- 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

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

KEVIN M. RAPP (Ariz. Bar No. 014249, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov) MARGARET PERLMETER (Ariz. Bar No. 024805, margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov) PETER S. KOZINETS (Ariz. Bar No. 019856, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov) ANDREW C. STONE (Ariz. Bar No. 026543, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov) Assistant U.S. Attorneys

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

Telephone (602) 514-7500

DAN G. BOYLE (N.Y. Bar No. 5216825, daniel.boyle2@usdoj.gov) Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone (213) 894-2426

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES (Miss. Bar No. 102806, reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov) Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

950 Pennsylvania Ave N.W., Room 2116

Washington, D.C. 20530

Telephone (202) 616-2807 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-422-PHX-SMB

UNITED STATES’ MOTION RE 

BANK RECORDS AND SUMMARY 

EXHIBITS

The United States files this motion in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 

104 to provide further explanation with respect to (1) bank records and (2) summary 

exhibits, in light of the Court’s recent Order (Doc. 1212). First, the government seeks a 

ruling on the 902(11) certifications for the bank records to help avoid needlessly extending 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 7
- 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

the trial through a parade of custodian witnesses. See Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). Second, the 

United States attaches its proposed summary exhibits and provides a list of each trial 

exhibit that is being summarized. The Court delayed ruling on the admissibility of the 

summary exhibits until after the United States provided the exhibits for inspection; by 

doing so with this motion, the government is attempting to streamline trial and avoid 

delays. 

I. Admissibility of Bank Records

The United States seeks a pretrial ruling on the authentication of the bank records 

that will be marked as exhibits in the upcoming trial. The Court recently ruled that “the 

bank records may be admissible as business records subject to other objections at trial.” 

(Doc. 1212 at 12.) The Court also noted that “Defendants do not challenge the 

certifications for the bank records. Accordingly, as long as the records are accompanied 

by a proper certification pursuant to Rule 902(11), they may be admitted under the rule.” 

(Id.) The United States files this motion to clarify that there won’t be any future challenges 

to the 902(11) certifications for the bank records and that Defendants’ objections at trial 

will be limited to “relevance and prejudice under Rule 403.” (Id.) 

On February 14, 2020, the United States filed a notice of intent to offer business 

records pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11). (Doc. 889.) That notice attached a 

table that listed the 902(11) certifications identified by subpoena number, financial 

institution, Bates number, and BEGDOC, which is the number used to locate the document 

in Relativity. (Id.; see also Doc. 889-A.) On September 11, 2020, the government filed a 

supplemental notice that included two additional 902(11) certifications. (Doc. 1057.) Rule 

902(11) provides that “[b]efore the trial or hearing, the proponent must give an adverse 

party reasonable written notice of the intent to offer the record—and must make the record 

and certification available for inspection—so that the party has a fair opportunity to 

challenge them.” The United States has complied with this rule. 

Defendants have now had over 18 months to challenge the government’s 902(11) 

certifications. They have not done so. (See Doc. 1139 at 18-19) (objecting to the admission 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 7
- 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

of bank records based only on potential relevance issues.) Because Defendants have not 

yet articulated any objection to the 902(11) certifications, they should be precluded from 

doing so at trial. If Defendants are permitted to raise challenges related to the 

authentication of the bank records at trial, then the proceedings may be delayed as the Court 

reviews the relevant certification(s). If the objection is sustained, then the government 

would need to identify and call a custodian of records to the witness stand. The applicable 

custodian may live in another state. This process will certainly cause an unnecessary delay

for an already lengthy trial. If Defendants had specific objections to the 902(11) 

certifications listed in the government’s filings (Docs. 889 & 1057), they should have 

raised those challenges during the last 18 months. See Fed. R. Evid. 902(11), Advisory 

Committee Notes to 2000 Amendments (“The notice requirement in Rule 902(11) and (12) 

is intended to give the opponent of the evidence a full opportunity to test the adequacy of 

the foundation set forth in the declaration.”). The government would be prejudiced by 

Defendants waiting until trial before raising any such challenges. The Court should rule 

that the bank records have been authenticated under Rule 902(11) and are not excluded by 

the rule against hearsay in accordance with Rule 803(6).

