Page 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 Case No. CR-18-422-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

ENFORCE THE COURT’S MAY 7, 

2021 ORDERS

NOW COME the Defendants, by their attorneys of record, to ask the Court 

to enforce its May 7, 2021 Orders precluding evidence of crimes committed by 

third-parties.1 The Defendants further submit the following:

1 ECF Docs. 1555 and 1556. 

Joy Bertrand, Esq.

PO Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Telephone: 602-374-5321

Fax: 480-361-4694

joyous@mailbag.com

www.joybertrandlaw.com

Arizona State Bar No. 024181

ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 1 of 21
Page 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

INTRODUCTION

Today’s Arizona Republic contains an article about the trial starting 

tomorrow. Much of the article, which appears to have been fed to the reporter 

by a representative/s of the Government, focusses on the June 2012 murder of 

Crystal MacMartin.2 

This fundamental questions in this prosecution is, “Did the Defendants 

specifically intend to facilitate business enterprises involved in prostitution in 

violation of state law through the publishing of fifty third-party 

advertisements?” Nearly four months ago, this Court ruled: 

Generally, the Court agrees that the crimes of third parties are only 

relevant to the extent that they gave Defendants’ notice that prostitutes 

were advertising on Backpage.com. However, the specific details of

crimes committed by third parties are irrelevant to whether Defendants 

violated the Travel Act, and in most instances, evidence of such third-party 

crimes is likely improper. But without reference to specific contexts where 

the Government intends to introduce such evidence, the Court will not 

categorically conclude that all evidence of crimes committed by third 

parties is inadmissible. If the Government attempts to introduce such 

evidence at trial, it will only be admitted to the extent that it gave 

Defendants notice that prostitutes were utilizing Backpage.com, and the 

Government will not be allowed to introduce evidence showing the details 

of the crimes. As to the evidence of third-party murders, as the Court 

mentioned above, the Court will address those arguments in a separate 

order.3

2 Richard Ruelas, “Backpage Trial Set to Begin: Former New Times Execs 

Charged with Aiding Prostitution,” Arizona Republic, August 30, 2021. A PDF 

copy of the article accompanies this Motion as Exhibit 1. 

3 ECF Doc. 1156 at 5. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 2 of 21
Page 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

29

With regard to murders committed by third parties, this Court ruled:

. . . While evidence showing notice to Defendants that prostitutes were 

using its website is relevant and the evidence has some probative value, 

the potential prejudice against Defendants from the introduction of the 

evidence regarding the murders is quite high. If evidence of the details of 

the murders were introduced, it is likely to inflame the passions of the 

jurors against the Defendants or create confusion that Defendants are 

responsible for the murders. Where the probative value of evidence is low 

and the potential prejudicial effect of evidence is high, courts should 

typically exclude evidence . . . Thus, clearly facts and details regarding the 

murders themselves should not be admitted. 

Further, as Defendants correctly point out, the Government has failed to 

explain how or through whom it seeks to introduce the evidence or the 

intended scope of the evidence it seeks admitted. For example, will the 

Government call the next of kin of the victims to testify regarding their 

prostitution, use of Backpage.com, and murder? Is the Government 

simply seeking to admit the internal spreadsheet used by Backpage to 

track news stories? Without further information concerning what specific 

evidence the Government intends to introduce and how it intends to 

introduce it, the Court cannot find that the Government’s intended 

evidence is admissible. Thus, the Court will not make a specific finding on 

the admissibility or exclusion of the evidence at this time and will wait

until trial to rule on specific objections or motions in limine. However, the 

Court can rule now that the Government will not be allowed to introduce 

evidence regarding the specific details of the murders themselves.4

Despite the Court’s rulings, in its latest witness list, the Government’s still 

appears to insist on calling witnesses to testify about the exact material this Court 

precluded. Because the Government may plan to discuss one or both of these 

4 ECF Doc. 1155 at 5-6 (internal cite omitted).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 3 of 21
Page 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

murder prosecutions in its opening statement, the Defendants bring their motion 

to preclude evidence of either murder prosecution before the trial begins. 

