1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

GARY M. RESTAINO 

United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

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

40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1800 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 

Telephone (602) 514-7500 

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

312 N. Spring Street, Suite 1400 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Telephone (213) 894-2426 

KENNETH POLITE 

Assistant Attorney General 

Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

AUSTIN M. BERRY (Texas Bar No. 24062615, austin.berry2@usdoj.gov) U.S. Department of Justice 

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section 1301 New York Avenue, NW, 11th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

Telephone (202) 412-4136 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 Defendants. 

CR-18-422-PHX-DJH 

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO 

THE COURT’S PROPOSED JURY 

INSTRUCTION RELATING TO THE 

FIRST AMENDMENT 

[Doc. 1657] 

 Defendants’ Objection (Doc. 1657) should be rejected as a thinly veiled effort to 

rehash the same arguments that Defendants have repeatedly made, without success, 

throughout this case. 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1666 Filed 08/03/23 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Defendants have cited the same authorities, and made the same arguments, in many 

filings. See, e.g., Doc. 23 at 7 n.2, 11-12; Doc. 561, Mot. at 4-6, 14-18, 36 n.37, 37-42; 

Doc. 697, Reply at 8-9 and nn. 9-10; Doc. 1216-3 at 185, 191; Doc. 1222-2 at 1-10; Doc. 

1602 at 3-4; Doc. 1612 at 2-3 and n.1; Doc. 1626-3 at 161-64, 169-70, 174, 185-86. 

 The United States has repeatedly responded. See, e.g., Doc. 649, Resp., passim; 

Doc. 1216-3 at 185-87, 192-94; Doc. 1242 at 4-6; Doc. 1590, Mot. at 1-2; Doc. 1597, Mot 

at 1-3 and n.2; Doc. 1604, Resp. at 1-3; Doc. 1626 at 152-55, 159-60, 164-67, 170-72, 176-

82, 186-87, 194. 

 The Court has repeatedly rejected Defendants’ arguments. At the motion to dismiss 

stage, the Court ruled that the allegations in the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 230, SI), if 

proven, show that the 50 ads in Counts 2-51 were for prostitution. Doc. 793 at 9-11. The 

Court also recognized that “Prostitution ads are ads for illegal transactions,” and “[t]he 

First Amendment does not protect ‘offers to engage in illegal transactions.’” Doc. 793 at 

14 (citations omitted). The Court found that the Travel Act is not unconstitutionally 

overbroad or vague as applied in this case. Doc. 793 at 20-22; Doc. 840 at 12-13. 

 Before the September 2021 trial, Defendants briefed the identical cases that 

Defendants assert here. Compare Doc. 1222-2 with Doc. 1657; see also Docs. 1236, 1242. 

After the parties argued these issues, Doc. 1432 at 36:14-66:12, the Court denied 

Defendants’ requested preliminary First Amendment instructions. Doc. 1340 at 25:10-17. 

 Defendants recapitulated the same cases in their latest appeal. 9th Cir. Case No. 22-

1000, DktEntry 11, Op. Br. at 25-28 and nn.29-30. The Ninth Circuit recognized the trial 

court had rejected Defendants’ “extensively” briefed First Amendment motions to dismiss, 

and also stated the government “had a clear path to prevailing at trial.” United States v. 

Lacey, 2022 WL 4363818, at *1-2 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2022). 

 More recently, after considering motion in limine briefs that addressed the same 

arguments and authorities, Docs. 1590 and 1602, the Court ruled that “to the extent that 

Defendants seek to invoke their First Amendment rights as a defense to the allegations that 

they conspired to promote and/or facilitate prostitution through veiled ads for prostitution, 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1666 Filed 08/03/23 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

they are prohibited from doing so.” Doc. 1643 at 8-9. 

 The United States stands on its prior responses to the arguments and authorities that 

Defendants repeat in Doc. 1657. 

 Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of August, 2023.

 GARY M. RESTAINO 

 United States Attorney 

 District of Arizona 

 

 KENNETH POLITE 

 Assistant Attorney General 

 Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

s/Peter S. Kozinets 

 KEVIN M. RAPP 

 MARGARET PERLMETER 

 PETER S. KOZINETS 

 ANDREW C. STONE 

 DANIEL G. BOYLE 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

 AUSTIN M. BERRY 

 Trial Attorney 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1666 Filed 08/03/23 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on August 3, 2023, I electronically transmitted the attached 

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a 

Notice of Electronic Filing to the CM/ECF registrants who have entered their appearance 

as counsel of record. 

 s/Brian Wolfe 

 Brian Wolfe 

 U.S. Attorney’s Office 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1666 Filed 08/03/23 Page 4 of 4