UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

_________________

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:18-cr-00422-DJH

Phoenix, Arizona

October 24, 2023

1:01 p.m.

BEFORE: THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, JUDGE

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

JURY TRIAL - DAY 23

(P.M. SESSION)

Official Court Reporter:

Cathy J. Taylor, RMR, CRR, CRC

Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 312

401 West Washington Street, Spc 31

Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2151

(602) 322-7249

Proceedings Reported by Stenographic Court Reporter

Transcript Prepared by Computer-Aided Transcription

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 140
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

A P P E A R A N C E S

For the Government:

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

By: Mr. Kevin M. Rapp, Esq.

Mr. Andrew C. Stone, Esq.

Mr. Peter Shawn Kozinets, Esq.

Ms. Margaret Wu Perlmeter, Esq.

40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1800

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408

kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov

- and -

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

By: Mr. Austin Berry, Esq.

1301 New York Avenue NW, 11th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

austin.berry2@usdoj.gov

For the Defendant Michael Lacey:

LIPTSITZ GREEN SCIME CAMBRIA, LLP

By: Mr. Paul J. Cambria, Esq.

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 120

Buffalo, New York 14202

pcambria@lglaw.com

For the Defendant Scott Spear:

KESSLER LAW OFFICE

By: Mr. Eric Walter Kessler, Esq.

6720 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 210

Scottsdale, Arizona 85253

eric.kesslerlaw@gmail.com

- and -

FEDER LAW OFFICE, PA

By: Mr. Bruce S. Feder, Esq.

2930 East Camelback Road, Suite 160

Phoenix, Arizona 85016

bf@federlawpa.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 140
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

A P P E A R A N C E S (Cont'd)

For the Defendant John Brunst:

BIRD MARELLA BOXER WOLPERT NESSIM DROOKS

By: Mr. Gopi K. Panchapakesan, Esq.

Mr. Gary S. Lincenberg, Esq.

1875 Century Park E, Suite 2300

Los Angeles, California 90067

gpanchapakesan@birdmarella.com

glincenberg@birdmarella.com

aneuman@birdmarella.com

For the Defendant Andrew Padilla:

DAVID EISENBERG, PLC

By: Mr. David S. Eisenberg, Esq.

3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1155

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

david@deisenbergplc.com

For the Defendant Joye Vaught:

JOY BERTRAND, ESQ, LLC

By: Ms. Joy Malby Bertrand, Esq

P.O. Box 2734

Scottsdale, Arizona 85252-2734

Joy@joybertrandlaw.com

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 3 of 140
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

I N D E X

SUMMARY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS: PAGE

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 6

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 40

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 92

Motion for Mistrial 93

Proceedings Outside the Presence of the Jury 96

WITNESSES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: PAGE

Grant Snyder

Direct Examination by Mr. Eisenberg 13

Cross-Examination by Mr. Berry 33

Redirect Examination by Mr. Eisenberg 63

Cross-Examination (Cont'd) by Mr. Berry 100

John R. Becker

Direct Examination by Mr. Cambria 66

Cross-Examination by Mr. Stone 106

Redirect Examination by Mr. Cambria 132

EXHIBITS

NO. DESCRIPTION REC'D

5516 Jan. 2017 Binghamton Trust

DEFLACEY 000012-000030

78

5540 03.07.18 Letter from J. Becker to IRS on

behalf of M. Lacey, Requesting Extension

to File Certain Business Income Tax,

Information, and Other Returns

DEFLACEY000008

79

5541 2018 M. Lacey FinCEN Form 114 for year

2017 DEFLACEY000031-000038

83

5542 2018.09.05 J. Becker Docs

DEFENSE 011886-011933

85

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 4 of 140
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EXHIBITS (Cont'd)

NO. DESCRIPTION REC'D

5545 2019 M. Lacey FinCEN Form 114 for year

2018

DEFENSE 006183-006184

89

5546 2020 M. Lacey FinCEN Form 114 for year

2019

DEFENSE 006186-006187

89

6264 Email from Lacey to Becker, 07/29/2016

Becker 02057 (Page 30)

77

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 5 of 140
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

13:01:55

13:02:21

13:02:52

13:03:05

13:03:39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

P R O C E E D I N G S

(Court was called to order by the courtroom deputy.)

(Proceedings reconvene at 1:01 p.m.)

(Jury not present at 1:01 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

And we have our jurors in place, but let me -- let me

just tell you that over the break period, I looked at this

Exhibit 5507 entitled Why Village Voice Media's Backpage.com

Service Does Not Create Liability.

And I'm -- I guess a point of clarification,

Mr. Feder. This was authored by attorneys Mark Sableman and

Anthony Blum, but you kept referring to another attorney. And

I'm -- I'm kind of confused about that. You were -- you were

speaking about someone that is not an author, Mr. Suskin, of

this memo.

MR. FEDER: We were talking about two different

things, Judge. One is what you're looking at, Sableman.

Another is a fellow named Steve -- Steve Suskin, who is general

counsel for New Times and then Backpage.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. That clarifies that

question. So I was confused about that.

Now, what I would say about this Sableman exhibit,

that at page 23, there is an analysis about whether Backpage is

engaged in protected speech. And I would say that is relevant,

but everything above that is not. And so to the extent you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 6 of 140
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

13:04:26

13:04:57

13:05:22

13:05:38

13:05:54

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

wish to use this as an exhibit in a redacted form, removing

everything up to Section 3 of the memorandum, then you can ask

your client, or anyone can ask their client, about their

awareness of this concluding information about First Amendment

protection. And, of course, the government's able to ask the

defendants about what -- well, I should cav- -- there's a

caveat there in terms of the defendants' understanding of what

prompted this.

And -- and I don't know, Mr. Feder, if you were

intending to call either Mr. Sableman or Mr. Blum. And if not,

then your clients, if they're going to testify about the

content or their awareness of the content and the conclusions

of it, then they need to be somehow aware of what was asked of

those counsel in this particular instance. But I'm not going

to permit the exhibit to go back to the jury, because it's

replete with legal analysis, which is going to lead to

confusion.

You know, of course, the government can ask questions

about the ultimate conclusions.

MR. STONE: Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. STONE: Just one point of clarification, is it

still seems like we're missing a key component here, because

this 31-page memo by Mr. Sableman is clearly advice of counsel.

I mean, this is --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 7 of 140
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

13:06:03

13:06:15

13:06:26

13:06:32

13:06:55

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

THE COURT: It is.

MR. STONE: This is just a memo from an attorney

saying what you're doing is legal. But what's really needed

and which hasn't been proffered and certainly if defendants

proffer this information, it would be, you know, one of the

four elements that Your Honor has referred to time and time

again, is what information was shared with these attorneys --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. STONE: -- before they made these legal

conclusions?

If they weren't told, for example, about the

reciprocal link program at The Erotic Review, then their --

their advice isn't reliable and it's not relevant. And so --

THE COURT: Well --

MR. STONE: -- we would need to understand that, I

think, Your Honor --

THE COURT: And I --

MR. STONE: -- before it comes in.

THE COURT: I completely agree. I'm not letting the

defendants in using this exhibit leapfrog those additional

criteria.

So to the extent that you can -- you're bringing in

the author, either Sableman or Blum, about this, then they can

testify about what they were asked only with respect to

Section 3, not the other information.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 8 of 140
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

13:07:22

13:07:37

13:08:11

13:08:27

13:08:50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

And to the extent that your clients are relying upon

any portion of this memorandum, and I'm only going to limit you

to what's in Section 3, then they, too, have to put forward

some foundational testimony about what they understood the

question to be that was given to counsel.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. LINCENBERG: So in regard to this exhibit, we

sought to introduce it on cross of Ferrer as an attachment to

an email that went to BMO. It's, I think, 5507, 5508. And, as

I recall, 5508 is the email from Brunst to BMO.

The Court did not permit me to go into it. We would

move into evidence 5507 in the redacted form that the Court

just noted, meaning let Section 3 go back to the jury. It

negates the government's claim that information was being

withheld from BMO.

THE COURT: No. I'm not going to permit it to go back

to the jury. I just said that. You can use it in your

examination of your witness, but I'm not going to let the

exhibit, even in a redacted form, go back to the jury because

it is inclusive of legal arguments that are not relevant.

I'm only suggesting that as -- with respect to

knowledge of -- or their belief, good-faith belief, that they

were First Amendment protected in their activity, that's what

this relates to, not anything else.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 9 of 140
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

13:09:11

13:09:28

13:09:37

13:09:48

13:10:02

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

The government is also free to ask any of the

individuals who relied on this whether or not they were aware

that Backpage pled guilty. They can also delve into what the

ultimate conclusion was at paragraph -- at the -- the ultimate

concluding paragraph at paragraph 3.

So there -- there -- just be mindful that there are

other bits of information in this analysis that will be

relevant to the case as well.

So that's how we will proceed.

Let's have the jury in.

MR. STONE: Your Honor, just a final point of

clarification. Do I understand Your Honor correctly that it's

not coming in at all until there's a proffer about what

information was shared with the attorneys?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. STONE: Okay.

MR. KESSLER: Your Honor, again a point --

THE COURT: Who's speaking?

MR. KESSLER: This is Eric Kessler.

A point of clarification. You mention page 23.

That's where Section Roman Numeral III begins.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. KESSLER: It has six or seven subparts, A, B, C,

and so forth. Are you allowing in the entire section, Roman

Numeral III?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 10 of 140
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

13:10:52

13:11:07

13:11:25

13:11:43

13:11:58

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

THE COURT: Well, now that you mention that, I think

that the information related to the Missouri statute is

probably not relevant. That actually may be in the previous

section. But, in any event, I'm not going to permit you to

mark it as an exhibit to go back to the jury, so --

MR. KESSLER: I understand that, but in terms of

examining Mr. Sableman, were he to testify, is the entire Roman

Numeral III section permissible?

THE COURT: Well, let -- give me some time. When is

he scheduled to testify?

MR. FEDER: We're just hearing this, like, now, Judge.

I don't know. This is my answer.

THE COURT: But you asked for it to be admitted, so I

don't know how else you were going to get it admitted if he

wasn't supposed to testify.

MR. FEDER: Well, as -- as indicated, we tried to get

it in through Mr. Ferrer, and it was introduced and shown --

and I think shown to him, and then the Court denied its

admission. I think, you know, I would reiterate what

Mr. Lincenberg said and ask that it be admitted through

Mr. Ferrer in pertinent part.

THE COURT: No. It's not going to go back to the jury

for all the reasons I've just stated.

So I guess you'll tell me at the end of the day when

Mr. Sableman is going to testify.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 11 of 140
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

13:12:09

13:12:19

13:13:19

13:13:57

13:14:19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

MR. CAMBRIA: Could I --

THE COURT: Let's bring the jury in.

MR. CAMBRIA: Could I make one comment?

THE COURT: Is it necessary right now?

MR. CAMBRIA: It is, because I just wanted to say that

we would have also demonstrated that that memo went to

Mr. Lacey.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. That the memo was what?

MR. CAMBRIA: That went to Mr. Lacey, that he

was copied on that memo from Mr. Sableman. So he had knowledge

of it, is what I'm saying.

THE COURT: All right. All right. Let's have the

jury in.

Can we have the witness stand by the podium?

THE WITNESS: Oh.

THE COURT: All rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 1:13 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

And welcome back, members of the jury. Everyone looks

refreshed and ready to go. And so I hope everyone had a

pleasant long -- longer than anticipated weekend. And, as we

ended on last Friday morning, the government, I'll remind you,

had rested its case-in-chief. And so now we move to the

defendants' case-in-chief.

And so please call your first witness.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 12 of 140
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

13:14:30

13:14:54

13:15:01

13:15:12

13:15:21

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, the defendants call Grant

Snyder.

THE COURT: Mr. Snyder, please come forward to my

courtroom deputy and be sworn.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Please raise your right hand.

(GRANT ALLAN SNYDER, a witness herein, was duly sworn or

affirmed.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: If you'd go ahead and step over

to the witness stand, please.

THE COURT: Sir, please be seated. Thank you.

And, Mr. Eisenberg, you may begin when you're ready.

MR. EISENBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Sir, would you tell the jury your name.

A. Grant Allan Snyder.

Q. Mr. Snyder, what community do you live in?

A. Woodbury, Minnesota.

Q. And are you currently employed?

A. I am.

Q. How are you employed, sir?

A. I'm the vice president of operations and outreach for a

local nonprofit.

Q. What does that local nonprofit do?

A. We provide about 8,000 meals a week for people that are

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 13 of 140
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

13:15:41

13:16:00

13:16:17

13:16:30

13:16:44

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

struggling with homelessness and provide other forms of support

to our first responders and other folks in that community.

Q. And the funding for that group that -- that you work for,

where does it come from?

A. Oh, 95 percent of our funding is fee-for-service to --

through contracts with shelters, drop-in centers, things like

that. We also receive some state-level grants under the

youth -- Homeless Youth Act and the ESG, and then also through

private donation.

Q. Sir, how long have you been involved with that?

A. Since approximately April of 2018.

Q. And is anyone else in your family involved in it?

A. My wife is the executive director and my direct boss.

Q. Prior -- I'm sorry? Okay.

Prior to the time that you went with this group, where

did you work?

A. Well, up until July 28th of this year, I was a commander

with the Minneapolis Police Department.

Q. What rank is commander?

A. Commander is approximately the rank of a captain.

Commanders command divisions, whereas lieutenants command

units.

Q. And how long had you worked for the police department?

A. Approximately 27 years.

Q. Which department is this, sir?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 14 of 140
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

13:16:59

13:17:24

13:17:45

13:18:07

13:18:31

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

A. The Minneapolis Police Department.

Q. Starting with the time that you began, would you briefly

explain to the jury the career path that you took and the work

that you did.

A. In 2000 -- I'm sorry, in 1996, I was recruited out of

graduate school. I became a patrol officer in the City of

Minneapolis Fourth Police Precinct answering 911 calls. In

approximately December of 1999, I became a street crimes

officer working, again, in the Fourth Precinct. And in 2023,

approximately, I became a surveillance officer for our

strategic operations team.

Later in 2007, I was promoted to sergeant and moved

over to an FBI task force as a surveillance sergeant. In 2011,

I transferred to the child abuse unit. And in November of

2011, I started our juvenile human trafficking program, where I

remained until April 1st of 2018.

On April 1st of 2018, I started our department's

homeless outreach unit. And I remained there until I became a

lieutenant in September of 2019, at which point I took over our

homeless outreach unit as lieutenant. I was the lieutenant of

our hiring and recruitment program, our chaplains. I remained

there until the end of 2020, when I moved over to the Fourth

Precinct as a patrol supervisor and administrative lieutenant

for the Fourth Precinct. And then in August of 2022, I became

the commander of the community outreach bureau.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 15 of 140
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

13:18:48

13:19:12

13:19:29

13:19:39

13:19:57

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

Q. Sir, in the course of your service with the police

department, did you concentrate in a particular area, such as a

human trafficking, prostitution, that sort of thing?

A. I did. From approximately the time that I went to the --

the street crimes unit in 1999, I was focused at that point on

liveability issues, which related to prostitution, promotion of

prostitution. We hadn't heard the word human trafficking back

then. And when I went -- moved over to the -- the FBI task

force in 2007, I started working human trafficking and

promotion of prostitution. That's why I was brought over

there, to support an ongoing public corruption -- public

corruption case that the FBI was doing. And then in 2011, I

started our human trafficking program, or juvenile human

trafficking program.

Q. You mentioned a term "promotional prostitution."

Did I hear that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What does that mean?

A. Promotional prostitution is that someone other than the

individual themself is -- is promoting them in prostitution, is

either causing, coercing, or providing any kind of material

support or means by -- through which that, you know,

facilitates the prostitution act.

Q. Such as a pimp?

A. Such as a pimp.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 16 of 140
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

13:20:08

13:20:16

13:20:29

13:20:42

13:20:59

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

Q. You mentioned, sir, that you were recruited out of

university or college?

A. Out of -- out of graduate school at the University of

Minnesota.

Q. Okay. So you have an undergraduate degree?

A. At that point I did, yes.

Q. In what?

A. It was a bachelor of individualized studies with a focus on

human sexuality.

Q. And -- go ahead.

A. My area of interest was the ubiquity and function of

human -- I'm sorry -- of prostitution in every recorded human

society in history.

Q. And was that at the University of Minnesota?

A. It was.

Q. And then you said you have graduate work or degree?

A. I did -- I did two years of graduate work there, and then

later on I returned to graduate school and got a master's of

theology.

