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 

GARY M. RESTAINO 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 

Telephone (602) 514-7500 

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Telephone (213) 894-2426 

NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI 

Acting Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone (202) 412-4136 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants. 

CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO 

PROPOSED LIMITING 

INSTRUCTION [Doc. 1730] 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 4
- 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

In its Trial Brief, the United States proposed several safeguards to address any 

potential risk of unfair prejudice to Defendants from the use of exhibits and testimony that 

reference terms like “sex trafficking,” “child sex trafficking,” or “human trafficking.” Doc. 

1642 at 4-9. Defendants now take issue with the limiting instruction that the United States 

proposed. Doc. 1730. The United States respectfully submits that the Court should use the 

government’s instruction, either as originally proposed in the Trial Brief or as modified 

below. 

Jurors: The evidence and testimony that you will receive at trial will 

occasionally involve terms such as “sex trafficking,” “child sex trafficking,” 

or “human trafficking.” As used in this case, those terms should be 

understood as referring to the exchange of sex for money—what is 

commonly known as “prostitution.” Any use of those terms is not meant to 

imply that any Defendant has been charged with, or may be guilty of, the 

separate crimes of sex trafficking, child sex trafficking, or human trafficking, 

or promoting or facilitating those crimes. Instead, Defendants are charged 

only with the crime of conspiracy to promote, or facilitate the promotion of, 

business enterprises involving prostitution offenses (Count 1); individual

crimes of promoting, or facilitating the promotion of, business enterprises 

involving prostitution offenses (Counts 2-51); and money laundering

(Counts 52-100). 

When evidence that includes the word “trafficking” is offered at trial, it often 

will be presented for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matters 

asserted in that evidence. When such evidence is offered for a purpose other 

than for the truth, I will instruct you on the purpose for which you may 

consider the evidence.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 4
- 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

This modified instruction addresses Defendants’ concern about “clearly stating”

that Defendants are not charged with crimes involving trafficking. Doc. 1270 at 3. It also 

incorporates Defendants’ suggestion that the instruction inform the jury that “trafficking”-

related evidence often will not be offered for the truth, and that the Court will provide 

instruction on the purpose for which the jury may consider the evidence. Doc. 1270 at 3-4. 

The remainder of Defendants’ instruction misdescribes the charges in the Superseding 

Indictment, and is lengthy and repetitive. It should not be adopted. 

The rest of Defendants’ Objection attempts to relitigate the Court’s prior orders, 

including Docs. 1156 and 1643. The Court has already held that evidence showing 

Defendants’ knowledge of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking is admissible and not 

unfairly prejudicial, particularly when linked to Defendants’ notice, knowledge, or intent 

concerning their website’s operations. Doc. 1156 at 3-4. The Court recently reaffirmed its 

rulings regarding this evidence. See Doc. 1643 at 4 (agreeing with the United States that 

“there are no new facts, and the law of the case permits them to show that Defendants knew 

about and intended to promote or facilitate prostitution, and that sex trafficking and child 

sex trafficking are both subsets of prostitution”); id. at 5 (“reiterating the prior court’s 

Order (Doc. 1156) that the Government may not illicit irrelevant and cumulative testimony 

about the abuse sex trafficking victims suffered”). The Court should reject Defendants’ 

latest attempt to relitigate these rulings. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

 Respectfully submitted this 28th day of August, 2023.

 GARY M. RESTAINO 

 United States Attorney 

 District of Arizona NICOLE M. ARGENTIERI 

 Acting Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

 s/ Peter S. Kozinets 

KEVIN M. RAPP 

 MARGARET PERLMETER 

 PETER KOZINETS 

 ANDREW STONE 

DANIEL BOYLE

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

 AUSTIN M. BERRY 

 Trial Attorney 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on August 28, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record. 

s/ Daniel Parke

Daniel Parke 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1738 Filed 08/28/23 Page 4 of 4