Arizona: Legal arguments delay sweat lodge guru's trial Defense says prosecutors deliberately withheld evidence

By Felicia Fonseca Associated Press FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) -- Attorneys defending a self-help author on manslaughter charges contend prosecutors intentionally withheld evidence that shows their client isn't to blame for the deaths of three people following a sweat lodge ceremony. They are asking a Yavapai County judge to declare a mistrial, the second such request in a week. James Arthur Ray is facing three counts of manslaughter stemming from the deaths of Kirby Brown, Liz Neuman and James Shore in October 2009. He has pleaded not guilty. Ray's attorneys wrote in a motion filed late Monday that the state suppressed a report from an environmental scientist who said the sweat lodge design, including an off-center pit, insufficient air circulation and the creation of an air-tight structure, contributed to the deaths. "There is no more exculpatory evidence than this: evidence that indicates that the criminal defendant is not criminally responsible for the crime charged," Ray's attorneys wrote. Ray contracted with the owners of the Angel Valley Retreat Center to have the structure built for his weeklong "Spiritual Warrior" ceremony. Angel Valley co-owner Amayra Hamilton has maintained that the sweat lodge was sound and that its construction is not to blame. She and her husband, Michael Hamilton, are scheduled to testify this week. Jurors in the case have Tuesday off to give prosecutors a chance to respond to the defense request. Oral arguments are scheduled Wednesday. Prosecutors have argued that Ray recklessly caused the deaths. They have solicited testimony from witnesses who said other groups had used the same structure for ceremonies at the retreat without incident, and problems arose only in those led by Ray. The state listed environmental expert Richard Haddow as a potential witness in October but withdrew his name two months later. Haddow declined to comment Monday when contacted by The Associated Press because he was unsure whether he ultimately would be called to the stand. In an e-mail to prosecutors last April, Haddow said the pit of rocks that was offset from the center made the northwest part of the sweat lodge the hottest. That was where the victims and others who became severely ill were seated. Haddow said the nearly air-tight structure and the radiant heat from the rock pit created positive pressure that didn't allow for the inside and much cooler outside air to be exchanged easily. He said the conditions of the participants worsened because of the length of time they were inside the sweat lodge, a factor that prosecutors say Ray controlled. Anyone experiencing such environmental conditions for that length of time would have been incapable of making sound judgments, Haddow said. Rules require that prosecutors turn over evidence favorable to the defense. Prosecutors in Ray's case have sought the disclosure of lawsuits filed against Ray under the same rule. Ray's attorneys said they could have better prepared for the trial entering its eighth week had they received Haddow's report sooner than last week. They also argued that they could not assess the sweat lodge because it was torn down days after the ceremony -- a practice that prosecutors say is standard when authorities complete their on-scene investigation. "Mr. Ray could have made a powerful case to the jury that in light of the unknowable defects in design and construction of the sweat lodge, neither he nor any reasonable person could possibly have foreseen a substantial risk of death," the defense wrote in the motion. Yavapai County Judge Warren Darrow rejected a request from the defense last week to declare a mistrial, after Ray's attorneys argued that he had reversed a previous ruling by allowing evidence from past sweat lodge ceremonies led by Ray. The defense asked Darrow to reconsider his decision not to grant a mistrial. Darrow hasn't ruled on that request, but he issued decisions Monday not to allow evidence that relates solely to a lesser charge and to exclude the testimony of a risk management expert that prosecutors listed as a witness. Published: Wed, Apr 13, 2011