Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Backpage

Biased Testimony in Backpage Case Triggers Mistrial

Judge said she has concerns that the government crossed the line several times.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 9.14.2021 11:10 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

UPDATE: U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich has granted the defense's motion for a mistrial. "I, at the beginning of this, gave the government some leeway, because child sex trafficking, sex trafficking, are forms of prostitution," she said in court this morning. "Yet, in the [government's] opening and with every witness thereafter, it seems, the government has abused that leeway."

The government's goal with prosecution is "not to win at any cost" but to "win by the rules, to see that justice is done," Brnovich pointed out. "If the government can prove that the defendants … knowingly facilitated prostitution, then they will be punished. But it should be done correctly."

In her view, that hasn't happened. The opening statement from federal prosecutor Reggie Jones "was close to causing mistrial," she said. Then, despite agreeing "to minimize the focus on child sex trafficking" from then on out, the government continued to harp on it. And despite being told that witnesses could only talk about Backpage's general reputation if it was tied to communication with specific defendants in this case, government witnesses like Sharon Cooper "talked about the reputation of Backpage untethered from communications with the defendants," Brnovich pointed out.

"Although I don't see any of these as intentional misconduct, the cumulative effect of all of that is something that I can't overlook and won't overlook," Brnovich concluded. "So, the motion for mistrial is granted. I will call the jury in to dismiss them and then we will set a date a couple weeks out to talk about when we can reconvene."


On Monday, jurors in a trial concerning whether former Backpage executives knowingly facilitated prostitution heard hours of biased testimony from an "expert" witness who has worked closely with law enforcement for decades. Again and again, Sharon Cooper—a self-described "developmental and forensic pediatrician" and a witness for the prosecution—conflated all sex work with sex trafficking and waxed on at length about child sexual exploitation, despite none of the defendants being indicted for trafficking or child-related crimes. (For a play-by-play of her testimony, check out this Twitter thread.)

Presented as an expert on online ads for commercial sex, Cooper made a bevy of dubious claims about the language in such ads, describing all sorts of terms used by adult sex workers as evidence of sexual victimization and child sex trafficking. For instance, Cooper suggested that the phrase "100% independent"—used by escorts to denote that they're not affiliated with an agency—was language meant to trick "buyers" into thinking they weren't patronizing trafficking victims. At another point, Cooper claimed "wifey" means "a female who is under the control of a male trafficker."

Meanwhile, the prosecution plied Cooper with question after question of uncertain relevance to the case at hand, in which six defendants are charged with facilitating prostitution in violation of the federal Travel Act and conspiracy and money laundering related to this alleged facilitation. Many were sustained, and many were overruled—but only after jurors heard intimation after intimation about child sex trafficking.

The "expert" witness in the kangaroo trial in Phoenix against the https://t.co/PsqnnYbLeM owners is Sharon Cooper, seen below three years ago giving a smiling presentation to… NCOSE.

One of her slides illustrated the concept of "Prostitution" with a still from "Pretty Woman": pic.twitter.com/zbhvndMYxj

— Gustavo Turner (@GustavoTurnerX) September 13, 2021

Toward the end of her testimony, Cooper—also a purveyor of dubious and disproven "science" about pornography—admitted that she doesn't personally distinguish between consensual sex work and activities involving force, coercion, and minors.

"I don't refer to it as sex work, I refer to it as sexual exploitation," Cooper said when asked a question about sex work by one of the defense lawyers.

Once again, defense lawyers wound up asking U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich to declare a mistrial, citing biased testimony from Cooper and others since witness testimony began last Wednesday. (Defense lawyers also asked for a mistrial after opening statements from federal prosecutor Reggie Jones. This was denied last week, as was the defense's suggestion that Jones' accusations had opened the door to allowing the introduction of prosecutor memos—published by Reason—which are not allowed to be brought up at trial.)

"This case has gotten dramatically off the rails," one lawyer for the defense told Judge Brnovich in a conference while jurors were out of the room on Monday.

"We've got all these broad-based statements about prostitution and trafficking—and trafficking, of course, is as inflammatory as all get out," he said. "I just don't understand how this jury is every going to evaluate whether these guys had specific intent on any of the counts or things charged in the indictment, when they're day after day after day just hearing 'Backpage had prostitution, Backpage had child trafficking,' from people who don't identify the particulars and/or tie it to any defendant."

Brnovich said she could "envision from the evidence already seen" where the government might get to that, so it was "way too early" to make that argument about the prosecution's case as a whole. But Brnovich said she was considering "the argument about the prejudicial value of the testimony that's been given so far."

