1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3856471.1

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S STATEMENT RE SEVERANCE

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice)

 glincenberg@birdmarella.com

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice)

 aneuman@birdmarella.com

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice)

 gkp@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 2:18-cr-00422-004-PHX-DJH

DEFENDANT JOHN BRUNST’S 

STATEMENT RE: SEVERANCE AND 

CONTINUANCE

Assigned to Hon. Diane J. Humetewa

Trial Date: June 20, 2023

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1534 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3856471.1 2

DEFENDANT JED BRUNST’S STATEMENT RE SEVERANCE

Pursuant to the Court’s March 9, 2023 Order (Dkt. 1527), Defendant John Brunst 

provides the Court with his position regarding the potential severance of Defendants Lacey 

and Larkin for separate trial in light of the continuance motion filed by co-defendants 

Larkin and Spear. If the Court is considering a severance, the following reasoning favors

severing Mr. Brunst from the first trial. 

Mr. Brunst played no role with respect to the Superseding Indictment’s 50 Travel 

Act counts. Indeed, Mr. Brunst was not even named in these counts, or the conspiracy 

count, in the original indictment. There is no evidence of his committing any of the acts 

alleged in the Travel Act counts, e.g., ad moderation, aggregation, etc. In the Superseding 

Indictment, he was added to these counts presumably under a Pinkerton theory of liability. 

The only government witness who attempts to tie Mr. Brunst into a conspiracy is Carl

Ferrer, who generally notes that Mr. Brunst was present at certain meetings regarding 

Backpage and copied on some emails in which business strategy was discussed.

The government’s money laundering case against Mr. Brunst focuses mainly on 

duties he performed as CFO of the company (Medalist Holdings, Inc.) that lent money to 

Backpage as part of a 2015 seller-financed sale of Backpage to Carl Ferrer. While the 

government has a different view of this transaction, this aspect of the case should take up 

a relatively short amount of time at trial and will largely be addressed through a money 

flow summary witness. As such, it is unfair and unnecessarily expensive for Mr. Brunst 

and his counsel to have to sit through a three-month trial. If a first trial results in 

dismissals or acquittals, it likely will obviate a second trial of others. Even if a first trial

results in wrongful convictions, a second trial would likely be much shorter.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1534 Filed 03/17/23 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3856471.1 3

DEFENDANT JED BRUNST’S STATEMENT RE SEVERANCE

DATED: March 17, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg 

Gary S. Lincenberg 

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1534 Filed 03/17/23 Page 3 of 3