- 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

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting 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

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

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.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

UNITED STATES’ OBJECTIONS TO 

DEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED 

SUPPLEMENTAL/REVISED 

QUESTIONS FOR JUROR 

QUESTIONNAIRE (Doc. 1348)

The United States files its objections to Defendants’ proposed supplemental/revised 

questions for juror questionnaire. (Doc. 1348.)

The United States has no objections to revised questions 50, 57(a), 61, or 77.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1360 Filed 10/22/21 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

The United States objects to supplemental questions 76(a) and 76(b). Defendants 

also revised original question 76 and have renumbered it as 76(c). The United States 

believes that the original question 76 is sufficient to obtain relevant information from the 

prospective jurors on the subject of whether websites should be responsible for the content 

posted by the website’s users. Question 76 as written in the United States’ proposed juror 

questionnaire (Doc. 1349-1 at 22) should be included. 

Defendants’ proposed question 76(a) reads:

Do you believe that websites hosting third-party content (such as Google/YouTube, 

Rumble, Facebook/Instagram, Parler, Twitter, Gab, and others) should be able to decide 

what content will be allowed on their websites? Please explain. (Doc. 1348-1 at 1.)

The principal purpose of voir dire is to identify bias. See Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 

1025, 1038 (1984); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1994). It is not to 

indoctrinate, inculcate, influence, insinuate, inform, or ingratiate. Mixed Chicks LLC v. 

Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 879 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2012). This 

proposed question is confusing and irrelevant. First, the question fails to add anything 

beyond what is already covered in original question 76. Second, this question doesn’t 

relate to any material issues in dispute at trial. The issue before the jury will not involve 

Defendants’ inability “to decide what content will be allowed on their website,” but rather 

whether they are guilty of the 100 counts charged in the Superseding Indictment. Third, it 

is hornbook law that prostitution advertisements and solicitations are forms of commercial 

speech that are not constitutionally protected. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations 

Comm’n, 413 U.S. 376, 388 (1973) (“We have no doubt that a newspaper constitutionally 

could be forbidden to publish a want ad...soliciting prostitutes.”). With this proposed 

question, Defendants seek to argue and indoctrinate the jury on their theory of the case and 

what they think the law should be, which is impermissible voir dire. This proposed 

question should not be given. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1360 Filed 10/22/21 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

Defendants’ proposed question 76(b) reads:

Websites hosting third-party content often engage in ‘content moderation’? Do you 

know what ‘content moderation’ is? If yes, please describe. (Doc. 1348-1 at 1.) 

The principal purpose of voir dire is to identify bias. See Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 

1025, 1038 (1984); Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1994). It is not to 

indoctrinate, inculcate, influence, insinuate, inform, or ingratiate. Mixed Chicks LLC v. 

Sally Beauty Supply LLC, 879 F.Supp.2d 1093, 1094 (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2012). Asking a 

juror to “describe” his or her understanding of “content moderation” during voir dire is 

inappropriate. If a juror even has an idea about “content moderation,” it’s wholly irrelevant 

and immaterial to his or her duties as a juror. The jurors will need to evaluate the evidence 

presented at trial and how Backpage’s “content moderation” played a role in the criminal 

case against Defendants. How other websites may or may not utilize “content moderation” 

is not relevant. Defendants are attempting to relate Backpage’s practices with other 

websites that are currently in operation in an effort to provide a positive association of 

Backpage for the jury panel. This is nothing more than an attempt to argue and indoctrinate 

the jury on Defendants’ theory of the case, which is impermissible voir dire. This proposed 

question should not be given.

Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of October, 2021.

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Andrew C. Stone

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1360 Filed 10/22/21 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

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 22, 2021, 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/ Marjorie Dieckman U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1360 Filed 10/22/21 Page 4 of 4