Q. Where did you get your master's in theology?

A. Northwestern.

Q. All right. So, now, in the course of your work, sir, did

you have -- were you connected with law enforcement units or

groups outside of the Minneapolis Police Department?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 17 of 140
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

13:21:13

13:21:27

13:21:41

13:21:52

13:22:03

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

Q. All right -- go ahead.

A. We were -- well, certainly through the FBI task force, we

had a, you know, jurisdiction that well exceeded the boundaries

of the city and the state. When I took over our juvenile human

trafficking program and -- well, started our juvenile human

trafficking program, we developed partnerships not just in the

Twin Cities area, but in the neighboring states and in other

states around the country.

Q. So it sounds like you had a multistate oversight in terms

of what you were looking at, human trafficking?

A. Yeah. I mean, I had involvement in case work that was

going on in other places, yes.

THE COURT: Mr. Snyder, can I ask you just to slow

down a little bit. You're really taxing our court reporter,

who's trying to keep up with you, very, very fast cadence of

speech. But just take a breath a little bit and then slow

down.

THE WITNESS: Absolutely, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: It's not the first time I've heard that.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. And how about any other associations, such as International

Association of Human Trafficking?

A. I'M the -- one of the vice presidents in charge of

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 18 of 140
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

13:22:19

13:22:37

13:22:54

13:23:14

13:23:39

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

community connections and relationships through the

International -- or for the International Association of Human

Trafficking Investigators. That relationship dates back to

approximately 2012.

Q. And do you have any association or connection, or did you,

with the United States Marshal's office?

A. I was a specially deputized U.S. Marshal. I can't remember

the exact date, but it was in or around the 2008 or 2009 period

when I was part of the ATF task force.

Q. Now -- I'm sorry. I'm going to ask you about your role in

training others. Okay?

Would you tell the jury the -- the types of training

that you've given to other people and who it was connected

with, that sort of thing.

A. Sure. I provided training under a number of different

grants originally that was focused on things like human

trafficking investigations, both preliminary and advanced human

trafficking investigation; victim management, trauma, informed

care, and interviewing victims.

We -- I also provided surveillance training, technical

surveillance education, undercover operations. I conducted a

number of undercover operations, and myself, and so we -- we

provided curriculum that was oriented toward introducing people

to what trauma-informed, victim-centered undercover operation

would look like that wouldn't further traumatize or injure

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 19 of 140
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

13:24:02

13:24:21

13:24:39

13:24:53

13:25:21

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

victims that were already being exploited.

And things like individual officer wellness to follow,

online extrapolation and exploitation of sources.

Surveillance. Physical and mobile surveillance. And a variety

of other things that I'm probably forgetting right now.

Q. Mr. Grant, again, I think if you could talk just a little

slower. Okay? All right. Thank you, sir.

So did there come a time in your career when you did,

you, yourself, did prostitution investigations?

A. Yes. For the greatest portion of the time that I was in --

was a sworn officer, I participated in one way or another.

Q. And in the course of doing that, did you consult

advertisements with respect to leads, if you will?

A. I did.

Q. Now, before -- you did have an association with Backpage;

is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Before we get to that, would you describe how you in your

police work would do an investigation of prostitution

through -- initiated through an ad.

A. So the -- the traditional way of doing work investigating

prostitution was to engage in contact with a person that was

suspected to be engaged in prostitution, attempt to obtain an

offer of sex for money, and then make an arrest of the

individual, which was typically, in my experience, women,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 20 of 140
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

13:25:39

13:25:53

13:26:08

13:26:26

13:26:47

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

although it's by no means is only women, and then use that

hammer, if you would, of arrest and potential prosecution to

encourage cooperation.

That we found to be very problematic for a number of

reasons, not limited to that it further traumatizes people that

are already experiencing some form of trauma. And so we try

to --

MR. BERRY: Objection, Your Honor. Testifying in the

narrative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Sir, what did you -- can you complete the way that you

would go about conducting an investigation.

A. We would use leads, online ads in some cases, to make

contact with individuals that may or may not have been involved

in prostitution or being exploited, and then assess whether or

not they were -- they needed help, were willing to accept our

assistance or the assistance of victim advocates that we

typically took with us. Try and build a relationship and

rapport with that individual. And never arrested people that

were themselves involved in prostitution.

Q. Now, Mr. Grant, would you -- in the cases where you were

initiating your investigation through an ad, would you arrest

someone on the basis of the ad alone?

A. No.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 21 of 140
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

13:27:05

13:27:18

13:27:32

13:27:44

13:28:09

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

22

Q. Why not?

A. Well, because the ad was -- was a lead. It provided a

potential starting point, but a very early starting point. And

there was no assurance that the individual, if there was a

photo depicted, was even the individual that we would have

contact with.

Q. Right. Now, in the course of doing your investigations,

would you consult Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. And would you look on Backpage for advertisements?

A. I did.

Q. And would you post your own advertisement in -- on

Backpage?

A. I would when I was doing undercover reverse stings.

Q. For, sir?

A. When I was doing reverse sting operations.

Q. Oh, reverse sting. What's the reverse sting? I think the

jury may know, but, please, just --

A. A reverse sting, which is where we were targeting the

buyers of sex, again, largely men, who were seeking to pay for

sex with women, and we would post an ad and, in fact, it was

not a 15- or 16-year-old woman. It was me, which is an

alarming thing to have to deal with.

Q. So let's get the time frame in terms of your using Backpage

or looking at Backpage ads. When did you start and when did

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 22 of 140
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

13:28:27

13:28:48

13:29:09

13:29:28

13:29:39

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

you finish?

A. So I started dealing with Backpage ads the earliest I

remember in 2007 when I moved over to what was then an ATF task

force that FBI was a part of. And we started working on,

again, ads that were relevant to the prostitution in this

public corruption case.

Q. So when you posted your own ads, tell the jury your

experience with what happened to those ads.

A. Well, there was a -- a process that they would go through

when we posted an ad called moderation. And many of the ads,

if we were too explicit, if there was any excess nudity, or if

we made references to age, the ads would not post. They would

be blocked. And we would have to go back to square one and try

again.

Q. Would you try to repost that ad? And, if so, what

happened?

A. If -- if I removed problematic language, which often was a

guess, because I wasn't search -- sure in most cases what was

causing it, we would go back and try again. And, you know, we

would have to use different, you know --

Q. Terms?

A. -- terms, different wording.

Q. How would you know an ad had been blocked?

A. It would never show up.

Q. But you knew that you actually put the ad in?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 23 of 140
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

13:29:52

13:30:05

13:30:22

13:30:37

13:30:47

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

A. Yes.

Q. Did you pay for it?

A. Yep.

Q. Did there come a time, sir, when you had contacts, physical

contacts with personnel at Backpage?

A. Yes. I had numerous --

Q. Okay.

A. -- phone calls in particular, email contact, and later on a

few physical face-to-face contacts with people.

Q. Let's talk about the phone calls. I'm not going to ask you

what was said on either side of -- well, I'm going to ask you

this: Why did you call?

A. Well, in the early stages it was to try and figure out why

our ads weren't being posted or to get more information if

there was, you know, like an ad that I was trying to get a

return on or trying to find out more information. So in the

early days, it was trying to obtain information pursuant to an

investigation.

Q. And in the early days, when you were calling to find out

whether -- why an ad had been taken down or why it hadn't been

posted, did you find out the reason?

A. No.

Q. You just -- it was gone? The ad was gone?

A. Yeah.

Q. Okay. Later on did there come a reason or other reasons

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 24 of 140
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

13:31:08

13:31:20

13:31:41

13:31:58

13:32:07

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

25

why you called Backpage?

A. There were times when we would have an exigent

circumstance, where we needed a response right away. And if it

was at a time when the -- when the -- the U.S. Attorney -- the

U.S. Attorney? I'm sorry -- the District Attorney's Office,

the Hennepin County Attorney's Office was closed, I was not

going to be able to get a subpoena signed. So it rose to a

point where we would have to contact somebody to get an exigent

response.

Q. Okay. Let me ask you this: What kind of information did

you need in order -- in an exigent time frame, what -- what

kind of information did you want to get?

A. Well, I was looking in particular at -- I wanted to know if

there was an email account, if there was another phone number

associated with it, as many of the phones on those ads were

burner phones and later Google Voice, which really didn't go to

anything specifically. IP addresses later on were helpful and

required additional investigation. Later on, as we got more

sophisticated, we looked at ad history and where the postings

were.

Q. And did you -- I'm sorry, sir. Did you get that

information back from Backpage?

A. I did.

Q. Who at Backpage did you -- did you talk with?

A. Well, the -- the -- there were a number of people over

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 25 of 140
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

13:32:23

13:32:31

13:32:42

13:33:07

13:33:11

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

26

time. I talked to somebody named Carl. I think his last name

is Ferrer.

Q. That's one. Can you think of others?

A. I talked to Liz McDougall on several occasions.

Q. Okay.

A. I talked to Andrew Padilla.

Q. Okay.

A. And there's a woman named Joye. I can't -- I apologize. I

can't remember.

Q. Might her last name be Vaught? If you remember.

A. Yes.

Q. Thank you.

And were they responsive to your requests?

A. In the early stages, when I was dealing with Carl, it -- it

was pretty unresponsive. We didn't -- we didn't receive a lot

of support, in my experience. What we got back was either

delayed or it wasn't -- it wasn't particularly effective. It

didn't have all the information. Later on, there was a -- a

process where the returns evolved, both in terms of the

expediency --

MR. BERRY: Objection. Testifying in the narrative,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. What happened later on?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 26 of 140
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

13:33:24

13:33:41

13:33:50

13:34:04

13:34:13

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

27

A. The -- the ads became -- or the returns became more

efficient. They were provided faster, and they had more

information.

Q. Let me ask you then about Andrew Padilla. Was he

responsive to your needs?

A. He was.

Q. What times of the day or evening did you call Mr. Padilla?

A. Well, I mean, throughout the -- the day, during

business hours, there wasn't a lot of cause to call. It was

typically after hours, in the evenings. Sometimes late at

night if we were working a case.

Q. Were you able to get ahold of him --

A. I was.

Q. -- each time?

With respect to Ms. Vaught, when did you contact her,

the time of day?

A. I think the majority of conversations I had with her were,

like, in the after midnight range.

Q. And how long did it take them to get back to you with the

information that you were looking for?

A. Again, generally speaking, it was very fast.

Q. Were you able to use it?

A. Pardon me?

Q. Were you able to use the information?

A. I was.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 27 of 140
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

13:34:32

13:34:52

13:35:05

13:35:23

13:35:43

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28

Q. You were able to -- well, okay. Withdrawn.

And what about Ms. McDougall? Was she responsive?

A. Yeah. Liz helped us to sort of identify those areas where

we could be more collaborative and provide what was needed

legally to be able to get a return. She was also primarily

interested in what specifically we were looking for that would

make our job more effective.

Q. Now, did there come a time, sir, when Ms. McDougall came to

Minneapolis?

A. There was, yeah. She came, I think, in 2016.

Q. Did she meet with you?

A. She met with me, an HSI agent, a couple other local

investigators at the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Q. And what was the purpose of that meeting?

A. It was to discuss, again, ongoing collaboration,

specifically were there questions we had, how we could provide

them feedback that would help them to give us a better return

that would be -- that would lead us to more effective outcomes

on our cases and things like that.

Q. Would you say it was helpful?

A. It was very helpful.

Q. Now, I want to ask you about one more type of contact. I

think you testified that you did get -- you would from time to

time need a subpoena; is that correct?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 28 of 140
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

13:35:54

13:36:12

13:36:25

13:36:37

13:36:47

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

29

Q. And would you give subpoenas or have them delivered to

Backpage?

A. We would -- I would typically get my own subpoenas signed,

and then I would send them myself.

Q. All right. But then, nonetheless, they did go to Backpage?

A. Yes.

Q. And who did you look to for the response to the subpoena?

A. Again, it -- I think I sent them -- I can't remember what

the email was. It may have been records@backpage.com --

Q. All right.

A. -- but I knew that there was a limited number of people

that were responding. And, generally, it was -- it was either

Andrew or Joye.

Q. Okay. Now, in the course of your work, sir, did you also

look at other ad sites, if you will, besides Backpage?

A. Yeah.

MR. BERRY: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.

THE COURT: Well, overruled. The answer -- the

question has been answered.

And you can ask a new question, Mr. Eisenberg.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Let me ask it this way, sir: Did you need information from

those websites --

A. I did.

Q. -- the other ones?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 29 of 140
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

13:37:00

13:37:10

13:37:30

13:37:46

13:37:55

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

30

And did you attempt to contact personnel with respect

to those other websites or sites?

A. In the beginning, we did.

Q. And was -- were they responsive?

A. No.

Q. What happened as time went on? You just didn't try

anymore?

MR. BERRY: Objection to this line of testimony

regarding other companies that are not on trial here today.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Now, there same a time, sir, when Backpage shut down; is

that correct?

A. Yes, sometime in early 2018.

Q. And when it shut down, how did that impact your ability to

conduct your operations?

MR. BERRY: Objection. Relevance. Outside the scope

of the indictment.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Well, how about --

THE COURT: Well, so I'm going to overrule. He can

answer.

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Go ahead, sir. How did it affect your investigations?

A. Well, we had to relearn a new -- where the -- where the ads

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 30 of 140
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

13:38:19

13:38:30

13:38:43

13:39:04

13:39:19

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

31

were being posted, attempt to rebuild relationships that we'd

relied upon to get a return, utilize different sources of

information that we -- other than what we had been relying up

until that point.

Q. And was it as effective as what you were getting from

Backpage?

A. No.

Q. I also want to ask you about conferences in the course of

your work.

You've -- you've attended conferences, I take it?

A. Yes.

Q. And did there come a time, sir, when you saw or met with

Ms. Vaught at a conference?

A. Yes. I believe I met with her in -- I think it was

New Orleans. There was a conference, and we had a booth for

IHTI, the International Association of Human Trafficking

Investigators, there. And I met her.

Q. And for what purpose did you -- did you meet her?

A. Well, we were excited and interested that a representative

from Backpage was available to answer questions. Part of what

we do at the International Association of Human Trafficking

Investigators is to create connections so that we can get

information that's relevant right from the source. And this

seemed like a good opportunity.

Q. All right, sir. Thank you very much.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 31 of 140
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

13:39:36

13:39:57

13:40:06

13:40:23

13:40:34

GRANT SNYDER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

32

With respect to the ads that you were looking at on --

on Backpage or -- well, we'll leave it at Backpage -- what were

you particularly looking for in terms of whether it would

further your investigation?

A. Well, in the first case we were looking for specific things

that would lead us to a person we were looking for. For

example, if somebody from child protection, if we got a

referral or a parent had called and said, my runaway daughter,

I heard she's posting online, here's a photo of her, here's the

name that she's using, those would be things that we would

search for.

Q. Uh-huh.

A. We would also search for phone numbers, because phone

numbers are something that we could track.

Beyond that, it was -- it was sort of how the ad

itself felt. Was there anything that gave us a lead to look

into that?

Q. All right. Sir, and when you look at an ad -- let's talk

about the picture first, or the photo.

Did these ads have photos?

A. Most -- the vast majority of them did.

Q. And can you tell on the basis of the photo the age of the

person who was in the photo?

A. Not in my experience.

Q. Could you tell and did there come a time, sir, when you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 32 of 140
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

13:40:51

13:41:06

13:41:21

13:41:41

13:42:02

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

33

found that the person in the photo wasn't even the person that

was connected with the ad?

A. Yes. That became pretty common knowledge, that many of the

photos that were posted were pirated photos generally from

another region of the U.S.

Q. And, sir, the language in the ads, what were you -- what

were you looking for with respect to the language?

A. Well, again, first and foremost, we were looking for any

indication that would give us a reason to think that this ad

involved prostitution. The ads tended to not provide direct

evidence of that.

Q. And so that's why you had to continue your investigation?

A. Yeah. The ad was a starting point for us.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, that's all I have.

THE COURT: Who is examining the witness?

MR. BERRY: Me. Austin Berry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Please come forward. And when

you were ready.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Snyder.

A. Good afternoon, sir.

Q. We've talked a couple of times now; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 33 of 140
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

13:42:16

13:42:26

13:42:38

13:42:45

13:42:53

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

34

Q. And you are retired; correct?

A. Happily so, sir.

Q. Last time I talked to you, last -- or I guess before today,

last week you were on vacation with your family in Kentucky?

A. I was, sir.

Q. All right. Are you being paid to be here today, sir?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Were you subpoenaed to come here today?

A. I was.

Q. Would you have come here without a subpoena?

A. No.

Q. So you are here because a subpoena was issued, and you're

abiding by that subpoena; is that correct?

