18192021
22
232425262728
128861564
1
2
34567
8
9
1011121314STATEOFARIZONA,BRADD.BRIAN(CABarNo.079001,
prohacvice)
Brad.Brian@mto.comLUISLI(CABarNo.
156081,prohacvice)
Luis.Li@mto.comTRUCT.DO(CABarNo.191845,
prohacvice)
Truc.Do@mto.comMIRIAM
L.
SEIFTER(CABarNo.269589,
prohacvice)
Miriam.Seifter@mto.comMUNGER,TOLLES&OLSONLLP355SouthGrandAvenue,Thirty-FifthFloorLosAngeles,CA90071-1560Telephone:(213)683-9100SUPERIORCOURTOFSTATEOFARIZONACOUNTYOFYAVAPAITHOMAS
K.
KELLY(AZBarNo.012025)tskelly@kellydefense.com425E.GurleyPrescott,Arizona86301Telephone:(928)445-5484AttorneysforDefendantJAMESARTHURRAY15Plaintiff,vs.16JAMESARTHURRAY,17Defendant.
BY:
IvyRios
--....---------....__..,
___
CASENO.V1300CR201080049Hon.WarrenDarrowDIVISIONPTBDEFENDANTJAMESARTHURRAY'SMOTION
INLIMINE
(NO.9)TOEXCLUDETESTIMONYOFRICKROSS
DEFENDANT'SMOTION
INLIMINE
(NO.9)TOEXCLUDETESTIMONYOFRICKROSS
12
I.
MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESINTRODUCTION
3TheprosecutionseekstocallasanexpertwitnessRickRoss-aself-proclaimedexpert
in
4"destructivecults,controversialgroupsandmovements."ExpertWitnessReportofRickRoss,5datedJan.5,2011("RossReport")(ExhibitA).AccordingtotheState,Ross'stestimonywill6explaintothe
jury
whyparticipantsfelttheycouldnotleavethesweatlodgeduringthe2009JRI7ceremony.Inparticular,Rosswilltestifythat
Mr.
Rayusedspecialized"techniques"of"neuro-8linguisticprogramming"(NLP)and"largegroupawarenesstraining"(LGAT)to"control"9participantsinthe2009JRIsweatlodge,causingthemtoremaininsidethesweatlodge10"notwithstandingbecomingill."LetterfromBillHughestoTrueDo,Jan.12,2011(ExhibitB);11State'sBenchMemorandumRegarding404(b)Acts(filed10/21/10).12Ross'sproposedtestimonyfailsmultipleindependenthurdlesofadmissibilityandmust
13
thereforebeexcluded.
First,
Ross'sproposedtestimonyisirrelevant.Ross'sopinionson14supposedpsychologicaltechniquesaddressonlyonequestion:whyparticipantsfelttheycould15notleavethesweatlodge.Butthatquestionisnotinissueatthistrial.Nota
single
witnesswill16saytheydidnotfeelfreetoleavethesweatlodge.Indeed,theevidencewillshowthat17participantsfeltfreetoleavethesweatlodgeatanytime,wereinfactfreetoleave,anddidleave18whentheywantedto.Andmanywholeftchosetoreturntofinishthesweatlodgeceremony.19BecauseRoss'stestimonyhingesonacounterfactualscenario,itisirrelevantandhasno20probativevaluewhatsoever.ThisbasicfailingisdispositiveoftheState'sattempttointroduce21Ross'sopinions.
22Second,
Ross'sproposedtestimonyisbarredbyArizonaRuleofEvidence702.Anexpert23witness,evenifproperlyqualified,maynotopineonhowgeneralbehavioraltendencies24manifestedthemselvesinthecaseunderreview.
SeeState
v.
Montijo,
160Ariz.576,580(App.251989);
State
v.
Moran,
151Ariz.378(1986).AndRoss,inanyevent,is
not
qualifiedtotestify26regardingthementalstateofJRIparticipants.Byhisownadmission,Rosshasnotspokentoa2728
12886156.4
-1-
DEFENDANT'SMOTION
INLIMINE
(NO.9)TOEXCLUDETESTIMONYOFRICKROSS
12886156.4
-2-
1singleparticipantfromtheJRIsweatlodgeandhasnevermetMr.Ray.lHis
only
sourceof2informationregardingthesweatlodgecomesfrommediaaccountsandaPowerPointpresentation3providedbytheYavapaiCountyAttorney.'ThisfactalsocastsdoubtonwhetherRoss'sopinion4couldbeadmissibleunderRule703,whichrequiresthatopinionsbebasedonmaterialsthat5expertsinthefieldwould"reasonablyrel[y]upon."6TheStatecannotsurmounttheglaringRule702deficienciesinRoss'sopinionsregarding7JRIparticipantsbyportrayingRossasanexpertintheallegedpsychiatricandpsychological8phenomenaof"LGAT"and''NLP''whocansimply"educatethejury"intheseconcepts.State's91112Letter,ExhibitBat1.Evenassumingtheseconcepts-forwhichRosscouldprovideno10accepteddefinition-couldbeconsideredalegitimatesubjectofexperttestimony,Rosssurelyis11notqualifiedtoeducateothersintheirsupposedlypsychologicalmechanisms.Rosshasno12educationortrainingotherthanahighschooldegree,hasnospecializedtrainingincounselingor13mentalhealthmatters,andhasneverworkedwiththepsychologistsandpsychiatriststhathis14reportcites.
15Third,
evenifRoss'sproposedtestimonycouldclearallofthesehurdles,itmustbe16excludedpursuanttoRule403.Theprejudiceattendanttointroducingacultexpertattrialis17plain.
It
isyetanotherattemptbytheStateto
try
thiscaseonthebasisofMr.Ray'scharacter,18ratherthanthemeritsofitsevidence.AndgiventhelackofanyconnectionbetweenRoss's19opinionsandthefactsinevidence,suchprejudicewouldbeprofoundlyunfair.Ross'stestimony20mustbeexcluded.21Moreover,thetestimony-irrelevantandinflammatoryspeculationbyanindividual22whoseworrisomeagendaandtroubledpastfaroutrunhisvirtuallynon-existentqualifications-23woulddegradetheintegrityofthisCourtandimperil
Mr.
Ray'srighttoafairtrial.Asdiscussed24infurtherdetailbelow,Rossalsoservesasa"consultant"whoperforms"interventions"and"cult25
26
2728
1
ReferencestoRoss'sstatementsarebasedonnotestakenattheDefense'sinterviewofRossonJanuary21,2011.Attorneysfrombothsidesattendedandrecordedtheinterview,butatranscripthasnotyetbeenprepared.
2
ThisisthesamePowerPointpresentationgiventothemedicalexaminerswhichtheStatehadrefusedtodisclosetotheDefenseunderaclaimofattorneyworkproduct.
DEFENDANT'SMOTION
INLIMINE
(NO.9)TOEXCLUDETESTIMONYOFRICKROSS
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
State of Arizona v. James Arthur Ray, Case No. V1300CR201080049, Defendant James Arthur Ray’s Motion in Limine (No.9) To Exclude Testimony of Rick Ross
2.2K
Reads
1
Readcasts
2
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Notes
Load more
