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

RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S 

MARCH 9, 2023 ORDER

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

record, Joy Bertrand, to respond to this Court’s March 9, 2023 Order. As further 

grounds therefore, the Defendant submits the following:

The Court instructed the Defendants to respond to its suggestion that 

Defendants Larkin and Lacey be severed from their remaining codefendants, in 

the interest of judicial economy and the Defendants’ interests. By this Response, 

Ms. Vaught notifies the Court that she does not object to the Court’s suggestion

and submits argument in support of severance.

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 1539 Filed 03/17/23 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

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ms. Vaught moved the Court to sever her from her codefendants in the fall 

of 2019.1 In that motion, Ms. Vaught noted that she had no role in creating

Backpage’s posting policies.2 She had no power to change Backpage policies.3 

She reaped none of Backpage’s profits.4

The Court denied Ms. Vaught’s Motion to Sever on February 10, 2020.5 

Ms. Vaught proceeded to trial with her codefendants on September 1, 2021.6 

Ms. Vaught renews the arguments in support of severance that she made 

in her original severance motion and her reply7 in support of it. 

Nothing in the record since the Court’s denial of Ms. Vaught’s severance 

motion has improved, in terms of the Government’s proof. To date, the 

Government has not proffered a single piece of evidence that shows Ms. Vaught 

had actual knowledge of the fifty Backpage ads, upon which the Government 

1 ECF Doc. 784. 

2 Id. at 2

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5 ECF Doc. 878. 

6 ECF Doc. 1265.

7 ECF Doc. 1341 at 24.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1539 Filed 03/17/23 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

uses as the basis for Counts 2-52 of the Superseding Indictment. Ms. Vaught is 

not implicated in the money laundering counts of the Superseding Indictment 

and the evidence shows that Ms. Vaught received none of Backpage’s profits. 

To allow Lacey and Larkin to proceed to trial would resolve issues that 

could easily leave the Government with no choice, but to dismiss Ms. Vaught 

from this case altogether in two ways.

First, if the jury acquits Defendants Lacey and Larkin on Count One – the 

conspiracy count, then the question of the existence of a conspiracy to violate the 

Travel Act is resolved. If the Government cannot prove a conspiracy, then it 

cannot prove that Ms. Vaught knowingly joined the conspiracy. 

Second, it appears that the Government continues to pursue its “general 

notice” theory of liability for Counts 2-51. That theory can be distilled to:

Backpage was on notice that ads for prostitution were being posted in its 

adult section, so the owners and employees of Backpage knew that these 

fifty distinct ads were for prostitution. Because these owners and 

employees of Backpage knew that some prostitution ads were being 

placed somewhere, they each are responsible for the running of these ads, 

to the extent that the Government can prove that these ads are for conduct 

that would violate the prostitution laws in the jurisdiction in which they 

were run. 

This deeply flawed theory of criminal liability should fail against 

Backpage’s former owner. If the Government cannot prove that the former

owners could not have had the requisite knowledge for each of these ads, then a 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1539 Filed 03/17/23 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

relatively low-level employee such as Ms. Vaught also cannot be held criminally 

responsible for the running of these ads. 

In terms of judicial economy, it makes sense to try the upper-level 

Defendants in this matter first. That trial likely will be significantly shorter than 

one that must also address the liability of the lower-level Defendants. If the 

Government cannot meet its burden for Defendants Lacey and Larkin, then 

certainly cannot meet its burden for Ms. Vaught.

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

sever her from her codefendants.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on March 15, 2023.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1539 Filed 03/17/23 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 March 17, 2023, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, Joye 

Vaught, filed the Defendant’s Motion to Sever 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 Seventeenth day of March, 2023.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1539 Filed 03/17/23 Page 5 of 5