A. Yes, sir. I've never ignored a subpoena in my life, and

I'm not going to start now.

Q. You're not going to duck subpoenas; right?

A. No.

Q. They're -- they're the law. You got to comply with them;

correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. You're not volunteering anything that the subpoena doesn't

require you to come here and do; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. When were you first contacted by the defense?

A. In August of this year.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 34 of 140
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

13:43:11

13:43:24

13:43:34

13:43:51

13:44:04

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

35

Q. Okay. How did they contact you?

A. I got a voicemail, I believe, from a private investigator

working for the defense team.

Q. Okay. Do you remember who that was?

A. Andi. I think last name is Murphy.

Q. Okay. And you said you got a voicemail. Did you have any

other -- did you call that person back?

A. I did.

Q. Did you leave a message?

A. I don't recall.

Q. Did you talk to that person at that time?

A. I did.

Q. Do you know if that conversation was recorded or anything?

A. I have no idea.

Q. Have you had any communications with anybody on the defense

side, and that includes Mr. Eisenberg, any of the defendants,

this Andi Murphy from Murphy Investigations, anybody associated

with the defense, have you had any written communications with

them since they first reached out to you?

A. Yeah. I mean, written to the extent if you consider text

messages written.

Q. I do.

A. The majority of the communication, I think with Ms. Murphy,

was through text messages.

I believe I sent an email to Mr. Kessler's email

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 35 of 140
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

13:44:27

13:44:58

13:45:10

13:45:36

13:45:55

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

36

address, for which I didn't initially receive a response, but

then some travel discussion and hotel arrangements were made

through, I think, Mr. Kessler's associate.

Q. Okay. And what was the nature of the text messages between

you and the defense investigator?

A. Largely discussion about when I would be available. In the

initial stage, would I be available to talk with the attorneys

on the defense team? Would I be willing to do so? And then

later on, housekeeping things, about, you know, when I would --

you know, did I receive a subpoena, when I would be here, that

came much later.

There was a long period of time that there was no

communication, from August until, you know, maybe last week,

so ...

Q. Right. In any of the meetings that you had with any of the

defense team, and, again, that means everybody on the defense

side, not a -- necessarily an attorney, were any notes taken at

any of those meetings, to your knowledge?

A. The meeting that I had with them yesterday was the only

face-to-face up until that point that I had had. And I guess I

wasn't paying attention. I assumed people were taking notes.

Q. You -- did you review those notes at all?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Was any recording made of that meeting at all?

A. No idea.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 36 of 140
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

13:46:03

13:46:26

13:46:49

13:47:19

13:47:36

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

37

Q. To your knowledge, there wasn't?

A. I have -- no, I don't know.

Q. Okay. You certainly didn't make one?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Was there any report drafted about that meeting, to

your knowledge, that you've reviewed?

A. No.

Q. Did you prepare anything at the request of the defense?

A. The only thing that I did was review, I think, a series of

ads on a Dropbox file that they sent to me late last week or

last weekend.

Q. So you reviewed a series of ads? Is that what you said?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. They provided you a link to a Dropbox file that had some

ads in it?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you know how many ads there were?

A. There was maybe eight to ten ads. And that's a guess. And

then there was some other documents that looked like either a

subpoena return or -- not that. Something else. I can't

really recall what they were. But I didn't review those with

any great, you know, concentration. I reviewed the ads

themselves.

Q. Okay.

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, at this time, the United

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 37 of 140
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

13:47:50

13:48:09

13:48:19

13:48:36

13:48:47

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

38

States moves for the production of these text messages and

emails between the defense and the witness under Rule 26.2 that

have not been provided to the United States.

In addition to that, the United States moves for the

production of these ads and other documents under 612 that says

that we are entitled to look at anything that was used to

look -- refresh the -- the witness's memory and should be

produced at the hearing for inspection.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, with respect --

THE COURT: Please stand.

MR. EISENBERG: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: Please stand.

MR. EISENBERG: With respect to the text messages, I

don't believe that -- that we have them. But they were not

substantive, and we didn't keep them.

With respect to what he was -- he was reviewed or has

been shown the other day, I'm not aware of the fact that I have

to produce that for the government under Rule 612, but we can

produce it.

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to order the

production of whatever you may have in terms of text

messages --

MR. EISENBERG: All right.

THE COURT: -- and the ads that were shown to the

witness.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 38 of 140
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

13:48:57

13:49:06

13:49:17

13:49:23

13:49:39

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

39

MR. EISENBERG: We can do the ads today, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BERRY: And apparently some other documents, some

unspecified documents that he reviewed, although not in great

detail. Everything that was provided in that Dropbox file.

THE COURT: Yes, it should be produced, Mr. Eisenberg.

MR. EISENBERG: We will, Your Honor.

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, that's necessary for me to

continue my examination of this witness. That's why we asked

for the stuff in advance.

Could I ask the witness if he has a copy of these text

messages that the defense failed to produce?

THE COURT: Certainly. Certainly.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Do you have those text messages, sir?

A. I -- on my phone.

Q. You do have them --

A. Yes.

Q. -- available for me to review on a break?

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Berry, let's go ahead and

let the jury have a bit of a respite while we address this

issue.

Members of the jury, again, please continue to keep an

open mind. There's some legal issues that I must address with

counsel, as you've had a highlight of, but, in any event,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 39 of 140
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

13:49:53

13:50:23

13:50:35

13:50:59

13:51:21

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

40

please just continue to remember the admonition. We'll call

you back, and I promise you it won't be any more than

ten minutes.

Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury not present at 1:49 p.m.)

THE COURT: Sir, you may step down.

Yes, you may step down and wait in the witness room.

MR. BERRY: May I step out with the witness and review

his phone?

THE COURT: Not just yet.

MR. BERRY: All right.

THE COURT: Please be seated.

Counsel, I will remind you that the government last

week renewed its request for the long-standing production of

26.2 material. We now have the situation where if you have not

produced anything and you're going to call a witness, and

Mr. Berry or his co-counsel go through this line of

questioning, that you're going to be left with -- the jury's

going to be left with an impression that you've got something

to hide. And I don't think that's anything that anyone wants.

MR. EISENBERG: Well, Your Honor, let me --

THE COURT: Well, no. Let me -- let me be very clear.

You need to go back and ask your investigators and your

witnesses whether or not they've been shown material. And if

it falls under Rule 26.2 or 612, produce it before they get on

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 40 of 140
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

13:51:44

13:52:04

13:52:14

13:52:25

13:52:43

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

41

the stand to avoid this problem.

I'm going to take a very limited break. Mr. Berry can

go back and confer with whatever it is that -- that is on this

witness's phone, and be diligent at producing whatever other

material he reviewed in advance of his testimony.

And -- and let me just be clear. Whatever these ads

are that he reviewed obviously was going to be relevant to his

testimony, and so they are permitted to look at it.

And so with that, we'll stand in recess.

MR. EISENBERG: May I be heard, Your Honor?

THE COURT: You may. You may make a record.

MR. EISENBERG: Thank you.

Rule 26.2 has nothing to do with the production of

ads, nothing to do with the production of anything other than a

statement made by the -- by the witness. He has made no

statements that fall within the ambit of 26.2.

THE COURT: We don't know that because --

MR. EISENBERG: I'm --

THE COURT: -- nothing has been produced.

MR. EISENBERG: I've -- Your Honor, I -- with all due

respect, I'm an officer of the Court. I know what a statement

is. I can read that rule. And I can assure the Court and

counsel for the government there has been no statement that

this man has given. He has not incorporated a statement.

There's nothing that has been recorded. There has nothing that

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 41 of 140
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

13:53:00

13:53:13

13:53:28

13:53:42

13:53:54

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

42

he has reviewed and said that this is my statement. It does

not exist.

With respect to documentation that he has seen, I'm

not sure that Rule 612 actually provides that. But if the

government wants to look at it, I will take a look and -- and

determine whether we can produce it right now.

THE COURT: The problem is --

MR. EISENBERG: Frankly -- I'm sorry, Your Honor.

I've been called to task here, and I don't think it's right. I

have not had any production of any statement. There is none

that I know of.

And this type of argument and examination is a little

bit unfair. I am so sorry, Your Honor, but that's the way I

feel about it.

THE COURT: Well, let me just clarify, Mr. Eisenberg.

I'm talking about you and your co-counsel. And I'm talking

about --

MR. EISENBERG: Well --

THE COURT: -- any witness who's going to be called,

not just this witness.

So if you stand by your statement --

MR. EISENBERG: I do.

THE COURT: -- that no witness -- wait. Don't argue

with the Court. You may argue to the Court.

MR. EISENBERG: Yes, Your Honor. I'm going to --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 42 of 140
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

13:54:13

13:54:31

13:54:47

13:55:03

14:02:24

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

43

THE COURT: Now, let me just say if anyone is aware

that any pending witness that is going to be called has

produced a statement, has made a statement, it needs to be

turned over. These obligations and requests have been ongoing

since the beginning of the first trial two years ago --

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- and -- and so, please, that's how we

are going to operate. And to the -- to the argument that this

is un- -- an unfair line of questioning, it's exactly the same

line of questioning that other defense counsel have gone

through with the prosecutor's witnesses. So I'm going to

permit it, but --

MR. EISENBERG: Respectfully, Your Honor --

THE COURT: Don't start with respectfully, because if

you're going to argue with the Court, I'm not going to have it.

We have a jury waiting. I've told Mr. Berry to go back and

meet with the witness and look at his text messages. And we're

going to come back and reconvene.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Recess from 1:55 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.)

THE COURT: What is the issue?

MR. EISENBERG: Well, there's two, Your Honor. One is

Rule 612 does not give the government the authority to demand

what has been shown the witness. If that were true, every time

one of the government's witnesses was debriefed and prepared

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 43 of 140
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

14:02:45

14:03:01

14:03:16

14:03:28

14:03:42

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

44

for trial in this case, every single document that that person

saw should have been given to us. And in my case, Your Honor,

I've never seen them. And I know some of those witnesses

have -- were prepped just before they got on the witness stand.

Now, why it's different here, I don't know.

Secondly, with respect to the rule itself, it says,

"This rule gives an adverse party options when a witness uses a

writing to refresh memory."

None of what he was shown was used to refresh anything

on his part. They were simply ads that were shown to him. He

did not testify about them. And so they are not produceable

the way I read Rule 612.

And I think that's the way it's worked for the

government. Should be the same way it works for me, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Well, it is true he didn't testify about

the ads, so let me get to the 26.2 text messages.

Where are we on that?

MR. EISENBERG: I have no problem if the government

wants to look at them, Your Honor. They're not substantive.

I'm not even sure why those are a matter to be produced.

THE COURT: Well, we don't -- yeah, we don't know what

that back and forth was about. So, all right. So where --

where is the witness?

MR. EISENBERG: Well, I -- he must be in the witness

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 44 of 140
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

14:03:57

14:04:14

14:04:24

14:04:33

14:04:46

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

45

room, Your Honor.

He has said -- has indicated to me that he wants his

own attorney. I'm not sure that that's necessary. I'll talk

to him and see whether that can be -- whether he wants that.

If he does, of course, he may. But I have no understanding or

no reason to get involved with that. But let me talk to him

and see if we could smooth this out.

THE COURT: Well, let me ask you this question: Why

can't whomever it was that he was texting back and forth with,

one of your investigators, why can't they produce those text

messages?

MR. EISENBERG: We can do that as well, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And so why can't we do that now?

MR. BERRY: I think Mr. Eisenberg said a little bit

ago that they were not preserved, which is why I asked --

MR. EISENBERG: Well --

MR. BERRY: -- if he didn't preserve them, then maybe

the witness had them.

MR. EISENBERG: I don't have any. And whether my

investigator still has them, I don't know. I --

THE COURT: Is your investigator here?

MR. EISENBERG: Yes, she is, Your Honor.

Do you still have them?

THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear.

(Discussion held off the record.)

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 45 of 140
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

14:04:58

14:05:12

14:05:28

14:05:40

14:05:51

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

46

MR. EISENBERG: Yeah, she's -- we'll be able to get

them together, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, now the dilemma is we have a jury

waiting, and we're waiting for production to continue the

testimony.

Mr. Berry, are there other areas that you can go into

with this witness who is now --

MR. BERRY: There certainly are, but I would like to

see these before the end of my examination. I mean, this was

just -- this was just the beginning. I was trying to get into

it. But it's part of what would direct my examination of him,

is to understand what he possibly said previously that he made

a -- if he made a statement in these messages that would

influence the flow of my examination. That's why we've asked

for this stuff to be produced in advance. And that's the point

of this, so there's not a delay at trial, which is exactly what

we were anticipating, which is why we consistently asked for

it.

THE COURT: Well, here's what we're going to do,

because we have the jury waiting: You're going to go into

whatever areas you can possibly go into on your

cross-examination of the witness.

MR. BERRY: Yes, ma'am.

THE COURT: He will await -- you will await the

production by the defense of whatever these text messages are.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 46 of 140
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

14:06:10

14:06:27

14:06:39

14:06:45

14:06:55

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

47

And if we have to hold him over for subpoena purposes to

reexamine, then we'll do that.

But go through your cross-examination. And if you

need to ask for additional time to examine the witness, then he

can step down. We'll hold him on subpoena, and then we can

recall him tomorrow or later this afternoon, if it's necessary.

MR. BERRY: Thank you.

THE COURT: All right. So let's bring the witness in,

and let's have the jury come back.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, at the break can I have a

minute? I'd like to bring a mistrial motion when the Court has

a minute at the break.

THE COURT: Sure.

MR. LINCENBERG: Should I do it now --

THE COURT: No.

MR. LINCENBERG: -- or wait for a break?

THE COURT: You ask for a minute. You always take

ten.

So let's bring the jury in.

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, before they come in, I

have a suggestion as well.

THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Eisenberg.

MR. EISENBERG: Will Your Honor look at these text

messages to determine whether they're even substantive or they

should be turned over?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 47 of 140
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

14:07:02

14:07:41

14:08:11

14:08:23

14:08:32

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

48

THE COURT: I'm happy to do that. Produce them now,

please.

All right.

MR. EISENBERG: Okay. Thank you.

THE COURT: Sir, please come forward and take your

seat.

Oh, you're going to rise in a moment anyway, sir.

Thank you. You might as well stand.

All rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 2:07 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

The record will reflect the presence of the jury. The

witness is on the witness stand.

Mr. Berry, you may continue.

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. All right, Mr. Snyder, we're back. We were asking

questions about communications with defense, things like that.

I just want to move into your -- your human trafficking

investigation experience that you testified about.

So first and foremost, you're wearing a shirt right

now with a logo. What is it?

A. It's International Association of Human Trafficking

Investigators.

Q. And what is that?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 48 of 140
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

14:08:50

14:09:10

14:09:23

14:09:36

14:09:56

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

49

A. Oh, it's a collaboration, if you will. It's a nonprofit

ran out of Knoxville. Started in Clearwater. Run by Jeremy

Lewis, who is a former human trafficking investigator from

the -- I think it's Pima County down there. I can't remember

exactly. And we conduct trainings. We started just doing,

like, one a year, and now we do up to, like, four or five a

year in different parts of the country and internationally.

We've gone to Canada and places like that.

Q. And you're -- in your direct examination, you were asked

some questions about when you started utilizing Backpage in

your human trafficking investigation.

Do you recall that?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. And if we could just for a second, let's unpack what you

mean when you use the word "human trafficking," because you

would agree with me that has sort of a broad meaning and there

are different subparts to that.

Would you agree with that?

A. I do agree with that.

Q. Okay. So when we talk about human trafficking that you

investigated, were you investigating people like labor

trafficking, people being forced to work in the back of a -- a

food shop or a massage parlor or something like that?

A. I participated in a number of cases that could have been

charged as labor trafficking cases, but I was not a specialized

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 49 of 140
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

14:10:12

14:10:26

14:10:41

14:10:53

14:11:11

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

50

labor trafficking investigator, as many people are.

MR. EISENBERG: Object to this line of questioning,

Your Honor, because it doesn't relate to the allegations in the

indictment.

MR. BERRY: Your Honor --

THE COURT: I think with respect to -- well, no. I'll

overrule at this point.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Okay. So you -- you've done some labor trafficking. But,

for the most part, your career focused on the part of human

trafficking that involved sex for money; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. That was previously or earlier in your career would have

been just strictly referred to as some form of prostitution;

correct?

A. Promotion of prostitution most likely.

Q. But prostitution was involved; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. But when you use that term, you're talking more about

investigations of people who were exchanging sex for money with

some additional coercive element; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. In fact, your background or your -- the bulk of your career

did not focus on just straight prostitution investigations.

