Laughter)

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. Thank you very much.

JUROR: Thank you.

MS. PERLMETER: Juror No. 80, please.

JUROR: Juror No. 80.

MS. PERLMETER: Sorry, I'm going back to you.

JUROR: That's okay.

MS. PERLMETER: Follow-up question. You had talked

about some childcare issues that you may -- that you have now.

Would to be possible for you to see if your husband's parents

or perhaps your husband would be able to help you out during

this time period?

JUROR: Definitely can explore that. Currently my

husband's work schedule is he works 7:00 to 4:30. So he would

need to figure out how to work his 10-hour day by doing both

drop-off and pick-up. Because of COVID, our daycare is open

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 80 of 122
 81

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

more limited hours than they used to be. So we have to

accommodate those.

MS. PERLMETER: I understand. Is your husband's work

a work-from-home position or is he expected to work outside of

the home?

JUROR: No. My husband goes to the office every day,

as do I.

MS. PERLMETER: And how about your husband's parents?

Are they in a position where they could potentially step in and

assist over the next few months?

JUROR: I'd have to check to see what their personal

commitments are. They are both retired, but they volunteer and

they're also in the process of remodeling their house. So they

have to be home for the workers. So I would have to confirm

their availability.

MS. PERLMETER: And then do you have any friends or

family or trusted individuals in the community that you could

potentially ask to see if they could step in and provide

coverage over the next few months?

JUROR: Not really.

MS. PERLMETER: All right. Thank you.

All right. The government has no more questions.

THE COURT: Okay. For the defense?

MS. BERNSTEIN: I'll start, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 81 of 122
 82

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. BERNSTEIN: Do we have a microphone?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: No. The batteries.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Good afternoon. My name is Whitney --

excuse me. My name is Whitney Bernstein and it is my honor to

represent James Larkin.

I'm going to follow up on some of the answers that you

have given earlier today and then your questionnaire.

Juror No. 83.

JUROR: 83.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Hi. You indicated that you teach a

course every Wednesday?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Can you give us the timing of that

that and the duration of your semester?

JUROR: It's 18 weeks, ends December 19. It's in

progress right now. I missed class yesterday. And it goes

from 11:30 to 12:45.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And what happens when you miss class?

JUROR: I create a video and post the video for the

Zoom class.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And what are you teaching?

JUROR: Criminal Justice, Principles of Evidence in

Case Law.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I'm sorry, say that again.

JUROR: Principles of Evidence in Case Law.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 82 of 122
 83

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. BERNSTEIN: Criminal Justice, Principles of

Evidence in Case Law?

JUROR: Correct.

MS. BERNSTEIN: So it sounds like you might have a lot

of knowledge about what may go on here?

JUROR: I have some. I have 30 years of experience in

law enforcement experience. I am a retired deputy police

chief.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Is that in California?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I noted, in your questionnaire, you

indicated that, when you were an officer, you worked

prostitution stings?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And when you did those stings, did you

ever receive training from Backpage as to how to conduct those

stings?

JUROR: It was back in the -- I've never heard of

Backpage. So no. The answer is no.

MS. BERNSTEIN: So how would you conduct your sting?

JUROR: We had -- there was two ways. We had

undercover female police officers working and we would arrest

the johns. We would approach them. And other times we'd have

undercover male officers picking -- or propositioning the

people working the streets and arrest them after proposition.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 83 of 122
 84

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. BERNSTEIN: And then, in the latter scenario,

those individuals would be prosecuted for prostitution?

JUROR: Most of them, yes. And it was for

prostitution or lewd acts or, I'm sorry, solicitation of

prostitution.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And this was in the nineties?

JUROR: It would be the -- I started in '82. It would

be the nineties and early 2000s.

MS. BERNSTEIN: At that time in your jurisdiction,

were there diversionary programs available to people arrested

for prostitution crimes?

JUROR: You know, I'm not sure what the -- I know most

of them were fined and given probation, but I'm not sure what

types of programs were provided.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And would you say that your stings

more often targeted people on the streets acting as prostitutes

or more often targeted the johns soliciting prostitutes?

JUROR: We targeted people on the streets working as

prostitutes and then targeted the johns that approached the

people on the streets.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I understand that. I think you said

there were two scenarios.

JUROR: Correct.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I'm wondering, were they deployed with

equal frequency or was one used more frequently than the other?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 84 of 122
 85

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: We deployed the john program more frequently,

meaning we had the undercover female officers working as

prostitutes and arrested the people that came and solicited

them. We did that more often.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And I think you left blank on your

questionnaire whether or not you believed prostitution should

be legalized. You said no, but there was no explanation. Can

you expound on that?

JUROR: I can. If I, just a little bit --

MS. BERNSTEIN: Sure.

JUROR: Working the street for so long, you do develop

an empathy for the people who are out there. And I'm not sure

the criminal direction was -- actually resolved the issues.

Most of them would return and they worked a different circuit.