The Defendants present two instances of third party crimes that the 

Government appears to intend to call, despite the Court’s clear rulings. These 

two cases encompass seven of the 83 witnesses on the Government’s list. As 

discussed below, a total of 44 witnesses – more than half of the Government’s 83 

witnesses, appear to pertain to third party crimes. By precluding this wholly 

irrelevant evidence, the Court stands to shorten this trial by two to three weeks. 

A. Victim 6 Witnesses Remaining on the Government’s Witness List.

With regards to the 2012 Scottsdale murder of Crystal McMartin (named 

by the Government as “Victim 6”), the Government keeps on its witness list:

Lynn Nelson (McMartin) – Crystal McMartin’s mother (listed twice as Gvt. 

Witness 51 and 57);

Hugh Lockerby – Scottsdale Police Department (Gvt. Witness 46); 

Scott Carpenter – Scottsdale Police Department (Gvt. Witness 12); and 

Brittany McMartin – Crystal McMartin’s sister (Gvt. Witness 50) 

Joseph Matthews’ murder of Crystal McMartin does not form the basis of any 

count of the Indictment. 

B. Victim 15 Witnesses Remaining on the Governnment’s Witness list.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 4 of 21
Page 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

With regards to the 2012 death of Jasilias Wright (named by the 

Government as “Victim 15” in the Superseding Indictment), the Government 

keeps on its witness list: 

Justin Berry – Louisiana State Police (Gvt. Witness 9);

Gustave Bethea – Louisiana State Police (Gvt. Witness 10); and

Chad Gremillion – Louisiana State Police (Gvt. Witness 34) 

The Government uses the prosecution of Adam Littleton as the basis for 

Counts Nineteen and Twenty.5 The Government also gives detail about Ms. 

Wright’s death in another portion of the Superseding Indictment:

In or around June 2015, Victim 15 was sold for sex, through the use of 

Backpage ads, in Texas and Louisiana. These ads contained words and 

phrases such as "Thick Glass of Chocolate Milk Looking for a GoodTime! ! 

! " and "sexy certified freak" and contained pictures showing Victim 15 's 

legs, shoulders and buttocks. 

On June 10, 2015, Victim 15 was forced into a vehicle with her trafficker, 

who was attempting to take her to Texas against her will. In an attempt to 

escape, Victim 15 jumped out of the vehicle onto Interstate 10 and was 

killed after being hit by several vehicles at high speeds.6

These two women’s tragic deaths are in no way relevant to any element of 

any crime charged in the Superseding Indictment. Even if the Government could 

show these murders had a scintilla of relevance to the Superseding Indictment, 

5 ECF Doc. 230 at 52.

6 ECF Doc. 230 at 43.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 5 of 21
Page 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

these facts would be far too incendiary to be admissible. To allow the 

Government to present facts surrounding these third-party crimes at this already 

complex trial also will create unnecessary distraction and use an inordinate 

amount of precious trial time. 

APPLICABLE LAW

Federal Rule of Evidence 402 prohibits the admission of evidence that is 

not relevant. Evidence is relevant, if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would 

be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

Even if evidence is relevant, it must be precluded if, “if its probative value 

is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair 

prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, 

or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”7 If there exists any alternative 

evidence with same or greater probative value, but with lesser threat of unfairly 

prejudicing defendant, as proffered evidence, court must discount probative 

value of originally proffered evidence and exclude it if its now-lesser probative 

value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice to defendant.8

7 Fed. R. Evid. 403. 

8 U.S. v. Ozsusamlar, 428 F.Supp.2d 161, 170 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), citing Old Chief v. 

United States, 519 U.S. 172, 182-83 (1997). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 6 of 21
Page 7

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

29

THE EXPECTED TESTIMONY REGARDING THIRD-PARTY ACTS

I. James Michael Matthews’ Murder of Crystal MacMartin.

A. This 2012 Incident is Outside the Statute of Limitations and Does Not Pertain to 

a Single Count of the Indictment. 