Was that fair to say?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 50 of 140
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

14:11:31

14:11:48

14:11:59

14:12:11

14:12:25

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

51

A. I -- I'm uncomfortable saying yes to that, even though I

was called a human trafficking investigator because we all

claim that mantel. Much of what -- I mean, but for

prostitution, there wouldn't be sex trafficking. So I

considered myself a subject matter expert in prostitution as

well.

Q. And, in fact, there came a time where folks in law

enforcement, you included, took a more victim-centered approach

and started using a somewhat more victim-centric term to say

human trafficking rather than calling a victim of human

trafficking a prostitute; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And so when we were talking about these words, I want to

make sure we understand where we are in that language.

Am I using the language the way you're used to?

A. I think so.

Q. Okay. If I don't, if you would, please correct me about

that.

So that being said, you -- you testified on direct

that you started using Backpage in your human trafficking,

prostitution-related investigations in approximately 2007; is

that correct?

A. Yes. That was not a human trafficking investigation back

then.

Q. That was the public corruption one I think you said --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 51 of 140
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

14:12:31

14:12:50

14:12:58

14:13:11

14:13:25

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

52

A. Correct.

Q. -- correct?

And it had a prostitution element to it; correct?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. So your very first exposure to Backpage in an investigation

involved prostitution; is that right?

A. I think so. I think I knew about Backpage before that, but

I had not had opportunity to really -- as a street crimes

officer, I wasn't working in the online environment. I was

working on the streets.

Q. I understand. But that was your first investigation where

you utilized Backpage in some capacity, right, or it was

involved in some way?

A. As far as I can recall.

Q. All right. And that was a prostitution case; correct? Or

prostitution investigation related to the public corruption?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And we don't have to go into the details of

that. I'm sure it's very interesting, but we'll keep moving.

So you start in 2007. Do you continue to utilize

Backpage in your human trafficking, prostitution-related

investigations up through and until April of 2018?

A. Yes.

Q. For all those years, you were using Backpage in those

investigations?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 52 of 140
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

14:13:37

14:13:53

14:14:06

14:14:20

14:14:32

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

53

A. Yes.

Q. Were you using Backpage's furniture section?

A. No.

Q. Were you using their buy/sell/trade section?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. You were using their female escorts or escorts section for

the most part; isn't that correct?

A. Yes. I think there was some other locations in there, but

they weren't -- they had to do with connections between people.

Q. Like women seeking men, vice versa?

A. That's a -- that's one, yeah.

Q. Okay. And they all had similar type ads of these folks

offering what might appear to be prostitution; correct?

A. Yes, to some extent.

Q. Okay. So from 2007 to 2018, that's where your -- your work

focuses in Backpage; correct?

A. I mean, it was one of the places I was. But, yes.

Q. And that's what we're here to talk about, so that's what

I'm going to --

A. Okay.

Q. -- ask you questions about. Okay?

Do you understand?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. So you testified also that after Backpage shut down in

early 2018, it affected those investigations in some meaningful

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 53 of 140
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

14:14:53

14:15:04

14:15:28

14:15:47

14:15:58

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

54

sense; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So isn't it true that after April of 2018, you could not

find prostitution-related ads or human trafficking victims on

Backpage anymore?

A. Correct.

Q. It was all done, wasn't it?

A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. Okay. But from 2007-2018, a good source for that; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you testified on direct that some of the specific

things you were looking for in your investigation were if Child

Protective Services or there was talk about a runaway or

something like that, and phone numbers, that you would utilize

that information and go on Backpage to try to locate these --

these kids; correct?

A. Well, the only information -- I was only interested in the

HT part of it. So runaways that were not suspected of

participating in, you know, human trafficking or sex

trafficking wouldn't come my way. So, yes, to the extent that

that's all I looked at.

Q. In your experience, are runaways at risk of being human --

human trafficked?

A. Yes.

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor. It's

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 54 of 140
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

14:16:17

14:16:28

14:16:37

14:16:49

14:16:58

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

55

irrelevant to these charges.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Now, when you talked about exigent circumstances earlier,

you were talking about instances in which you're investigating

a human trafficking case of some kind; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that a yes?

A. Yes.

Q. Sorry. She can't get the head nods.

A. Sorry.

Q. So you're investigating some human trafficking incident;

correct?

And you've already established that that usually has

some sort of sex trafficking prostitution element; correct?

A. I apologize. Can you repeat that question? It had a bunch

of pieces to it.

Q. That's completely fair.

So we've established that most of your investigations

involve human trafficking; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that when we say human trafficking in the context of

your career, we're generally talking about sex trafficking and

prostitution; correct?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 55 of 140
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

14:17:17

14:17:32

14:17:38

14:18:05

14:18:39

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

56

Q. So when you have an exigent circumstances situation in one

of your investigations, it had something to do with a

sex-trafficking event that is urgent; is that correct?

A. Yes, although unconfirmed at this point. Yes.

Q. But that's part of your investigation; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And so you're reaching out to Backpage because, once again,

Backpage is a source for something to do with prostitution and

sex trafficking in your investigation --

MR. EISENBERG: Objection --

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. -- correct?

MR. EISENBERG: -- to the characterization of "once

again," Your Honor. Counsel's testifying.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat the question, sir?

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. I'm going to ask the court reporter to do that one this

time. I try not to do that. I apologize.

(Record read.)

THE WITNESS: Correct.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Let me ask you about whether you are aware that Backpage

utilized something called a strip ad filter.

Are you familiar with that at all?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 56 of 140
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

14:18:56

14:19:12

14:19:23

14:19:52

14:20:16

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

57

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of whether Backpage would remove the most

obvious sex-act-for-money language when people posted ads?

MR. EISENBERG: Again, Your Honor, I'm sorry. I

object to the characterization "most obvious."

It's also argumentative.

THE COURT: Well, I'll sustain.

And Mr. Berry can rephrase as to what he means by "the

most obvious."

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor. Let's -- let's ask

the witness.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. What are some obvious sex-for-money terms that you're

familiar with in your investigations?

A. Well, reference generally to either the word "sex" or to

specific acts generally and common street parlance that

describe different sex acts would be one indication of that.

GFE is one example. Girlfriend experience would be potentially

related to something like that.

I mean, there's other, you know, indications that I

think -- other wording that are escaping me right now. But

typically those were sort of that explicit. Sometimes it's

acronyms, you know, that would refer to a specific sex act that

I'm apprehensive to describe.

Q. Why are you apprehensive?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 57 of 140
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

14:20:26

14:20:41

14:20:48

14:21:00

14:21:15

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

58

A. Because we have a mixed jury of wonderful people, and I

would hate to -- my wife wouldn't be happy with me talking that

way in front of women.

Q. Fair enough.

Some of these words are -- are explicit or indicative

of explicit sex acts; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And that's what's making you uncomfortable about actually

talking about them here in open court; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Not the kind of thing we normally say in polite company?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. But GFE is one that you're familiar with; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Are you aware of Back- -- I think you did testify that

you're aware of Backpage's moderation practices in some way;

correct?

A. Only to the extent that I was on the receiving end of it.

Yes.

Q. Are you aware of any relationship between Backpage and The

Erotic Review?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware that they would pay The Erotic Review money

to put links on their review site?

A. No. I was unaware of that.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 58 of 140
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

14:21:29

14:21:43

14:21:54

14:22:06

14:22:14

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

59

Q. Are you aware of any relationship between Backpage and

people called super posters?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of Backpage's aggregation methods?

A. No.

Q. Are you aware of whether Backpage went over to Craigslist,

when it was still around doing this stuff, and took those ads

and put them on Backpage?

MR. FEDER: Objection. Relevance.

MR. LINCENBERG: Objection.

MS. BERTRAND: Goes beyond the scope of direct.

MR. LINCENBERG: This goes to credibility.

THE COURT: Wait. Wait. I thought I heard -- is it

Mr. Feder?

MR. FEDER: Relevance.

THE COURT: And then?

MS. BERTRAND: Goes beyond the scope of direct.

THE COURT: Overruled as to both.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. You can answer.

Would you like me to ask that one again?

A. Yeah, would you ask that question again, please.

Q. You bet.

Are you aware of whether Backpage took ads from

Craigslist and put them on Backpage?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 59 of 140
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

14:22:23

14:22:33

14:22:40

14:22:46

14:22:53

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

60

MR. FEDER: Same objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm unaware of that.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Okay. Are you aware of any meetings between any of the

owners of Backpage and people at the National Center For

Missing and Exploited Children?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection as to the relevance of this,

Your Honor.

MS. BERTRAND: And counsel's testifying. Different

objection.

THE COURT: I'll sustain.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Are you aware of any meetings between Backpage and people

at Polaris?

MR. EISENBERG: Same objections, Your Honor.

MS. BERTRAND: Same objection.

THE COURT: Well, sustained.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Are you aware of any documentaries about prostitution on

Backpage?

MR. EISENBERG: Same objections, Your Honor.

MS. BERTRAND: Same objection.

THE COURT: He can answer if he's aware.

THE WITNESS: I'm not aware.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 60 of 140
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

14:23:00

14:23:04

14:23:21

14:23:26

14:23:38

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

61

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Do you have Netflix?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection, Your Honor. Argumentative.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I apologize. Can you restate the

question?

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. I'm sorry. Do you have Netflix?

A. I do.

Q. Are you familiar with the documentary called I Am Jane Doe?

MS. BERTRAND: Objection. Goes beyond the scope of

direct. Relevance. And he has said he is not familiar with

documentaries.

MR. EISENBERG: And it's also argumentative, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I am aware of that documentary, but I've

never seen it.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Thank you.

Would you say that Backpage was your number 1 ally in

law enforcement?

A. No.

Q. Were they a good resource?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 61 of 140
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

14:24:05

14:24:29

14:24:41

14:24:50

14:25:21

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

62

Q. Would you say that -- who was a better partner in your

human trafficking investigations, Backpage or NCMEC?

A. I mean, NCMEC because of what they did.

Q. If you owned a website like Backpage, what would you do

with it?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection, Your Honor. Relevance.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. BERRY: Just one second, Your Honor.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Sir, are you familiar with the Senate investigation report

of Backpage?

MR. EISENBERG: Objection. Again, Your Honor, it has

nothing to do with this witness's testimony. It doesn't go to

credibility.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I'm not.

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. And do you know Sergeant Byron Fassett of the Dallas Police

Department?

A. I do.

Q. How do you know him?

A. I've had numerous conversations with Byron. I attended one

of his early trainings.

MR. BERRY: No further questions, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Eisenberg.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 62 of 140
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

14:25:37

14:26:06

14:26:22

14:26:48

14:27:02

GRANT SNYDER - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

63

MR. EISENBERG: Yes, Your Honor.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. EISENBERG:

Q. Mr. Snyder, you said that Backpage was a good resource?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. How was it a good resource?

A. By being expeditious in their responses; complete in giving

us what we requested; by consulting when we had questions; by

moderating the posts, to the extent that they could, I think;

by supporting the ongoing investigations; and later training

with law enforcement.

Q. Now, you said moderation, to the extent that they could.

What did you mean by that?

A. Well, I mean, I think that many of the ag- -- ads

themselves were quite vague and were difficult to ascertain

what was truly going on. And I think that -- that they made an

appropriate effort, in my opinion, based on my experience and

on my ads themselves being taken down when I tried to post

undercover ads.

Q. What sort of words -- when the -- when your ads were taken

down, do you know why?

A. Yes.

Q. Why?

A. I would post references to age in referring to somebody as

young. Any explicit or even veiled references to sexual

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 63 of 140
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

14:27:22

14:27:36

14:27:51

14:27:59

14:28:08

GRANT SNYDER - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

64

activity, those sorts of things, generally got our ads pulled.

That sort of thing.

Q. Did you ever put GFE into an ad?

A. I didn't because I tended to see those ads up for a short

period of time, and then they'd disappear.

Q. And you're talking about up on Backpage?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. You were asked by counsel for the government whether

you were -- you've been paid to come to testify?

A. Yeah.

Q. Do you mean -- let me put this in this context: You don't

mean that you're getting paid, money's being given to you; is

that correct?

A. I wasn't sure exactly what that reference was, but the

truth is I'm not being paid by anybody to be here.

Q. But your expenses are being covered?

A. Correct.

Q. Your flight and hotel?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Thank you.

MR. EISENBERG: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Is the government seeking to reserve the

witness?

MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, your testimony is

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 64 of 140
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

14:28:29

14:29:55

14:30:09

///

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

65

complete for this afternoon, but I'm going to hold you to the

subpoena until further notice. And so it shouldn't be too much

longer, but there may be an opportunity for you to come back

and testify further. So just be a little patient with us, all

right. So you may stand down.

Call your next witness.

Watch your step. Thank you.

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, we're calling John Becker.

He's out there somewhere.

THE COURT: Sir, please come forward and be sworn.

MR. CAMBRIA: I notice the podium is where it should

be, Your Honor.

MR. EISENBERG: Because I put it there.

MR. BECKER: Up here?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Right.

MR. CAMBRIA: She's going to swear you in first.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Here in front of the boxes,

please.

Please raise your right hand.

(JOHN R. BECKER, a witness herein, was duly sworn or

affirmed.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: If you'd please step over to

the witness stand and take a seat.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 65 of 140
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

14:30:35

14:30:46

14:30:53

14:31:15

14:31:32

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

66

DIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Good afternoon.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Can you state your name please, first and second.

A. First name John, middle initial R, last name Becker.

Q. Is there a microphone close to you there?

A. Okay.

Q. There you go.

A. Okay.

Q. And, Mr. Becker, how are you employed?

A. I'm an attorney.

Q. And where are you located?

A. My office is in North Scottsdale.

Q. And what's your educational background?

A. I have a JD from Arizona State University College of Law,

and I have a master's in tax from New York University.

Q. And what sort of law do you practice, if you have a

concentration area?

A. My practice is a trust and estates practice. I do estate

planning and estate and trust administration.

Q. All right. Did there come a time that you did some work

for Michael Lacey?

A. Yes.

Q. And what sort of work was that?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 66 of 140
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

14:31:49

14:32:08

14:32:24

14:32:36

14:32:53

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

67

A. I was engaged to do estate planning for Mr. Lacey.

Q. And what did that entail?

A. That entailed preparing basic estate planning documents for

him, making sure that his affairs were structured so that his

assets went where he wanted them to go upon his passing. Also

some planning for incapacity.

Q. And did there come a time when he came to you regarding a

banking situation that he had?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. In my engagement of doing estate planning for Mr. Lacey,

Mr. Lacey conveyed to me that his banking accounts were being

closed.

Q. And what did he ask you to do in that regard?

A. He asked me to consider whether there were any other

structures to place his funds.

Q. And did you give him some advice?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And what was that?

A. I explained to him that I do not do any type of

international estate planning, there are other individuals that

do, but that he may want to look into a structure where the

accounts are outside of the United States in order to keep them

open and from being closed.

Q. By banks?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 67 of 140
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

14:33:12

14:33:23

14:33:41

14:33:53

14:34:10

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

68

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And did you advise him for another step?

A. As part of doing our estate planning, we did a transaction,

which is allowed in the Internal Revenue Code under Code

Section 2702, and it's called a grantor retained annuity trust.

Q. And what's --

A. It's a --

Q. -- that?

A. It's a structure where Mr. Lacey transfers assets into the

trusts and the trusts pay him annuities in return.

Q. Okay. And did you -- you said that you weren't an expert

in -- in investments where domestic banks wouldn't be able to

just close accounts.

Did you refer him to someone who you felt had that

expertise.

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And who was that?

A. Jacob Stein, who is based in Los Angeles.

Q. And did -- did you and Mr. Lacey visit Mr. Stein?

A. Yes, we did.

Q. And, as a result of that, was some advice given as to an

appropriate way to solve the problem of domestic banks closing

his accounts?

MR. STONE: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 68 of 140
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

14:34:19

14:34:29

14:34:50

14:35:07

14:35:22

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

69

MR. CAMBRIA: No. I asked whether or not advice was

given. I didn't ask what it was yet at this point, Your Honor.

THE COURT: He can answer yes or no then.

MR. CAMBRIA: There you go.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right. Thank you.

And, as a result of that, did you take any steps then

to effectuate that advice, if you will?

A. I worked with Mr. Stein in the establishment of a trust in

Hungary, but it was Mr. Stein that had created the trust, and

he was the contact person.

Q. Okay.

A. I was interfacing with --

Q. Did Mr. Lacey pick a particular place to do it, or was he

given some options?