So I'm torn about it. I wish we could regulate it and find a

different way or pathway for the people who are involved.

MS. BERNSTEIN: When you say most of them would return

of their own free will volitionally, these individuals would

decide to engage in this behavior again?

JUROR: I can't tell you if it's their own free will.

I know some of the girls -- I'll just say girls specifically

this time -- were working on their own free will. Others were

manipulated and coerced out there and were working for someone

who was lurking around the corner as a pimp.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Would you arrest and prosecute that

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 85 of 122
 86

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

person as well?

JUROR: We weren't as successful getting those people

because of the fear of -- when people were arrested, their fear

of speaking against the person they're working for.

MS. BERNSTEIN: So the people who were around the

corner pulling the strings were not frequently held

accountable?

JUROR: Not as often as we would have liked. Correct.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And I just want to clarify. When you

said "girls," what do you mean by that?

JUROR: I was just speaking, predominantly, most of

them were females walking the street that I'm talking about.

There were males sometimes, but not as frequent. 

MS. BERNSTEIN: "Girls" connotes a certain age. Do

you --

JUROR: Oh, I'm sorry. None of them that I was

involved in were under the age of 18. I can't tell you for

sure we verified everyone's age, but as far as I know, we never

arrested a child out there or under the age of 18 during these

stings.

MS. BERNSTEIN: How would you do age verification?

JUROR: Most of the time, it was during the

fingerprint process.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And these people were in the system

already?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 86 of 122
 87

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: A lot of them, yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: If they weren't in the system, how

does that indicate their age?

JUROR: Most of the time, we went with what they told

us and tried to verify whatever information they provided us --

a residence or, you know, previous history, driver's license.

MS. BERNSTEIN: So you had to take their word for it a

lot?

JUROR: Pretty much, yes. At least -- I'm sorry.

Yes. Pretty much that's how it started off.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And when did you retire?

JUROR: 2011.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And what rank did you retire at?

JUROR: Deputy police chief.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And what types of -- what types of

crimes were you overseeing when you retired?

JUROR: I was overseeing the entire department, the

operations and administrative side, but I've worked every

avenue. I was a detective. I primarily worked gangs and

narcotics. And as I promoted up the chain, I worked internal

affairs, patrol operations, community-oriented policing teams.

MS. BERNSTEIN: So if you retired in 2011, are you

familiar with whether anyone under you has ever subpoenaed or

worked with Backpage.com?

JUROR: No, I'm not.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 87 of 122
 88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. BERNSTEIN: You're not familiar or they did not?

JUROR: Well, I don't know if they did or not. I'm

not familiar with it. I never heard of Backpage.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Have you ever served on a jury?

JUROR: No.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And given your extensive personal

experience with this as well as the fact that you appear to be

somewhat of an expert teaching at least a course online --

someone thinks so, right?

JUROR: Right.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Would you be able to set that aside

and just listen to the evidence as it came in? I imagine that

may be difficult.

JUROR: It's what I was supposed to do for 30 years

was to be fair. So I don't see it as a difficult task.

I understand both sides. I have experience with both sides.

And my role, like if I was asked to step up, I would step up

and do the best job I could to be fair.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I appreciate that. And, of course,

being fair is really important. I think what I'm trying to get

at is whether or not you could kind of be more of a blank

slate. You have a lot of experience with how certainly vice

cops work, with how street cops work, and I wonder if you're

able to put that entirely out of your mind and just listen to

what officers say or if you would be checking that against your

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 88 of 122
 89

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

own experience.

JUROR: To be quite honest, it would -- I would

evaluate what they said. But, I mean, I do have a lot of

experience. If they work undercover, buy and sell drugs

undercover. So, I mean, to say -- honestly say I can just get

rid of all my life's experiences would be difficult, but

I would do the best I could to be as fair as possible.

MS. BERNSTEIN: I imagine it's like when I watch Law

and Order, it in no way parallels what's going on, and it

frustrates me. And I do often provide my own commentary as to

how that's not how the rules of evidence works, that's not how

court works. Would you be doing the same thing?

JUROR: I don't think I would be doing the same thing

here because I'm not completely familiar with it, but I do

understand what you're saying because I watch cop shows.

That's crazy; that's not what happens. But my job is to judge

the performance. My job would be to evaluate the evidence

presented by both parties and the statements by the witnesses

and to determine if they're credible or not.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Right. A lot of your job will be

determining credibility.

JUROR: Correct.

MS. BERNSTEIN: And given your extensive, almost

lifelong experience with this, would you be able to forget

every person you've ever worked with and judge them as a blank

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 89 of 122
 90

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

slate?

THE COURT: Okay. Ms. Bernstein, can we have a

sidebar?

MS. BERNSTEIN: Sure.

(Sidebar conference heard, reported as follows:)

THE COURT: So I just have an issue with you keep

repeating that they have to come in with a clean slate. No

juror has to come in with a clean slate -- 

MS. BERNSTEIN: Okay.

