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

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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (NY Bar No.1430909, admitted pro hac vice) 

Erin E. McCampbell (NY Bar No. 4480166, admitted pro hac vice) 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120 

Buffalo, New York 14202 

Telephone: (716) 849-1333 

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580 

pcambria@lglaw.com 

emccampbell@lglaw.com 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants. 

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB 

MICHAEL LACEY’S RESPONSE TO 

THE COURT’S ORDER ON 

CONTINUANCE AND SEVERANCE 

Mr. Lacey submits the instant response to the Court’s request for the parties’ positions on 

severance. 

On March 9, 2023, Co-Defendants James Larkin and Scott Spear moved for a continuance 

of the June 20, 2023 trial date on the basis that their new counsel would be ineffective if not given 

additional time to review the voluminous trial documents, discovery, and case history (“Motion”). 

(See Doc. 1526.) Michael Lacey did not oppose the Motion because Mr. Lacey’s counsel and Mr. 

Larkin’s prior counsel had divided responsibility for trial preparation, including witness and exhibit 

preparation, based on relevance to their clients. Mr. Larkin’s new counsel had agreed to take 

responsibility for the same witnesses and exhibits as Mr. Larkin’s prior counsel. When Mr. Larkin’s 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1535 Filed 03/17/23 Page 1 of 3
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

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

new counsel stated that he would be ineffective if he was not afforded additional time to prepare, 

that meant that Mr. Lacey’s counsel, too, would be ineffective if the trial was not continued because 

it is not possible for Mr. Lacey’s counsel to take over preparation of witnesses and exhibits that Mr. 

Larkin’s counsel had agreed to handle since the inception of the case and to be ready by June 20, 

2023. 

On March 9, 2023, this Court issued an order requesting “the parties’ positions on whether 

severing Defendants Lacey and Larkin for a separate trial has previously been considered, and whether, 

under the circumstances, judicial economy and the Defendants’ interests would be better served by 

setting Defendants Lacey and Larkin for a separate trial.” (Doc. 1527 at 1 (footnote omitted).) 

On March 14, 2023, the government filed its response, opposing both the continuance and 

severance. (Doc. 1530.) 

Mr. Lacey submits the instant response to the Court’s request. First, Mr. Lacey and his 

counsel are not aware of any prior requests for or consideration of severance of Mr. Lacey and Mr. 

Larkin from the other Defendants. 

Second, Mr. Lacey does not oppose a severance that takes into account the inability of Mr. 

Larkin’s counsel to be ready by the current trial date because current counsel for Mr. Lacey cannot 

handle the investigation and preparation of witnesses and exhibits previously agreed to be handled 

by Mr. Larkin’s counsel by June 20, 2023. 

 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 17th day of March, 2023, 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP 

 By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. 

Attorneys for Michael Lacey 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1535 Filed 03/17/23 Page 2 of 3
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

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

On March 17, 2023, a PDF version 

of this document was filed with 

Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

System for filing and for Transmittal 

Of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 

Following CM/ECF registrants: 

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov 

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov 

Daniel Boyle, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov 

Margaret Perlmeter, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov 

Austin Maxwell Berry, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1535 Filed 03/17/23 Page 3 of 3