International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 9, 2018 13
Army (SLA).
186F
187 She was locked in a closet,
starved, and raped.
187F
188 Eventually her captors
wore her down, she became an SLA member,
and she helped commit crimes perpetrated by the
group.
188F
189 Hearst was ultimately arrested in
connection with a bank robbery.
189F
190 At trial, her
defense centered on the idea that she had been
brainwashed and, thus, should not be held
responsible for her actions.
190F
191 When she was
captured, brainwashing became a popular topic
of news stories.
191F
192 At her trial, the court,
unconvinced that brainwashing was a reason to
excuse her criminal acts, convicted and
imprisoned her.
192F
193
In 1990, a defendant in a criminal case claimed
to have been “brainwashed” by the cult of
Scientology.
193F
194 The defendant tried to introduce
evidence about the church’s use of influence
techniques as a defense to the government’s
theory that he possessed the requisite intent to
commit fraud.
194F
195 The Fishman court applied the
legal standards of current rules of evidence,
195F
196
which come from the seminal case of Frye v.
United States
196F
197 and United States v. Amaral.
197F
198
187 U.S. v. Hearst, 466 F. Supp. 1068, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d
in part, vacated in part, 638 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1980).
188 See id.
189 See id.
190 See id.
191 See id.
192 See id.
193 See HASSAN, supra note 55, at 84 United States v. Hearst, 412
F. Supp. 863, 870 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (the defense had argued
“indicated that closely related to the anticipated defense of
coercion will be the question of whether the defendant was
subjected to such intense mental and psychological pressure by her
captors as to have become ‘brainwashed’ by them and ‘converted’
to their cause.”).
194 United States v. Fishman, 743 F. Supp. 713 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
195 Dr. Margaret Singer, a well-known forensic psychologist, and
Dr. Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist, were expected to testify.
Singer was to testify that “upon joining the Church of Scientology,
defendant was subjected to intense suggestion procedures as well
as other joining social and behavioral influence processes.” Dr.
Ofshe was expected to testify that “Scientology can induce a
person to believe that they have the power to control mental
matter, energy, space and time.” Id. at 715.
196 Id. at 717 (citing Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702, and
explaining that pursuant to this rule, the proffered expert must have
specialized knowledge).
197 Id. (citing Fry v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.
1923)).
However, the trial court concluded that under
existing precedent, the expert testimony could
not be introduced in evidence.
198F
199
In 1993, the United States Supreme Court
established a set of criteria for federal courts to
follow when considering whether to admit
expert testimony during a trial known as the
“Daubert test.”
199F
200 The Daubert test did not relax
the rules on expert testimony.
200F
201 Put another
way, in prosecuting someone lower on the cult
ladder, the standards of Daubert would cause an
undue influence defense to fail. The most
challenging element of the Daubert test would
be establishing that the expert testimony on
brainwashing meets the criteria of general
acceptance in the scientific community.
201F
202
For example, in a criminal fraud case against a
former cultist, participation in a cult leader’s
illegal scheme was not excused by the court.
202F
203
The defendant, known as “Katie,” was convicted
and sentenced on fraud and conspiracy charges
stemming from a scheme devised by the cult
198 Id. (citing United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir.
1973)). In synthesizing Amaral with Frye and the Rules of
Evidence, the Fishman court explained that the test is as follows
“[f]or determining the admissibility of expert testimony from
mental health professionals”: “that expert testimony (1) comes
from a qualified expert (2) be of proper subject (3) conform to a
generally accepted explanatory theory and (4) have probative
value that exceeds its prejudicial effect.” Id.
199 Id. at 721. The Fishman court held that under the Frye test, it
would not “permit any evidence in support of a diminished
capacity defense.” Id. The Fishman court explained as follows:
“Frye holds that ‘while courts will go a long way in admitting
expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific
principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made
must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance
in the particular field in which it belongs.’” (quoting Fry v. United
States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923)).
200 See Scheflin, supra note 53, at 71 (citing Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The four-prong
test is (a) Whether the expert’s theory can be tested (b) Whether
the expert’s theory has been supported by publication or peer
review (c) Whether the expert’s theory has a known error rate and
(d) Whether the expert’s theory is generally accepted in the
relevant scientific community. Id.
201 See Scheflin, supra note 53, at 71 (citing Fishman, 743 F.
Supp. at 713 (N.D. Ca. 1990)) Robidoux v. O’Brien, 643 F.3d 334
(1st Cir. 2011).
202 See Scheflin, supra note 53, at 71.
203 Lorna Goldberg, Influence of a Charismatic Antisocial Cult
Leader: Psychotherapy with an Ex-Cultist Prosecuted for Criminal
Behavior, 3 INT’L J. CULTIC STUD. 15 (2012).
Army (SLA).