THE COURT: -- because they all have stuff.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Experiences.

THE COURT: So -- and you can rephrase it.

(The following proceedings were heard in the presence

of the jury:)

MS. BERNSTEIN: Thank you, Juror 83. Sorry you had to

stand for that.

So I think a better way to phrase the question might

be -- I think a better way to phrase the question might be:

How realistic is it for you to just leave your brain outside

the door and your life experiences and evaluate the evidence?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection.

THE COURT: Yeah. You don't have to answer that

question.

Everybody comes into court with some sort of life

experiences. So maybe you can rephrase it.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 90 of 122
 91

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MS. BERNSTEIN: I would not be a good juror for a

criminal defense case because I have spent my entire life

practicing as a criminal defense attorney. It would be very

difficult for me to not read into things the judge was doing or

the attorneys were doing because I'm so familiar with that

myself.

Do you have similar concerns or reservations about

serving in this case? Because it matters a lot for our

clients' fairness and due process.

JUROR: I completely respect that. I'm surprised

you're even speaking with me, actually. But I do know that

I've always been fair. I've always -- like I said, I've worked

both sides within law enforcement capacity. And my job is --

what I stood for was protection of everybody's rights, to

understand that and do the best I could to be fair to everybody

on the street, in the courtrooms and everything else. 

So knowing can I just wipe off my memory and my life

experience, no. All I can tell you is that, if asked, I would

be as fair as I possibly humanly can.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Do you think this is the right trial

for you?

JUROR: I'm not --

MS. PERLMETER: Objection.

THE COURT: Ms. Bernstein -- 

You can answer that question. 

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 91 of 122
 92

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

And then you need to move on.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Do you think this is the right trial

for you?

JUROR: I know nothing about the case other than what

you were asking yesterday, and it's definitely concerning

because of my history in law enforcement.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

JUROR: Yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Juror No. 87. Sorry. Juror No. 87.

JUROR: 87.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Hi. You indicated earlier that the

rise of the Delta variant is a concern for you given your

compromised immune system. Would it be distracting for you to

have to sit here for a couple of months in this large shared

air space?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Do you think that would impede your

ability to fairly and personally serve on this trial if you are

distracted?

JUROR: I do.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Thank you.

THE COURT: Before we move on, Juror 87, I did want to

follow up with you. You did not -- I didn't see anything in

your jury questionnaire about your health issue. Is that

something that is new?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 92 of 122
 93

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: No, it's not. It's just something that has

been really well under control until recently. And with the

rise of the variant, my rheumatologist has expressed some

concern about just exposure.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you.

MS. BERNSTEIN: No further questions from me,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Who's next?

Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes, Your Honor.

Potential Juror 83.

JUROR: 83.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes, sir. When you were -- I gather

from what you've told us that most of the prostitution work

that you did involved people on -- not a good move here. Hang

on one second.

Bear with me here, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

(Mr. Cambria adjusts microphone.)

MR. CAMBRIA: There we go.

When you were doing your work, most of the people that

you were dealing with were walking the streets, so to speak?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Asked and answered.

MR. CAMBRIA: It's just an intro question, Your Honor.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 93 of 122
 94

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Yeah, go ahead.

MR. CAMBRIA: Were you familiar with advertisements,

if you will, in the Yellow Pages?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: Was there ever a time when somebody in

your division looked at Yellow Pages to determine whether they

were advertisements for people who may want to engage in

prostitution?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

JUROR: It was just a very active area that I worked

in.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. That's all I have, sir.

Thank you.

JUROR: Thank you.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. Let's see if I can make --

93, please.

JUROR: 93.

MR. CAMBRIA: In one of your questions -- one of your

answers to the questions to the questionnaire, the question was

feelings regarding website responsibility for content posted by

users. You indicated you think they have a responsibility to

monitor their site and assure it's being used in a proper legal

manner that's not harmful, correct?

JUROR: That's correct.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 94 of 122
 95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: If, for example, there was an ad, let's

say, on Facebook, and somebody responded to that ad and it

turned out to be someone engaging in something that could be

prostitution, is it your belief or feeling that, let's say,

Mr. Zuckerberg who owns Facebook should be responsible for

that?

JUROR: To a degree, yeah.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. And would that -- would the

responsibility be, for example, working with the police to

ferret out people who may abuse Facebook and help them be

prosecuted, let's say?

JUROR: I think that overall he just needs to -- it's

his -- he has the ability and the means to be able to weed

things of that nature out. So, to a certain degree, yeah,

I think he's responsible for it.

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, what I'm saying is would it be, in

your opinion, sufficient if Facebook did everything possible to

cooperate with the police and to ferret out those who were

abusing Facebook by posting these ads?

JUROR: I don't know.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. Would you think that the only way

to fix it, since some people could use Facebook for this, is to

shut Facebook down?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: No. And why not?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 95 of 122
 96

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Because, unfortunately, you can't catch

everybody. It's -- some things just get by.