James Michael Matthews murdered Crystal MacMartin on June 12, 2012. 

The Government brought its first indictment in this case on March 28, 2018.9 

Despite this event falling outside of the statute of limitations, the Government 

included details of Matthews’ crime in the superseding indictment:

In or around June 2012, Victim 6 was sold for sex, through the use of 

Backpage ads in Arizona. Her traffickers utilized Backpage ads that did 

not offer a specific person but instead generally offered a woman with a 

particularly type of hair color and build. On June 22, 2012, Victim 6 was 

dispatched to a customer who had responded to a Backpage ad featuring 

“Nadia,” who was described as a slender brunette woman. Upon arrival 

at the location, Victim 6 was stabbed to death.10 

The Superseding Indictment’s description leaves out several critical 

details:

1. Escort Services are legal in Scottsdale. The city even licenses them.11

9 ECF Doc. 1 at 1.

10 ECF Doc. 230 at 41.

11 Scottsdale Muni. Code 16-452 et. seq. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 7 of 21
Page 8

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

29

2. Ms. MacMartin filled out an employment application to work at the 

escort service.12 In that application, she noted she had worked as an escort 

in Las Vegas, before moving to Arizona.13

3. The Government can point to no evidence that shows she was forced 

into working as an escort or “trafficked.”

4. Ms. MacMartin’s significant other drove her to the appointment 

with Matthews – further underscoring that Ms. MacMartin worked as an 

escort voluntarily and did not hide what she did for a living.14 Ms. 

MacMartin’s significant other insisted that Ms. MacMartin did not have 

sex for money.15

5. The escort service did not use Ms. MacMartin in an ad. Rather, the 

service used generic ads that described different kinds of women (e.g., 

slender brunette, busty blonde).16

6. The Government offers no evidence to show that Ms. MacMartin

intended to anything other than provide escort services to Matthews.17

B. Ms. MacMartin was an Escort, not a Prostitute. 

12 The police reports for this case were turned over by the Government, but not 

Bates-numbered. The relevant, redacted excerpts of the reports are included as 

Exhibit 2 to this Motion. Ex. 2 at 1-2.

13 Id. 

14 Id. at 3

15 Id. 

16 Id. at 4-5.

17 Scottsdale defines an escort as, “any person who is hired, or offered to hire, to 

accompany one or more other persons to social, business or entertainment 

gatherings, public or private, for compensation of any kind. A person is an 

escort even if other services are provided to the patron, if such services are 

merely incidental to the escort services.” Scottsdale Muni. Code 16-453. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 8 of 21
Page 9

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

29

It is not clear what evidence the Government intends to present to show 

that Ms. MacMartin arrived at Matthews’ apartment to do anything illegal. She 

was dressed when she was found. There does not appear any evidence, such as 

text messages, to show that she and Matthews had made arrangements to do 

anything illegal. 

C. Investigators Found No Information Regarding Backpage Searches for Escorts or 

Prostitution-Related Activity was on Matthews’ Devices. 

A review of the Government’s disclosures shows no evidence tying 

Backpage to Ms. MacMartin’s death. In fact, it is not clear how Matthews came 

across the escort service’s ad for “Nadia.” Matthews could have found a 

“Nadia” ad through a simple Google search for the escort agency. 

D. James Michael Matthews’ Guilty Plea and Sentence.

Matthews’ case was hardly a “whodunit.” Matthews opened the door of 

his apartment, covered in blood. As he stood in the entryway of this apartment, 

police could see evidence of a violent alteration. Near Matthews, police saw a 

butcher knife covered in blood. The State, led by prosecutor Juan Martinez, 

pursed the death penalty. 18

18 A copy of the docket in State v. Matthews is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 

3.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 9 of 21
Page 10

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

29

Matthews pled guilty to first degree murder on or about September 4, 

2015.19 On November 4, 2015, Matthews was sentenced to life in prison.20 

The Government can offer no evidence that Backpage was in any way 

involved with Matthews’ conduct. While the Government can point to generic 

Backpage ads that depicted a woman who had similar physical traits to Ms. 