A. He was given options.

Q. All right. And did you advise him further as to how to

carry out his original goal?

A. Yes.

Q. And what was that?

A. My advice was that if he was going to structure an account

overseas, he has to comply with all of the disclosures required

by the Treasury Department. Not only does he have to provide

all the disclosures, he must report the income on his tax

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 69 of 140
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

14:35:41

14:36:01

14:36:22

14:36:29

14:36:35

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

70

return.

Q. Okay. And did you take steps to accomplish that?

A. Absolutely.

Q. All right. And did -- eventually did the funds that he was

discussing come into your possession or under your control?

A. They were -- the funds were already under my control.

These trusts that I established are -- or Mr. Lacey

established, these grantor retained annuity trusts, were

required to make the distributions to Mr. Lacey. And so I was

required, as trustee, to make that distributions to him.

The problem was that -- the ongoing problem was there

was no place to put those funds in a domestic account. And so

at the same time that this trust arrangement was being created

in Hungary, Mr. Lacey wanted to transfer the funds to that

account.

Q. All right. And this was pursuant to the advice of you and

this other attorney --

A. Yes.

MR. STONE: Objection.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. -- as to how to do it legally?

MR. STONE: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: He's here.

THE COURT: You're also incorporating this other

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 70 of 140
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

14:36:40

14:36:54

14:37:10

14:37:16

14:37:26

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

71

person.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll restate it, and we'll make it

easier.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And did you then advise him of, in your opinion,

appropriate ways to legally create this trust and comply with

the reporting requirements?

MR. STONE: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Okay. What did you advise him to do?

A. I advised him that whatever structure was done outside the

United States, everything had to be done correctly. And he was

a stickler for it. He stated to me multiple times it has to be

done correctly.

MR. STONE: Objection to the narrative.

THE COURT: Sustained.

Sir, yes or no.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: I'm going to instruct the witness simply

to ask -- answer the question asked. Okay?

MR. STONE: Move to strike.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

MR. STONE: Move to strike that last answer.

THE COURT: It will be stricken, and the jury will

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 71 of 140
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

14:37:35

14:37:44

14:38:08

14:38:41

14:38:53

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

72

disregard.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Did you ever receive a communication from Mr. Lacey about

the reporting requirements?

MR. STONE: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Well, he can answer yes or no, but --

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Becker, have you had an opportunity to

review an email exchange between you and Mr. Lacey, copies of

which I provided to you?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: And Exhibit 1, please. Government

Exhibit 1. Could you put up for the -- well, it's in evidence.

Can you put up, please, on the screen for everyone

Becker 02058 under Exhibit 1. Government Exhibit 1.

(The Court and the courtroom deputy confer.)

MR. STONE: This particular page is not in evidence.

THE COURT: Yes. This isn't in evidence, Mr. Lacey --

I'm sorry -- Mr. Cambria. This is not in evidence.

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: This -- this particular page is not part

of that --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 72 of 140
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

14:39:01

14:39:16

14:39:42

14:39:54

14:40:05

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

73

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: -- Exhibit 1.

Not as it was admitted.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes. You -- you admitted this for me.

This was a 106 situation, and the government agreed to it.

MR. STONE: I think we're -- not to interject, but --

MR. CAMBRIA: Pardon?

THE COURT: There was a page that was not included.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's the one. This was included.

This was the one that I objected to, and they agreed.

THE COURT: All right. Let's resolve the issue, but

by my recording, by my courtroom deputy's recording, it's not

part of the exhibit that was introduced and admitted.

MR. CAMBRIA: Actually, it's 02058.

THE COURT: I don't -- I don't know what you're

referring to. That number means nothing to me, Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: You --

MR. STONE: Your Honor, if I may. This is page 3 of

Exhibit 1. Pages 3 and 4 were admitted. The other pages were

not. So it looks like we're on the correct page now.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah. There isn't -- on the copy that I

have, it doesn't -- would you pull up page 3, then, please.

THE COURT: Yes. Give me a -- give my courtroom

deputy a moment --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 73 of 140
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

14:40:13

14:40:33

14:40:40

14:40:45

14:41:09

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

74

MR. CAMBRIA: Here it is.

THE COURT: Mr. Cambria, give my courtroom deputy a

moment to confer with your staff --

MR. CAMBRIA: Very good.

THE COURT: -- who is --

MR. CAMBRIA: This is -- yeah.

THE COURT: -- working the --

MR. CAMBRIA: The exhibit that's up now is what I'm

looking for.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Now, this is the exhibit.

MR. CAMBRIA: On the left.

THE COURT: All right.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

THE COURT: It may be published.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Do you see that, sir, the page on the left?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And the email of 1/23/2017?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And do you see the entry at -- it says at the top --

the one that at the top starts with a phone number?

Do you see that on that page?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 74 of 140
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

14:41:22

14:41:38

14:41:48

14:41:59

14:42:10

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

75

A. Yes.

Q. All right. The bottom of that page is -- appears to be an

email from Mr. Lacey of 2/21/17.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you read that, please.

A. Yes. "John, do you or Jacob Stein do the reporting to

government on money that was moved? Michael Lacey."

Q. And so Mr. Lacey was asking you who's going to be

responsible for doing the necessary reporting on a trust like

this; correct?

MR. STONE: Objection. Leading.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, that's what it says, doesn't it?

THE COURT: Well, that was a leading question,

Mr. Cambria. I sustained the objection.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. This particular quote that you read says that he's asking

you, "Do you or Jacob Stein do the reporting to the

government"; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And did you respond?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 75 of 140
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

14:42:15

14:42:51

14:43:07

14:43:18

14:43:34

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

76

Q. And what'd you say?

A. I said in a -- the response is here.

Do you want me to read it --

Q. Sure.

A. -- or do you want me to paraphrase it?

Okay. I don't -- I don't see the response on the

screen.

MR. CAMBRIA: Let's see. Could you pull up -- it

would be the prior page. At the bottom it says 30, but it's an

email of 2/21/2017 at 11:45 a.m.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right. Do you see that on your screen?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And -- and what's your response?

A. "I believe Jacob" --

MR. STONE: Your Honor, I don't think this page is in

evidence. No objection if he -- if Mr. Cambria wants to move

this in, though.

THE COURT: Well, let's --

MR. CAMBRIA: My understanding was the entire

Exhibit 1 was in evidence, Your Honor. I remember at the time

we had an issue about a page, and then we resolved it.

THE COURT: No. Well, that doesn't coincide, I think,

with my memory. And so what you can do is you -- if you wish

to ask questions about this page of the exhibit, have it

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 76 of 140
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

14:43:46

14:43:59

14:44:19

14:44:41

14:44:44

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

77

remarked. And then if you wish to move for its introduction,

apparently there's not going to be an objection.

MR. CAMBRIA: Very good.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Do you remember this particular email?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And it was between you and Mr. Lacey?

A. Yes.

Q. And it was 2/21/2017 at 11:45 a.m.?

A. Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. I move this into evidence,

Your Honor. It's identified on it at the moment as

Becker 02057, which is part of Exhibit Number 1. And it -- at

the bottom it says page 30.

THE COURT: All right. We -- we will use that 0205 as

an identifier, but the exhibit number will change to coincide

with the exhibit list just to avoid any confusion.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's fine.

THE COURT: All right. So it may be admitted. It may

be published.

(Exhibit 6264 admitted into evidence.)

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Could you read what it says there, please.

A. Yes.

Q. First of all, who is speaking?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 77 of 140
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

14:44:58

14:45:19

14:45:37

14:45:49

///

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

78

A. It is my email to Michael Lacey.

Q. All right. And what are you saying?

A. "I believe Jacob Stein will receive the information needed

for the report, and your accountants will prepare it from the

information he furnishes."

Q. All right. Now, to your knowledge, were those reports

filed?

A. Yes.

Q. And --

MR. CAMBRIA: First of all, if we could go to

Exhibit 5516, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Now, I'm showing you Exhibit 5516.

Do you re -- recognize that?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that?

A. It's the trust that was established on the Hungarian law to

hold the monies.

MR. CAMBRIA: Move that in evidence, Your Honor.

MR. STONE: No objection.

THE COURT: It may be admitted, and it may be

published.

(Exhibit 5516 admitted into evidence.)

MR. CAMBRIA: May we have Exhibit 5540, please.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 78 of 140
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

14:46:15

14:46:34

14:46:43

14:46:54

14:47:04

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

79

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Now, showing you Exhibit 5540, do you recognize that?

A. Yes.

Q. And what is that?

A. That is my letter to the Internal Revenue Service

accompanying a Form 7004, which is an extension of time in

order to file one of the required income tax returns or

reporting returns for this account.

Q. All right. And who requested that extension?

A. I did.

Q. All right. That wasn't Mr. Lacey who requested that?

A. No.

Q. No. All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: I move that into evidence, please.

MR. STONE: No objection.

THE COURT: Yes, 5540 may be admitted. It may be

published.

(Exhibit 5540 admitted into evidence.)

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

Exhibit 5541, please.

THE COURT: Are you going to give the jury some time

to at least examine the exhibit, Mr. Cambria?

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Are you going to give the jury at least

some time to examine the exhibit?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 79 of 140
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

14:47:09

14:47:47

14:48:01

14:48:19

14:48:34

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

80

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, of course.

THE COURT: Because you just sort of flashed it up

there --

MR. CAMBRIA: I'm sorry.

THE COURT: -- then moved swiftly --

MR. CAMBRIA: I apologize.

THE COURT: -- on.

MR. CAMBRIA: I apologize. I'm in my own little world

here. I'm sorry.

Okay. Thank you.

Exhibit 5541, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Mr. Becker, do you see this, and do you recognize it?

A. I see it, and I recognize it.

Q. And what is it?

A. It's a report -- Report of Foreign Bank and Financial

Accounts.

Q. And do you -- how are you familiar with this?

A. It's one of the required filings to report the account to

the federal government.

Q. Okay. And did you -- are you -- you're familiar with this,

and was it filed?

A. I'm familiar with it, and it was filed.

Q. All right. And what does it accomplish, or what is it

supposed to accomplish?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 80 of 140
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

14:49:00

14:49:30

14:49:36

14:49:40

14:49:46

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

81

A. It's supposed to -- it's required under the Internal

Revenue Code, and it is a -- it puts the government on notice

that a U.S. taxpayer has established a foreign account.

Q. All right. And there are several pages to this. On those

pages, is someone identified in connection with the account?

MR. CAMBRIA: It would be easier. I move this -- Your

Honor, I move to admit this into evidence.

MR. STONE: Your Honor, the only objection is

foundation as to how this witness knows about this particular

document. There appears to be some other attorney who's listed

on this one.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. How do you know about this --

THE COURT: Well --

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. -- document?

THE COURT: Let me sustain first.

And now you could ask --

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

THE COURT: -- how do you know?

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. How do you know?

A. Because I'm the person that made sure it got filed. I may

not have filed it, but I made sure it got filed.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 81 of 140
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

14:49:57

14:50:01

14:50:19

14:50:27

14:50:39

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

82

Q. Okay. So you're familiar with the document?

A. Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right. I move this into evidence,

please.

THE COURT: Can he just explain how he knows it got

filed?

MR. CAMBRIA: Certainly.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. How do you know that, sir?

A. Because the first one, I reached out to the attorney, Edwin

Hsu, that -- he's one of my former students, and I said to him

that we need to get this FBAR filed. It's the first time. I

don't have experience filing the FBAR. I don't do this type of

work. Would you please take care of it.

And he and I embarked on it and got it filed.

MR. STONE: Object to the answer because it's hearsay.

It's an out-of-court statement.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right.

THE COURT: That was my -- that was my error. That

was an objection made to me, so I'm going to sustain my own

objection on myself.

MR. CAMBRIA: Own objection.

THE COURT: So, Mr. Cambria, you can move on.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you so much.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 82 of 140
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

14:50:46

14:50:59

14:51:07

14:51:22

14:51:37

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

83

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. So you're familiar with this document, and you've indicated

you're familiar with the fact that it was filed?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And you're familiar with the contents of it?

A. I -- you know, I didn't file it. I didn't prepare it, but

I -- I know what the contents are, yes.

Q. All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: I move it into evidence, Your Honor.

MR. STONE: Same objection on foundation.

THE COURT: Overruled. It may be -- it may be

admitted. It may be filed.

(Exhibit 5541 admitted into evidence.)

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Does this particular document, which was -- goes to -- went

to the government, does it identify individuals and any other

information regarding this trust?

A. I believe it does.

MR. CAMBRIA: And if you could go to the second page,

please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. As you look at the second page, is Mr. Lacey identified?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 83 of 140
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

14:52:05

14:52:12

14:52:32

14:52:46

14:53:07

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

84

MR. CAMBRIA: Can you go to the next page, please.

And then -- actually, one, two -- four page -- it's -- it's

called page 7 of 7. Would you go to that, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, right now on the screen is page 3 of 7.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And now it's page 7 of 7.

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And is there information there concerning

who -- well, what's the information that's on that sheet?

Let's put it that way.

A. It's the preparer's information. It's Edwin's information.

Q. Okay. And so does this document identify Mr. Lacey and the

particular trust?

A. I believe it does.

Q. And it was filed, to your knowledge, with the government?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: Could we go to -- I don't know if I'm

making these things happen here -- 5542, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Now, do you see this letter?

A. Yes.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 84 of 140
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

14:53:24

14:53:39

14:53:47

14:54:01

14:54:06

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

85

Q. Can you identify what this letter is?

A. Yes. It's my letter to the Internal Revenue Service that

accompanied one of the required filings for this account. It

is the first year. So it's 2017. This is the form I -- that

we -- I got the extension on that you showed me previously.

And so that extension related to this form. So this form was

timely filed based on the extension.

MR. CAMBRIA: Move this into evidence, Your Honor.

MR. STONE: No objection.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And --

THE COURT: Well, let me -- you asked me to do

something, Mr. Cambria. Let me do it.

It may be admitted. It may be published.

(Exhibit 5542 admitted into evidence.)

MR. CAMBRIA: May I note that I've actually given the

Court a direction? Very good. Thank you.

THE COURT: I somehow think sometimes you wish to just

do it alone.

MR. CAMBRIA: It would be --

THE COURT: And I'm sure all counsel wish that as

well.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's a dream of all lawyers, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Let's move forward.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 85 of 140
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

14:54:16

14:54:31

14:54:49

14:55:04

14:55:23

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

86

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Now, this particular exhibit, you notice there's several

pages to it.

Can you tell us what these pages --

MR. CAMBRIA: Could you flip to the next page, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right. Can you tell us what information is on this

first page, just generally?

A. This is the IRS Form 3520-A -- it's one of the two forms

that need to get filed. This one's captioned Annual

Information Return of Foreign Trust With a U.S. Owner. And

it's going to show information about the foreign trust. It's

going to show information about the U.S. owner.

MR. CAMBRIA: Can you flip to the next page, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And, again, can you tell us what's on this page?

A. It's part of the annual disclosure. This page is

reflecting the income and expenses of the trust, and it's also

showing a balance sheet for the trust.

Q. Okay. And page 3?

A. More information about the trustee.

Q. And page 4?

A. Primarily blank, but both page 3 and page 4 have been

signed by the Hungarian trustee, which is required.

Q. All right. And was there -- at least to your knowledge,

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 86 of 140
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

14:55:47

14:56:03

14:56:23

14:56:32

///

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

87

was there some reason why this particular investment in this

place was suggested by Stein?

MR. STONE: Object to hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

Would you pull up 5543, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And can you tell us, Mr. Becker, what this is?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. What is it?

A. It is the transmittal letter for the Form 3520-A.

MR. CAMBRIA: And I move this into evidence.

THE COURT: And I think we've already seen this one.

MR. STONE: I agree. I think it's the first page of

5542, so it's duplicative.

MR. CAMBRIA: All right.

THE COURT: So it -- so it is a duplicate,

Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: Right. I'll --

THE COURT: You can use it if you want to because it's

already been admitted, but --

MR. CAMBRIA: I'll move in -- I'll move to the next

one, Your Honor.

5544.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 87 of 140
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

14:56:52

14:57:12

14:57:22

14:57:36

14:57:52

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

88

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. What's that?

A. We've seen this one already.

Q. Okay. And what follows from that? Have we seen that also?

THE COURT: We're only seeing the one page,

Mr. Cambria.

MR. CAMBRIA: Right. The next page, please. It has a

3520-A up on the corner.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right. And that is what?

A. That is the -- the initial filing on this a -- this trust

account. And so the first filing was for this year.

Q. Okay.

MR. CAMBRIA: And 5545, please.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. What's that?

