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.,

Defendants.

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

The United States (the “Government”) has filed a “Motion for Protective Order 

Containing Sensitive Victim Information” (Doc. 1948) (“Motion for Protective Order” or 

“Motion”). Defendant Spear filed a Response (Doc. 1982).1 Non-party David M. Morgan 

(“Mr. Morgan”) filed an Intervenor’s Notice of Joinder to Defendant Spear’s Response 

(Doc. 1985). Upon consideration of the same, the Court will grant the Government’s 

Motion. 

I. Background and Procedure2

From August 29–November 16, 2023, the parties proceeded to a public jury trial in 

a case involving allegations relating to Travel Act offenses and multiple money laundering 

accounts. The Travel Act offenses alleged that Defendants conspired to operate a for-profit 

1 At the close of trial, the Court reminded the parties of the Government’s Motion for 

Protective Order Containing Sensitive Victim Information, noting that it had not received 

any response thereto. So, the Court extended the response filing time. Only Defendant 

Spear filed a Response. 

2 The Court’s docket is replete with the facts of the case so they need not be fully recited 

here.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 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

webpage, Backpage.com, as a marketing platform for advertisers of sex for money in 

violation of multiple state statutes. During trial, the Government introduced exhibits of 

screenshotted advertisements that were listed on Backpage.com and allegedly offered sex 

for money. The exhibits included partially clothed females—the alleged victims—in 

various provocative poses. Some exhibits pictured the alleged victims while underage. All 

alleged victims testified at trial as adults and each identified themselves in the exhibits.

Each admitted exhibit was published to the jury and the attending public. Upon return of 

the jury’s verdict, all admitted and non-admitted trial exhibits were returned to the 

Government.

The Government filed its Motion for Protective Order after non-party Mr. Morgan, 

who operates a webpage offering court documents for a fee, sought access to “admitted 

and non-admitted” trial exhibits. (Docs. 1948 at 2; 1948-3). Mr. Morgan’s request was 

not made in any court filing. Rather, they were made in email communications with the 

Clerk of the Court. (Docs. 1948-3; 1948-4). 

II. Discussion

The Government’s Motion for Protective Order is based on two grounds: (1) to 

invoke the Court’s discretionary and supervisory power over its own record under Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d) (Doc. 1948 at 7–9); and (2) to protect the victims’ rights

to privacy and dignity under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and the 

Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3509 (“Child Victims’ Act”)

(Doc. 1948 at 9–13). The Government seeks a Protective Order that would require Defense 

Counsel to securely maintain and not disseminate the “identifying information” including

the victims’ names, social security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, and images of 

individuals contained in the discovery and exhibits. (Doc. 1948-1). The Government 

further seeks protection of exhibits not introduced in trial. (Id.)

Defendant Spear asserts, among other arguments, that the Government’s Motion 

lacks any evidentiary basis, violates the First and Sixth Amendments, is untimely, and is 

not narrowly tailored to protect any legitimate privacy interest. (Doc. 1982). The Court 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 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

disagrees.

A. The Court’s Discretionary & Supervisory Powers Over its Own Records

Because the impetus for the Government’s Motion was a reporter’s inquiry for 

exhibits, the Court will first address its associated arguments. The press has a 

constitutional interest in access to the courts and the judicial process described as “a right 

to gather information.” Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S, 555, 576 (1980). But 

that right is to sit, listen, watch and report. Id. 

The United States Supreme Court’s precedent Nixon v. Warner Commc’n Inc. is 

highly instructive for the Court’s purposes. 435 U.S. 589 (1978).3 In Nixon, the Court 

stated that a common-law right of access to judicial records is not absolute; rather, whether 

to permit access is best left to the discretion of the trial court considering the relevant facts 

and circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 598–99. The Court further instructed that 

the First Amendment does not provide members of the press with a right to evidence “about 

a trial superior to that of the general public.” Id. at 609. So, Nixon disposes of any need 

to analyze a reporter’s request, such as Mr. Morgan’s, to access evidence not introduced or 

admitted during trial. Finally, Nixon stated that the release of trial evidence is not required 

by the Sixth Amendment because the guarantee of a public trial “confers no special benefit 

on the press” but such guarantee is satisfied by the public and the press’ ability to attend 

the trial and report on what they observed. Id. at 610; see also KPNX Broadcasting Co., v. 

Superior Court, 678 P.2d 431, 441 (Ariz. 1984) (en banc); United States v. Hastings, 695 

F.2d 1278, 1280 (11th Cir. 1983) (holding the press’ right of access is a right to attend, not 

to televise, a criminal trial). 

The Court notes that during all unsealed pretrial and trial proceedings, the press, 

including Mr. Morgan, were present. Indeed, Mr. Morgan was present for what appeared 

to be the entirety of the trial. The Court was equipped with large video screens adjacent to 

the public viewing area on which the admitted trial exhibits were published. Mr. Morgan, 

the public, and all members of the press were able to view each admitted exhibit 

3 Of course, the congressional statute at issue in Nixon is not relevant here.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 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

simultaneously with the jury. So, the Court is not convinced that this case presents some 

unique circumstance which would lead it to stray from Nixon’s guidance.4 Based on Nixon

and its progeny, the Court finds a Protective Order would not violate a First or Sixth 

Amendment right. Still, it finds further reason to protect the admitted and non-admitted 

exhibits of victim advertisements on Backpage.com.

