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

KENNETH POLITE

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 

JOINT PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 6
- 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

In accordance with the Court’s Orders (Docs. 1524, 1546, 1621), the parties submit 

this Joint Pretrial Memorandum.

a. Counts

There are a total of 100 counts in this case. The United States intends to proceed in 

its case-in-chief on every count alleged in the Superseding Indictment (SI). (Doc. 230.)

b. Forfeiture Allegations

With respect to any forfeiture in this action, forfeiture has been alleged in the SI, 

and in the event of a conviction on one or more counts alleged in the SI, the United States 

intends to seek forfeiture consistent with the allegations of the SI. Defendants have not 

indicated whether they elect to try the forfeiture allegations to the jury or the Court.

There is currently pending a related civil forfeiture proceeding in the United States 

District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 18-cv-82420, before the Hon. 

R. Gary Klausner. That proceeding is stayed by stipulation of the parties there pending 

resolution of this proceeding. 

c. Notices

The United States has filed notices to rely on 902(11) certifications, which has 

already been ruled on by the Court. (Doc. 1317.) In that Order, the Court found that the 

bank records have been authenticated and are not excluded by the rule against hearsay. 

(Doc. 1317 at 3.) Defendants’ right to object for other reasons is preserved. (Id. at 1.) In 

that same Order, the Court also ruled on the admissibility of many of the United States’ 

summary exhibits and held that the government’s summary exhibits A, D through I were 

admissible pursuant to Rule 1006 subject to foundational testimony, and Exhibits B and C 

were not admissible at that time. (Id. at 2-3.) 

d. Motions in Limine

1. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony, Statements, or 

Arguments that Escort Services, Dating Ads, Massage Services and Adult 

Advertising are Unlawful or Presumed to Involve Prostitution (Docs. 

1588, 1601) and the United States’ Response. (Doc. 1604.)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 6
- 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

2. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant and Prejudicial 

Testimony (Doc. 1589) and the United States’ Response. (Doc. 1613.)

3. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to First 

Amendment and Free Speech (Doc. 1590) and the Defendants’ Response 

(Doc. 1602.)

4. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Alleged Former 

Prostitution Marketing Strategies (Doc. 1591) and the United States’ 

Response (Doc. 1603.)

5. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Arguing 

Legality of Ads (Doc. 1592) and the Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1612.) 

6. Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Irrelevant and Inadmissible 

Evidence Re: Mersey and Elms (Doc. 1593) and the United States’ 

Response (Doc. 1607.)

7. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Section 320 

of the Communication Decency Act (Doc. 1594) and the Defendants’ 

Response (Doc. 1615.) 

8. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Certain Other 

Litigation (Doc. 1595) and the Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1609.)

9. United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Introducing 

Non-Witness or Non-Evidence (Doc. 1596) and the Defendants’ 

Response (Doc. 1610.) 

10.United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude References to Court 

Decisions, Rulings, Opinions or Results from Prior Litigation Filed by or 

Against Backpage.com, LCC or its owner(s) (Doc. 1597) and the 

Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1616.) 

11.United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Commenting 

on Legitimacy of Prosecution (Doc. 1598) and the Defendants’ Response 

(Doc. 1614.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 6
- 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

12.United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants’ Purported Good 

Faith Reliance on Advice of Counsel (Doc. 1599) and the Defendants’ 

Response (Doc. 1608.)

13.United States’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Defense from Referencing 

Craigslist Meetings with Attorneys General (Doc. 1600) and the 

Defendants’ Response (Doc. 1611.) 

e. Other Motions

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to 

Dismiss the Superseding Indictment. (Doc. 1622.) The United States’ response is due July 

3, 2023 and Defendants’ reply is due July 6, 2023. 

f. Stipulations

The Court made rulings about some of the evidence in a previous Order. (Doc. 

1212.) 

For the first trial, the Court ordered each side to provide opposing counsel the name 

of each witness and the exhibits it sought to admit through that witness 48 hours before the 

witness was expected to testify.1

 (Doc. 1343 at 81-82.) 

The parties have not agreed on any stipulations of fact that may be read or otherwise 

presented to the jury. 

g. Number of Witnesses and Exhibits

The United States expects to call around 50 witnesses. Defendants may call around 

50 witnesses. The United States has marked nearly 2000 exhibits, but will not seek to 

admit all of them. Defendants expect to mark approximately 1200 exhibits to be potentially 

admitted at trial. 

1 For the retrial, the United States offered a stipulation where the parties would identify witnesses and their corresponding exhibits one week before the witness’s expected 

testimony, in exchange for handling any objections to the exhibits outside of the jury’s presence. Because defendants rejected this offer, the United States requests the Court 

continue with the 48-hour rule as ordered in the first trial. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 4 of 6
- 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

h. Estimated Length of Trial

- 8-12 hours: Jury Selection

- 1.5 hours: Opening Statement (United States)

- 1.0 hours: Opening Statements (per Defendant, total of 6 hours) 

- 200 hours: Government’s Case (including rebuttal)

- 200 hours: Defendants’ Case

- 2.5 hours: Closing Argument (United States)

- 2 hours: Closing Arguments (per Defendant, total of 12 hours) 

- 430 hours: Total

i. Interpreter

An interpreter will not be needed at trial.

j. Procedures for Expediting Trial

The parties will continue to discuss potential stipulations.

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of June, 2023.

 GARY M. RESTAINO United States Attorney District of Arizona

 KENNETH POLITE Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

s/Kevin M. Rapp KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER KOZINETS

ANDREW STONE

DANIEL BOYLE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

AUSTIN M. BERRY

Trial Attorney

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 5 of 6
- 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

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 30, 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

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1625 Filed 06/30/23 Page 6 of 6