A. It's another of the FBARs or another one of the required

annual filings on behalf of the account.

Q. Okay.

MR. CAMBRIA: Move that into evidence, please, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: Is there an objection?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 88 of 140
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

14:58:00

14:58:16

14:58:26

14:58:39

14:59:07

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

89

MR. STONE: No objection. Sorry, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yes, it may be admitted, and it may be

published.

(Exhibit 5545 admitted into evidence.)

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay. 5546.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Again, do you recognize this?

A. Yes.

Q. What is it?

A. It's another of the annual FBARs or required filings on

behalf of this account.

Q. Okay.

MR. CAMBRIA: Move that into evidence, please.

MR. STONE: No objection.

THE COURT: Okay. It may be admitted. It may be

published.

(Exhibit 5546 admitted into evidence.)

MR. CAMBRIA: 5548.

THE WITNESS: Same thing. It's a part of the annual

filings.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Okay. So the question, then, is, did you advise Mr. Lacey

as to all of the required procedural steps to legally file

information on a trust that's not within the United States?

MR. STONE: Objection. Leading and compound.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 89 of 140
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

14:59:17

14:59:35

14:59:47

15:00:03

15:00:10

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

90

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Okay. What did you advise him?

A. I advised him -- not to the specifics as to the actual

filings. I advised him it needed to be -- we needed to satisfy

all of the U.S. filing requirements, and I advised him that we

need to report all of -- he needs to report all of the income

on his individual income tax return.

Q. All right. And did he make any statement about taxes or

paying taxes to you?

MR. STONE: Objection. Calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. All right. In any event, in your opinion, was the trust

that was filed and created in Hungary in any way concealed from

the United States of America taxing authorities?

MR. STONE: Objection. Relevance. Calls for some

sort of legal conclusion.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: I think he's qualified to make that

judgment.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. In any event, did you inform Mr. Lacey that all the legal

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 90 of 140
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

15:00:23

15:00:30

15:00:37

15:00:43

15:01:03

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

91

procedures had been followed to correctly file this lawfully?

A. Yes.

MR. STONE: Objection. Leading.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And --

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. And from what you've reviewed, were all of those

requirements complied with?

MR. STONE: Same objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Well, you knew what the requirements were, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. Were they all filed?

A. Yes.

Q. I mean, were they all complied with?

A. Yes.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's all I have.

THE COURT: All right. Members of the jury, it's just

beyond 3:00 o'clock -- or it is 3:00 o'clock by one of my

clocks, in any event, and so we will stand on our afternoon

break. And be prepared to come back into the courtroom at

3:20. Just remember the admonitions.

Please all rise for the jury.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 91 of 140
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

15:01:36

15:01:53

15:02:08

15:02:27

15:02:46

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

92

And, sir, you may step down.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

(Jury not present at 3:01 p.m.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Sir, you can go ahead to the

witness room.

THE COURT: All right. For purposes of the record,

the added page to Government's Exhibit Number 1 is now

Exhibit 6264. 6264.

And, Mr. Lincenberg, you wanted two minutes.

MR. LINCENBERG: One minute.

THE COURT: I'm sorry. One minute.

MR. LINCENBERG: Your Honor, government counsel was

permitted to grandstand for show in front of the jury to leave

an unfounded suggestion that defense counsel did something

improper and was hiding something. In my 38 years, I've never

seen a prosecutor allowed to get away with that.

This Court -- and -- and the prosecutor knows that

arguments like this are things that the Court does not want in

terms of having argumentative objections and the like. They

should be held at sidebar or outside the counsel -- the

presence of the jury. And it was done intentionally, and it's

left an incurable impression. It came in on the defendant's

first witness. It creates an incurable impression of defense

counsel misconduct. The Court then recessed the matter, which

I believe although it heightened the potential significance of

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 92 of 140
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

15:03:03

15:03:23

15:03:42

15:04:00

15:04:11

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

93

it, and we move for a mistrial.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Berry.

MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor.

I certainly disagree with the characterization of

grandstanding and making some show of it. I believe the record

will reflect that what I did was turn to the Court after laying

some foundation regarding 26.2 and 612 and asked the Court to

move the Court for the production of statements complying with

those two rules.

I don't believe that I did anything that would even

remotely go beyond the bounds of that, the way Mr. Lincenberg

has suggested it. It was something that certainly could have

been avoided if the defense had actually produced this stuff

any number of the times that we had asked pretrial before the

production of those 26.2 statements. Indeed, it sounds like

Mr. Eisenberg has not even reviewed those statements at this

point because he didn't have them. His investigator has. And

we would ask you to deny the motion.

MR. EISENBERG: May it please the Court, Your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. EISENBERG: 612 does not support what the

government is asking. They're just --

THE COURT: Well, no. I don't want to hear a

relitigation about the 612 and the disclosures.

MR. EISENBERG: Well --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 93 of 140
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

15:04:20

15:04:32

15:04:55

15:05:24

15:05:49

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

94

THE COURT: I'm concentrating on the motion that's

before me.

So do you have anything related to the motion?

MR. EISENBERG: That -- this is the one under

Rule 26.2 then, the production of text messages is the way I

think we're at.

THE COURT: No. Mr. Lincenberg just made a motion --

MR. EISENBERG: Oh, the motion. I'm sorry.

THE COURT: -- to dismiss. That's what I'm talking

about.

MR. EISENBERG: I'm sorry. I join in it, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, I will say this, that Mr. Eisenberg

also provided argument before the Court related to the lack of

production. And -- and, quite frankly, I mean, defense counsel

are not on trial. It's your clients. And my sense is that the

frustration here is that counsel have -- at least with regard

to this witness haven't produced anything. And I want to

remind counsel that 612(a)(2) also provides that the Court can

order the production of that material before the witness

testifies.

And, as I recall, those orders have already been

issued. And that is why it caught my ire, because this is not

new to anyone. These witnesses aren't new to anyone. And for

there not to be a production of what is relied upon and to hear

for the first time that there were text messages that went

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 94 of 140
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

15:06:05

15:06:33

15:06:59

15:07:47

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

95

between investigators, and so on and so forth, it's concerning.

It leaves a picture that counsel have not complied with

disclosure obligations that have been previously ordered by the

Court.

And so I don't find that there's showing of prejudice

as to the clients. It may leave a puzzling question in the

jury's mind about, well, you know, what's -- what's going on in

terms of providing statements and so on?

And -- and it is fair to say that this Court has

always had an ongoing procedural rule that you do not argue

matters like this in front of the jury. But it happened, and I

don't think it rises to the level of a motion to dismiss the

charges.

So let's move forward. Make sure those productions

are had. And this includes whatever the communications are

that is going on between investigators and subpoenaed defense

witnesses. You better be talking to them about whatever those

conversations are or were.

And so let's stand in recess.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

THE COURT: Who's the next --

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I have --

THE COURT: Who is the next witness after this

gentleman?

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor, I have the packet --

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 95 of 140
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

15:07:53

15:25:58

15:26:21

15:26:35

15:26:54

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

96

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. EISENBERG: -- the text messages.

THE COURT: You may approach and bring those.

Who is the next witness after this gentleman?

When I come back, please let me know who the next

witness is.

(Recess from 3:07 p.m. to 3:25 p.m.)

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

THE COURT: Let me just tell you what -- let me just

tell you what it is that I provided.

I looked at the -- the texts that were produced. The

majority of them were, indeed, related to -- they were related

to arrangements, flight arrangements, hotel, time of meeting.

I provided to both Mr. Berry and Mr. Eisenberg what

I've found to be related to the testimony, and so you can let

me know whether or not Mr. Berry wishes to recall the witness.

But you should probably do so sooner rather than later.

MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor.

Thank you so much for -- for doing that, providing

those. That's exactly what we needed to see.

Yes, I would like to briefly take him back on cross.

What I would propose is I believe that Mr. Cambria, while he

passed, he has requested that he have an opportunity to ask two

more questions of Mr. Becker. I believe he said two. I won't

hold him to it. Just a couple more questions of Mr. Becker

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 96 of 140
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

15:27:08

15:27:21

15:27:37

15:27:48

15:28:56

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

97

before he properly passes.

And then so what I would like to do is let him do

that, properly pass, and before Mr. Stone starts his

cross-examination, I would like to bring back Mr. Snyder, knock

that out. It will be very brief. And then pull him off, let

him get home, and then we can put Mr. Becker back on and

complete however far we get.

Are we going to 4:30?

THE COURT: 4:30.

MR. BERRY: 4:30. Yes.

THE COURT: All right. Let's proceed in that way.

So, Mr. Cambria, you can ask your two questions.

Let's bring the witness back and call the jury in.

MR. FEDER: Judge, before we do that, given that the

door has been opened, and we're making a request right now for

all --

THE COURT: I'm sorry. We have a -- we have a witness

in the room. Mr. Feder, we're bringing the jury in. You can

make your statement, or whatever, at the end of the day when I

release the jury.

Sir, you may resume your seat.

And let's bring the jury in.

All rise for the jury.

(Jury present at 3:28 p.m.)

THE COURT: All right. Please be seated.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 97 of 140
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

15:29:10

15:29:25

15:29:46

15:29:59

15:30:07

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

98

And, Mr. Cambria, you may continue.

MR. CAMBRIA: Thank you, Your Honor.

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Mr. Becker, I just have a couple more questions.

Did you at -- were you the one who physically

collected the funds and then transferred them for the trust?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And was there any particular way you did that?

A. Yes.

Q. How was that?

A. There were five separate trusts that distributions needed

to be made to Mr. Lacey. I needed to wire those to the trust

company in Hungary. Rather than doing five wires, I

transferred all those funds into my IOLTA, my law firm account.

And once they were in the law firm account, I did a single wire

to Hungary.

Q. All right. And that was your decision?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And, as a result of these transfers, and so on,

were your bank accounts closed?

A. Yes.

MR. STONE: Object.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's all.

THE COURT: At this juncture, Mr. Berry, do you wish

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 98 of 140
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

15:30:21

15:30:40

15:30:48

15:30:57

15:31:15

JOHN BECKER - DIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

99

to reserve time to recall the prior witness?

MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor. We would like to delay

our cross-examination of Mr. Becker and recall Mr. Snyder.

THE COURT: Yes. Mr. Becker, at this point, because

we have a witness who needs to get out of town, I've permitted

government counsel some time to reexamine him so that he can

leave by the end of today. So I'm going to ask you to remain

under oath. You may step down, step out of the courtroom, and

then we'll bring you back in.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: All right. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Mr. Berry. I'm sorry. Call

the witness.

MR. BERRY: It's not my witness.

THE COURT: Recall --

MR. BERRY: It's -- we're recalling Grant Snyder,

please.

THE COURT: Yes, please.

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, I've just been provided

another document. Just one second, please.

THE COURT: Sure. Certainly.

All right. Sir, you may resume the witness chair. I

will remind you that you still remain under oath for this

continuation of your testimony. Thank you.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 99 of 140
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

15:31:28

15:31:44

15:31:52

15:32:07

15:32:21

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

100

THE WITNESS: Copy that, Your Honor.

(GRANT SNYDER, a witness herein, was previously duly sworn

or affirmed.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Snyder. Thanks for coming back.

Earlier in the beginning of your testimony when I was

asking you questions, I was asking you about communications

that you had with any member of the defense team.

Do you recall that?

A. I do.

Q. And you acknowledged that there were some text

communications.

Do you remember that?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall that when you had those text

communications with the defense team, they had forwarded you an

email with the links to those ads that you talked about;

correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that you responded by text about your review of those

ads.

Do you recall that?

A. I think so, yes.

Q. Okay. Do you recall that, among other things, that you

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 100 of 140
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

15:32:44

15:32:54

15:33:03

15:33:17

15:33:26

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

101

said in the text messages, you reviewed those ads and said,

"While others have direct effort" -- "while others have direct

references to sex for money," that you were talking about your

review of those ads.

Do you recall that?

A. I remember saying something like that, but it was in the

context of a larger thought.

Q. Sure. Let me just show this to you.

MR. BERRY: May I approach the witness, Your Honor?

MR. EISENBERG: Has this been marked?

MR. BERRY: I'm not going to move it into evidence.

MR. EISENBERG: It should be marked.

THE COURT: It should be marked, and we can assign it

a number.

But you may go ahead and show the witness.

MR. BERRY: Sure.

Do we want -- Your Honor, would you like me to mark

everything that was provided to me or just the --

THE COURT: Whatever -- whatever it is you're going to

use.

MR. BERRY: Sure.

THE COURT: So let's -- let's proceed in that way, and

Liliana will assign it a number.

MR. BERRY: Okay. Thank you.

MR. EISENBERG: Can I see it?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 101 of 140
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

15:34:01

15:34:24

15:34:35

15:35:00

15:35:24

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

102

MR. BERRY: Sure.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Counsel, can we number that

7001?

MR. BERRY: We -- absolutely. I'm happy to do it that

way. What I was suggesting is we're doing these types of

exhibits in the 3000 series, and so I thought I would put a

3000 number on it. But I'll do whatever the Court prefers.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Okay. Then that would be 3011.

MR. BERRY: Yes, ma'am.

Now I don't know what the order is, but I'll do it

this way.

3011? Is that what you said?

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Correct.

MR. BERRY: Thank you.

May I approach the witness?

THE COURT: Yes, you may.

THE WITNESS: Where do you want me to start reading?

BY MR. BERRY:

Q. Just whenever you're done, tell me, and I'll turn it.

A. I'm sorry. Can you pull that back? Okay.

Okay.

Q. That's it.

A. Okay.

Q. Now having had an opportunity of what's been marked as

Government's Exhibit 3011, does that refresh your memory?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 102 of 140
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

15:35:47

15:35:58

15:36:08

15:36:21

15:36:33

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

103

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall now that in your text messages you were

talking about how the ads that you reviewed were maybe

suspicious and have elements we would find, but there's a great

range of ads there with some being particularly vague or benign

while others have direct references to sex for money?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall that?

A. I do recall that.

MR. BERRY: Thank you. No further questions, Your

Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, may the witness be

released from subpoena?

MR. EISENBERG: May I have a recross, Your Honor?

MR. BERRY: I object to that, Your Honor.

THE COURT: No. And so I'm going to deny that

request, Mr. Eisenberg, given the procedure that we went

through --

MR. EISENBERG: Your Honor --

THE COURT: -- for the limited purpose of the document

that was just shown to the witness.

MR. EISENBERG: May I?

THE COURT: And so with that, sir, may he be released

from subpoena, Mr. Eisenberg?

MR. EISENBERG: I need a sidebar, Your Honor. It'll

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 103 of 140
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

15:36:54

15:37:17

15:37:42

15:37:57

15:38:16

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

104

only be brief.

THE COURT: Come forward.

(Sidebar discussion begins on the record.)

MR. EISENBERG: Just -- just so I understand, Your

Honor, I won't be able to redirect him on the information that

is both beginning and after that portion of the email that was

just offered by the government and refreshed his recollection.

The reason why I'm concerned about this is that -- and

I understand about the emails not being produced until just

now. Frankly, that would be part of a cross-examination, and I

would be able to redirect on it. I don't see why at this point

in time there's any difference.

And I will say this, Your Honor: I'll repeat it, and

at the risk of being repetitious, but we've gotten no text

messages from any witness from the government, even though they

have been demanded. And I'd be very surprised if they're

just -- they just don't exist.

I am sorry for not having produced these earlier. I

don't want to interrupt the flow of the trial. But I really

take -- I really take -- I can't really find the word, Your

Honor, for this sort of procedure. And I don't mean to be

disrespectful to the Court. I didn't mean it if I was perhaps

a little bit exercised, but that's -- that's -- that's where I

come out on this.

I think it leaves a misimpression in the jury's mind

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 104 of 140
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

15:38:34

15:38:48

15:39:03

15:39:14

15:39:29

GRANT SNYDER - CROSS-EXAMINATION (Cont'd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

105

as to what's in the total context of those two or three text

messages. That's my record.

MR. BERRY: Your Honor, if the procedure had been

complied with pursuant to your orders, what would have happened

is I would have had those messages before I started my

cross-examination. The way it was done, because it was not

produced, I didn't have an opportunity to do that. And so

Mr. Eisenberg is correct. He would have been able to do that

if he had complied with this Court's order about the production

of those messages in the first place, in addition to the fact

that he has represented to the Court that I've engaged in some

sort of histrionic demonstration about something where it

turned out there was, in fact, relevant messages subject --

related to the subject matter of his testimony.

So I would object to him having a second opportunity

to redirect given the fact that he failed to comply with this

Court's order regarding the production of those messages in the

first place.

