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

Timothy J. Eckstein, 018321

Joseph N. Roth, 025725

Sarah P. Lawson, 036436

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

2929 North Central Avenue, 20th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793

(602) 640-9000

teckstein@omlaw.com

jroth@omlaw.com

slawson@omlaw.com

Attorneys for James Larkin

Additional counsel on following page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

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

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO 

PRECLUDE DEFENSE FROM 

REFERENCING THE PREVIOUS 

TRIAL AND PRIOR CASES NOT 

INVOLVING BACKPAGE

(DOC. 1595)

(Oral Argument Requested)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY 15873, admitted pro hac vice)

Erin E. McCampbell (NY 4480166, admitted pro hac vice)

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

(716) 849-1333

pcambria@lglaw.com

emccampbell@lglaw.com

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

Bruce S. Feder (AZ 004832)

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

2930 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

(602) 257-0135

bf@federlawpa.com

Eric Walter Kessler

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

(480) 644-0093

Eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Scott Spear

Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW P.C.

1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067

(310) 201-2100

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

gpanchapakesan.@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

Attorneys for John Brunst

David S. Eisenberg

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

(602) 237-5076

david@eisenbergplc.com

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 2 of 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

3

Joy Malby Bertrand

JOY BERTRAND ESQ LLC

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

(480) 656-3919

joyous@mailbag.com

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 3 of 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

4

During opening statements at the first trial, counsel for Defendants referenced 

Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines to show the sliding scale of nudity in other 

pop culture mediums. Doc. 1342 at 84:22-85:10 (“Playboy was . . . tame, although they 

had nude printouts in it. . . . Same thing with the next step up, which was Penthouse, which 

was a little more risqué . . . And then we got to Hustler Magazine, which was very risqué 

. . . .”). The government did not object, nor did it have a basis for doing so. The 

government now argues for (1) a broad rule against references to “other cases” not 

involving Backpage, and (2) restrictions on references to the fact that the first trial ended 

in a mistrial. Doc. 1595 at 3. The Court should deny the government’s motion for the 

following reasons.

First, the government’s motion misunderstands counsel’s references to Playboy, 

Penthouse, and Hustler, which were not “multiple, oblique references to various obscenity 

cases.” Doc. 1595 at 2. The government does not cite, nor can it, to any statements in the 

first trial’s opening where counsel was describing a court case in which Playboy, Penthouse, 

or Hustler was a party, or any court rule stemming from such a case. As is evident from 

the transcript, counsel’s references to the Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler previewed 

evidence about the content moderation rules applied to images on Backpage.com; that they 

wanted the equivalent of R-rated content, not NC-17 or XXX graphic content. The 

government’s assertion that the “court instructs on the law, not attorneys,” has no 

applicability to these factual issues.

Second, the government asserts that references to “these cases” should be 

precluded as irrelevant. Even if it were true that the Defendants intended to mention cases 

involving Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler, any attempt to preclude such references is 

premature and overbroad. The government concludes that any references to these or other

unspecified cases “have no relevance to this prosecution.” Doc. 1595 at 4. Where the 

Court lacks context to analyze the admissibility of such statements, the court must deny 

the motion. See Doc. 1162 at 2 (denying the government’s motion in limine because it 

lacked “the specific circumstances and content” surrounding the evidence). The 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 4 of 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

5

government’s motion seeking to preclude evidence on relevance grounds without any 

context or background should be denied. Matsuura v. E.I. du Pont DeNemours & Co., No. 

00-00328 SOM-LEK, 2006 WL 5249743, at *2 (D. Haw. July 10, 2006) (“[R]elevance 

cannot be determined in a vacuum but is dictated by the issues and circumstances in each 

particular case.”); Jack B. Weinstein & Margaret A. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence Manual 

§ 6.01[1] (2006) (“Relevancy, as the Advisory Committee notes, is not an inherent 

characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relationship between an item of 

evidence and a matter properly provable in the case.”) (internal citations omitted). If 

defense counsel or a witness refers to a legal case to which Backpage was not a party, the 

government may object at that time, and the Court may decide on the objection with the 

benefit of the context in which the statement is made. The request for a blanket rule 

precluding, generally, references to “other cases” is unjustified, premature, and must be 

denied.

Third, the government seeks to preclude any references to the prior mistrial. 

Defendants agree that references to testimony or other matters at the first trial can be made 

without informing the jury that the trial ended in a mistrial. Accordingly, a specific order 

from the Court is not needed. If using testimony from the mistrial as impeachment, for 

example, Defendants intend to appropriately refer to it as prior testimony given under 

oath. To the extent that the government finds that characterization is objectionable, it can 

object in the course of trial. The Court should deny this portion of the motion as moot.

Conclusion. 

The government’s motion at Doc. 1595 should be denied.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 5 of 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 

6 

DATED this 15th day of June, 2023. 

OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

By s/ Joseph N. Roth

 Timothy J. Eckstein 

Joseph N. Roth

Sarah P. Lawson

2929 North Central, 20th Floor

Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2794

Attorneys for James Larkin

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

By s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (w/permission) 

 Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (pro hac vice) 

Erin E. McCampbell (pro hac vice) 

 42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

 Buffalo, New York 14202

Attorneys for Michael Lacey

FEDER LAW OFFICE PA

By s/ Bruce S. Feder (w/permission) 

 Bruce S. Feder 

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

By s/ Eric W. Kessler (w/permission) 

 Eric W. Kessler 

6720 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

Attorneys for Scott Spear 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 6 of 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 

7 

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT,

NESSIM, DROOKS, LINCENBERG & 

RHOW P.C.

By s/ Gary S. Lincenberg (w/permission) 

 Gary S. Lincenberg 

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Ariel A. Neuman 

1875 Century Park E., Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067

Attorneys for John Brunst

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

By s/ David S. Eisenberg (w/permission) 

 David S. Eisenberg 

3550 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Attorneys for Andrew Padilla

JOY BERTRAND LAW 

By s/ Joy M. Bertrand (w/permission) 

 Joy M. Bertrand 

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252

Attorneys for Joye Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1609 Filed 06/15/23 Page 7 of 7