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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

James Larkin (2), et al.,

Defendants.

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

DEFENDANT JAMES LARKIN’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND 

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

Defendant James Larkin moves to the Court to amend the order setting his 

conditions of supervised release (Doc. 93) under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B) and (3) to 

order removal of his ankle monitor as it is not the least restrictive condition to reasonably 

assure both his appearance and the safety of the community. 18 U.S.C. § 3412(c)(1)(B).

Counsel has spoken with U.S. Pretrial Services, which supports the removal of Mr. 

Larkin’s ankle monitor. Counsel has also spoken with the government, which does not 

oppose this motion. Excludable delay may occur as a result of this motion. 18 U.S.C. § 

3161(h)(1).

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Larkin is seventy-three years old and has lived virtually his entire life in the 

Phoenix area. He has strong ties to the Phoenix community. During his nearly 40-year

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1574 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 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

2

career in Arizona, Mr. Larkin built the Phoenix New Times into a national newspaper 

company and created for himself a reputation as an exceptional journalist, philanthropist, 

and community leader.

1

 Mr. Larkin has been married to his wife, Margaret Larkin, for 

over 25 years. He is the father of six children. He has two grandchildren.

Before the government filed the indictment in this case, Mr. Larkin offered to selfsurrender. Instead, the government proceeded by arrest warrant, arresting Mr. Larkin at 

the airport and escorting him off of a plane. (Doc. 183 at 3.) Mr. Larkin has diligently 

complied with all conditions of his pretrial release. For example, on December 22, 2019, 

Mr. Larkin broke his ankle. The emergency room doctors removed his electronic monitor 

to treat his ankle, including a four-hour surgery to repair the fracture several days later. 

During that time, Mr. Larkin followed all Court-ordered conditions, including reporting

daily to the Pretrial Services Office by phone and filing with the Court periodic updates 

on his medical condition. (See Docs. 833, 836, 845, 856, 875.)

Mr. Larkin has attended all necessary Court appearances, including the first trial, 

and has been in constant contact with his attorneys and his assigned pretrial services 

officers throughout the five-year pendency of this case. As noted above, Mr. Larkin’s 

Pretrial Services Officer supports the removal of his ankle monitor.

II. ARGUMENT

The Court “may at any time amend the order to impose additional or different 

conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(C)(3). Bail conditions must be the “least 

restrictive” means to “reasonably assure” the person’s appearance and the community’s 

safety. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(1)(B). The Court may “at any time amend the order to 

impose additional or different conditions of release.” 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(3). In 

determining appropriate conditions for release, the Court must consider three factors: the 

1 Mr. Larkin, along with co-defendant Michael Lacey, received a $3.75 million settlement 

as a settlement from civil rights violations perpetrated by former Maricopa County Sheriff

Joseph Arpaio for their wrongful arrests. Mr. Larkin and Mr. Lacey donated the funds to 

nonprofits aiding immigrants and refugees.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1574 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendant’s history and characteristics, the potential danger to the community, and the 

nature of the offense and the weight of the evidence against him. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g). 

All three factors weigh in favor of removal of Mr. Larkin’s ankle monitor.

A. Mr. Larkin’s history and characteristics support striking the ankle 

monitor condition. 

Mr. Larkin is 73 years old, owns property in Phoenix, and has strong familial ties 

in Arizona. He has no prior criminal convictions and no criminal history, other than a 

wrongful arrest for publishing criticism of former Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio

and pending criminal charges in California. The majority of the California charges were 

dismissed. Mr. Larkin was released on a $250,000 bond, permitted to travel

internationally, and was not subject to location monitoring in the California case.

Mr. Larkin has a legitimate need for the removal of the ankle monitor. He has 

been subject to government monitoring for five years. Wearing the ankle monitor 

negatively effects his quality of life, making exercise more difficult, drawing stares, and 

causing embarrassment wherever he goes.

Most importantly, Mr. Larkin has continuously proved his desire to fight the 

charges against him. He has attended all necessary Court hearings in the past five years 

and has worked diligently to aid his defense team. 

B. Removal of Mr. Larkin’s ankle monitor does not increase the risk of 

danger to the community.

Mr. Larkin poses no danger to the community. According to the government’s 

theory of the case, Mr. Larkin poses a risk only if he continued to operate Backpage.com. 

The government seized Backpage.com in 2018. The website has not been operational for 

five years.

C. The charges and weight of evidence do not necessitate continued ankle 

monitoring. 

The weight of the evidence is the least important factor for the Court’s 

consideration. United States v. Townsend, 897 F.2d 989, 994 (9th Cir. 1990). In March 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1574 Filed 04/14/23 Page 3 of 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

4

2018, the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Larkin and others on counts of alleged conspiracy (18 

U.S.C. § 371), violations of the Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952), and money laundering (18 

U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957). In July 2018, the government obtained a superseding indictment 

to add additional charges under the Travel Act and money laundering statutes. (See Doc. 

230.) In August 2021, Mr. Larkin and his co-defendants proceeded to trial, which ended 

when the Court granted the Defendants’ motion for mistrial.

Multiple motions have addressed the deficiencies in the government’s argument 

and proof. (See, e.g., Docs. 456, 561, 746, 782, 783, 940, 1355.) A motion to dismiss is 

currently pending. (Doc. 1577.) The inherent problems with the government’s case 

supports a finding that Mr. Larkin is not a flight risk and his ankle monitor should be 

removed.

III. CONCLUSION

Electronic monitoring is not a necessary condition to ensure Mr. Larkin’s presence 

at trial or public safety. Accordingly, Mr. Larkin respectfully requests that the Court 

amend the Order setting his conditions of supervised release (Doc. 93) to strike the 

condition of an electronic monitoring device.

A proposed Order accompanies this Motion.

DATED this 14th day of April, 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

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1574 Filed 04/14/23 Page 4 of 4