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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al. 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00422-001-PHX-SMB

ORDER 

The Court is in receipt of Defendants Michael Lacey, James Larkin, John Brunst, 

Scott Spear, Andrew Padilla, and Joye Vaught’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Presentation 

of Certain Evidence, (Doc. 908), to which the Government responded. (Doc. 961.) 

Defendants requested oral argument, but the Court declines to hold oral argument on the 

motion, finding that it is unnecessary. The Court has considered the pleadings and the 

applicable law and now grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion for the reasons 

discussed below.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2018, a federal grand jury returned a one hundred count superseding

indictment against several of the Defendants in this case alleging that the Defendants 

engaged in various crimes related to the operation of the website Backpage.com

(“Backpage”), including conspiracy to commit a violation of the Travel Act, substantive 

Travel Act violations, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and substantive counts of 

money laundering. (Doc. 230.) The Travel Act charges related to allegations that 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 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

Defendants facilitated business enterprises involved in prostitution. Defendants bring this 

motion to move the Court in limine for an order precluding the admission of certain 

evidence at trial that Defendants contend is irrelevant, prejudicial, and bears no connection 

to the crimes charged. Specifically, Defendants seek an order precluding the Government 

from presenting evidence of: (1) sex trafficking or child-sex trafficking; (2) third-party 

criminal conduct other than prostitution; (3) a third party’s Travel Act conviction from 

1987; and (4) purported prostitution ads from printed publications. (Doc. 908 at 1.) In 

addition to being irrelevant and prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403, Fed. R. Evid., 

Defendants argue that this evidence would needlessly prolong trial, cause undue delay, and 

waste judicial resources. (Id.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“Evidence may not be admitted at trial unless it is relevant, as defined by Rule 401 

of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” United States v. Vellejo, 237 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 

2001). “Evidence is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that 

is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it 

would be without the evidence.’” Id. (citing Fed. R. Evid. 401). “Relevance is not a strict 

test.” United States EEOC v. Placer ARC, 147 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1062 (C.D. Cal. 2015) 

(quoting United States v. Miranda-Uriarte, 649 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981)). “As the 

words ‘any tendency’ suggest, it is typically quite a ‘low bar to the admissibility of 

evidence.’” Id. (quoting Capitol Specialty Ins. Corp. v. Beach Eatery & Surf Bar, LLC, 36 

F. Supp. 3d 1026, 1037 (E.D. Wash. 2014)). “The court may exclude relevant evidence if 

its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: 

unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or 

needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. When evidence is 

minimally relevant, it is likely to be minimally probative as well. United States v. Wiggan, 

700 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th Cir. 2012). Excluding otherwise relevant evidence under Rule 

403 is “an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly.” United States v. Mende, 43 F.3d 

1298, 1302 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 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

“The rule is well established that the government in a conspiracy case may submit 

proof on the full scope of the conspiracy; it is not limited in its proof to the overt acts 

alleged in the indictment.” United States v. Rizk, 660 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Evidence Related to Sex Trafficking or Child Sex Trafficking

Defendants first argue that allowing the Government to present “[e]vidence 

suggesting that Backpage ads were linked to sex trafficking or child-sex trafficking would 

be profoundly prejudicial and lack any probative value.” (Doc. 908 at 3.) Defendants point 

out that sex trafficking and child sex trafficking are not elements of the charged offenses 

under the Travel Act. Instead, the Travel Act merely requires that the Government prove 

that Defendants intended to “promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the 

promotion, management or carrying on” of prostitution offenses. 18 U.S.C. §§

1952(a)(3)(A), (b). Thus, Defendants argue that the evidence has no probative value and 

instead “would only serve to mislead the jurors and provide them with an extra-judicial 

basis to convict Defendants.” (Id. at 5.) Lastly, Defendants argue that allowing the 

Government to admit evidence of sex trafficking and child sex trafficking through their 

website would result in “trials within a trial.” (Id. at 5-6.) In response, the Government 

argues that sex trafficking and child sex trafficking are both types of prostitution with both 

crimes requiring the victim to engage in sex for financial gain. (Doc. 961 at 4 (citing 18 

U.S.C. § 1591)).

The Court agrees with the Government’s position. Sex trafficking and child sex

trafficking are, by definition, both forms of prostitution. Both are simply a subset of the 

crime. Sex trafficking and child sex trafficking require victims to engage in sex in exchange 

for payment, and the Government must prove that Defendants intended to facilitate 

prostitution through Backpage.com. Evidence that tends to prove that Defendants were 

aware that Backpage.com was being used to facilitate sex trafficking and child sex 

trafficking are extremely probative to show notice to Defendants that the website was being 

used for illegal purposes. While the prejudicial value to Defendants is high, it does not 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 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

substantially outweigh the probative value of the evidence which is also very high. See 

United States v. LeMay, 260 F.3d 1018, 1026 (9th Cir. 2001) (“All evidence introduced 

against a criminal defendant might be said to be prejudicial if it tends to prove the 

prosecution's case.”). Of course, the Court will not allow the Government to linger on the 

details of the abuse sex trafficking victims suffered as a result of being trafficked.

1

However, the Court will allow evidence of the fact that people were trafficked using 

Backpage.com at trial subject to specific objections from Defendants. 

