Superior Court of State of Arizona County of Yavapai

“ Ross does engage in—archiving internet posts, labeling as cults a wide range of religious groups, and, most notably here, forcibly detaining and "deprogramming" alleged cult members—is reflective of an activist with a controversial agenda, not an expert witness. Should the Court admit his testimony despite his utter lack of qualifications, it must allow the jury to receive sufficient information about Ross' bias and criminal record to evaluate his credibility. ”

“ The State cannot surmount the glaring Rule 702 deficiencies in Ross's opinions regarding JRI participants by portraying Ross as an expert in the alleged psychiatric and psychological phenomena of "LGAT" and "NLP" who can simply "educate the jury" in these concepts. State's 1/12 Letter, Exhibit B at 1. Even assuming these concepts—for which Ross could provide no accepted definition—could be considered a legitimate subject of expert testimony, Ross surely is not qualified to educate others in their supposedly psychological mechanisms. ”

“ This felony conviction, like his deprogramming practices, bears on his expert qualifications. Mr. Ray is entitled to present to the jury a full and fair view of Ross's controversial career. Jurors should be permitted to know, among other facts, that Ross is not an expert who has followed a traditional path of scholarship. To the contrary, although the State will ask Ross to opine on apparently technical concepts and psychological phenomena, Ross has no higher education or specialized training whatsoever. ”

“ According to Ross's Expert Witness Report, he is "one of the most readily recognized experts offering analysis about destructive cults, controversial groups and movements." (Ross Report at 2) . As he stated in his interview with Mr. Ray's attorneys on January 21, 2011, this "recognition" refers mainly to his media appearances, which fill over half of his 9-page CV. Ross has no college degree and no graduate degree. He has taken no college classes on psychology, medicine, group dynamics, sociology, or therapy, and has no training in any mental health field. ”

“ The Defense received the State's confirmation of disclosure regarding the felony convictions of its witnesses on February 2, 2011, and filed the Rule 609 notice immediately thereafter. Furthermore, the notice requirement of Rule 609 (b) exists to avoid surprise, and the State's motion in limine specifically raising the issue of the criminal conviction of its own witness—makes obvious that the State is subject to no surprise here. ”

“ If so, the jury should be permitted to evaluate whether such practices are consistent with a dispassionate expert or a zealot.
Fourth, the State's assertion that "impeachment on collateral issues is not allowed," State's Motion at 5, is correct but irrelevant here. Mr. Ray is not attempting to impeach Ross on a collateral matter. "Evidence is collateral if it could not properly be offered for any purpose independent of the contradiction." State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 325 (1993) . The bias and prejudice of a witness is never a collateral matter. ”

“ Ross "has not engaged in any activities involving the forcible detention and deprogramming of adult cult members since 1990," State's Motion at 2, omits that Ross was still litigating the civil judgment against him in the Jason Scott case as recently as 1997. See Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 9, at 3; see also Scott v. Ross, 120 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1998) . In addition, as the State acknowledges, Ross "still occasionally does" forcible deprogrammings "with juvenile cult members." State's Motion at 2 (emphasis added) . ”

“ Ross did not recall the person's name or the details of the call and thus cannot verify if the person actually ever did attend a JRI event..
9 Furthermore, the materials Ross has relied on to learn about the 2009 sweat lodge—media and interne stories and a PowerPoint presentation prepared by the prosecution—would seem to form the basis for exclusion under Rule 703. These are not the materials "reasonably relied upon" by experts in any relevant field of expertise. ”

“ Ross also serves as a "consultant" who performs "interventions" and "cult deprogramming." Some of his work has been violent and unlawful. In 1991, for example, a Washington jury found him guilty of civil rights violations for abducting an 18-year-old man and conducting a 5-day, involuntary religious deprogramming. In upholding a punitive damages award against Ross of $2.5 million dollars, the district court judge noted that Ross "actively participated in the plan to abduct Mr. ”