MR. CAMBRIA: So you don't think that the obvious

answer is, well, we'll just shut Facebook down and we won't

have ever even a chance of this happening?

JUROR: Then you'd have to shut down a whole lot of

other ones as well.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, because you think that whoever was

abusing Facebook would just find some other thing to abuse?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: I see. Well, you think that it's

appropriate, however, for Facebook or whatever platform to

cooperate with the police and to try to identify those abusing

the system and punish them?

Let me put it a different way.

So let's assume I post an ad on Facebook and it's for

prostitution. Probably I wouldn't get any takers, but let's

assume I did that, okay. Would it be appropriate for Facebook

then to identify me if they could, turn me over to the police,

and prosecute me because I abused their site?

MS. PERLMETER: Objection. Argumentative.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm just asking him his opinion,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

Go ahead.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 96 of 122
 97

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: Can you ask the question again? I'm sorry.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry, sir. I didn't hear you.

JUROR: Can you repeat the question, please?

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, sure. So let's assume I contact

Facebook and I put an ad in and it's for prostitution. I can't

even say it with a straight face here. It's for prostitution.

And should Facebook, if they can, report me to the police if

they are able -- in the millions of ads they get, if they're

able to detect me as perhaps doing this stuff? Do you think

that's a good thing that they would do that?

JUROR: Yes, yes. I think it is.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. That's all I have. Thank

you.

Let's see. Juror No. 63, good afternoon.

JUROR: Number 63. 

MR. CAMBRIA: You have here -- I'm reading your

answers to your questions. Retired police officer?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Vacaville?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Can you put that right up there? 

You can see I have a little mechanical assistance

here.

And your spouse is a retired police sergeant?

JUROR: Correct.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 97 of 122
 98

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, one of the questions we've been

asking here of a number of people who have a prior law

enforcement background is whether or not they could judge

police officers who will be witnesses in this case the same as

a non-police officer or, because of all your years of that sort

of employment, you would give them a little leg up just because

they're police officers.

JUROR: No. I would want to hear what they have to

say. I'd be eager to hear what they have to say.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

JUROR: I'm not going to give them anything beyond

what anybody else would say.

MR. CAMBRIA: So just because they were police

officers, they wouldn't get a leg up?

JUROR: Not from me.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. At any time in your career, were

you involved in any sort of internet situation where people

committed crimes using the internet?

JUROR: I had one case where there was an internet

component to it, but that's -- that's it. I didn't deal with

the internet.

MR. CAMBRIA: And was there any feeling on your part

that the internet providers themselves were in some way

responsible for the crime?

JUROR: Not at that time. They were very cooperative

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 98 of 122
 99

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

in my investigation.

MR. CAMBRIA: So you thought that they were trying to

help you by cooperating with you?

JUROR: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: And they did help you?

JUROR: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Have you, in the past, dealt with crimes

that involved either the mail or telephones?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: No, okay. Now it says you were a sexual

investigator -- assault investigator for two years, correct?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, no?

JUROR: I was a sexual assault investigator for

approximately five years and then I did juvenile sexual assault

for an additional two.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, I see. All right. And now, so that

means that you've had some experience with individuals who are

alleged to be perpetrators of sexual assault?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: And by those who are the subjects of

sexual assault?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. Now, you have a lot of

background information and so on as a police officer in

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 99 of 122
 100

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

connection with crimes like that. Is that something that you

would share with other jurors?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: You would not?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: Is it something that, for example, if

something was -- if a juror said something that you knew was

100 percent wrong based on your prior work, would you then

correct them?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: No, okay.

The -- one of the questions you answered was that you

were bothered that escorts are legal.

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Do you recall that?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Do you know that there are a number of

legal escorts?

JUROR: I'm aware of it, yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: I can't hear you.

JUROR: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: And that they are, in fact, licensed?

JUROR: I am aware of that, yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: By several municipalities?

JUROR: Correct.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 100 of 122
 101

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: The -- you did indicate, I believe here,

that the length of the trial might create an undue hardship?

JUROR: Yes, because I intend to be in Texas in the

month of October for the birth of my first grandchild.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. Also it indicate -- you indicated

here that you wear hearing aids?

JUROR: I do.

MR. CAMBRIA: Know all about them.

JUROR: I don't consider them a disability. Sometimes

they malfunction, but I don't need any special -- what's the

word I'm looking for -- I don't need anything special to hear.

MR. CAMBRIA: As long as there's not a lot of

background noise, you're good?

JUROR: Correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Now back to the situation with the

birth, did you say, of a grandchild?

JUROR: Correct, yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Is that something you were planning --

you know, you've had some long-term plans with regard?

JUROR: Well, my daughter is pregnant and she has a

due date and she has asked me to be there, and I said yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay, I didn't mean that. I said is

there some kind of reveal party or something like that that's

going to go on?

JUROR: No.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 101 of 122
 102

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: All right.

JUROR: It's a boy, by the way.

