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 

GARY M. RESTAINO 

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 

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov) 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 

1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone (202) 412-4136 

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. 

CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

UNITED STATES’ MOTION 

IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE 

DEFENSE FROM INTRODUCING 

NON-WITNESSES OR NONEVIDENCE 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1596 Filed 06/08/23 Page 1 of 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

The United States moves in limine to preclude Defendants, their counsel, and their 

witnesses from commenting, during opening statements or closing argument, on any facts 

or evidence or individuals that are not anticipated to be introduced into evidence at the trial. 

For example, during opening statements on September 8, 2021, defense counsel asked the 

wife and children of one of the defendants to rise in the audience so that he could show 

them to the jury. (Doc. 1342 at 29:18-22 (“He’s got six children. I’m going to ask if they 

can stand up. And his wife Molly. We have several here. He raised six children. You’re 

looking at his wife Molly and four of them. You guys can all have a seat.”).) Similarly, 

defense counsel mentioned facts that are not anticipated to be introduced through any 

witness because they are irrelevant. For example, the defense mentioned that Defendant 

Larkin “[w]ent to Catholic high school here. Went to Phoenix Community College.” (Doc. 

1342 at 29:15-16.) Likewise, defense counsel offered that “[i]n [Larkin’s] personal life, he 

does not participate or partake in the kind of activities that you are going to hear about 

today, much like he never participated or partook in many of the activities that his 

newspaper allowed to be printed about, or people to send in advertisements.” (Doc. 1342 

at 29:23 to 30:2.) In yet another example, defense counsel told the jury, “to show you the

genuineness of these gentlemen as newspaper people, they won over 3,800 awards 

including the xxx [sic] Pulitzer Prize for a critical article. That's the real deal. These are 

real newspaper people, and that's where Mike lives. He’s a newspaper man.” (Doc. 1343

at 33:7-12.)

Additionally, Defendants discussed a civil lawsuit in which Defendants Lacey and 

Larkin sued a Maricopa County law enforcement official and won a money judgment. 

(Doc. 1343 at 28:17-29:5.) This information lacks any relevance to the conspiracy, Travel 

Act, and money laundering charges at issue. On the other hand, discussing this separate 

litigation—which has no connection whatsoever to the instant prosecution of the former 

owners and operators of the internet’s largest (until 2018) source of prostitution 

advertising—presents a serious risk of confusing the issues, wasting time, and misleading 

the jury. If Defendants are permitted to discuss how one local law enforcement official 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1596 Filed 06/08/23 Page 2 of 5
- 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 

violated the law by retaliating against them for something they published in a newspaper, 

the United States will have to explain the difference between the publishing of an article 

critical of an elected public official and the range of criminal conduct alleged in the 100-

count Superseding Indictment here. (Doc. 230.) 

All of these comments and theatrics are irrelevant to the issues before the jury and 

are unfairly prejudicial inasmuch as they attempt to present evidence of Defendants’ 

character and general likeability as a person (local, religious, family oriented, successful), 

rather than on Defendants’ actions and intent concerning the charged offenses. 

Accordingly, all such comments should be precluded under Fed. R. Evid. 401-403.1

 

Conclusion

The Court should preclude Defense counsel from: 

1. Introducing any Defendant’s family or friends in the audience during opening 

statements or closing arguments; 

2. Referencing or discussing any awards received by any of Defendants; 

3. Stating facts or opinions in opening statement that are not anticipated to be 

introduced at trial, e.g., personal history, religious affiliation, family members, etc.; 

and 

4. Referencing any prior case or litigation involving any of Defendants, including, but 

not limited to Defendant Lacey and Larkin’s retaliation lawsuit against a local 

Maricopa County law enforcement official. 

1 Certification: On June 5, 2023, counsel for the United States met and conferred in good faith with Defendants’ counsel regarding the relief requested in this motion, and the parties 

could not reach agreement. The Court has not previously considered or ruled on the motion.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1596 Filed 06/08/23 Page 3 of 5
- 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 

Respectfully submitted this 8th day of June, 2023.

 GARY M. RESTAINO 

 United States Attorney 

 District of Arizona 

 KENNETH POLITE 

 Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

 s/Kevin M. Rapp 

KEVIN M. RAPP 

 MARGARET PERLMETER 

 PETER KOZINETS 

 ANDREW STONE 

DANIEL BOYLE

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

AUSTIN M. BERRY 

Trial Attorney 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1596 Filed 06/08/23 Page 4 of 5
- 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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 8, 2023, 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/ Daniel Parke

Daniel Parke 

U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1596 Filed 06/08/23 Page 5 of 5