MacMartin’s, the evidence is not clear that Matthews even contacted the escort 

agency via Backpage. 

II. The Death of Jasilas Wright.

The facts of Littleton’s case can be summarized as:

On June 10, 2015, at 4:57 a.m., emergency operators were alerted to an 

object, possibly a human body, lying in the center lane of westbound 

Interstate 10. Louisiana State Police and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office 

(JPSO) found a trail of blood, body parts, sandals, a cellular phone, 

clothing, a hair piece, and a watch from the Veterans on-ramp to the Power 

exit. After analyzing the victim's fingerprints and cellular phone, the 

police identified the body as nineteen-year-old Jasilas Wright. After 

speaking to the victim's friends and family members and searching the 

home of the victim's mother, Nedra Wright, defendant, Adam Littleton, 

was identified as a suspect.

[Ms. Wright] had known defendant for less than a month. Defendant had 

traveled to New Orleans from Texas on May 14, 2015, with Quinicsha 

Johnson, a prostitute. While staying at the Monteleone Hotel, defendant 

met the victim through her work as a dancer at Stiletto's, a Bourbon Street 

strip club. Within a few days, the victim left New Orleans with defendant, 

telling family members that she was going to dance in Texas with some 

19 Id.

20

 Id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 10 of 21
Page 11

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

29

girls from her work. Defendant and the victim thereafter stayed in hotels 

in Ft. Worth, Dallas, Austin, and Grand Prairie, Texas. In the beginning of 

June, the victim and defendant drove back to New Orleans in a gray 

Camry belonging to defendant's brother, Michael Adams.

Upon their return to New Orleans, the victim and defendant stayed with 

the victim's mother, Ms. Wright, at her home . . . The victim's family 

believed defendant was the victim's boyfriend. According to her family, 

when she returned home, the victim appeared to have lost weight; she told 

her grandmother, Carole Bernard, that she was not going to leave New 

Orleans or her nine-month-old son again. After returning to New Orleans, 

the victim resumed working at Stiletto's. Defendant drove the victim to 

and from work, and spent time with Ms. Wright while the victim worked.

On the night of June 6, 2015, the victim went out with her friend from high 

school, Demonyan Cooper, and spent the night with another man. Two 

days later on June 8, 2015, the victim and defendant went to Walmart's 

Woodforest bank where defendant opened a bank account and deposited 

ten dollars. On the evening of June 9, 2015, the victim went to work. 

While she worked, defendant met Journae King, a former dancer, on 

Bourbon Street, and they exchanged text messages until 2:40 a.m. the 

following morning of June 10, 2015. Defendant's cell phone records 

revealed that he was in downtown New Orleans at 4:20 a.m., thereafter 

near Loyola Drive in Kenner from 5:00 a.m. to 5:05 a.m.

On June 10, 2015, Ms. Wright realized that her daughter had not come 

home from work, although both her and defendant's bags were still in the 

house. At approximately 11:00 a.m., Journae King called Ms. Wright 

asking if she had seen her daughter. After speaking with Ms. King, Ms. 

Wright called Ms. Bernard, her mother and the victim's grandmother. 

Meanwhile, defendant made phone calls to Ms. Johnson, Ms. Cooper, Ms. 

King, as well as his brother and sister, crying and telling them that the 

victim had jumped out of his car on the highway. Ms. Cooper went to Ms. 

Bernard's house and put all phone calls from defendant on speakerphone 

in the presence of Ms. Bernard and officers from New Orleans Police 

Department (NOPD).