MR. CAMBRIA: Apparently, that's already happened. 

Okay.

Let's see here. That's all I have, thank you.

Number 65.

JUROR: Juror 65.

MR. CAMBRIA: I can hear you. Thank you.

JUROR: I'm a classroom teacher.

MR. CAMBRIA: You have marked here that you've got a

financial hardship not being paid during jury duty, sole

provider of income for the household.

JUROR: That's incorrect. I am a retired teacher.

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, I have the wrong sheet here.

Well, I'll have to skip you then until -- here we go.

It's the same one. Well, I'm sorry. This sheet has that you

have a paid vacation, Harrah's Casino. No.

JUROR: Yes, but that's on the weekend.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. So that part is correct?

JUROR: That's correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: And then you indicated you feel high

risk for COVID?

JUROR: No, I'm fully vaccinated.

MR. CAMBRIA: I wonder if we have the right sheet

here.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 102 of 122
 103

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

How about this: Were you in the military police in

Korea?

JUROR: My son was.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's the connection. Okay. Your son,

Army military police, Korea. Okay. So part of this is right

anyway?

JUROR: Yes, part of it is correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, it says here you have a paid

vacation. So maybe that would be something to go with.

JUROR: Maybe I should go take it.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. All right. So there is no

financial hardship. You are not the sole provider in the sense

that you wouldn't have a -- any income?

JUROR: No. I have fixed income.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. Let's see. If -- if the

evidence were such that somebody placed an ad and eventually it

turned out that that person had in mind committing an act of

prostitution, is it your belief then that the ad service, if

you will, should be held accountable for that or the person

that actually posted the ad and the individual who actually

engaged in the prostitution?

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, I would object. This

doesn't appear to be a follow-up question to anything in the

questionnaire or has been asked of this juror this morning. It

appears to be something else.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 103 of 122
 104

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: It's a follow-up question, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Okay, one second.

MR. CAMBRIA: -- to 76.

THE COURT: Okay, you can answer. Do you remember the

question?

JUROR: I believe you're asking if it's the

responsibility of the publication to monitor their location or

something to that effect?

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah. The question was: If an agency

is such that somebody buys an ad and they put something in the

ad which eventually allows a person to respond to the ad and

the ultimate outcome is an act of prostitution, do you feel

that the website is responsible or the person who placed the ad

or the individual who actually committed the act of

prostitution?

JUROR: I think the website or publication has an

obligation to monitor what they put on their publication or

website and, if they find something that is not according to

their standards, they need to red flag it, they need to delete

it, or they need to take that person off of their site.

MR. CAMBRIA: How about if they report it to the

police?

JUROR: I don't think it's their job to report it to

the police. I think it's their job to monitor their site.

That's it. So flag it, remove it and -- or delete it or remove

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 104 of 122
 105

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

the person that's putting that stuff on there.

MR. CAMBRIA: What if they did report it to the police

and then the police followed up and the police prosecuted

someone and held them accountable; wouldn't that be good?

JUROR: They are taking some responsibility,

I believe.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay, okay. Thank you, sir.

JUROR: Thank you.

MR. CAMBRIA: Number 66. I'll see if I've got the

right sheet now. You indicated that, with regard to that last

question that I asked this gentleman, was your answer you think

the individual should be responsible for the content, meaning

the one who posted the ad?

JUROR: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: And if, for example, the ad agency, if

you will, reported that person, if they thought there was an

issue, to the police, would you find that to be reasonable and

responsive?

JUROR: I would.

MR. CAMBRIA: And do you think that if, for example,

somebody uses, let's say, telephones to commit crimes, that we

should outlaw telephones?

JUROR: No. That wouldn't be necessary.

MR. CAMBRIA: Because some people abuse them, we

shouldn't just kill the phone service, so to speak?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 105 of 122
 106

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: No, that wouldn't be necessary. I think that

would create a new issue.

MR. CAMBRIA: And how about a website, for example?

If somebody slips through and posts an advertisement that turns

out to result in an act of prostitution, should the website be

shut down or the people who posted the ad be punished?

JUROR: The people who posted the ad be punished.

MR. CAMBRIA: You do indicate a connection to law

enforcement. You say that there's some -- several, apparently,

police officers in your family at least historically?

JUROR: I don't recall saying seven police officers,

but my grandfather was a police officer, yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. And as a result of that, would

you give police officers an advantage if they were to testify

in this case?

JUROR: Not really. Every police officer has their

own story and way of going about a situation.

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, would they get, you know, some

kind of points, if you will, just because they're police

officers, before they even start testifying?

JUROR: No.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. That's all I have. Thank

you.

Number 67. Afternoon.

JUROR: Juror No. 67.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 106 of 122
 107

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes. I noticed one of your answers

here, you indicate your father is a pastor in a church and a

chaplain at a hospital.

