Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Psychological Association

By Supreme Court of the State of California

"Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Psychological Association" by Supreme Court of the State of California. Published by Good Press. Good Press publishes a wide range of titles that encompasses every genre. From well-known classics & literary fiction and non-fiction to forgotten−or yet undiscovered gems−of world literature, we issue the books that need to be read. Each Good Press edition has been meticulously edited and formatted to boost readability for all e-readers and devices. Our goal is to produce eBooks that are user-friendly and accessible to everyone in a high-quality digital format.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Good Press
• Release date: Apr 11, 2021
• ISBN: 4064066456016

Book preview

Supreme Court of the State of California

Brief Amicus Curiae of the American Psychological Association

Published by Good Press, 2022

[e-mail]

EAN 4064066456016

Table of Contents

I. THE COERCIVE PERSUASION THEORY THAT PLAINTIFFS ADVANCE IS NOT A MEANINGFUL SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT AND PROFFERED EXPERT TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THIS THEORY WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED

II. RECOGNITION OF THE COERCIVE PERSUASION THEORY PLAINTIFFS ADVANCE WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND UNDERMINE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

MISCELLANEOUS

INTEREST OF AMICI

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

ARGUMENT

CONCLUSION

I. THE COERCIVE PERSUASION THEORY THAT PLAINTIFFS ADVANCE IS NOT A MEANINGFUL SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT AND PROFFERED EXPERT TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THIS THEORY WAS PROPERLY EXCLUDED

Table of Contents

A. The Standards for Admissibility of Scientific Expert Testimony

1. The Legal Standard

2. The Scientific Standard

B. The Theory of Coercive Persuasion Plaintiffs Advance Is Not Accepted in the Scientific Community

1. The Conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson Are Not Recognized As Scientific Conclusions in the Relevant Professional Communities

2. Plaintiffs' Theory of Coercive Persuasion Is Not Generally Accepted in the Relevant Professional Literature

C. The Methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson Has Been Repudiated by the Scientific Community

1. The Data on Which Drs. Singer and Benson Rely Is Undocumented and Unverifiable

2. The Sources of Information on Which Drs. Singer and Benson Rely Are Not Impartial

3. Drs. Singer and Benson Have Not Shown That the Harms They Claim to Have Found in Former Church Members Were Caused by Affiliation with the Church

D. Given the Inadequacy of the Scientific Support, Plaintiff's Claim of Coercive Persuasion Is, as the Courts Below Concluded, Simply A Negative Value Judgement In Scientific Garb

[ii]

II. RECOGNITION OF THE COERCIVE PERSUASION THEORY PLAINTIFFS ADVANCE WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND UNDERMINE BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM

Table of Contents

A. Imposition Of Tort Liability Under These Circumstances Would Violate The Free Exercise Clause Of The First Amendment

B. Plaintiffs' Theory of Coercive Persuasion Cannot Be Reconciled With Basic Assumptions Of The Legal System

CONCLUSIONS

[iii]

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Table of Contents

CASES:

Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936)

Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980)

Bowen v. Roy, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 2147 (1986)

Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961)

City of Newport Beach v. Sasse, 9 Cal. App. 3d 803, 88 Cal. Rptr. 476 (1970)

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

Goldman v. Weinberger, ___ U.S. ___, 106 S. Ct. 1310 (1986)

Holy Spirit Ass'n v. Tax Commissioner, 55 N.Y.2d 512, 435 N.E.2d 662 (1982)

Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal. 2d 647, 51 Cal. Rptr. 254, 414 P.2d 382 (1966)

Lewis v. Unification Church, 589 F. Supp. 10 (D. Mass. 1983)

McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U.S. 618 (1978)

Metropolitan Edison Company v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766 (1983)

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)

New York Times v. Sullivan, 374 U.S. 276 (1964)

Newby v. Alto Rivera Apartments, 60 Cal. App. 3d 288 (1976)

PASE v. Hannon, 506 F. Supp. 831 (N.D. Ill. 1980)

People v. Bledsoe, 36 Cal. 3d 236, 203 Cal. Rptr. 450, 681 P.2d 291 (1984)

People v. Kelly, 17 Cal. 3d 24, 130 Cal. Rptr. 144, 549 P.2d 1240 (1976)

People v. Martinez, 150 Cal. App. 3d 579, 198 Cal. Rptr. 565 (1984)

[iv]

People v. Marx, 54 Cal. App. 3d 100, 126 Cal. Rptr. 350 (1975)

People v. McDonald, 37 Cal. 3d 351, 208 Cal. Rptr. 236, 690 P.2d 709 (1984)

People v. Roscoe, 168 Cal. App. 3d 1093, 215 Cal. Rptr. 45 (1985)

People v. Shirley, 31 Cal. 3d 18, 181 Cal. Rptr. 243, 641 P.2d 775 (1982)

Reynolds v. United States, 191 U.S. 367 (1878)

Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963)

Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 450 U.S. 707 (1981)

Towns v. Anderson, 195 Colo. 517, 579 P.2d 1163 (1978)

Unification Church v. INS, 547 F. Supp. 623 (D.D.C. 1982)

United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78 (1944)

United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982)

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

STATUTES:

California Code of Evidence:

Rule 352 39

Rule 801(b)

California Civil Code:

1572

1709

1710

MISCELLANEOUS:

Table of Contents

Anthony & Robbins, New Religions, Families, and Brainwashing in In Gods We Trust 263 (T. Robbins & R. Anthony eds. 1981)

[v]

Balch, What's Wrong With the Study of New Religions and What We Can Do About It, in Scientific Research and New Religions 25 (B. Kilbourne ed. 1985)

E. Barker, The Making of a Moonie (1984)

J. Biermans, The Odyssey of New Religious Movements (1986)

Bird & Reimer, Participation Rates in the New Religious Movements, 22 J. for the Scientific Study of Religion 1 (1982)

D. Bromley & A. Shupe, Strange Gods (1981)

Coleman, New Religions and Deprogramming; Who's Brainwashing Whom? in Cults, Culture, and the