Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
BRADD.BRIAN(CABarNo.
07900I,prohacvice)
Brad.Brian@mto.comLUISLI(CABarNo.
156081,prohacvice)
Luis.Li@mto.comTRUCT.DO(CABarNo.191845,
prohacvice)
Truc.Do@mto.com~MIRIAM
L.
SEIFTER(CABarNo.269589,
prohacvice)"
Miriam.Seifter@mto.comMUNGER,TOLLES
&
OLSONLLP355SouthGrandAvenue,Thirty-FifthFloorLosAngeles,CA90071-1560Telephone:(213)683-9100SUPERIORCOURTOFSTATEOFARIZONACOUNTYOFYAVAPAI
1
2
3
45
6
7
13005600.3
DEFENDANT'SRESPONSETOSTATE'SMILRE:RICKROSS
THOMASK.KELLY(AZBarNo.012025)8tskelly@kellydefense.com425E.Gurley9Prescott,Arizona86301Telephone:(928)445-5484101112
13
14
STATE
OF
ARIZONA,
AttorneysforDefendantJAMESARTHURRAY15Plaintiff,vs.16JAMESARTHURRAY,17Defendant.18192021
22
232425262728CASENO.
VI300cR201080049
Hon.WarrenDarrowDIVISIONPTB
DEFENDANTJAMESARTHURRAY'SRESPONSETOSTATE'SMOTIONINLIMINERE:WITNESSRICKROSS
 
1
2
I.MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESINTRODUCTION
13005600.3
-1-
3ByhighlightingRickRoss'scriminalhistoryandviolentandunlawful"professional"4practices,theState'smotion
inlimine
forcefullyunderscoresthereasonsRossshouldbeexcluded5asanexpertwitness.
See
Defendant's
MotioninLimine
No.9toExcludeTestimonyofRick6Ross(filedJan.24,2011).AstheDefensehasnoted,theState'sattempttocallRossasanexpert7onthepsychologicaleffectsofself-helpseminarsthreatensthistrial'sintegrity.Rossisstrikingly8unqualifiedtoofferexperttestimony;helackseducationortraininginanymentalhealthfield,9hasahistoryoflawbreaking,andisaself-proclaimed"activist"withahighlycontroversial10agenda.Moreover,Ross'sinflammatory"conclusions"lackanyconnectiontotheevidencein11thiscase.12IfthisCourtdenies
Mr.
Ray'smotionandpermitsRosstotestifyasanexpert,the13Constitution'sSixthAmendmentandDueProcessClauserequiretheCourttoallow
Mr.
Rayfull14andcompletecross-examinationregardingRoss'squalifications,conclusions,andcredibility.15"Therightofconfrontation,whichincludestherighttocross-examinewitnesses,isafundamental16right."
State
v.
Correll,
148Ariz.468,473(Ariz.1986)(citingandquoting
Pointer
v.
Texas,
38017u.S.400,403-04(1965».Moreover,yearsofArizonacaselawemphasizethat"[t]rialcourts18mustgivegreatlatitudeforfullandcompletecross-examinationofexpertwitnesses."
19Gasiorowski
v.
Hose,
182Ariz.376,381(App.1995).20Acompletecross-examinationhereincludesthecategoriestheStateseekstocordonoff:21Ross'sdubiousandunlawfulprofessionalactivitiesandhiscriminalhistory.Thesefactsbearon22Ross'squalificationsasanexpert,thereliabilityofhisopinions,andthebiasofhistestimony.23TheStatecannotrestrictcross-examinationintothesevitalmatterssimplybecausesomeofthese24facts-allofwhichareadmittedonRoss'sownwebsite-areinconvenientorembarrassing.25"TheStatecould...protec[t]"Ross"fromexposure"ofthisinformationincourt''byrefraining26fromusinghimtomakeoutitscase."
Davis
v.
Alaska,
415U.S.308,320(1974).But"theState27cannot,consistentwiththerightofconfrontation,"requireMr.Raytoforegoquestioningthatwill28
DEFENDANT'SRESPONSETOSTATE'SMILRE:RICKROSS
 
1allowthejuryto"appropriatelydrawinferencesrelatingtothereliabilityof'Mr.Rossandhis2purportedexpertopinions.
Id.
TheState'smotionmustbedenied.
3
II.
ARGUMENT
4"'WhetherrooteddirectlyintheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentorin5theCompulsoryProcessorConfrontationClausesoftheSixthAmendment,theConstitution6guaranteescriminaldefendants'ameaningfulopportunitytopresentacompletedefense.'"
Clark
7
v.
Arizona,
548U.S.735,789-90(2006)(quoting
Holmes
v.
SouthCarolina,
547U.S.319,324,8(2006)).Inparticular,theConstitution'sSixthAmendmentguaranteesdefendantstherightto9confrontwitnessesagainstthemthroughcross-examination,whichis'oneofthesafeguards10essentialtoafairtrial.'"
Pointer
v.
Texas,
380U.S.400,404(1965).Thecross-examinationright11includestheabilityto"revea[l]possiblebiases,prejudices,orulteriormotivesofthewitness."
12Davis,
415U.S.at316.Andbecausetherighttocompletecross-examinationofadverse13witnessesis"sovitalaconstitutionalright,"
id.
at320,itisreversibleerrorforatrialcourttobar14adefendantfrom"expos[ing]tothejurythefactsfromwhichjurors,asthesoletriersoffactand15credibility,couldappropriatelydrawinferencesrelatingtothereliabilityofthewitness."
Id.
at16318.17Theneedforfulsomeconfrontationisincreasedwhereexpertwitnessesareconcerned.18Arizonalawrecognizestheneedfortrialcourtstogiveparticularly"greatlatitudeforfulland19complete"cross-examinationandimpeachmentofexpertwitnesses.
Hose,
182Ariz.at381;
20Youngblood
v.
Austin,
102Ariz.74,77(1967)("[W]idelatitudeispermittedinthecross-21examinationofawitness,andthecourtsareparticularlyliberalinallowingfullandcomplete22examinationofanexpertwitness."(quoting
Brazee
v.
Morris,
65Ariz.291(1947)).Indeed,23"Arizonahasalong-favoredpracticeofallowingfullcross-examinationofexpertwitnesses,24includinginquiryabouttheexpert'ssources,relationswiththehiringpartyandcounsel,possible25bias,andprioropinions."
E.g.,ArizonaIndependentRedistrictingCom'n
v.
Fields,
206Ariz.26130,143(App.2003).Adefendantconfrontinganadverseexpertwitnessmustbepermittedto27explorecomprehensivelythewitness's"qualificationsasanexpert,"thevalidityofhis28conclusions,andthenatureandextentofhisexpertise.
SeeHose,
182Ariz.at381,382.Of
130056003
-2-
DEFENDANT'SRESPONSETOSTATE'SMILRE:RICKROSS
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more