JUROR: That's correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: And if -- let's assume that we go

through this trial. You're here. You're a juror. And, at the

end of it, you and the other 11 jurors say, you know what,

government did not prove these specific charges that they have

alleged. Would there be any reluctance on your part to vote

that way because of your father's religious connection?

JUROR: We do not share the same level of belief.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry?

JUROR: We do not share the same level of belief.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. Okay. So you're an

independent thinker?

JUROR: That is correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: You've indicated that you have some

usage, if you will, of the internet in the past?

JUROR: That's correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: And in the course of that, in the course

of surfing through that, if you will, did you see what appeared

to be ads for people having sex?

JUROR: I mean, I don't go on any sites.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry?

JUROR: I don't go on any sites specifically tailored

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 107 of 122
 108

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

to that, but I have seen advertisements yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: I didn't mean to indicate you did. You

named a number of them in here.

JUROR: Yeah.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm just asking, in the course of going

through those sites, did you see any of these other type ads?

JUROR: I don't think specifically, like a specific

type of ad selling for sex.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. Were there ads where people --

were there any ads where people were, like, provocatively

dressed or anything like that?

JUROR: I could say so, yeah. There was ads that, you

know, "meet now" and different things like that, where

people...

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah. And, of course, you'd never know

what the end result of that is unless you contacted that person

and met them and all the rest of it; is that fair?

JUROR: That's correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: You couldn't really just tell by looking

at the picture or the ad?

JUROR: That's correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: It appears here that, in the past, you

have used Craigslist?

JUROR: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Did you see any of those types of ads?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 108 of 122
 109

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JUROR: It's been a long time. I was just looking for

some Pfaltzgraff for my mother's gift. So no.

MS. PERLMETER: Okay. But there were a number of

different categories and you just go on your specific one you

were interested in?

JUROR: That's correct.

MR. CAMBRIA: Were there adult categories?

JUROR: I haven't been on it in so long, but I'm not

really sure.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay, all right. That's all I have.

Thank you.

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria, it's 12:00; so we're going to

break.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

THE COURT: We're going to break for an hour for

lunch. In an hour, if you could again wait outside until we

bring you back in. And have a good lunch. See you in an hour.

Counsel, I need to talk to you, though.

(In open court; jury not present.)

THE COURT: Everybody needs to stay here. There are a

couple jurors who wanted to talk to us from a different panel.

You can have a seat. She's bringing one of them in

right now.

MS. BERNSTEIN: May we have the numbers, if you know?

THE COURT: I'm not sure who she's bringing in first.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 109 of 122
 110

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

(Juror No. 24 enters courtroom.)

THE COURT: This is Juror 24.

You can just stand there and I'll hear from you.

So, Juror 24, all I have is a note that says you want

to address the Court with new information.

JUROR: So, basically, one thing I wanted to ask is,

you know -- I was in the first jury pool and there were some

topics that were discussed in the second and third jury pools

today that I would have liked to have responded to, but,

obviously, I wasn't in the room. So that was my one question. 

And then my other question was that I sent a second

letter from my employer in to the juror office, I think. I was

wondering if you or anyone else actually got that because

I never got a confirmation.

THE COURT: When did you send it?

JUROR: I sent it on Tuesday, like around 4:30 p.m.

So it was right before they were due, but, you know, I was just

wondering if it actually got received because I never got

confirmation.

THE COURT: I believe I did, but I can check on that.

JUROR: Okay. I have a copy of it here if you don't,

so -- if it's lost in email somewhere.

Anyway, that was my main question is will there be

another session where someone like myself from your first jury

pool can respond to some of the topics that were brought up?

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 110 of 122
 111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: No, there will not be. What is it you're

worried about?

JUROR: So, basically, I wanted to say that I don't

think that I can be a fair juror on this trial because, after

some of what the defense was saying yesterday, I think that the

case is -- I can already kind of see where this is going

basically. They're going to try to say that they're innocent

because, you know, there is some guys that have a website, you

know, whose fault -- how is it their fault -- it's like how are

they supposed to be at fault for something someone else did on

their site. But that's like saying, you know -- you know, they

collected money from those people, right? So why -- why are

they able to accept the money for illegal prostitution

advertisements, but then not be prosecuted for it at the end?

I don't understand how that's possible.

You know, other -- second session, someone asked, you

know, is there a law, is there like a specific law that's about

this? And I don't know because I'm not an expert, you know,

but, if there isn't, you know, I feel like that's the loophole

they're looking for. So I feel bad for the prosecutor because

they're probably going to get off. Then is this probably going

to just keep going up the chain to the Supreme Court, right?

THE COURT: So it's a little difficult because this is

voir dire; so you haven't heard any evidence.

JUROR: Right.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 111 of 122
 112

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: You haven't been instructed on the law

that will apply in this case. So --

JUROR: Right. I guess I just wanted to make it clear

to the attorneys that those were my opinions that I developed

yesterday. You're right; I don't know. I don't think I'm a

dumb guy. So I could probably understand that people are

explaining laws to me, but I just wanted to say, you know, yes,

maybe at the beginning of the day, I was in the middle and now

I don't feel like I'm in the middle anymore.