1

 

1 See, e.g., United States v. Davis, 2021 WL 1931871, at *2-3 (D. Alaska May 13, 2021) (granting pretrial motion finding 902(11) certifications properly authenticated 

certain business records); United States v. Way, 2018 WL 2470944, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 2018) (granting government’s motion for pretrial authentication of business records under Rule 902(11) and finding that the records “have been properly authenticated and 

[]qualify for admission under the exception to the rule against hearsay set forth in FRE 

803(6)”); United States v. Taylor, 2017 WL 11458484, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 2, 2017) (finding a business record supported by a 902(11) certification was “admissible, self- authenticating, non-hearsay evidence” because “a certification under Rule 902(11) provides sufficient foundation for the admissibility of business records”); United States v. 

Kuzmenko, 2014 WL 1334003, at *3 (E.D. Cal. April 3, 2014) (“Provided that, in the discovery given to Defendant, each FRE 902(11) certification is immediately followed by 

the corresponding bank, loan, and escrow files, the records are self-authenticating under FRE 902(11) and the Government need not call a custodian-witness to lay foundation for this evidence.”); United States v. Gardley, 2013 WL 4857691, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Sept. 10, 2013) (“[T]he Court interprets the Government’s motion as merely a preliminary motion to determine if a custodian of records must be subpoenaed to authenticate each document. 

. . . [T]he Court hereby finds [exhibits] admissible as business records, are authentic, and 

are not barred by the hearsay rule pursuant to Rules 803(6) and 902(11).”).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 7
- 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

II. The United States’ Summary Exhibits

The Court articulated its reasons for not yet admitting the government’s summary 

exhibits in its recent order. 

[T]he government has clearly not met its burden to admit its summary 

exhibits under Rule 1006. First, the Court has not been given an opportunity 

to inspect the exhibits which makes it difficult to see what they are, what they 

are summarizing, whether they properly summarize voluminous records, or 

whether they are merely argument regarding the evidence as Defendants 

contend. In addition, the government merely states in a conclusory manner 

that the records on which the summary exhibits are based are admissible 

without explaining with specificity what the records are. . . . Accordingly, 

the Court will not admit the summary exhibits at this time but will consider 

them again at trial if the government seeks their admission. 

(Doc. 1212 at 21.) 

In an effort to streamline trial and optimize the jury’s time, the United States 

provides the Court with the summary exhibits it intends to admit and the exhibits relied 

upon in creating the summaries.

A. United States’ Summary Exhibits

The United States anticipates introducing the following nine summary exhibits at 

trial:

- Trial Ex. 1479 – Money Laundering Counts Tracing, attached as Ex. A.

- Trial Ex. 1480 – Backpage Gross Revenue by Ad Category, attached as Ex. B.

- Trial Ex. 1481 – Annual Revenue for Business Entities, attached as Ex. C.

- Trial Ex. 1545 – Website Technologies LLC Revenue Through GoCoin, 

attached as Ex. D.

- Trial Ex. 1689 – Payments from Camarillo Holdings to Spear, attached as Ex. 

E.

- Trial Ex. 1690 – Payments from Cereus Properties to Spear, attached as Ex. F.

- Trial Ex. 1691 – Payments from Website Tech to Cereus Properties, attached as 

Ex. G.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 4 of 7
- 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

- Trial Ex. 1693 – Payments from Cereus Properties to Michael Lacey –

1/11/2016-1/4/2017, attached as Ex. H.

- Trial Ex. 1694 – Payments from Cereus Properties to James Larkin and Family 

– 1/11/2016-1/11/2017, attached as Ex. I.

B. List of the Underlying Exhibits for the Summaries

Here is a table that identifies the underlying exhibits that are summarized by each 

of the summary exhibits and why the underlying exhibits are admissible.

Summary Exhibits Exhibits Relied Upon for 

Summary

Reason for 

Admissibility

Trial Ex. 1479 – Money 

Laundering Counts 

Tracing, attached as Ex. 

A

Bank records listed in Doc. 889-

A (Trial Exs. 1248-1431)

902(11) Certifications

(Trial Ex. 1247 & Doc. 

889-A)

Trial Ex. 1480 –

Backpage Gross 

Revenue by Ad 

Category, attached as 

Ex. B

Backpage Ad Revenue 

Spreadsheet (Trial Ex. 1482,

DOJ-BP-0002724567)

902(11) Certification

from Carl Ferrer 

(USAO-BP-0033766-

USAO-BP-0033767), 

attached as Ex. J

Trial Ex. 1481 – Annual 

Revenue for Business 

Entities, attached as Ex. 

