Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 16
psychiatry or psychotherapy his hypnotic technique used an experimental cranial electronic
stimulator he did not read the professional literature and his work experience prior to
being a hypnotist at Pacific Medical Center was intermittent. The fact that Dr. Peters, a
medical doctor, self-servingly stated that he considered St. Regis to be qualified is not
enough to disturb the district court‟s determination.
There was also no permanent record of the procedures that St. Regis used, no videotapes,
audiotapes, or even contemporaneously-drafted medical reports existed. 842 F. Supp. at
1507. As a result, the district court was not provided with any means, independent of St.
Regis‟s testimony, to determine whether or not he was inadvertently suggestive in his
approach or otherwise used suspect techniques [*41] in conducting the hypnosis. Without
such a record, expert testimony would have been of little value, since experts similarly
would have had no basis on which to evaluate the actual procedures St. Regis used.
Finally, we receive no comfort from the fact that St. Regis read excerpts from Borawick‟s
deposition transcript prior to testifying himself. Given that he is not qualified and that the
record lacks any basis on which to assess the reliability of the procedures he used, this
circumstance further undermines the value, if any, of his testimony.
Our conclusion is reinforced by the inherent incredibility of Borawick‟s allegations. In this
case, Borawick has leveled fanciful accusations of sexual abuse against numerous persons
other than the defendants in this matter that include persons both familiar and unfamiliar to
her. For example, Borawick allegedly recalls being raped and sexually abused at the age of
three during rituals by men whom she believed to be members of the Masons. She also
purports to recollect several incidents in which she was drugged by injection as well as an
incident in which she was forced to drink blood at a ritual involving a dead pig, incense,
chanting, [*42] and people dressed in black gowns. Several additional incidents of a
similarly unlikely nature involving sexual abuse by others are included in the sealed record.
That Borawick has made these far-fetched, uncorroborated accusations against others, in
addition to the defendants, erodes our confidence in the allegations against Morrie and
Christine Shay and properly weighs against the admissibility of her hypnotically-induced
memories.
We note that the district court failed to consider the evidence that Borawick offered as
corroboration in her motion for reconsideration, including letters from her sister alleging
abuse. In the face of the record before the district court, we find that Borawick‟s
corroborating evidence was simply too weak to overcome the very strong evidence against
admissibility. Consequently, we affirm the district court‟s ruling as to the in limine motion.
II. The Application of Daubert
Borawick also contends that the district court‟s in limine ruling was not consistent with
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), in
which the Supreme Court held that the test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013
(D.C. Cir. 1923), [*43] was superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
113 S. Ct. at 2793. In determining “the proper standard for the admission of expert
testimony,” id. at 2792, the Court noted that several of the Federal Rules of Evidence
applied. Rather than impose a rigid framework of criteria that must be met in order for the
testimony to be admissible, the Court ruled that judges must determine whether an expert‟s
testimony “is scientifically valid” by examining (1) whether the theory had been tested, (2)
whether it had been subjected to peer review, (3) what the potential or known rate of error
is, (4) what sort of standards control the technique‟s operation, and (5) whether the theory
or technique has generally been accepted. Id. at 2796-97. This inquiry, the Court
emphasized, should be flexible. Id. at 2797. In giving trial judges “the task of ensuring that
an expert‟s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at
psychiatry or psychotherapy his hypnotic technique used an experimental cranial electronic
stimulator he did not read the professional literature and his work experience prior to
being a hypnotist at Pacific Medical Center was intermittent. The fact that Dr. Peters, a
medical doctor, self-servingly stated that he considered St. Regis to be qualified is not
enough to disturb the district court‟s determination.
There was also no permanent record of the procedures that St. Regis used, no videotapes,
audiotapes, or even contemporaneously-drafted medical reports existed. 842 F. Supp. at
1507. As a result, the district court was not provided with any means, independent of St.
Regis‟s testimony, to determine whether or not he was inadvertently suggestive in his
approach or otherwise used suspect techniques [*41] in conducting the hypnosis. Without
such a record, expert testimony would have been of little value, since experts similarly
would have had no basis on which to evaluate the actual procedures St. Regis used.
Finally, we receive no comfort from the fact that St. Regis read excerpts from Borawick‟s
deposition transcript prior to testifying himself. Given that he is not qualified and that the
record lacks any basis on which to assess the reliability of the procedures he used, this
circumstance further undermines the value, if any, of his testimony.
Our conclusion is reinforced by the inherent incredibility of Borawick‟s allegations. In this
case, Borawick has leveled fanciful accusations of sexual abuse against numerous persons
other than the defendants in this matter that include persons both familiar and unfamiliar to
her. For example, Borawick allegedly recalls being raped and sexually abused at the age of
three during rituals by men whom she believed to be members of the Masons. She also
purports to recollect several incidents in which she was drugged by injection as well as an
incident in which she was forced to drink blood at a ritual involving a dead pig, incense,
chanting, [*42] and people dressed in black gowns. Several additional incidents of a
similarly unlikely nature involving sexual abuse by others are included in the sealed record.
That Borawick has made these far-fetched, uncorroborated accusations against others, in
addition to the defendants, erodes our confidence in the allegations against Morrie and
Christine Shay and properly weighs against the admissibility of her hypnotically-induced
memories.
We note that the district court failed to consider the evidence that Borawick offered as
corroboration in her motion for reconsideration, including letters from her sister alleging
abuse. In the face of the record before the district court, we find that Borawick‟s
corroborating evidence was simply too weak to overcome the very strong evidence against
admissibility. Consequently, we affirm the district court‟s ruling as to the in limine motion.
II. The Application of Daubert
Borawick also contends that the district court‟s in limine ruling was not consistent with
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993), in
which the Supreme Court held that the test set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013
(D.C. Cir. 1923), [*43] was superseded by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
113 S. Ct. at 2793. In determining “the proper standard for the admission of expert
testimony,” id. at 2792, the Court noted that several of the Federal Rules of Evidence
applied. Rather than impose a rigid framework of criteria that must be met in order for the
testimony to be admissible, the Court ruled that judges must determine whether an expert‟s
testimony “is scientifically valid” by examining (1) whether the theory had been tested, (2)
whether it had been subjected to peer review, (3) what the potential or known rate of error
is, (4) what sort of standards control the technique‟s operation, and (5) whether the theory
or technique has generally been accepted. Id. at 2796-97. This inquiry, the Court
emphasized, should be flexible. Id. at 2797. In giving trial judges “the task of ensuring that
an expert‟s testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at