THE COURT: Okay, does the government have any

follow-up questions?

MS. PERLMETER: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Does the defense?

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes. Are you simply saying to us, sir,

in clear and unequivocal terms, heartfully felt, that you

cannot be fair and impartial in this case?

JUROR: What I'm saying is that I feel like I already

know how this is going to go. I'm not saying I can't be fair.

You know, I'm not -- like I said, I'm not a -- so I have Ph.D.

in chemistry, right? I'm not an idiot. I understand that

there are nuances to every situation. I also understand that

there are loopholes that you guys are going to look for in

these laws.

I don't think that -- like, for example, your question

about should telephone companies be shut down because someone

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 112 of 122
 113

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

commits a crime on the phone, I think that's completely

misrepresenting this case. That's not even remotely related to

this.

MR. CAMBRIA: So we'd have to change your mind?

JUROR: Yes. You would have to change my mind, yes,

at this point.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's all.

THE COURT: Okay, thank you. You can go to lunch now

and we'll see you back downstairs in an hour.

MR. CAMBRIA: Before you let him go, could we have a

sidebar?

THE COURT: We can talk about it later.

MR. CAMBRIA: Well, I --

THE COURT: He's just going to lunch.

MR. CAMBRIA: But if he shares those views with other

jurors, we may have more problems.

THE COURT: Juror 24, don't discuss your views with

other jurors. Do you have any problem with that?

JUROR: I can do that. No worries.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

And the next one should be Juror 27.

(Juror No. 27 enters courtroom.)

THE COURT: Juror 27, you can just stand there for a

minute?

JUROR: Sure.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 113 of 122
 114

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: I just have a note that says you wanted to

address the Court with new information.

JUROR: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay.

JUROR: And Counsel and Your Honor, there was two

issues. During the questioning yesterday, the second group,

there was open-ended question that came up about linking

escorts and prostitutes and them being synonymous and who

thought that and felt that. My position -- that was kind of

where I stood and also felt that they were synonymous.

And second issue, I'm sure it was in my questionnaire,

but it was so long ago, I'm not sure how clear it was, that

serving on a 10-week jury trial would be very difficult for me

in my practice and being able to fully adequately represent my

current clients.

I work in the evenings and now in the mornings. As a

perfect example, last night I was up until 12:30 working.

I was up this morning again a couple hours before this

selection started today working on my existing work.

I canceled a deposition that was this afternoon. And so a

10-week trial would be very difficult for me to serve on.

That's all. Beyond that, just wanted to bring that to the

Court's attention and counsel's attention.

THE COURT: Okay. And as to the first part, I just

want to make sure I understand. When you were listening to

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 114 of 122
 115

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

this discussion yesterday about escorts, prostitutes,

trafficking, there was a number of questions about that. What

is your feeling about those right now?

JUROR: Sure. I think just the -- the two, in my

mind -- an escort and a prostitute being synonymous, I wasn't

even aware, frankly, that escorts was a licensed legal

practice, that it was allowed. I've always thought you're

paying for it, that there was some level of prostitution,

you're paying for some type of sexual act in coordination with

an escort. If it's legal and it's licensed, I guess I still

kind of think, all right, maybe licensed, but there's likely

some type of act going on after the fact related to some

prostitution type of act. That's just what I thought my

understanding of it was.

THE COURT: You're a lawyer. So now you know or

you've heard that escort services can be legal depending on the

jurisdiction.

JUROR: Sure.

THE COURT: And would you be able to distinguish

between the two if you're given more information?

JUROR: I mean, I can distinguish between the two as

I stand here before you now, but I -- still, in being able to

distinguish between the two, I also understand, while something

may be legal, doesn't mean that there isn't additional things

going on. It could be a regulated activity, but the person

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 115 of 122
 116

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

that's licensed could very well still be committing the illegal

acts despite being licensed for one particular purpose.

THE COURT: Okay. Any follow-up questions from the

government?

MS. PERLMETER: Yes, Your Honor.

Hi, Juror No. 27.

JUROR: Hello.

MS. PERLMETER: Hi. So you expressed some concerns

about your practice. And just to follow up with you, did you

receive the trial calendar while you filled out the

questionnaire?

JUROR: I did, yes.

MS. PERLMETER: You see how there are days off every

once in while? Sometimes it's just one day per week and then

sometimes a couple days per week and then, in November, there's

a chunk where we don't have trial for two weeks?

JUROR: Yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Would you be able to manage your

client work in those times and in the before and following

trial?

JUROR: I honestly don't think that's going to be

sufficient. I currently have -- I have a hearing next -- this

upcoming Wednesday. I practice all over the country.