Last week, jurors heard testimony from a mother-daughter duo about how the girl appeared in Backpage ads—some posted by herself, others by a series of exploitative pimps—when she was 15 and 16 years old and a runaway from home. The girl admitted she had to say she was an adult to post the ads. She also said she was arrested by police in a prostitution sting, told the cops that she was 18, and was let go. After another sting, however, the girl was determined to be underage and returned to her family. One of the adults who exploited her was convicted. None of the ads or actions involved in these incidents are part of the current indictment against Backpage defendants.

Jurors last week and yesterday also heard from Special Agent Brian Fichtner of the California Department of Justice. Fichtner had helped Kamala Harris, then–attorney general of California, bring twice-dismissed charges against Backpage founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin (two of the defendants currently on trial) and former CEO Carl Ferrer back in 2016.

On Monday, defense lawyer Joy Bertrand said that testimony so far had made clear that the government was "going to run up to that line and step over that line every time they can to get in children, children, children.…This is their focus. And they've been told repeatedly by this court to knock it off, and they just keep doing it."

Prosecutor Reggie Jones countered by arguing that "sex trafficking is a subset of prostitution" and thus the testimony so far was relevant to the facilitating prostitution charge. "The government does not believe it is beating a dead horse, we are simply bringing in relevant evidence," he said. "We do not believe the defendants have been prejudiced against."

Brnovich told Jones she did "have concerns that the government has crossed that line several times, even after at sidebar I warned you not to do it," and that there was "some validity to the argument that the cumulative effect" of all the child sex trafficking references would bias the jury. Brnovich added that she had concerns "that the testimony elicited from the victims went beyond what it should have" and that Cooper's testimony "went well beyond what we had talked about prior to her testifying."

Brnovich said she would take a look at transcripts from testimony and offer a decision on Tuesday morning about the defense's concerns.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Elizabeth Warren Demands That Amazon Crack Down on COVID Misinformation

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

BackpageProstitutionSex WorkSex TraffickingCriminal JusticeLaw enforcementCivil LibertiesFree SpeechFirst Amendment
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (53)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Ragnarredbeard   4 years ago

    Plea deal incoming.

    1. Tifnie   4 years ago

      Net base home cash generating system which can makes you able to start earn more than $15k online. last month i have made $17395 from this easy work without having any special online working experience. go to this website now for info.

      HERE →→→→→→ VISIT HERE

      1. Edith Worthley   4 years ago

        Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. IT Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

        Here is I started.…………… VISIT HERE

    2. Tifnie   4 years ago

      Net base home cash generating system which can makes you able to start earn more than $15k online. last month i have made $17395 from this easy work without having any special online working experience. go to this website now for info.

      HERE →→ →→ JOBS APP

    3. Rossami   4 years ago

      Probably not. These particular defendants could have pled out years ago. The fact that they didn't is highly relevant to the current aggressiveness of the prosecution.

      1. kcuch   4 years ago

        And in the meantime, the govt has accomplished its goal of censoring the publication.

      2. LydiaMoore   4 years ago

        I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.CXe simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now.........
        ⁣
        Click & Chang your Life ............... VISIT HERE

  2. Lord of Strazele   4 years ago

    "told the cops that she was 18, and was let go."

    So the cops were arrested for facilitating sex trafficking?

    1. buckleup   4 years ago

      Lard of shit speaks the leftist lingo

    2. Vernon Depner   4 years ago

      After she provided them with "favors", probably.

  3. Jerryskids   4 years ago

    Brnovich told Jones she did "have concerns that the government has crossed that line several times, even after at sidebar I warned you not to do it," and that there was "some validity to the argument that the cumulative effect" of all the child sex trafficking references would bias the jury.

    Wow! That judge sounds really pissed! If the government keeps doing illegal shit like this, the judge may even be forced to write a sternly-worded letter!

    1. Gray_Jay   4 years ago

      Jesus Christ, what a wimp of a federal judge. You have 'concerns?' If you told the AUSA to knock it off already, and they kept doing it, where in the hell is your contempt order? Or a threatened mistrial? Orders to strike from the record and directives to the jury to disregard? Why wasn't this all hashed out pre-trial with in limine motions?

      Can't anybody control their courtroom anymore? McBryde, Kent, Hittner: none of these current or former federal judges would have put up with a tenth of this.

      1. Unicorn Abattoir   4 years ago

        Declare a mistrial, and if it happens again, dismiss it with prejudice.

