BROOKLYN, N.Y. (CN) - As a federal trial dubbed the biggest cult case in decades kicks off next week in Brooklyn, experts and lawyers across the country are watching closely to see how it shapes the prosecution of cult leaders and the public perception of their organizations.
Keith Raniere, co-founder of the purported self-help group NXIVM, begins what is expected to be a six-week trial May 7 on charges including forced labor, sex trafficking, sexual exploitation of a child, wire fraud and violations of federal anti-racketeering law. He’s accused of leading a secretive group called DOS within NXIVM (pronounced Nexium), in which women served as slaves, were branded with his initials and forced to have sex with him.
Five women previously charged in the case — mother-daughter duo Nancy and Lauren Salzman; NXIVM bookkeeper Kathy Russell; Seagram’s liquor heiress Clare Bronfman; and “Smallville” actress Allison Mack — have all pleaded guilty in recent months, leaving Raniere to stand trial alone. It’s not clear whether any of the women will cooperate against him, though there has been speculation that Mack and Lauren Salzman might.
Cults are not illegal in the United States, though they can engage in illegal activity, as the NXIVM members are alleged to have done. Because it is rare for cult cases to end up before juries, though, researchers are paying attention to see whether the government will allow or use cultic buzzwords like “brainwashing” that might detract from the charges.
“I don’t know if they’re going to use any cult language at all,” said Janja Lalich, a Fulbright scholar who spent 10 years in the 1970s as a member of the Democratic Workers Party, a San Francisco-based political cult. “On some level I feel like they don’t need to. The important thing is to not mystify it."
Phil Elberg, a lawyer with experience in civil cult litigation, echoed this strategy tip.
“I believe if you tell the story in exquisite detail, [jurors] will know it’s a cult,” Elberg said. “Proving it’s a cult gets you nothing.”
St. John’s University law professor Robin Boyle Laisure called for authorities to prosecute cult leaders under human-trafficking laws in a 2016 article for the Oregon Review of International Law.
These laws are useful in such cases, Boyle said, “because they don’t rely on the mental state of the victim.”
But Lalich said concepts of mind control will likely come up during witness testimony, and prosecutors should try to prepare the jury for that. She emphasized the importance of relating to the jury that cults use “basic social psychology” to reel in and retain members.
“There’s nothing tricky that goes on,” she said. “It’s really about everyday influence and peer pressure. … Maybe using some everyday examples that jurors can relate to — because we’re all influenced, all the time, by everything all around us.”
Lalich noted as one example that people can be influenced into buying a piece of clothing that doesn’t really fit if they’re flattered by a friend or a salesperson.
“I’m really hoping this case will be a precedent-setting case that will teach the public, hey, it could happen to you, if you’re lied to by the right person,” said Steve Hassan, a mental health counselor and mind-control expert who has spent over 40 years helping people leave destructive cults. Hassan himself was once a member of the Unification Church, or “Moonies,” which he calls a cult.
Other experts said prosecutors should be more direct about the cultic aspects of the trial. Both Hassan and Alan Scheflin, professor emeritus at Santa Clara University School of Law and an expert on the legal issues surrounding mind and behavior control, said prosecutors should not totally ignore the mind-control aspects of the case.
