Superior Court of State of Arizona County of Yavapai

“ Put simply, if the expert's opinion bears only on a question that is not in issue in the case, that opinion is not relevant and not admissible.
This most basic rule of admissibility bars Ross's proposed testimony. The State seeks to introduce Ross's testimony regarding the effects of "NLP" and "LGAT" solely to address the question of why participants felt they were not free to leave the sweat lodge. As the Defense has pointed out in a recent motion,4 this question presumes a counterfactual scenario. Not a single participant states that he or she was not free to leave the sweat lodge. ”

“ In any event, by his own admission during his interview, Ross is not an expert in NLP. As for LGAT, which Ross describes as a term of art among psychiatrists and psychologists but for which he cannot provide an academically accepted definition, Ross lacks any of the qualifications one might expect to see in an expert in psychiatry or psychology: he has no higher education, no specialized training, has never worked in the mental health field, and has never worked with any of the people whose studies he describes. ”

“ 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. ”