        1. Sometimes a Great Notion   4 years ago

          Looks like the judge reads the comments.

          1. Unicorn Abattoir   4 years ago

            Wow!

            Let's try another one - Kick Biden out via the 25th Amendment.

            1. Sometimes a Great Notion   4 years ago

              Go big or go home - Declare all taxation theft!

              1. Dillinger   4 years ago

                at least repeal 16 & 17

                1. kcuch   4 years ago

                  Every amendment after the 15th; and all federal legislation since 1900.

                  1. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

                    Even the Freedom Fries resolution?

                    1. Warren   4 years ago

                      Sometimes you have to throw out the baby to get the tub clean.

        2. Gray_Jay   4 years ago

          Jury's empaneled. Jeopardy's attached. If mistrial is due to the prosecution's malfeasance, I'd thought that was a dismissal with prejudice. At least for that sovereign.

      2. Ragnarredbeard   4 years ago

        Its almost like the fix is in and she's trying really hard to ignore the prosecutor's bad behavior to get the result they want.

    2. Not Robbers=Nut Rubbers   4 years ago

      Her husband is the AG of Arizona and has been beating the child sex trafficking horse there. No way his wife is going to give his opponent campaign ad material by cutting this stupid prosecution off at the knees.

      1. n00bdragon   4 years ago

        How is that allowed? How is that not a massive conflict of interest? Whether they meet in the courtroom or not judges and attorneys have no business getting married. I would go so far as to say that no active officer of a court should be allowed to be active while married to another officer of any court.

        This is just so bad.

        1. kcuch   4 years ago

          It isn't who is in bed with whom. It is that this matter (censorship of the press) has no business in front of a judge or jury.

  4. Eeyore   4 years ago

    Wasn't this one of those balls that Kamala got rolling?

    1. Jerryskids   4 years ago

      I believe Kamala had a lot to do with it - probably professional jealousy when she found out how much more some of these women were making than she had been paid.

      1. nobody 2   4 years ago

        She got paid a political career that led to her being President. I don't think she's jealous of their pay.

      2. Mother's Lament   4 years ago

        I don't know. A lot of politicians would blow their way to the vice-presidency for free if they could.

    2. Unicorn Abattoir   4 years ago

      Yes, after previously working with Backpage to try and catch child sex traffickers. When the political winds shifted, she turned on them. Reason actually did a lot of reporting on this during the last election cycle.

  5. Chumby   4 years ago

    Hi, I’m Chris Hansen.

    1. Vernon Depner   4 years ago

      Yeah, well, find your own boy. I was here first.

      1. Patriotic Guy   4 years ago

        If Buttplug got caught by Hansen, would he offer to split the kid with him?

  6. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

    The founders of backpage committed the egregious crime of donating money to kamals political rival, and for that they should burn

  7. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

    It would be funny if they treated the Cho in trial with as much skepticism

  8. Dillinger   4 years ago

    womyn stealing agency from women is ludicrously tragic.

    1. Vernon Depner   4 years ago

      Womyn hate women, because only by becoming exactly like men can they achieve equality. Women who insist on remaining women are reactionaries holding womyn back.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   4 years ago

        Womyn hate women
        If you don't believe me ask your wife. The list of psychotic bitches that fucked her over cannot be counted on both hands plus the toes. The list of asshole men that fucked her over will be a fraction of that total.

  9. Longtobefree   4 years ago

    The government's goal with prosecution is to generate as much outrage as possible to increase democratic campaign donations.

  10. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

    The Obama administration raided medical marijuana facilities in California hundreds of times during his first term, and we're no further along the process of legalizing the facilitation of adult prostitution now than we were when Obama was raiding medical marijuana facilities. In fact, we're probably behind that spot on the curve.

    Marijuana activists tried to make cannabis distribution legal through various legal challenges, as well, but ultimately, it took a grass roots movement to get the voters wiling to flout the law at the state level before things started to change. You need to find ways to change the minds of average people on prostitution before we see substantial change.

    And I don't think the progressive strategy of trying to control the Overton window is likely to have the intended effect on average people. The arguments for legalizing marijuana about legalization helping to keep it out of the hands of children rang true because it was true. And if legalizing prostitution allowing websites to advertise it is really a good way to keep minors out of the business, then give up on the trying to change people's minds with legal chicanery and focus on that.

    Being persuasive means being honest with people. We could start with a few observations.

    1) Even if knowingly running ads for prostitution shouldn't be a crime, that doesn't mean facilitating isn't a crime or that this wasn't facilitating.

