Retrial of Backpage Execs Wouldn't Be Double Jeopardy, Court Says
Former Backpage executives could now face trial again in 2023, after the government's first attempt resulted in a mistrial.

The prosecution of Backpage founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin and several other former executives for the classified-ad company can continue to drag on, per a new ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The court said that trying them again after a mistrial was declared in their first trial would not count as double jeopardy.
"No one is the least surprised by 9th Circuit ruling," Lacey tells Reason in an email. "We have always believed we must rely upon jurors, not judges, for a fair shake. And so to trial."
Lacey, Larkin, and the other defendants are likely to face trial again in 2023, though no date has been set. That would mean a sixth calendar year in which their lives are upended by this prosecution.
(To this day, Lacey and Larkin are required to ask permission if they want to leave Maricopa County, Arizona, and must wear ankle monitors at all times. "They are a constant reminder of captivity," says Lacey. "When they go off, they are loud and startle people in restaurants, super markets, retail outlets.")
The Backpage execs were arrested back in April 2018 and charged with facilitating prostitution. After federal prosecutors pulled a bunch of questionable moves—and a judge ruled that exculpatory evidence accidentally sent to the defendants by federal prosecutors was inadmissible—the case finally went to trial in September 2021.
At that trial, prosecutors couldn't stop talking about child sex trafficking—a crime the defendants in this case are not charged with—and U.S. District Judge Susan M. Brnovich declared a mistrial.
Lacey, Larkin, and the others then filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that putting them on trial again would amount to double jeopardy. A district judge dismissed that motion last December. They appealed.
Now, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit has weighed in. In a September 21 ruling, the 9th Circuit judges note that under Supreme Court precedent, the Constitution's prohibition on double jeopardy only applies when a mistrial stems from prosecutorial conduct intended to goad defendants into moving for a mistrial. It does not apply if a mistrial was declared because of impermissible conduct intended to help the state win.
Lacey and Larkin had argued that prosecutors did want them to ask for a mistrial, as the first few days of the trial were not making the government's case look good. The 9th Circuit judges rejected this argument, writing that "the government's case-in-chief was still in its infancy" when the Backpage defendants asked for a mistrial.
"At minimum, the government still had a clear path to prevailing at trial" and "had no reason to sabotage its own trial," the judges concluded, affirming the lower court judge's denial of the motion to dismiss.
That means the federal prosecution of Lacey, Larkin, and the other Backpage executives—on pause as the motions related to double jeopardy were considered—can resume.
And U.S. taxpayers can continue footing the bill for this seemingly eternal attempt to put people in prison for running a website where sex workers advertised.
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.
Please
to post comments
Well, there is no surprise here. Mistrials can generally be tried again. The question is, if “the first few days of the trial were not making the government’s case look good”, then why did the defendants ask for a mistrial? Unfortunately, the prosecution will have learned from their mistakes the first time around, and may present a better case this time. While I don’t believe they actually did anything wrong, those are the facts.
Just a guess, but it was because it wasn't making the CASE look good. Like, the actual charges filed. But the constant hounding on about things like child sex trafficking and the like has a powerful effect on the minds of the jury. They could get a "these are horrible dudes, so fuck 'em" attitude.
If the prosecution wasn't corrupt or incompetent, they'd let it go. It's not like they didn't destroy these men's lives already -- 6 years is a long time to men of this age -- and it sends the message that they're all powerful to fuck with you if they want already.
More process = more punishment.
Usually, the use of such tactics is meant to try and bolster a weak case. In federal trials, for instance, if the government cannot prove that the defendant actually broke the law, they can seek to admit all sorts of pointless evidence about criminal history, charges never filed, etc. The point is to distract the jury from the evidence and convict the defendant because he is a bad man. This is especially true in sex cases, where federal judges are flat out instructed not to consider the unfair nature of such evidence.
When the government tries to cheat to win, especially because they are losing, a mistrial is perfectly acceptable. Under Supreme Court precedent, this case should have been dismissed, because the deliberate introduction of dishonest evidence was explicitly held to be an attempt to force a mistrial.
The 9th Circuit used to err on the side of the defendant. But constant rebukes from the Supreme Court on correct decisions have obviously changed that.
Constitution's prohibition on double jeopardy...does not apply if a mistrial was declared because of impermissible conduct intended to help the state win.
And people wonder why the 'justice' system is laughed at.
Internet in Iran apparently has been taken down.
The rest of the internet tells me these guys are the real deal
https://www.instagram.com/1500tasvir/reels/?hl=en
Claims are that the shooting has started.
Interesting... BBC and Aljazeera barely cover the Iran protests.
Other places seem to think a serious threat to the theocracy is brewing.
Is that because the world can only handle so many stories at once, and Putin is consuming all the air right now?
When’s the last time you heard about the Dutch protests?
That's what they get for donating to kamalas political rival
I am more interested in how Brady material [exculpatory] evidence accidentally sent would be inadmissible to use by the defense. Generally, the govt HAS to disclose [and has an ongoing continuing obligation to keep disclosing] any Brady material in pre-trial discovery. Whether they do so purposefully or mistakenly shouldn't matter so long as its potentially exculpatory. Had they not sent it and it was later found to exist, this is shit prosecutors lose law licenses/careers over. I don't know enough about the details to ascertain how this all transpired.
Exactly!
We have looked into whether or not our behavior is improper and lo! it is not improper!
Six years? It should be tossed on 4A grounds.
Remember when they were investigating these guys Epstein was raping literally hundreds of little girls, and they let him go after 13 months of basically having to sleep over in jail.
The goal isn't to convict. It's to keep the prosecution going for as long as possible, to spend all the defendant's money, and keep the case in the headlines.
The 9th Circuit judges rejected this argument, writing that "the government's case-in-chief was still in its infancy"
And once again we see the pain and suffering from the overturning of Roe.
I am not sure these agents of the government could be behaving any more unethically but fortunately the retrial gives them the space to try.
Why are the defendants required to get approval to travel and wear ankle bracelets? They haven't been convicted of anything, and are accused of non-violent crimes. As long as they show up in court, why should they be treated as prisoners?
What a surprise! Not!! It's the Ninth Jerkit Court of Schlameils