Cell phone records show defendant continued to drive west to Dallas, 

Texas arriving there between 9:45 and 10:15 p.m. at the apartment of 

Stephanie Walker, his brother, Michael Adams' girlfriend. After hearing 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 11 of 21
Page 12

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

29

defendant's story, Ms. Walker confirmed the details on the internet and 

called the Louisiana State Police from her workplace. On June 12, 2015, 

Ms. Walker spoke with Trooper First Class Gus Bethea at which point she 

reported to the trooper that she had overheard defendant telling Mr. 

Adams that he could not call the police because he was scared that he was 

responsible. According to Ms. Walker, defendant said he had forced the 

victim into the car and told her the only way she was going to get out was 

if she jumped. Ms. Walker also overheard defendant say that he saw, in 

his rearview mirror, two cars run over the victim and that he stopped at 

the next exit to throw her belongings out of the car. Louisiana State Police 

and JPSO deputies arrived in Dallas, searched the Camry, and interviewed 

Mr. Adams and Ms. Walker. The search of the vehicle revealed 

defendant's bank statements from Bank of America and paperwork from 

victim's visit to Texas Health Resources center on May 23, 2015 at 2:00 a.m. 

for a cervical sprain.

The coroner, Dr. Marianne Eserman, determined that the cause of the 

victim's death was multiple blunt force injuries, and based on law 

enforcement reports, the manner of death was homicide. Louisiana State 

Police obtained two arrest warrants for defendant: one for second degree 

kidnapping in Orleans Parish and another for second degree murder in 

Jefferson Parish. Defendant turned himself in to the police in Shreveport, 

and he was escorted to Orleans Parish.21

A. Because Adam Littleton’s Murder Conviction Was Not a Unanimous Verdict, the

Louisiana Court of Appeals Vacated and Remanded It.

22

In April 2020, the United States Supreme Court ruled that state criminal 

jury verdicts for serious offenses must be unanimous.23 In light of that decision, 

21 State v. Littleton, 285 So.3d 1181, 1188-89 (LA Ct. App. 2019) (conviction 

reversed by State v. Littleton, 306 So.3d 558 (LA Ct. App. 5 Cir. 2020). 

22

 State v. Littleton, 306 So.3d 558 (LA Ct. App. 5 Cir. 2020).

23 Ramos v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ____, 140 S.Ct. 1390 (2020).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 12 of 21
Page 13

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

29

the Louisiana Court of Appeals remanded Littleton’s conviction in October 2020. 

The case currently awaits a new trial date before a Louisiana trial court.24 

B. Conflicting Facts Regarding the Relationship Between Adam Littleton and Jasilas 

Wright.

At his trial, the State of Louisiana alleged that Littleton was Ms. Wright’s 

pimp.25 From that allegation, the State of Louisiana also alleged that Littleton 

kidnapped Ms. Wright and was taking her back to Texas to work further as a 

prostitute.26 The Orleans Parish District Attorney, however, declined to charge 

Littleton with kidnapping.27 According to the State of Louisiana, Ms. Wright 

jumped out of the car, while they travelled westbound on Interstate 10, rather 

than continue to Texas with Littleton.28

24 The current docket from the Littleton prosecution is attached to this Motion as 

Exhibit 4. 

25 Littleton, 285 So.3d at 1190. 

26 Id. at 1195.

27 Ken Daley, “Orleans Prosecutor Refuses Kidnapping Case in Jasilas Wright’s 

I-10 Death,” NOLA.com (online version of New Orleans Times Picayune), 

August 12, 2015, available at 

https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_ecf45df9-eb36-5ed5-9eb2-

18db329ca388.html (last visited August 29, 2021).

 

28 Id.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 13 of 21
Page 14

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

29

On information and belief, Littleton’s defense was that he and Ms. Wright 

were dating and he was neither trafficking her nor kidnapping her. Without that 

kidnapping felony, Littleton cannot be guilty of felony murder. 

The spit verdict at trial shows that the State of Louisiana’s case was not a 

slam dunk. 

