Judge Charlaine Olmedo succeeded yesterday in sticking to her schedule by seating a jury for the Danny Masterson retrial after a couple of long days of voir dire. By about 4 pm yesterday we had a sworn jury of seven women and five men, and eight alternate jurors evenly split between men and women. Opening statements in the trial will begin Monday morning.
During that process, we did our best to take notes of what these prospective jurors were asked by Judge Olmedo herself, as well as defense attorney Philip Cohen and then prosecutors Ariel Anson and Reinhold Mueller. Those questions were based on the responses the jurors had given on written questionnaires that we didn’t have access to, however, so any information we have is limited.
Still, a few interesting things emerged about the people who ended up as jurors and alternates, and one in particular has us a bit puzzled.
But first, we wanted to briefly deal with something that flared up on social media yesterday when Leah Remini asked about a prospective juror who admitted to having a tenuous connection to Scientology.
She was reacting to our notes on prospective juror 152, who was quizzed by Judge Olmedo on Wednesday afternoon…
Juror 152. Man. What part of town? Miracle mile. Business? Consumer electronics. Judge a police officer fairly? Yes. Heard a little about both Scientology and this case. One of my business clients is the publisher for L. Ron Hubbard. Any other exposure to Scientology. Fair? Yes. Studied any of the works of Scientology. I have not.
This was our second time watching how voir dire works in Judge Olmedo’s courtroom, and so we knew that someone with a juror number as high as 152 had almost no chance of ending up on the jury, and that turned out to be the case. Juror 152 was not selected.
As for the jurors who were selected, here are the notes we made as Judge Olmedo quizzed them individually on Wednesday morning…
Juror 1 in seat 1.
Juror 1: Woman. Sat on 2 cases, civil and criminal. Civil was medical malpractice in Santa Monica, about 20 years ago. Criminal was drugs, 15 years ago. Your significant other was former LAPA with Secret service? LAPD and secret service. Retired? Actually passed away suddenly in 2021. Anything about that would impact your ability to be fair? No. Judge asks if there are good and bad police. She agrees. And that police don’t get any greater or lesser credibility? Judge reads witness list to see if they know anyone (and this is for the whole room). Fair and impartial? Yes.
Juror 11 in seat 2.
Juror 11. Woman. What do you do in your job duties. Environmental health and safety. Make sure workers are wearing protective gear, train them on safety. Exposure to Scientology, general media. Anything specific to this case? No. Fair? Yes.
Juror 5 in seat 3.
Juror 5: Man. What part of LA do you live in? Boyle Heights. Can you keep an open mind as it relates to sexual incidents? Yes. Do you think you can be fair and impartial? Yes.
Juror 8 in seat 4.
Juror 8: Woman. You were on a civil case. For about an hour. Can you otherwise be fair? Yes.
Juror 9 in seat 5.
Juror 9: As a registered nurse did you have exposure to rape victims? No. And your ex partner, what did they do? Some kind of business (unclear). Civil case about ten years ago. Any knowledge about this case, you said you had seen something on local news. Did it go into great detail. She says it was something she heard in the background. Can still be fair.
Juror 10 in seat 6.
Juror 10. Man. Criminal case: About 25 years ago, gang kidnapping. The incident that happened 30 years ago, did that involve yourself? Myself. Traffic case. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 30 in seat 7.
Juror 30. Man. Fair? Yes.
Juror 13 in seat 8.
Juror 13. Woman. Works for City of LA. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 15 in seat 9.
Juror 15. Woman. You work for an academic institution? Yes. Santa Monica College. Criminal case? About 12-13 years ago, bank robbery. Here in state court. You have some limited understanding about Scientology. Yes, just famous people. Fair? Yes. I have a job interview on Friday.
Juror 20 in seat 10.
Juror 20. Man. Significant other is a payroll clerk. For? DWP. Can you be fair? Yes.
Juror 23 in seat 11.
Juror 23. Man. IT support for LAUSD. No familiarity with Scientology, just aware of its existence. Just their general presence in Hollywood. Fair? Yes.
Juror 41 in seat 12.
Juror 41. Woman. Social work, clientele? Individuals with health issues. Fair? Yes. Ever dealt with victims of rape? No.
And again, we’ll remind you that we do not have access to the written questionnaires that these jurors filled out, only the brief answers they gave Judge Olmedo.
But we also want to remark on something reporter Meghann Cuniff pointed out to us. Yesterday afternoon, Deputy DA Ariel Anson had this interchange with Juror 5…
Anson: Both sides are looking for people who can be impartial. We all come in with different backgrounds. But based on something in your past, is there something that would cause you to be unfair in this case. We’re asking for people who recognize their biases and can not use that to determine guilt or innocence. Some can, some cannot. So if you have something that you will not be able to put aside, please raise your hand. Juror 5, left blank whether he knew Masterson. Did you know him?
5: I watched the show.
Anything about that, like you thought he did a great job in the show, the People will have to have a tougher job.
5: He’s very talented.
Is that something you can put aside and judge the case fairly?
5: Yes.
So the defense doesn’t get an extra brownie point because you liked his show?
5: Yeah.
Although this juror told Anson that he could be fair, we’re a little surprised that the prosecution didn’t use a peremptory challenge to remove him. If you remember, when the challenges began yesterday afternoon, the government was initially satisfied with the makeup of the panel and didn’t ask to remove anyone. They could have easily removed Juror 5 at that point but chose not to.
The defense then used its challenges to remove several people, and prosecutors then also began using challenges to remove some jurors. But they let Juror 5 stay.
Well, they had a jury consultant with them helping them decide who to remove, so we’ll assume they saw something in Juror 5 that they liked. But we’re just a little surprised that they aren’t concerned, apparently, about someone who was so open about his admiration for Danny Masterson’s acting skills.
What do you think? Is it a bit risky to leave Juror 5 on the panel?
Thank you for reading today’s story here at Substack. For the full picture of what’s happening today in the world of Scientology, please join the conversation at tonyortega.org, where we’ve been reporting daily on David Miscavige’s cabal since 2012. There you’ll find additional stories, and our popular regular daily features:
Source Code: Actual things founder L. Ron Hubbard said on this date in history
Avast, Ye Mateys: Snapshots from Scientology’s years at sea
Overheard in the Freezone: Indie Hubbardism, one thought at a time
Past is Prologue: From this week in history at alt.religion.scientology
Random Howdy: Your daily dose of the Captain
Here’s the link to today’s post at tonyortega.org
And whatever you do, subscribe to this Substack so you get our breaking stories and daily features right to your email inbox every morning.
Paid subscribers get access to two special podcast series every week…
Up the Bridge: A weekly journey through Scientology’s actual “technology”
Group Therapy: Our round table of rowdy regulars on the week’s news
A parallel, at least for me: I've enjoyed most of Harvey Weinstein's films but had I been on a jury for harassment cases against him, I'd have been able to be fair. It's not uncommon to admire an artist's work and yet not admire what they've done outside their work.
Having seen Hyde's 'acting skills' , I am not impressed. As for leaving him on the jury, the facts and the testimony may shake the juror's 'admiration'. The Judge gets it and that will keep the trial moving. Now it is up to Mueller to tell the better story and object when Cohen throws up bovine excrement.