B. The Victims’ Rights Act & the Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ 

Rights Act

As noted, though the exhibits are not within the Court’s custody, they remain a part 

of the Court’s judicial record. Thus, there is an ongoing need to ensure that the Court’s 

records are not accessed or distributed for some purely prurient interests, especially when

involving minors identifying information. 

The Crime Victims’ Rights Act provides that a crime victim has “the right to be 

treated with fairness and with respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.”

18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Furthermore, “the court shall ensure that the crime victim is 

afforded the rights described. Id. § 3771(b). The statute provides that either the 

Government or a crime victim may seek to enforce its proscribed rights. Id. § 3771(d). 

The Court observes that, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

Government, each subject victim, with rare exception, was under the control of a third 

person who photographed them, housed them, clothed them, advertised them, often 

transported them, and them paid them part of the proceeds accrued from a sex act. Thus, 

they are entitled to the protections of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act because they meet the 

definition of crime victim. Id. § 3771(b)(2)(D).5 

Similarly, the Child Victims’ Rights Act provides protections for a “child”—that is, 

4 Nor is the Court convinced by the First or Sixth Amendment right arguments advanced 

by Defendant Spear. Indeed, it is difficult to determine whether Defendant Spear has 

standing to assert the rights of Mr. Morgan or any third party, including the “Wayback 

Machine,” “advertisers” on Backpage.com, or any media outlet. (See Doc. 1982 at 7).

5 The Victims’ Rights Act defines the term “crime victim” to mean “the person against 

whom the State offense is committed or, if that person is killed or incapacitated, that 

person’s family member or other lawful representative.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(2)(D).

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 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

“a person who is under the age of 18 [and] who is or is alleged to be a victim of a crime of 

physical abuse, sexual abuse, or exploitation[.]” Id. § 3509(a)(2). The statute further 

instructs that the Government, members of the jury, and defense attorneys “shall keep all 

documents that disclose the name or any other information concerning a child in a secure 

place to which no person who does not have reason to know their contents has access.”

Id. § 3509(d)(1). The protections established by the Child Victims’ Rights Act apply even 

after the child becomes an adult. See United States v. Gardner, 2016 WL 5404207 at *2 

(E.D. Mich. Sept. 28, 2016) (rejecting as disingenuous the argument that “[the victim] 

‘[was] not truly underage’ because she was 17 at the time of the alleged offense and will 

be 18 at time of trial” because the victim was a minor when the alleged sexual misconduct 

occurred).

These statutes, taken together, indicate a Congressional intent to protect a crime 

victim, particularly children, from needless invasion of privacy that may impair his or her 

dignity or further psychological harm to him or her. See United States v. Graham, 2015 

WL 6161292 at *10 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 20, 2015) (finding a “‘legitimate and substantial’

interest in protecting the victim and the uncharged victims from ‘likely adverse personal, 

professional and psychological consequences for publicly linking their identities’ to their 

prior prostitution activity warrants protection of their personal identifying information”). 

In Graham, the district court observed that withholding such information would not impair 

the defendant’s right to cross-examination. Id. The difference here is that the 

Government’s Motion for Protective Order was filed after the victims testified. So, it begs 

the question: what purpose is served by permitting a defense counsel or defendant from 

now reproducing or sharing a victim’s personal identifying information? The Court sees 

none.6 See United States v. Paris, 2007 WL 1484974 at *2 (D. Conn. May 8, 2007).

III. Conclusion

The Government’s Motion for Protective Order Containing Sensitive Victim 

Information is substantially supported. Access to non-admitted and admitted exhibits, 

6 This of course would not preclude any defendant from using the exhibits in this case or 

any other resulting judicial proceeding. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 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

including identifying information, by the press for commercial purposes or a defendant for 

unspecified reasons does not amount to a protected constitutional right. Furthermore, 

Congress has indeed sought to protect victims, including minors, from unwarranted 

invasions of privacy through the Crime Victims’ Rights Act and the Child Victims’ and 

Witnesses’ Rights Act. 

Accordingly, and with good cause appearing,

IT IS ORDERED that the United States’ Motion for Protective Order Containing 

Sensitive Victim Information (Doc. 1948) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

1. Defense counsel shall securely maintain in their custody any and all “identifying 

information” including victims’ names, social security numbers, addresses, telephone 

numbers, and images of individuals contained in the discovery and designated exhibits in 

this matter, namely advertisements that were posted on Backpage, including but not limited 

to the trial exhibits listed in Attachment A to this Order.

2. Reproduction and dissemination of such “identifying information” and images shall 

be limited to defense counsel and defense experts, as necessary, for purposes of this matter, 

with any such reproduced copies being returned to defense counsel at the conclusion of the 

case. 

3. Defendants shall not possess the aforementioned “identifying information” and 

images outside of defense counsel’s presence, and shall not maintain any such images in 

his or her custody. 

4. The “identifying information” and images of the individuals depicted in the ads and 

exhibits are for use only in this case by counsel and the defendant, and may not be 

disseminated or used for any other purpose; and 

5. All “identifying information” and images of the individuals depicted in the ads and 

exhibits shall be returned to the United States or destroyed at the conclusion of this case. 

If defense counsel chooses to destroy rather than return, each counsel shall provide a sworn 

statement to the United States stating the date on which the documents were destroyed and 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 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 Bates numbers and/or Exhibit numbers of the documents destroyed. 

6. This Order shall be presented to any individual to whom, under the terms of this 

Order, defense counsel discloses images covered by this Order. By accepting the covered 

images, such persons agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court 

for the District of Arizona for the sole purpose of enforcing the terms of this Order.

Dated this 18th day of January, 2024.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 2034 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 7