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

Additional Counsel listed on next page

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States,

Plaintiff,

v.

Joye Vaught,

Defendant.

 Case No. CR-18-422-SMB

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO BAR 

THE GOVERNMENT FROM 

ASSERTING PRIVILEGE ON 

BEHALF OF ITS WITNESSES

Joy Bertrand, Esq.

PO Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Telephone: 602-374-5321

Fax: 480-361-4694

joyous@mailbag.com

www.joybertrandlaw.com

Arizona State Bar No. 024181

ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT JOYE VAUGHT

Gary S. Lincenberg (admitted pro hac vice) glincenberg@birdmarella.com

Ariel A. Neuman (admitted pro hac vice) aneuman@birdmarella.com

Gopi K. Panchapakesan (admitted pro hac vice) gkp@birdmarella.com

BIRD, MARELLA, BOXER, WOLPERT, NESSIM,

DROOKS, LINCENBERG & RHOW, P.C.

1875 Century Park East, 23rd Floor

Los Angeles, California 90067-2561

Telephone: (310) 201-2100

Facsimile: (310) 201-2110

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 1 of 7
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

Paul J. Cambria, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice)

 pcambria@lglaw.com

Erin McCampbell Paris (admitted pro hac vice)

 eparis@lglaw.com

LIPSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

Telephone: (716) 849-1333

Facsimile: (716) 855-1580

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

Bruce S. Feder, 004832

 bf@federlawpa.com

FEDER LAW OFFICE, P.A.

2930 E. Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

Telephone: (602) 257-0135 

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

David Eisenberg, 017218

 david@deisenbergplc.com

DAVID EISENBERG PLC

3550 N. Central Ave., Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 237-5076

Facsimile: (602) 314-6273

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 2 of 7
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

NOW COME the Defendants, by their attorneys of record, to move this 

Court to bar the Government from asserting privilege on behalf of its witnesses. 

The Defendants further submit the following:

I. When the Government Objects, Asserting Privilege for its Witness, it 

Invites this Court to Abuse its Discretion.

The Government lacks standing to assert privilege for its cooperating 

witnesses. United States v. Martoma, 962 F.Supp.2d 602, 604-05 (SDNY 2013). 

A government objection to assert privilege for a testifying witness is 

improper. United States v. Smith, 454 F.3d 707, 713 (7th Cir.2006) (“Although the 

government did not act inappropriately in bringing the privilege issue to the 

court's attention, this was not a proper basis for a government objection to the 

defense questioning of [the witness].”). In Smith, the Seventh Circuit found that 

the district court abused its discretion in sustaining the Government’s objections 

that asserted privilege for the witness. Id. at 713. 

The Smith decision discussed decisions from the Eighth and Eleventh 

Circuits, which offered similar analyses. Id. (citing United States v. Rainone, 32

F.3d 1203, 1206 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1102 (1995) (noting that the 

attorney-client privilege of a government witness belongs to the witness, not the 

government, and that the privilege is waivable); United States v. White, 743 F.2d

488, 494 (7th Cir. 1984) (the government lacks standing to bring an appeal based 

on attorney-client privilege of the government's witness; that privilege belongs 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 3 of 7
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

solely to the witness who must bring the issue to the trial court himself if he 

believed the court was not adequately protecting his privilege); United States v.

Fox, 396 F.3d 1018, 1023 (8th Cir. 2005), overruled on other grounds by United States

v. Pirani, 406 F.3d 543, 550 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc ) (the attorney-client privilege 

is personal and cannot be asserted by anyone other than the client); United States

v. Almeida, 341 F.3d 1318, 1321 n. 10 (11th Cir. 2003) (the government ordinarily 

lacks standing to assert the attorney-client privilege for a witness); United States

v. Ortega, 150 F.3d 937, 942 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1087

(1999) (same).)

II. The Sixth Amendment Can Override Attorney-Client Privilege.

Even if the Government had standing to assert privilege on behalf of its 

cooperating witness, the Sixth Amendment’s right of confrontation can 

override a witness’ assertion of privilege. Rainone, 32 F3d. at 1206 (citing Olden

v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231 (1988) (per curiam); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308

(1974); John W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 74.2, at pp. 279–81 (4th ed. 

1992). “Even the attorney-client privilege, therefore, hallowed as it is, yet not 

found in the Constitution, might have to yield in a particular case if the right of 

confrontation, whether in its aspect as the right of cross-examination or in 

some other aspect, would be violated by enforcing the privilege. So at least 

dicta in two cases intimate.” Id., citing United States ex rel. Blackwell v.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 4 of 7
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

Franzen, 688 F.2d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1982); Jenkins v. Wainwright, 763 F.2d 1390,

1392–93 (11th Cir. 1985).

III. The Government’s Repeated Assertion of Privilege, in the form of 

Objections During Carl Ferrer’s Cross-Examination is Improper. 

By Counsel’s count, in the past two days, the Government has objected at 

least three times during Mr. Ferrer’s cross-examination, asserting that a question 

invades either Mr. Ferrer’s attorney-client privilege or his marital privilege. The 

Government lacks standing to make these assertions. These objections are 

improper. By this Motion, the Defense asks this Court to bar the Government 

from making further objections asserting privilege, during Mr. Ferrer’s testimony 

or that of any of its other witnesses.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of September, 2023.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Pursuant to the District’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 

Procedures Manual (May 2023) § II(C)(3), Gary S. Lincenberg hereby attests that all 

other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in the filing’s

content and have authorized its filing.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 5 of 7
Page 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

29

DATED: September 29, 2023 Gary S. Lincenberg

Ariel A. Neuman

Gopi K. Panchapakesan

Bird, Marella, Boxer, Wolpert, Nessim,

Drooks, Lincenberg & Rhow, P.C.

By: /s/ Gary S. Lincenberg

Gary S. Lincenberg

Attorneys for Defendant John Brunst

DATED: September 29, 2023 Paul J. Cambria

Erin McCampbell Paris

Lipsitz Green Scime Cambria LLP

By: /s/ Paul J. Cambria

Paul J. Cambria

Attorneys for Defendant Michael Lacey

DATED: September 29, 2023 Feder Law Office, P.A.

By: /s/ Bruce S. Feder

Bruce S. Feder

Attorney for Defendant Scott Spear

DATED: September 29, 2023 The Law Office of David Eisenberg, PLC

By: /s/ David Eisenberg

David Eisenberg

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 6 of 7
Page 7

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 September 29, 2023, I, Joy Bertrand, attorney for the Defendant, filed 

the foregoing 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 pleading will be electronically served upon 

opposing counsel and co-defendants’ counsel, upon its submission to the Court. 

Respectfully submitted this 29th day of September, 2023.

s/Joy Bertrand

Joy Bertrand

Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1822 Filed 09/29/23 Page 7 of 7