Florida -- my hearing on Wednesday is in Florida. I have

hearings in Delaware bankruptcy court. I have them in Texas

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 116 of 122
 117

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

bankruptcy. And hearings are regularly set by bankruptcy court

not based on my particular representation of one creditor in

the case. So they're generally regularly popping up and it

would be extremely difficult for me to do that.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you work for yourself, sir, or do

you work as a member of a firm?

JUROR: No. I do work as a member of a firm. And

there are certain cases that I work on with other attorneys in

my firm that could serve that purpose. I am the primary and

only, that I know of, licensed bankruptcy attorney in my firm

for the state of Florida, and so I handle our Florida

bankruptcy.

MS. PERLMETER: Do you have a lot of Florida matters

in the next three months?

JUROR: Yeah. Like I said, this upcoming -- on

Wednesday, I know I have a hearing in -- at one of my

bankruptcy cases. I have two or three pending cases in Florida

right now.

MS. PERLMETER: And given the current climate with the

pandemic, are these hearings -- are they requiring you to fly

in person or are you able to attend the hearings virtually?

JUROR: No. I do attend virtually, yes.

MS. PERLMETER: Thank you.

JUROR: Sure.

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria? Oh, hold on.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 117 of 122
 118

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you, Your Honor.

So is it fair to say that, if there is an ad and it

simply said "escort," licensed or not, you'd assume it's

prostitution?

JUROR: That's, yes, my assumption.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

THE COURT: Any other questions?

All right. Thank you.

JUROR: Thank you, Your Honor, Counsel.

(Juror 27 exits courtroom.)

THE COURT: Any objection to striking Juror 24?

MS. BERNSTEIN: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Juror 24 will be struck. 

And any objection to striking Juror 27?

MS. BERNSTEIN: No, Your Honor.

MR. LINCENBERG: No objection.

MS. PERLMETER: We object to the release of Juror No.

27.

THE COURT: Okay. Over objection, I'm going to

release Juror 27 mostly because of his work obligations.

Oh, and just one other thing before you go. When we

come back, Juror 75 -- he's the one whose wife works for New

Times. If you plan on asking any questions about -- because he

said something about knowing information about the case. I'd

ask that you not do it and we can talk to him separately. If

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 118 of 122
 119

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

you do have any questions about that, just let me know.

MS. PERLMETER: Did the Court rule on Juror 24?

Because the government -- the United States didn't state its

position. It was a bunch of voices from the defense.

THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said "no

objection."

MS. PERLMETER: No, I didn't actually say anything.

THE COURT: Okay. You can take your position.

MS. PERLMETER: Your Honor, we object to the excusal

of Juror No. 24.

THE COURT: Okay. Over objection, I'm still excusing

him. He was pretty adamant.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, can I raise a question

with regard to Juror 63? This was the police officer, the

female police officer.

THE COURT: What about it?

MR. LINCENBERG: Well, we heard for the first time

this hardship in October. I had asked Ms. Perlmeter as to

whether she wanted to stipulate. She said she would consider

it over the lunch hour and get back to me. Just before I go

through further examination, if it's the Court's inclination to

release her, we would ask that she be released. She was the

one who said she is going to Texas in October for the month.

THE COURT: Did she say she was going for the month?

MR. LINCENBERG: That's what I thought I heard. She

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 119 of 122
 120

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

said the month of October.

MS. PERLMETER: Yes, to assist her granddaughter.

THE COURT: She said in the month of October.

MS. PERLMETER: I heard for the month.

THE COURT: Obviously, I'm not going to make her not

go to Texas, but maybe what I'll do is I'll ask her when we get

back "Was your plan just to, like, go and visit or is your

daughter expecting that you're going to stay for three weeks to

help her learn how" -- I don't know if this is her daughter's

first child or second.

MS. BERNSTEIN: Yes, she indicated it was the first

grandchild.

MS. PERLMETER: This was on her questionnaire. First

grandchild. Due date is October 20th. We all know babies come

when they want to. We have that long break in the beginning of

November. So I don't know if she thought -- was planning

around that.

MR. LINCENBERG: Her answer on the questionnaire was

"I am expected to be in Texas to assist with the birth."

I have no problem if the Court wants to follow up there. I'm

only raising it because I can save some time on voir dire if

the Court is going to dismiss her. 

THE COURT: So why don't I ask her first and I'll call

you up to sidebar, I guess.

MR. LINCENBERG: Okay.

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 120 of 122
 121

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE COURT: Okay. All right. We're at recess. Thank

you.

(Lunch recess taken at 12:15 p.m.)

(Transcript of afternoon session in separate file.)

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 121 of 122
 122

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

C E R T I F I C A T E 

I, BARBARA H. STOCKFORD, do hereby certify that I am

duly appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter

for the United States District Court for the District of

Arizona.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute

a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of

the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled

cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript

was prepared under my direction and control.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 24th day September 

2021. 

 

 /s/ Barbara H. Stockford 

 Barbara H. Stockford, RMR, CRR, CRC 

 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1338 Filed 09/28/21 Page 122 of 122