THE COURT: All right. Well, I don't want to continue

the ongoing argument about --

MR. BERRY: Sure.

THE COURT: -- lack of production. What I just heard

on the permitted cross-examination was related directly to

those two pages of text message in which he looked at the

advertisements, which you offer -- have already probed and

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 105 of 140
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

15:39:45

15:39:57

15:40:04

15:40:29

15:40:42

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

106

which you have sufficiently examined him on. I don't see the

necessity to reopen for any other questions. So at this

juncture, I'm not going to permit it.

All right. Let's go forward.

MR. KESSLER: Can we ask if he's released?

THE COURT: Yeah. I just did.

MR. EISENBERG: Okay. No objection.

(End of sidebar discussion.)

THE COURT: All right. Sir, is there an objection to

having -- by the government to having the witness released from

subpoena?

MR. BERRY: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. Sir, thank you for your

testimony. You are released from your subpoena. You are free

to go.

THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Watch your step there.

All right. Let's have Mr. Becker back in.

Sir, you may resume the witness chair. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Sure, Your Honor.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Good afternoon, sir.

A. Good afternoon.

Q. Sir, we met before; correct?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 106 of 140
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

15:40:52

15:41:05

15:41:26

15:41:33

15:41:47

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

107

A. I apologize. I do not recall.

Q. That's fair. Do you recall having a meeting with -- at the

U.S. Attorney's Office --

A. Yep.

Q. -- in July 2018?

A. Yes.

Q. That was a meeting attended by prosecutors and agents;

correct?

A. Yes.

MR. STONE: Can the witness be shown what has been

marked as Exhibit 3007, please.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Sir, while that's being -- while that exhibit's being given

to you, I have a few questions that I'll move forward with.

Okay?

A. Yes.

Q. When were you first contacted by the defense about your

testimony today?

A. I do not recall.

Q. You remember being contacted, though?

A. Yes.

Q. And who contacted you?

A. I believe it was Mr. Cambria, but I can't recall for sure.

Q. And you don't remember when?

A. I do not.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 107 of 140
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

15:42:04

15:42:18

15:42:32

15:42:46

15:42:54

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

108

Q. Do you know how he communicated -- how he contacted you?

Over the phone? Email?

A. I believe it would have been either phone or email.

Q. Do you recall sending emails back and forth with

Mr. Cambria or Mr. Cambria's office?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. How -- how many? Can you estimate?

A. Maybe five, and they all dealt with the trial date or

scheduling.

Q. Okay. A couple of emails, perhaps, where they sent some

documents to you?

A. I -- yes.

Q. And were they some of the same documents that Mr. Cambria

showed you during your direct examination?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you meet with Mr. Cambria or anyone else before

testifying today?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Where did you -- did you -- was it an in-person meeting?

A. Yes.

Q. When?

A. Saturday morning.

Q. Was that meeting recorded, if you know?

A. No.

Q. Were there any notes taken at that meeting?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 108 of 140
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

15:43:03

15:43:15

15:43:37

15:43:46

15:43:59

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

109

A. Not by me.

Q. Did you notice any -- anyone else at the meeting taking

notes?

A. No.

Q. Nobody showed you any notes at the end of the meeting?

A. No.

Q. Before your testimony today, were you asked to prepare

anything?

A. No.

Q. And beyond the documents that were shown to you during your

direct examination, did the defense ask you to review anything

in preparation for your testimony today?

A. No.

Q. All right. You have Exhibit 3007 in front of you, is that

right, sir?

A. I have the exhibit. And I'll take your word as to what

number it is. I'm sorry.

Q. And -- well, there should be a --

A. Let me get my glasses on --

Q. -- a written number in the bottom --

A. Okay.

Q. -- left-hand corner.

A. I see it. 3007.

Q. All right. Excellent.

You received a subpoena from the United States

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 109 of 140
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

15:44:11

15:44:23

15:44:35

15:44:47

15:45:01

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

110

Attorney's Office in December 2017, did you not, sir?

A. I believe so.

Q. You remember receiving a subpoena; correct?

A. I don't recall, to tell you the truth.

Q. Do you remember producing documents?

A. Yes.

Q. You produced those documents in compliance with the

subpoena that you received?

A. Apparently. It's been six or seven years, so I just don't

remember. I -- I assume it was -- it was a subpoena, and I --

I remember producing documents. But I didn't go back and look

at anything, so I just assumed.

Q. Fair. You know what a subpoena is, though, don't you?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. A court order asking you to produce certain documents?

A. Yes.

Q. And here there was a subpoena asking you to produce certain

documents related to this transaction that you testified on

direct; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you produced some documents?

A. I did.

Q. Would you have produced those documents without a subpoena?

A. I believe -- I believe the documents were privileged, and

so I needed to get permission to release them. So I needed to

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 110 of 140
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

15:45:13

15:45:23

15:45:31

15:45:41

15:45:55

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

111

have a subpoena. I needed to have some sort of determination

that I could release them.

Q. Okay. That wasn't quite my question, but I appreciate the

answer.

If the United States Attorney's Office hadn't issued

you a subpoena, would you have produced documents to the United

States Attorney's Office?

A. No.

Q. Why not?

A. Privilege.

MR. CAMBRIA: Asked and answered.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Well, you had certain non-privileged documents in your

possession, did you not?

A. I'm not aware of any.

Q. Well, for example, we looked at some letters that you sent

on behalf of Mr. Lacey.

That's not a privileged document; correct?

A. I -- I -- with my clients, I treat everything as

privileged. And so if somebody has an exception to the

privilege.

This is in litigation. I do not do litigation. I

don't know what is and is not privileged. I just treat

everything as privileged and confidential.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 111 of 140
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

15:46:36

15:46:49

15:47:03

15:47:17

15:47:26

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

112

Q. I gotcha.

MR. STONE: One moment.

May the witness be shown Exhibit 3009, please.

Can I get a copy, too, please.

THE WITNESS: Thank you. Oh.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Do you have Exhibit 3009 in front of you, sir?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. And this is a declaration that you prepared; correct?

A. I hired an attorney to prepare it for me.

Q. Well, this is a declaration of statements that you made.

And on the page 3, you signed it under penalty of perjury;

correct?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And on paragraph 12 -- do you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. You wrote, "Through my counsel I agreed to produce

non-privileged documents subject to the subpoena."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. "Thereafter my counsel" -- "counsel produced 2,775 pages of

responsive non-privileged documents."

That did I read that correctly?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 112 of 140
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

15:47:38

15:47:47

15:47:55

15:48:06

15:48:30

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

113

A. Yes.

Q. And so those were documents that you produced because you

received a subpoena; correct?

A. Yes. Again, I apologize for the -- the time has just been

so long.

Q. No need to apologize. That's why we have these documents

handy.

And those are pages that you would not have produced

unless you received the subpoena?

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, asked and answered.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. STONE: I'll move on.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Do you have a sense for what happens when you don't respond

to a subpoena?

MR. CAMBRIA: Objection. Irrelevant. He responded.

THE COURT: Overruled. He can answer if he knows.

THE WITNESS: I believe --

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Do you know?

A. I believe you'd be sanctioned.

Q. You'd get in trouble with the Court?

A. Probably.

Q. All right. Now, let me just direct your attention back to

Exhibit 3007. That's the memorandum of the interview for your

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 113 of 140
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

15:48:47

15:49:01

15:49:22

15:49:35

15:49:53

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

114

interview at the U.S. Attorney's Office.

Do you see that, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. And in that meeting, you discussed much of what you're

testifying about today. Is that fair?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember telling the agents and prosecutors at that

meeting that your client, Mr. Lacey, was having trouble finding

a bank to do business with?

A. Yes.

Q. And you remember telling the agents and prosecutors that

Mike Lacey was looking to transfer his money overseas; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And on direct examination, you testified about

a -- your IOLTA account; is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. What's an IOLTA account?

A. It's a law firm trust account.

Q. What's the purpose of having a law firm trust account?

A. It's to hold clients' monies and to protect clients'

monies.

Q. And this was the account that you wired $16.5 million of

your client's money to Hungary; correct?

A. I transferred my client's money into the account. And from

the account, I wired it out.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 114 of 140
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

15:50:02

15:50:18

15:50:27

15:50:40

15:50:50

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

115

Q. So that's yes?

A. Yes.

Q. 16.5 million went from your IOLTA account to this bank

account in Hungary; right?

A. Yes.

Q. How many times a year do you wire millions of dollars of

your client's money from your IOLTA account to an overseas

account?

MR. CAMBRIA: Objection. Relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: On any given year?

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Yes.

A. Not very often.

Q. Have you ever done it before, besides this one?

A. Probably not.

Q. And you've been an attorney for over 30 years; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you've been practicing in this realm of trusts and

estates for that entire time?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was the only time that you wired $16.5 million to

an overseas account --

A. This is the only --

Q. -- correct?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 115 of 140
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

15:51:08

15:51:24

15:51:50

15:51:55

15:52:02

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

116

A. -- time I wired exactly $16.5 million. I have done other

international wires that have been seven figures, but they were

other types of transactions.

Q. Have you ever wired money to Hungary before?

A. No.

Q. What about any country in Eastern Europe?

A. No.

Q. All right. You remember that your client told you that the

source of these funds were from Backpage; correct?

A. No. That's not correct.

Q. Well, let's take a look at Exhibit 3007 and see if we can't

refresh your recollection.

A. Okay.

Q. All right. So first page, 1D?

A. Yep.

Q. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. It reads, "Lacey told Becker that the source of the

funds" --

MR. CAMBRIA: Object. Object to reading from this as

not a statement.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. STONE: Your Honor --

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Sir, do you see that?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 116 of 140
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

15:52:11

15:52:22

15:52:39

15:52:55

15:53:07

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

117

A. Yes.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection of what your client may

have told you?

A. I don't recall saying this. I recall saying that it was

from the sale of Backpage. I don't know that I -- it was a --

specifically from the operation of the company. I thought it

was from the sale of the company.

Q. You understood it to be money from Backpage, though?

A. Yes.

Q. And the 16.5 million, you understood all that money to be

money from Backpage? Whether it's from the sale or operations,

money from Backpage?

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. When you were Mr. Lacey's attorney, did you do any

research into Backpage?

A. No.

Q. Did you ever look at the website?

A. No.

Q. So you never looked at the escort section of Backpage.com?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. Why do you say it like that, absolutely not?

A. I read the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington

Post. I read those types of publications. I don't need to be

spending my time reading Backpage.

Q. Okay. Well, you represent the owner of Backpage, or

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 117 of 140
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

15:53:19

15:53:26

15:53:48

15:54:03

15:54:21

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

118

someone who did own Backpage. Fair?

A. I read the -- read the New Times.

Q. But my question was, you represented someone who owned

Backpage --

A. Yes.

Q. -- isn't that true?

A. Yes.

Q. And in the time that you were Mr. Lacey's attorney, you

never looked at Backpage? That's --

A. No.

Q. -- your testimony?

A. Not to my recollection.

Q. You assist Mr. Lacey with other things, not just this

transfer to Hungary. Fair?

A. Yes.

Q. You assist him with checks that he sent out to former

employees?

A. I assisted him with checks to former writers and editors

that he wanted to thank, yes.

Q. Okay. Those were $5,000 checks?

A. I don't recall the amounts.

Q. Do you recall being several thousand dollars?

A. I recall that they were under the annual exclusion, which

means those are the amounts that you can give without filing a

gift tax return. And so they were under those amounts. As to

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 118 of 140
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

15:54:32

15:54:49

15:55:55

15:56:12

15:56:19

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

119

the specifics, I just don't recall.

Q. What's the annual exclusion rate?

A. Right now it's $17,000. Back then, I think it was more

like 13- or $14,000.

Q. So some -- some amount of money under that?

A. Yes.

Q. And who did you issue those checks to?

A. I was given a list of former writers and editors for

various publications that Mr. Lacey has been involved with, and

those are the individuals I was told to write the checks to.

Q. I want to show you what's been admitted into evidence as

Exhibit 1.

MR. STONE: This doesn't want to work.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. All right. This is the exhibit that Mr. Lacey showed you

on direct?

A. I believe so. I can't see it.

MR. STONE: 0001-0004.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. All right. Now it's up. Technical difficulties.

A. Yes.

Q. All right. This is the email you've -- and you've seen

this before?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And this is an email from Mr. Lacey?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 119 of 140
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

15:56:34

15:56:50

15:57:03

15:57:18

15:57:35

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

120

A. Yes.

Q. The bottom part reads, "To revisit for just a moment, I'm

not interested in any tax avoidance. I just want to put some

assets in place where litigious parties, including government

parties, cannot access my accounts."

Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Was this in connection with this transaction that you wired

from your IOLTA account to this bank account in Hungary?

A. I don't understand the question.

Q. Well, does this refer to moving Mr. Lacey's money overseas?

A. No.

Q. It -- it doesn't? You just --

A. It doesn't say anything about overseas.

Q. Well, you just answered questions on direct about how these

were emails from you and a Mr. Stein about potentially moving

money overseas. No?

A. Your question was, does this email reflect moving monies

overseas? And the answer's no.

Q. Okay.

A. What prompted this, though, was, you know, having the

discussion with Jacob Stein. So this prompted setting up a

meeting with Mr. Stein.

Q. You understood this to be your client's motivation in

sending the money; correct?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 120 of 140
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

15:57:48

15:57:58

15:58:07

15:58:22

15:58:30

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

121

A. My client's motivation was for -- to place his monies in an

account that won't be closed.

Q. And you see the -- the first line here, you know, the one I

didn't read up top, "I think I'm ready to move forward with the

visit to the L.A. lawyer was mentioned" -- "you mentioned who

has expertise in offshore"?

A. Yes.

Q. So we're talking about the -- an offshore transaction here.

No?

A. I'm talking about referring to Mr. Stein, and Mr. Stein can

advise what -- how to structure it --

Q. Okay.

A. -- whether it was offshore, where it needs to be.

Q. And -- I'm sorry.

And you understood the motivation was to put assets in

place where litigious parties, including government parties,

couldn't access your client's account; right?

A. Couldn't close the accounts. Yes.

Q. Well, just going by the language here, it says "access my

accounts." Fair?

A. Well, you have to ask Mr. Lacey. He wrote it.

Q. No. I'm asking you, sir. You're on the stand.

A. Okay.

Q. That language there from your client says "cannot access my

accounts," does it not?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 121 of 140
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

15:58:46

15:59:20

15:59:42

15:59:48

16:00:01

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

122

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And do you remember when this transfer occurred

in January of 2017?

A. Yes.

Q. Let me show you what's been marked and admitted into

evidence as Exhibit 1479.

Sir, can you see that on your screen?

A. Yes.

Q. It may be a little small, but are you able to see it?

A. Put my glasses on.

Okay.

Q. Now, I don't think you've seen this before, but does this

not show how the money moved from Mr. Lacey's accounts to your

IOLTA account and then to the account in Hungary?

A. Did you preface this with have I seen this before?

Q. It was a comment. I don't think you've seen this --

A. No.

Q. -- before.

A. No, I haven't.

Q. But my question is, does this flowchart show how the money

moved from Mr. Lacey's accounts to your IOLTA account and into

the account in Hungary?

A. Yes.

Q. And this is accurate?

A. I have no basis of knowing whether the account numbers are

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 122 of 140
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

16:00:16

16:00:35

16:01:00

16:01:10

16:01:26

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

123

accurate. I think so, but I don't know.

Q. Fair. But in terms of -- not the account numbers, but how

the money flowed, you remember that this was how it went?

A. Yes.

Q. You testified on direct about how five different accounts

went all to your IOLTA account and then you wired that amount

of money over to Hungary?

A. Yes.

Q. And this was in January of 2017; right?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. So in terms of the FBARs that you testified to

on your direct examination with Mr. Cambria, those weren't

filed in 2017, were they?

Do you remember?

A. The FBAR?

Q. The FBAR. The --

A. I --

Q. The documents -- let me -- let me withdraw that question

and step back.

You testified as to certain documents that Mr. Lacey

filed that dealt with this transaction; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And those were filed after this date that the money was

wired to Hungary, were they not?

A. Correct.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 123 of 140
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

16:01:36

16:01:52

16:02:06

16:02:19

16:02:35

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

124

Q. And I have the first date from the exhibits that

Mr. Cambria showed to be filed on August 9th, 2018.

Does that give -- do you have any reason to dispute

that date?

A. No.

Q. Did you ask for an extension before filing this -- this

document with the IRS?

A. So the documents are required to be filed for the first

year. So they need to be filed in 2018, not 2017. And in

2018, we extended them. And so the FBAR was on extension, to

the best of my knowledge, and the other documents were on

extension.