C

Certified IRS Income Tax 

Returns (2012-2015) for John E. 

Brunst; Michael Lacey; James 

Larkin; Medalist Holdings; Scott 

Spear (Trial Exs. 1432-1460)

Revenue Documents from Carl 

Ferrer (Trial Exs. 1461-1468)

Certified IRS income 

tax returns are selfauthenticating

902(11) Certification 

from Carl Ferrer, Ex. J.

Trial Ex. 1545 –

Website Technologies 

LLC Revenue Through 

GoCoin, attached as Ex. 

D

Spreadsheets produced by 

GoCoin (Trial Exs. 1532-1544)

Spreadsheets produced 

by Go Coin (Trial Ex. 

1268) with a 902(11) 

Certification (Trial Ex. 

1247 & Doc. 889-A)

Trial Ex. 1689 –

Payments from 

Camarillo Holdings to 

Spear, attached as Ex. E

Bank records from National Bank 

of Arizona (Trial Ex. 1321)

902(11) Certification 

(Trial Ex. 1247 & Doc. 

889-A)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 5 of 7
- 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

Summary Exhibits Exhibits Relied Upon for 

Summary

Reason for 

Admissibility

Trial Ex. 1690 –

Payments from Cereus 

Properties to Spear, 

attached as Ex. F

Bank records from National Bank 

of Arizona (Trial Ex. 1321)

902(11) Certification 

(Trial Ex. 1247 & Doc. 

889-A)

Trial Ex. 1691 –

Payments from Website 

Tech to Cereus 

Properties, attached as 

Ex. G

Bank records from Branch 

Banking and Trust Co (Trial Ex. 

1313)

902(11) Certification 

(Trial Ex. 1247 & Doc. 

889-A)

Trial Ex. 1693 –

Payments from Cereus 

Properties to Michael 

Lacey – 1/11/2016-

1/4/2017, attached as 

Ex. H

Bank records from Arizona Bank 

of Trust (Trial Ex. 1248)

902(11) Certification 

(Trial Ex. 1247 & Doc. 

889-A)

Trial Ex. 1694 –

Payments from Cereus 

Properties to James 

Larkin and Family –

1/11/2016-1/11/2017, 

attached as Ex. I

Bank records from Arizona Bank 

of Trust (Trial Ex. 1248)

902(11) Certification 

(Trial Ex. 1247 & Doc. 

889-A)

C. The Underlying Exhibits Are Admissible

The United States has prepared these nine summary exhibits to assist in proving the 

content of over 165,000 pages of financial records. (See Jan. 13, 2020 Letter from R. Jones, 

attached as Ex. K.) The United States does not presently anticipate introducing the 

underlying bank records as trial exhibits. Rather, the government plans to introduce these 

summary exhibits in accordance with Rule 1006 to “prove the content of voluminous 

writings . . . that cannot be conveniently examined in court.” Fed. R. Evid. 1006. The 

Court has articulated the standard for a party to admit summary exhibits: “A proponent of 

a summary exhibit must establish a foundation that (1) the underlying materials on which 

the summary exhibit is based are admissible into evidence, and (2) those underlying 

materials were made available to the opposing party for inspection.” (Doc. 1212 at 23) 

(citations omitted.) 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 6 of 7
- 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

The chart above demonstrates that both elements for admitting summary exhibits 

have been satisfied. All the underlying documents are “admissible,” and all the materials 

were produced to Defendants. 

D. Summary Exhibits Should Be Admitted

Based on the foregoing, the nine summary exhibits the government intends to 

introduce at trial should be admitted. 

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of August, 2021.

GLENN B. McCORMICK

Acting United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Andrew C. Stone

KEVIN M. RAPP

MARGARET PERLMETER

PETER S. KOZINETS

ANDREW C. STONE

Assistant U.S. Attorneys

DAN G. BOYLE

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney

KENNETH POLITE

Assistant Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice

REGINALD E. JONES

Senior Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this same date, 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.

s/ Marjorie Dieckman U.S. Attorney’s Office

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1223 Filed 08/19/21 Page 7 of 7