C. It is not Clear What Evidence the Government Will Use to Show that Backpage 

Was in Any Way Involved in Ms. Wright’s Death. 

At some point Littleton likely will be retried. A second jury will have to 

determine what happened in Littleton’s car that night. 

What is clear is that Backpage was in no way involved in Ms. Wright’s 

death. Backpage did not introduce Littleton to Ms. Wright. Backpage did not 

encourage their relationship, whatever that may have been. Backpage did not 

make it in any way easier for Littleton and Ms. Wright to travel from New 

Orleans to Dallas. Backpage did not force Ms. Wright into Littleton’s car. 

Backpage did not get into an argument with Ms. Wright. Backpage did not 

either stop on I-10 to let her out of the car or prompt her to jump out of the car. 

III. Other Third Party Crimes Witnesses on the Government’s Witness List.

The MacMartin and Wright cases are not isolated instances that could be 

chalked up to the Government overlooking them on its current witness list. The 

Defendants point to the following witnesses, with brief summaries:

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 14 of 21
Page 15

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

29

Yvonne Ambrose (Government Witness 4) is the mother of Desiree 

Robinson. Desiree Robinson was murdered by a prostitution john in 2016. 

Carrie Landau (Government Witness 43) investigated Ms. Robinson’s 

murder. The Defendants can find no link in the Superseding Indictment or 

the Government’s disclosure that connects any Backpage ad to Ms. 

Robinson’s murder.

Destinee Ortiz (Government Witness 58 and “Victim 5” in the Superseding 

Indictment) is associated with the ad listed in Count 2 of the Superseding 

Indictment. The Government lists Brian Griffen (Government Witness 35) 

on its witness list, but he did not investigate the posting of the ad in Count 

2. Rather, according to the Government’s disclosures, Griffen only would 

testify about his investigation of a cab driver, who was charged with 

statutory rape of Ms. Ortiz and another girl, who was staying in a hotel 

with the cab driver. Griffen even stated in his correspondence to the 

Government’s case agents, “the case really didn’t have a ton to do with 

Backpage. In fact next to the motel where they were staying is an adult 

video store.” While the Government may be able to call Ortiz to testify 

about the ad in Count 2 in the indictment attributed to her, the rest of this 

evidence is wholly unrelated to the Defendants’ conduct. 

Andrea Benson (Government Witness 8) is expected to testify about the 

abuse she sustained from her pimp. None of her testimony relates to any 

ad posted on Backpage.

Megan Lundstrom (Government Witness 47) is expected to testify about 

the abuse she sustained from her pimp. The Government also may seek 

testimony from her regarding a friend of hers, who also was a prostitute, 

who was killed by a pimp in Wyoming. None of this testimony relates to 

any ad posted on Backpage. 

Jordan Thurman (Government Witness 76) is expected to testify about her 

work as a prostitute starting when she was sixteen-years-old. She may 

testify about being robbed at gunpoint and/or about being one of four 

people working for a pimp. None of this testimony relates to any ad 

posted on Backpage. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 15 of 21
Page 16

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

29

Chris Garcia (Government Witness 29) is the father of decedent Alexus 

Garcia. Colleen Shinn (Government Witness 71), retired Dallas PD who 

investigated murder case in 2015. 

Christina Harrison (Government Witness 38), is the mother of decedent 

Cynthia Worthy. Arshana Sanders (Government Witness 67), is the halfsister of Ms. Worthy. Detrick Mott (Government Witness 54), works for 

the Detroit Police Department who investigated the Ms. Worthy’s murder 

in August 2015. 

In addition to the MacMartin and Wright prosecutions, these eight 

examples bring us to nineteen witnesses on the Government’s list who either 

should be entirely precluded from testimony or severely curtailed in their 

testimony to focus only on the specific facts set forth in the counts of the 

Superseding Indictment.