186F
187 She was locked in a closet,
starved, and raped.
187F
188 Eventually her captors
wore her down, she became an SLA member,
and she helped commit crimes perpetrated by the
group.
188F
189 Hearst was ultimately arrested in
connection with a bank robbery.
189F
190 At trial, her
defense centered on the idea that she had been
brainwashed and, thus, should not be held
responsible for her actions.
190F
191 When she was
captured, brainwashing became a popular topic
of news stories.
191F
192 At her trial, the court,
unconvinced that brainwashing was a reason to
excuse her criminal acts, convicted and
imprisoned her.
192F
193
In 1990, a defendant in a criminal case claimed
to have been “brainwashed” by the cult of
Scientology.
193F
194 The defendant tried to introduce
evidence about the church’s use of influence
techniques as a defense to the government’s
theory that he possessed the requisite intent to
commit fraud.
194F
195 The Fishman court applied the
legal standards of current rules of evidence,
195F
196
which come from the seminal case of Frye v.
United States
196F
197 and United States v. Amaral.
197F
198
187 U.S. v. Hearst, 466 F. Supp. 1068, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d
in part, vacated in part, 638 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1980).
188 See id.
189 See id.
190 See id.
191 See id.
192 See id.
193 See HASSAN, supra note 55, at 84 United States v. Hearst, 412
F. Supp. 863, 870 (N.D. Cal. 1975) (the defense had argued
“indicated that closely related to the anticipated defense of
coercion will be the question of whether the defendant was
subjected to such intense mental and psychological pressure by her
captors as to have become ‘brainwashed’ by them and ‘converted’
to their cause.”).
194 United States v. Fishman, 743 F. Supp. 713 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
195 Dr. Margaret Singer, a well-known forensic psychologist, and
Dr. Richard Ofshe, a social psychologist, were expected to testify.
Singer was to testify that “upon joining the Church of Scientology,
defendant was subjected to intense suggestion procedures as well
as other joining social and behavioral influence processes.” Dr.
Ofshe was expected to testify that “Scientology can induce a
person to believe that they have the power to control mental
matter, energy, space and time.” Id. at 715.
196 Id. at 717 (citing Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702, and
explaining that pursuant to this rule, the proffered expert must have
specialized knowledge).
197 Id. (citing Fry v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.
1923)).
However, the trial court concluded that under
existing precedent, the expert testimony could
not be introduced in evidence.
198F
199
In 1993, the United States Supreme Court
established a set of criteria for federal courts to
follow when considering whether to admit
expert testimony during a trial known as the
“Daubert test.”
199F
200 The Daubert test did not relax
the rules on expert testimony.
200F
201 Put another
way, in prosecuting someone lower on the cult
ladder, the standards of Daubert would cause an
undue influence defense to fail. The most
challenging element of the Daubert test would
be establishing that the expert testimony on
brainwashing meets the criteria of general
acceptance in the scientific community.
201F
202
For example, in a criminal fraud case against a
former cultist, participation in a cult leader’s
illegal scheme was not excused by the court.
202F
203
The defendant, known as “Katie,” was convicted
and sentenced on fraud and conspiracy charges
stemming from a scheme devised by the cult
198 Id. (citing United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir.
1973)). In synthesizing Amaral with Frye and the Rules of
Evidence, the Fishman court explained that the test is as follows
“[f]or determining the admissibility of expert testimony from
mental health professionals”: “that expert testimony (1) comes
from a qualified expert (2) be of proper subject (3) conform to a
generally accepted explanatory theory and (4) have probative
value that exceeds its prejudicial effect.” Id.
199 Id. at 721. The Fishman court held that under the Frye test, it
would not “permit any evidence in support of a diminished
capacity defense.” Id. The Fishman court explained as follows:
“Frye holds that ‘while courts will go a long way in admitting
expert testimony deduced from a well recognized scientific
principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made
must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance
in the particular field in which it belongs.’” (quoting Fry v. United
States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir. 1923)).
200 See Scheflin, supra note 53, at 71 (citing Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)). The four-prong
test is (a) Whether the expert’s theory can be tested (b) Whether
the expert’s theory has been supported by publication or peer
review (c) Whether the expert’s theory has a known error rate and
(d) Whether the expert’s theory is generally accepted in the
relevant scientific community. Id.
201 See Scheflin, supra note 53, at 71 (citing Fishman, 743 F.
Supp. at 713 (N.D. Ca. 1990)) Robidoux v. O’Brien, 643 F.3d 334
(1st Cir. 2011).
202 See Scheflin, supra note 53, at 71.
203 Lorna Goldberg, Influence of a Charismatic Antisocial Cult
Leader: Psychotherapy with an Ex-Cultist Prosecuted for Criminal
Behavior, 3 INT’L J. CULTIC STUD. 15 (2012).