B. Evidence of Crimes Committed by Third Parties

Defendants also urge the Court to preclude evidence of crimes committed by third 

parties.2 Defendants argue the fact that violent crimes were perpetrated against those 

advertising on Backpage.com has nothing to do with Defendants or whether they violated 

the Travel Act by facilitating prostitution. (Doc. 908 at 6-7.) Defendants urge the Court to 

preclude this evidence as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial. They move the Court for an 

order “limiting the testimony of such individuals to those facts relevant to the Travel Act” 

charges. (Id. at 9.) In support, Defendants discuss several cases which they purport support 

their argument that the evidence of other crimes should be excluded. (Doc. 908 at 7-8 

(citing United States v. Bradley, 5 F.3d 1317, 1319-22 (9th Cir. 1993); United States v. 

Gonzalez-Flores, 418 F.3d 1093, 1098-99 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hitt, 981 F.2d 

422, 423-425 (9th Cir. 1992)).) The Government’s Response argues that the evidence is 

relevant because “it shows Defendants were placed on notice and knew the website was a 

hub for prostitution activity and their actions following the notice show that rather than try 

to stop it, they took steps to promote and facilitate the unlawful activity.” (Doc. 961 at 6.) 

1 See United States v. Garcia De Leon, 137 F. App’x 965, 966 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding that 

the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ruled that the testimony of sex 

trafficking victims was not unduly prejudicial, especially since the government “was 

precluded from dwelling on the details of the abuse.”).

2 The Court is also in receipt of and has considered the Government’s Motion to Admit 

Evidence of Murders Implicating Backpage. (Doc. 920.) The Court will address 

Defendants’ arguments that the Court should preclude evidence of third-party murders in 

that order. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 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

The Government contends that the cases cited by Defendants are easily distinguishable 

because they involve crimes where the Government did not need to prove the knowledge 

or intent of a defendant. 

Generally, the Court agrees that the crimes of third parties are only relevant to the 

extent that they gave Defendants’ notice that prostitutes were advertising on 

Backpage.com. However, the specific details of crimes committed by third parties are 

irrelevant to whether Defendants violated the Travel Act, and in most instances, evidence 

of such third-party crimes is likely improper. But without reference to specific contexts

where the Government intends to introduce such evidence, the Court will not categorically 

conclude that all evidence of crimes committed by third parties is inadmissible. If the 

Government attempts to introduce such evidence at trial, it will only be admitted to the 

extent that it gave Defendants notice that prostitutes were utilizing Backpage.com, and the 

Government will not be allowed to introduce evidence showing the details of the crimes. 

As to the evidence of third-party murders, as the Court mentioned above, the Court will 

address those arguments in a separate order. 

Defendants also seek to limit the scope of testimony of witnesses involved in 

prostitution and seek an order precluding the Government from introducing lengthy 

testimony regarding the witnesses’ lifestyle. The Court will not allow the Government to 

introduce lengthy testimony from witnesses who were engaged in prostitution about their 

lives, lifestyles, or other details of their time working as prostitutes. Testimony from people 

involved in prostitution is only relevant as it relates to their use of Backpage.com and notice 

to Defendants that prostitutes were using their website. Testimony concerning the lifestyle 

and impact that prostitution had on witnesses’ lives is irrelevant to the crimes charged and 

may unduly prejudice Defendants. However, prior to using the phrase “a day in the life” in 

the response, the Government described areas of testimony that would be relevant and 

admissible. (Doc. 961 at 5.) Those areas included how ads were created, drafted, edited, 

and paid for. That information is all relevant to the Government’s theories behind the 

conspiracy discussed in other motions, including moderation and money laundering. The 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 6
- 6 -

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

Government will not be allowed to introduce lengthy testimony of their time as prostitutes

pursuant to Rules 401 and 403, Fed. R. Evid. 

C. Third Party’s Travel Act Violation from 1987

Defendants urge the Court to preclude evidence of a Travel Act conviction from 

1987 from an individual unrelated to Backpage. (Doc. 908 at 9.) In response, the 

Government states that it does not intend to introduce this evidence at trial. (Doc. 961 at 

2.) Thus, Defendants’ request is moot. 

D. Evidence of Prostitution Ads in Printed Publications

Lastly, Defendants ask the Court to preclude evidence related to the Government’s 

allegation in the Indictment that publications within the Village Voice Media Holding 

newspaper routinely featured illegal prostitution ads because evidence of this fact is not 

relevant, is prejudicial, would confuse jurors, and waste time at trial. (Doc. 908 at 10.) In 

response, the Government asserts that it does not intend to introduce ads from print 

publications at trial. (Doc. 961 at 2.) Accordingly, this request is also moot.

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion in Limine to Preclude Presentation of 

Certain Evidence is granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. 908.) The motion is granted 

to preclude testimony from people engaged in prostitution regarding the details of their 

lifestyle except as it relates to their use of Backpage.com. The motion is also granted to 

preclude evidence related to details of crimes committed by third parties, evidence of a 

third party’s Travel Act violation from 1987, and evidence of prostitution ads from print 

publications. The rest of Defendants’ motion is denied. 

Dated this 7th day of May, 2021.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1156 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 6