-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

JOSEPHINE HALLAM

Hallam Law Group, P.L.L.C.

3838 N. Central Ave., Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Phone: (602) 237-5373

Jhallam@hallamlawgroup.com

Bar No. 018557

Attorney for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

Case No. 2:18-CR-00422-DJH-2

AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH

SUBPOENA SERVED ON VINCENT 

FERRER BY DEFENDANT JAMES 

LARKIN (2)

)

Vincent Ferrer, the subject of subpoena to testify served upon him by Defendant 

James Larkin,

1

respectfully requests that this Court quash the subpoena. The subpoena in 

question requires Mr. Ferrer to appear for trial to give testimony. The original date of the 

subpoena was for September 1, but the original trial proceeding ended in a mistrial,

rendering that required appearance moot. No subsequent date or notice has been provided 

to Mr. Ferrer, though it is presumed for purposes of this motion that the original subpoena 

remains in effect.

1 See Exhibit A, Subpoena.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1443 Filed 12/28/21 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

Mr. Ferrer resides in Georgia, a considerable distance from Phoenix. Moreover, to 

the extent that he is called to testify, he intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege 

against self-incrimination and/or lacks relevant information. Under these circumstances, 

and considering the situation with Covid-19, appearing in response to the subpoena would 

be unreasonable and/or oppressive, and would not serve any meaningful purpose.

This motion is made pursuant to the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution, Rule 17 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and applicable 

precedent. This motion is further supported by the following Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities.

To the extent that the Court holds any hearing respecting this motion, Mr. Ferrer 

requests that he be permitted to appear remotely given that he resides out of state.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 24th day of December, 2021.

HALLAM LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.

/s/ _Josephine Pesaresi Hallam_

Josephine Pesaresi Hallam

Attorney on Behalf of Mr. Vincent Ferrer

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1443 Filed 12/28/21 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

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Mr. Vincent Ferrer was served with a letter and subpoena to appear in the Federal 

District Court in Phoenix on September 1, 2021. [Exhibit A, Subpoena and Letter]. The 

subpoena was served on him, along with a letter dated August 30, 2021, by Defendant 

James Larkin. The subpoena itself is dated June 5, 2021; it is unknown why Mr. Larkin 

waited until August 30 to serve the subpoena, just two days before the demanded 

appearance.

The originally required appearance quickly became moot when a mistrial was 

declared on September 14, 2021, early in the trial. Since then, Mr. Ferrer has received no 

further communication respecting any new dates or required appearances. Mr. Ferrer has 

not been informed by any person that the original subpoena remains in effect.

Mr. Ferrer resides in Georgia. He lacks pertinent information respecting the case 

and the facts thereof, and to the extent that he has any information, he intends to invoke his 

Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination respecting any questions asked of 

him as a witness.

II. LAW & ARGUMENT 

A subpoena for testimony may be quashed if compliance with it would be 

unreasonable or oppressive. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(2); United States v. Bergeson, 425

F.3d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 2005) (applying Rule 17(c)(2)’s “unreasonable or oppressive”

standard for subpoenas for testimony in addition to subpoenas for documents and objects);

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1443 Filed 12/28/21 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

United States v. Berberian, 767 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that it was proper to 

quash a subpoena for testimony where the subject of that subpoena had indicated he would 

invoke his Fifth Amendment right not to be compelled to give incriminating testimony). 

“[A] motion to quash a subpoena is an appropriate and the most effective procedural means 

of resolving the constitutional confrontation that is created whenever [a party] seeks to 

compel a witness to give self-incriminating testimony.” Berberian, 767 F.2d at 1326. A 

decision to quash or modify a subpoena is within the sound discretion of the trial court. See 

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 702 (1974).

Here, Mr. Ferrer intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against selfincrimination in response to any questions about any alleged involvement in matters 

related, directly or indirectly, to Backpage.com. Accordingly, Vincent Ferrer would be 

invoking respecting any relevant testimony he might have to offer, to the extent he has any 

relevant testimony to offer. No immunity has been extended to Mr. Ferrer that might 

otherwise protect him from the possibility of facing federal or state charges. Accordingly, 

there is no basis to force Mr. Ferrer to appear and testify. See Berberian, 767 F.2d at 1326 

(noting that a witness may not be called to testify by the government where the government 

knows the witness will refuse to testify).

In addition to the forgoing, requiring Mr. Ferrer to appear personally at trial is 

unreasonable and oppressive, particularly considering his stated intention to invoke his 

Fifth Amendment privilege. Mr. Ferrer resides in Georgia, approximately 1,900 miles 

away. Given his intent to invoke, it would not be reasonable to require him to travel such 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1443 Filed 12/28/21 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

a long distance just to refuse to answer questions. Moreover, in recent weeks Covid has 

been spiking across the country, making any such travel a risky proposition, especially 

since Mr. Ferrer has a vulnerable, infant child.

III. CONCLUSION

In consideration of the forgoing, Mr. Vincent Ferrer respectfully requests that this 

Court quash the subpoena served by Defendant Larkin as being unreasonable and 

oppressive.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this December 24

th day of 2021.

HALLAM LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.

 By /s/ Josephine Pesaresi Hallam 

 Josephine Pesaresi Hallam

Attorney for Mr. Vincent Ferrer

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1443 Filed 12/28/21 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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 24, 2021, I electronically transmitted the 

attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and 

transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered 

their appearance as counsel of record.

By /s/ Josephine Pesaresi Hallam 

 Josephine Pesaresi Hallam

Attorney for Mr. Vincent Ferrer

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1443 Filed 12/28/21 Page 6 of 6