    2) Even if these defendants weren't guilty of knowingly facilitating the sex trafficking of minors, that doesn't mean they weren't knowingly facilitating adult prostitution.

    3) Even if these defendants aren't ultimately convicted of any crime, that doesn't mean sites like Backpage can go back up and start doing business as usual again.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   4 years ago

      There is approximately zero support among progressives for legalizing prostitution and that will not change as long as women are the dominant group.

      1. QFive   4 years ago

        @Gaear, can you expand on why women being the dominant group is an issue.

  11. Jerryskids   4 years ago

    While it's nice to see the mistrial declared, it would be nice to see the judge declare that since the prosecutors deliberately caused the mistrial the prosecutors are going to have some shit coming their way. If there's no consequences for their bad behavior, what's to dissuade them from continuing their bad behavior? It pisses me off that there are probably just as many dirty judges and dirty prosecutors as there are dirty cops, but you almost never hear of a judge or a prosecutor being disciplined for even the most egregious of miscarriages of justice.

    1. Procyon Rotor   4 years ago

      The only example I can think of is Mary Kellett, the Maine prosecutor who spent years railroading an innocent man on sexual assault charges. She was eventually sanctioned for prosecutorial misconduct, but it only amounted to a 30 day suspension of her license and a requirement to attend ethics training.

      1. Carl Cameron   4 years ago

        Mike Nifong in NC. He made the mistake of trying to frame some rich frat boys for rape. Only problem was their fathers were all big shot corporate attorneys in Manhattan.

    2. n00bdragon   4 years ago

      I'm not sure if the prosecution cares deeply about winning the trial. The process is very much the punishment.

    3. Ben of Houston   4 years ago

      I have to agree. the only punishment is that they wasted time. Police and prosecutor malfeasance that is barely more than contempt or perjury (or in many cases is perjury) is routinely not even given a slap on the wrist. It seems that unless they decide you are a political threat, the feds can do no wrong.

      1. flag58   4 years ago

        It is not perjury. Lawyers are not under oath.
        If they were they would have to keep their mouths shut.

  12. Rise of the Impedance   4 years ago

    "Although I don't see any of these as intentional misconduct, the cumulative effect of all of that is something that I can't overlook and won't overlook," Brnovich concluded.

    Unintentional my ass. This prosecutor has been working the case for years. Every statement is scripted. Dismiss with prejudice or you're in on the fix.

  13. Warren   4 years ago

    If nobody gets disbarred, or at least put on probation (preferably of the Double Secret variety) they they still won just by forcing the defendants to go to trial.

  14. Carter Mitchell   4 years ago

    The next logical step is to put these prosecutors and this Cooper, uh, person on trial, a quick conviction, then plenty of jail time. Abuse of authority is a crime and needs to be treated as such.

  15. Exam Sakha   4 years ago

    Download DPPs/RACEs for Pre-Medical NEET for Class 11th by Allen

    Allen NEET DPPs RACEs

  16. Enquirer   4 years ago

    This reminds me of the 2002 trial of David Westerfield for the kidnap and murder of 7-year-old neighbor Danielle van Dam.

    There was no evidence she had been sexually assaulted; nevertheless the prosecution assumed that sex was the motive for the crimes.

    The evidence against him was weak. So to obtain a conviction, and knowing the revulsion that people have towards sex crimes against children in particular, they claimed that the porn on his computer included some child porn. Some members of law enforcement had examined his images and declared it wasn’t child porn, so the prosecution objected to expert testimony on this issue, and as a result, this contrary evidence was never heard. The prosecution guessed they wouldn’t get a conviction under a child porn statute, so they instead charged him under a statute that is so broad that, as the prosecution openly stated, even an image of someone who was fully dressed could be deemed illegal.

    In this case, and contrary to the Backpage case, the judge sided with the prosecution, so they obtained their conviction - a conviction which, based on the evidence, was not justified, and Westerfield was convicted and sentenced to death, and has been on death row ever since.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Republican Holdouts

Liz Wolfe | 7.2.2025 9:30 AM

Americans Celebrate Independence Day Less Proud of Their Country Than Ever

J.D. Tuccille | 7.2.2025 7:00 AM

Brickbat: Take a Bite out of Crime

Charles Oliver | 7.2.2025 4:00 AM

Trump's 'Giant Win' Does Not Validate His Unconstitutional Birthright Citizenship Order

Jacob Sullum | 7.2.2025 12:01 AM

Trump Says the Courts Have No Business Questioning His Dubious Definition of 'Alien Enemies'

Jacob Sullum | 7.1.2025 5:40 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!