The following witnesses also appear related only to instances of thirdparty crimes that do not involve advertising on Backpage:

Government Witness 5 Beck, Anya

Government Witness 6 Beck, Sara

Government Witness 13 Cervantes, Astrid

Government Witness 14 Cervantes, Savannah

Government Witness 19 Fasset, Byron

Government Witness 22 Figueroa, Naomi

Government Witness 23 Frazier, Shaniqua

Government Witness 24 Fritzke, Derek

Government Witness 26 Gallagher, Mike

Government Witness 27 Gallegos, Penelope

Government Witness 28 Gaughan, Daniel

Government Witness 30 Gavin, Donna

Government Witness 32 Gotjen, Deidre

Government Witness 36 Guyer, William

Government Witness 43 Landau, Carrie

Government Witness 45 Leary, Brehanna

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 16 of 21
Page 17

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

29

Government Witness 55 Murray, Eric

Government Witness 63 Pride, Kubiiki

Government Witness 65 Rosseland, Jamie

Government Witness 66 Russo, Michael

Government Witness 72 Smillie, Ella

Government Witness 73 Svendgard, Jessika

Government Witness 74 Svendgard, Nacole

Government Witness 77 Toleston, Chanel

Government Witness 78 Umperowicz, Thomas

ARGUMENT

This Court properly found in its prior orders that evidence surrounding 

homicides such as these are wholly inappropriate in this trial. 

Only the most pedestrian view of the MacMartin and Wright homicides 

could prompt even speculation that they are relevant to any of the charges in this 

case. Both of these cases are textbook examples of irrelevant evidence. 

Superseding Indictment charges the Defendants with promoting prostitution and 

money laundering. None of the Defendants, individually, are implicated in 

either of these homicides. 

Evidence surrounding any third party crime creates considerable 

confusing diversions for the jury. Will they be asked to determine if any of the 

Defendants contributed to either of these women’s deaths? As to just the Mac 

Martin and Wright homicides, the seven witnesses pertaining to both of these 

homicides will take three to four days of trial testimony – to what end? 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 17 of 21
Page 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

26

27

28

29

As to the two Backpage advertisements pertaining to Ms. Wright that 

comprise Counts Nineteen and Twenty of the Superseding Indictment, the 

Government can attempt to prove-up those Counts without delving into the facts 

of Ms. Wright’s death. Any mention of her death and the following prosecution 

of Adam Littleton, however, will cause a mistrial. 

More than half of the Government’s listed witnesses have nothing to do 

with the posting of the ads at issue in the indictment. Yet, the Government 

demands of this Court, our jurors, the Defendants, and legion other interested 

people twelve weeks to put on irrelevant, cumulative, and incendiary evidence. 

If the Court is uncomfortable precluding the testimony of all of the above 

witnesses before the trial begins, then the Defense would ask the Court to do two 

things. First, preclude the Government from mentioning any of these third party 

crimes in its opening statement. Second, require to Government to proffer, 

outside of the presence of the jury, what, exactly, it intends to elicit with each 

witness’ testimony. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants ask this Court to preclude 

evidence of the deaths of Crystal MacMartin and Jasilas Wright. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 31st day of August, 2021.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 18 of 21
Page 19

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

29

Attorney for Defendant Vaught

DATED: August 31, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Whitney Z. Bernstein

Bienert | Katzman PC

By: /s/ Thomas H. Bienert, Jr.

Thomas H. Bienert Jr.

Attorneys for Defendant James Larkin

DATED: August 31, 2021 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

DATED: August 31, 2021 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

DATED: August 31, 2021 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 19 of 21
Page 20

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

29

DATED: August 31, 2021 The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 20 of 21
Page 21

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

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On August 31, 2021, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, filed the 

foregoing with the Arizona District Court’s electronic filing system. Based on 

my training and experience with electronic filing in the federal courts, it is my 

understanding that a copy of this pleading will be electronically served upon 

opposing counsel and co-defendants’ counsel, upon its submission to the Court. 

Respectfully submitted this 31st day of August, 2021.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1254 Filed 08/31/21 Page 21 of 21