Manslaughter Trial Begins for AZ Sweat Lodge Operator

Opening arguments begin today in the trial of James Arthur Ray, owner of the Sedona, AZ sweat lodge where three people died in 2009. Ray is charged with three counts of manslaughter. The prosecution alleges he was criminally reckless. Among other things:

Prosecutors maintain that Ray psychologically pressured participants to remain in the lodge even when they weren't feeling well, contributing to their deaths.

The defense claims the deaths were an accident.

"We do not seek to minimize the tragedy of the sweat lodge deaths," said a December 2009 letter to prosecutors from defense attorney Luis Li. "But these deaths were not the result of criminal conduct. Mr. Ray and his team relied on Angel Valley to provide a safe environment, warned people of the risks, did not force people to participate, did not prevent them from leaving, and did everything they could to prepare for any problems and to assist when problems arose."

The Indictment is here. Each count carries a possible penalty of four to ten years in prison. Background from the article: [More..]

It began Oct. 4, 2009, at the Angel Valley Retreat Center west of Sedona and included a number of exercises that the participants did in sequence at Ray's direction. The participants did what they were told, according to court documents, and at times were forced to observe total silence.

Using holotropic breath work, participants hyperventilated into a trancelike state. In a so-called vision quest, they spent 36 hours alone in the wild without food or water and without leaving a 6-foot circle drawn in the dirt. Finally, they entered the sweat lodge, similar to those used in Native American purification ceremonies, made of blankets and tarps with a center pit filled with heated rocks. The last two events were done just hours apart.

Ray's lawyer says Ray reminded people to hydrate and told them about the heat they would encounter. They also signed releases acknowledging there would be high temperatures in enclosed spaces. A recent motion filed by the prosecution claims:

A motion filed by County Attorney Sheila Polk describes how prosecutors say the sweat-lodge incident unfolded: Participants learned of the exercise only 30 minutes before it started. Ray told the participants that the heat would be so intense they would feel as if they were going to die, so hot it would feel like their skin would fall off the bone. They would be facing death and overcoming it. Ray spoke about putting their lives on the line and "playing full on" in order to reach a higher level of being.

Ray has a website which contains many arguments by his lawyers as to why he is not guilty. The defense failed yesterday in a bid to move the trial out of Yavapai County.

< Monday Night Open Thread | Supreme Court Rules AT&T Has No Privacy Rights >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Under Arizona law (none / 0) (#2)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    According to the charges filed in the indictment, Ray is charged under A.R.S. 13-1103, which if you look at the definition, A(1) defines "manslaughter" as:

    Recklessly causing the death of another person.

    So while I agree that people need to take more personal responsibility for their own actions, I think your definition actually matches what was charged.

    Just something to add (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by nyjets on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:58:39 PM EST
    What James Arthur Ray was doing was dangerous. The people who particpated did so with the understanding that James Arthur Ray would take every precaution necessary to insure that noone is hurt.
    While people should take responsiblity for there actions, people also assume that other people will do there jobs. For example, a person accoutant will prepare their tax return accurately.
    In this case, if James Arthur Ray did everything possible to insure that people would not get hurt, this is at best a civil lawsuit.
    If, OTOH, he did not and was reckless in his care, he is guilty of manslaughter.
    I do not know which side is correct. I have not followed the case all that closely. However, I can see both sides of the issue.

    yep (none / 0) (#7)
    by sj on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    that's "charged" right ? (none / 0) (#3)
    by sj on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:55:43 PM EST
    not proven one way or the other yet.  Could be a yet another case of over reach.

    Or not.  

    That's what a trial will determine.  Just because charges are brought it doesn't make the defendent guilty.


    Yes (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    I don't think my comment indicated guilt or otherwise - I pointed to the definition of manslaughter, as defined by the state of Arizona.

    I dunno, sounds like the defendant (none / 0) (#4)
    by magster on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    placed a lot of peer pressure on the participants. Proof of similar past deaths not disclosed to participants, whether heat was monitored, whether the defendant ignored symptoms of distress or encouraged people to "suck it up" if they wanted to leave, whether other sweat lodge providers have an "industry standard" for safety and conditions.

    Sounds like there's plenty to at least go to trial on.

    Darwin (none / 0) (#8)
    by pitachips on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 04:08:00 PM EST

    Ooooooh! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Zorba on Tue Mar 01, 2011 at 06:34:27 PM EST
    It's cruel, but it's true.