Page 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

29

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 CR-2018-0422-SMB

MOTION TO STRIKE 

SURPLUSAGE FROM THE 

INDICTMENT

NOW COMES the Defendant, Joye Vaught, by and through her counsel of 

record, Joy Bertrand, to ask this Court to strike surplusage from the Indictment. 

As further grounds therefore, the Defendant submits the following:

UNDERLYING FACTS

Riddled throughout the Indictment is hyperbolic language that cannot be 

justified as descriptive legal terms or factual assertions. (See, e.g., descriptions of 

ads that the Government alleges were for underage girls at ECF Doc. 3 at 33-34) 

The Indictment also contains descriptions of assaults and the deaths – to include 

Joy Bertrand, Esq.

PO Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Telephone: 480-656-3919

Fax: 480-361-4694

joyous@mailbag.com

www.joybertrandlaw.com

Arizona State Bar No. 024181

ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 785 Filed 10/18/19 Page 1 of 5
Page 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

29

murders – of women and underage girls, who were victims of human trafficking. 

(ECF Doc. 3 at 34-35) The Indictment also describes sex trafficking activity that 

occurred in other countries – even other continents. (ECF Doc. 3 at 31) The 

Indictment does not imply that Ms. Vaught was involved in any of that conduct. 

Yet, she has had to answer these publicly-filed charges, which were further 

promoted through the US DOJ’s press releases.1

ARGUMENT

Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states, “Surplusage. 

Upon the defendant's motion the court may strike surplusage from the 

indictment or information.” Rule 7(d) protects a defendant against prejudicial 

or inflammatory allegations that are neither relevant nor material to the 

charges.” United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535, 544–45 (9th Cir. 1983); see 

also Fed. R. Crim. P. 7 advisory committee's note. The decision to 

11 See, e.g., “Justice Department Leads Effort to Seize Backpage.Com, the 

Internet’s Leading Forum for Prostitution Ads, and Obtains 93-Count Federal 

Indictment,” April 9, 2018, available at 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-leads-effort-seizebackpagecom-internet-s-leading-forum-prostitution-ads (last visited October 18, 

2019); and see, e.g., “Backpage’s Co-founder and CEO, As Well As Several 

Backpage-Related Corporate Entities, Enter Guilty Pleas,” April 12, 2018, 

available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/backpage-s-co-founder-and-ceowell-several-backpage-related-corporate-entities-enter-guilty (last visited 

October 18, 2019). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 785 Filed 10/18/19 Page 2 of 5
Page 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

29

strike surplusage is subject to this Court’s discretion. United States v. 

Laurienti, 611 F.3d 530, 546 (9th Cir. 2010); United States v. Terrigno, 838 F.2d 371, 

373 (9th Cir. 1988).

Here, rather than simply allege that the Defendants ran a web site that 

promoted illegal prostitution, the Indictment includes allegations of violent, 

horrific criminal conduct towards the women in the ads. There is no allegation –

and certainly there would be no proof to support it – that Ms. Vaught 

participated in any assaultive conduct, any homicide, or contributed to any 

woman’s death. Ms. Vaught certainly has not been involved in activities that 

occurred outside of the United States. 

The Government attempt to say that by working as the assistant operations 

manager at a huge website company that hosted prostitution ads, Ms. Vaught 

was tangentially involved in these other crimes and tragic deaths. Those 

allegations would be, in the most charitable light, a stretch. 

At a time when Americans increasingly support the legalization of 

prostitution,2 the reality is that these additional allegations are designed to 

2 See, e.g., Jasmine Garsd, “Should Sex Work Be Decriminalized? Some Activists 

Say It's Time,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio, March 22, 2019, 

available at https://www.npr.org/2019/03/22/705354179/should-sex-work-bedecriminalized-some-activists-say-its-time (last visited October 18, 2019). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 785 Filed 10/18/19 Page 3 of 5
Page 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

29

inflame the pool of potential jurors and the jurors who sit on this trial. That risk 

is exactly why this language must be struck from the Indictment.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully asks this Court to 

grant her Motion to Strike Surplusage.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on October 19, 2019.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 785 Filed 10/18/19 Page 4 of 5
Page 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

29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On October 18, 2019, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, Joye 

Vaught, filed the Defendant’s Motion to Strike Surplusage with the Arizona 

District Court’s electronic filing system. Based on my training and experience 

with electronic filing in the federal courts, it is my understanding that a copy of 

this request will be electronically served upon opposing counsel and 

codefendant counsel upon its submission to the Court.

Respectfully submitted this Eighteenth day of October, 2019.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 785 Filed 10/18/19 Page 5 of 5