Q. Okay. And what does "on extension" mean?

A. The F- -- I believe the FBAR was on extension. I'm not

positive. I believe the FBAR was. And the Form 3520 and the

Form 3520-A were on extension.

Q. Okay. But my question is, what does extension mean?

A. Extension means you have additional time. The

government -- it's an automatic extension. The government

gives you an automatic period of time to file the reports.

Q. Were you aware of the indictment that was filed in this

case?

A. I know -- I know Mr. Lacey was indicted. I don't know

when.

Q. Did you read that indictment?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 124 of 140
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

16:02:48

16:03:04

16:03:18

16:03:34

16:03:42

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

125

A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. You don't -- if I told you that that indictment was issued

in April of 2018, no reason to dispute that?

A. I have no reason.

Q. But you haven't read it?

A. No.

Q. And then this first filing was August of 2018. So roughly

four months after the indictment if the indictment did, in

fact, come down in April of 2018. Fair?

A. The filings were filed on time.

Q. So is that a yes?

A. It's a -- so they were filed on time. It was after

apparently the indictment.

Q. Four months after the indictment. Fair?

A. They were filed on time.

Q. Sir, I'm -- I think that's a pretty fair question that I'm

asking you. It's yes or no.

A. So, the best of my knowledge, if you said the indictment

was in April, we had a six-month extension to file things, and

so they were filed after that.

Q. So, yes, it was four months after the indictment that the

FBAR was filed. Yes?

A. Apparently, yes.

Q. Thank you.

All right. You remember telling the agents and

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 125 of 140
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

16:04:03

16:04:21

16:04:39

16:04:54

16:05:07

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

126

prosecutors in that meeting in 2018 that after the Senate

issued their report, you had concerns?

A. I believe I said that, yes.

Q. Did you read the Senate report?

A. No.

Q. So what were your concerns?

A. Just that I don't like to have any transactions that are

going to have any type of hassle to them. And so when somebody

tells me that the Senate's looking into Mr. Lacey or Backpage,

it just causes me concern.

Q. Do you recall having one or more discussions with the

corporate security unit of Johnson Bank?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember asking Johnson Bank not to use your

client's, Michael Lacey's name with the wire transfers?

A. Yes.

Q. And you did so because his name was toxic; right?

A. I did so because I did not want my accounts closed as well

as this new account closed.

Q. Because his name was toxic?

A. Because apparently he has a history or somebody's closing

all of his bank accounts, and I don't want my accounts

associated with his name. Yes.

Q. And you wanted to preserve the relationship you have with

Primis Bank; right?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 126 of 140
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

16:05:17

16:05:33

16:05:50

16:06:10

16:06:17

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

127

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember telling the prosecutors and agents that

Mr. Lacey withheld some information from you?

A. No.

Q. Take a look at Exhibit 3007. I'm going to direct your

attention to paragraph 7.

A. Okay.

Q. And there's Subparts A, B, C, and D. I want you to just

read those to yourself, please.

A. Okay.

Okay.

Q. Does that refresh your recollection as to your client not

having told you some piece of information?

A. I don't know anything about whether the file -- the charges

were refiled or not. So he did not tell me.

Q. Okay. If he had told you, would that have affected whether

or not you would have gone through with these transfers?

MR. CAMBRIA: Object to relevance. And there's no

foundation that he was -- that he asked Mr. Lacey anything.

THE COURT: Overruled.

BY MR. STONE:

Q. Do you need me to repeat the question?

A. No.

Q. Okay.

A. Same issue as before when you asked me about the Senate

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 127 of 140
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

16:06:35

16:06:45

16:07:12

16:07:26

16:07:59

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

128

committee. Same thing. I don't want the hassle. I don't want

to be here on Tuesday afternoon engaging in this. I don't want

the hassle. I don't need the hassle. And so, yes, it would

have changed my view on things.

And so unless the transaction was clean, I don't want

to participate in it.

Q. Okay.

A. I don't -- I don't need the hassle.

Q. If -- so if he had told you this information, you wouldn't

have gone through with it. That's what I'm hearing.

A. Probably not. I don't need the hassle.

Q. All right. Let's talk about this offshore account, this

account in Hungary. Okay?

That -- that was not an account that your client would

own; right?

A. Correct.

Q. Primis Bank was the trustee. Primis Bank was this bank in

Hungary?

A. Yes.

Q. And then there -- there were beneficiaries to this trust

that -- but it wasn't your client; correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And you remember telling agents and prosecutors that

sending the money overseas was your client's decision. It was

Michael Lacey's decision; right?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 128 of 140
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

16:08:06

16:08:28

16:09:02

16:09:11

16:09:25

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

129

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember that it was his decision to open this

account in Hungary?

A. Yes.

Q. And you weren't sure why your client preferred Hungary as

to other countries, but ultimately it was his decision?

A. He engaged with Mr. Stein in making that decision. Yes.

Q. His decision, though, ultimately. No?

A. His decision.

Q. Did you ever have any conversations with Mr. Lacey about

Backpage's business practices?

A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Were you made aware of Backpage's moderation practices?

A. No.

Q. Were you aware of Backpage's relationship with The Erotic

Review?

A. I don't know what that means.

Q. So, no?

A. No.

Q. Now, you mentioned you read the New York Times. Did you

read any New York Times articles about Backpage?

A. I believe I have.

Q. Do you remember the subject matter?

A. I do not.

Q. How about any articles in the Wall Street Journal, another

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 129 of 140
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

16:09:36

16:09:48

16:10:01

16:10:13

///

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

130

piece of paper you --

A. Yes.

Q. -- I believe you said you read?

Have you read any articles in the Wall Street Journal

about Backpage?

A. I believe I have but just don't recall.

Q. Okay. Did you read -- recall reading an open letter from

the Auburn Theological Seminary --

A. No.

Q. -- about Backpage?

A. No.

Q. Your client tell you about any meetings he may have had

with NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited

Children?

A. No.

Q. How about any meetings he or anyone else at Backpage may

have had with an organization called Polaris?

A. No.

Q. And what about Auburn Theological -- Theological Seminary?

Did he talk about any meetings he or others at Backpage may

have had?

A. Not to my knowledge.

MR. STONE: Just a moment, Your Honor.

All right. Just a couple more questions, sir.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 130 of 140
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

16:10:55

16:11:08

16:11:37

16:11:50

16:12:02

JOHN BECKER - CROSS-EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

131

BY MR. STONE:

Q. When you talked about the checks that you were sending on

behalf of Mr. Lacey to former employees, is that how you

described it?

A. No. Writers and editors.

Q. Okay. Writers and editors.

Do you recall when those checks went out? Like what

year?

A. I think 2016 or 2017. 2016, I think.

Q. And do you have any idea why Mr. Lacey didn't just wire

this money, the 16.5 million, himself? Why he had to use your

IOLTA account?

A. They -- they ran trusts that I controlled. I was the

trustee of these trusts that needed to make the distribution.

And so I suppose I could have written all these checks to

Michael Lacey and let Michael Lacey do the wire, but it's the

same problem. He didn't have an account to put them into

because the banks were closing his accounts.

MR. STONE: Okay. Fair enough.

That's it, Your Honor. Thank you.

MR. CAMBRIA: Your Honor, I'd like to redirect on the

new subjects that he raised.

THE COURT: Well, we'll see.

MR. CAMBRIA: Okay.

MR. STONE: Redirect?

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 131 of 140
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

16:12:12

16:12:23

16:12:38

16:12:57

16:13:05

JOHN BECKER - REDIRECT EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

132

MR. CAMBRIA: Yeah.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MR. CAMBRIA:

Q. Mr. Becker, did Mr. Lacey ever ask that there be an

extension for the filing of the FBAR?

A. No.

Q. And you said it was automatic to get one. You just ask for

it?

A. The extension is automatic, yes.

Q. Okay. And hassle or not, was the trust, the way it was

created and the reporting, was it all legal?

A. It was absolutely legal. It was --

Q. And --

A. It was a solid transaction.

Q. And the beneficiaries of the trust were who?

A. I believe they're Mr. Lacey's two sons.

Q. Okay. Would you be upset if I didn't ask you another

question?

A. You could ask me whatever.

MR. CAMBRIA: That's all I have.

THE COURT: All right. Is the witness released from

subpoena?

Mr. Cambria?

MR. CAMBRIA: Yes, Your Honor.

MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 132 of 140
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

16:13:14

16:13:24

16:13:45

16:14:05

16:14:32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

133

THE COURT: All right. Sir, we thank you for your

testimony. You are released from subpoena. You may step down.

And watch your step going down.

THE WITNESS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Call your next witness.

MR. FEDER: Judge, we had discussed earlier today that

we were going to break early and that we told you we only had

two witnesses, if I recollect.

THE COURT: Well, I didn't recall that. I heard five.

So do you have a witness prepared?

MR. FEDER: I do not on behalf of Mr. Spear.

MR. CAMBRIA: The next one I have is tomorrow morning,

Your Honor.

THE COURT: Well, members of the jury, apparently we

have miscommunication amongst the Court and counsel, all

counsel, as to the lineup of witnesses. I thought we had one

more to go, but apparently -- and you never know when the

examination's going to end. But, in any event, why don't we

stand in adjournment for the afternoon. But, again, I do

remind you of the admonition not to come to any conclusions,

not to form an opinion about the matter, and to continue to

keep an open mind and not discuss the matter amongst yourselves

or anyone else. And I will expect you here and ready to go

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 133 of 140
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

16:15:17

16:15:40

16:16:00

16:16:08

16:16:27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

134

promptly at 9:00 a.m.

Please all rise for the jury.

(Jury not present at 4:14 p.m.)

THE COURT: Please be seated.

I guess that answers the question as to why, when I

asked who the next witness was, no one responded. I don't

recall being told there were only two witnesses available

today. If you told me that, I don't remember it. I thought

you had five witnesses who were identified that were ready to

go.

And so tomorrow, let's not have this problem. Let's

have your witnesses ready to go.

And, Mr. Feder, before we took up the last witness,

you wanted to raise something. I -- you may raise it now. I

don't recall what it was.

MR. FEDER: Given the government's request, we would

request --

THE COURT: I don't know what the government's request

is that you're referring to.

MR. FEDER: In regard to Mr. Snyder. We would request

all emails, all texts, all any kind of communications that

either a government witness -- a government lawyer or a

government agent has had with any of their previous witnesses.

THE COURT: Well, the problem with that overbroad

request, Mr. Feder, is that the request has already been made.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 134 of 140
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

16:16:59

16:17:16

16:17:32

16:17:54

16:18:20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

135

And, as we were shown here a moment ago, there were

conversations related to and opinions made about things that

this witness was shown. And so that was the basis for my -- my

ruling and why I permitted Mr. Berry to reopen his

cross-examination.

And so if you can show me in the record where that was

done with other witnesses, I may entertain it. But I'm not

going to order that it be done on that sort of a broad basis.

All right. Mr. Berry, you -- you're standing there

ominously, so you must wish to pursue something.

MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

I know it's late. I know we want to get going. I had

asked for a few minutes before we started earlier today, and

then we didn't have that opportunity. Now seems to be better.

I received an email today indicating that a member of

the press was seeking access to both admitted and nonadmitted

exhibits in this case. And it's something that I have been

concerned about with regard to not all of the exhibits. I'm

certainly in favor of -- of the public having a full access to

the courts as appropriate. But specific exhibits, and in

particular the ads of the victims, not just the ones that

testified, but, for example, Cynthia Worthy, whose sister

testified about her ad, I believe that under the Crime Victim's

Rights Act, under 18, U.S.C., Section 3771, Subsection (a)(5),

which gives victims the right to protect their dignity and

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 135 of 140
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

16:18:40

16:19:03

16:19:20

16:19:41

16:19:57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

136

privacy, that these ads, and the photos of them in particular,

should be sealed as part of the record and not be made

available to the public.

My -- my deep concern here is that if those ads were

to be produced to the public, they could then be posted back on

the Internet. We had one of the victims who was extremely

worried about testifying and wanted us to close the courtroom

and make certain requests like that. We ultimately talked her

down off that ledge about that issue and did not come to the

Court with that sort of a -- a serious request.

But we think that this is a middle ground that would

be appropriate, and I would ask -- I'm happy to brief this

issue if the Court would like it. What my request is right now

is for at least a temporary order sealing all of the exhibits

until we can identify the specific exhibits that contain those

photos of these victims, which the Court has already ruled they

are, in fact, victims and such that the CVRA does apply to

them. So that's my -- my oral motion and request at this time.

And then we would ask the Court to unseal everything except

those specific exhibits that ultimately get identified. I'm

just not in a position right now to rattle off each exhibit

number.

THE COURT: Well, it -- it's -- it's a difficult

position for the Court to make even a temporary ruling, because

I don't know what the precise request was that was made to the

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 136 of 140
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

16:20:23

16:20:42

16:20:57

16:21:09

16:21:29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

137

government. And perhaps if I see what that precise request was

from any media outlet, then I could then look at it in

conjunction with the provision that you gave to me. And I am

always happy to in some new area that pops up to receive

further briefing and do the defendants want an opportunity to

respond to that.

And so having this sprung on me without anything more,

I think I'll need whatever it is that the request is that was

provided to you. You could submit that to my chambers.

MR. BERRY: Yes, Your Honor. I actually did forward

the email to your chambers email address when I requested

ten minutes before the session. I -- I don't know if it didn't

get it. I know we've had some other issues with getting

certain things to the chambers email account. But I'm happy to

forward it again if it was not received, but I did forward that

directly. And it was simply an email that I got blind copied

on from a reporter to the clerk's office here --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. BERRY: -- requesting access to admitted and

nonadmitted exhibits.

THE COURT: All right. I will confer with my clerk's

office to determine what information they received or requests

they received as well when we adjourn. And then why don't you

prepare a short briefing on that statute and the -- as it

relates to the request and your motion to seal.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 137 of 140
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

16:21:37

16:21:53

16:22:03

16:22:29

16:23:21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

138

MR. BERRY: I will. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And I appreciate that.

MR. BERRY: Thank you.

THE COURT: Anything further from the government?

MR. BERRY: Oh, yes. We --

THE COURT: Oh, you know, I actually have something

for defense.

Again I ask, who is the next witness? Who's going to

be ready at 9:00?

I thought you produced five --

MR. CAMBRIA: I --

THE COURT: -- names, so who is going to be ready at

9:00, Mr. Cambria?

MR. CAMBRIA: I believe witness --

THE COURT: Can you turn on your microphone. I'm

sorry.

MR. CAMBRIA: Oh, I'm sorry. I believe Dougherty

and -- and Strouse.

THE COURT: That sounds like a law firm. Dougherty.

MR. CAMBRIA: Apparently there are a couple of other

witnesses, Your Honor, that I'm not familiar with, and I'm

getting a list now. Dougherty and -- the two that I indicated,

but apparently there are a couple more from some other lawyers,

and I'm getting the names now.

Dougherty, not Strouse, Your Honor. I'm told Strouse

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 138 of 140
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

16:23:34

16:23:57

16:24:09

16:24:44

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

139

will be here Thursday.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. CAMBRIA: And she's telling me apparently what

other lawyers have names, what the names are.

THE COURT: So we have one witness. Who's the second?

MR. FEDER: Potentially Stan Cook and Rick Yerman.

THE COURT: Cook and -- and what was the other one?

MR. FEDER: Yer- -- Y-E-R-M-A-N. First name Rick.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. BERRY: These -- these are some of the names, Your

Honor, that were provided to us this morning when we were

sitting in Court that I mentioned. And we still don't have any

designation of exhibits, if they are to be used at all.

MR. FEDER: They're not. There are none.

THE COURT: Well, again, what I -- I -- the Court has

provided its procedure of disclosure to not only the Court of

the witnesses three days in advance, but to the government.

And this morning I heard there were a list of five. And so

have your witnesses ready and prepared sharply at 9:00 a.m.

All right. We are adjourned.

THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: All rise.

(Proceedings adjourn at 4:24 p.m.)

---oOo---

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 139 of 140
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

140

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, CATHY J. TAYLOR, do hereby certify that I am duly

appointed and qualified to act as Official Court Reporter for

the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing pages constitute

a full, true, and accurate transcript of all of that portion of

the proceedings contained herein, had in the above-entitled

cause on the date specified therein, and that said transcript

was prepared under my direction and control.

DATED at Phoenix, Arizona, this 26th day of October,

2023.

/s/Cathy J. Taylor

Cathy J. Taylor, RMR, CRR, CRC

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1928 Filed 10/26/23 Page 140 of 140