How it went down: Transcript of Judge Olmedo denying Danny Masterson’s motion to dismiss

[Judge Charlaine Olmedo and Danny Masterson]

On June 30, we told you that Danny Masterson was getting perhaps his last chance to disrupt his criminal rape case. His attorneys Philip Cohen and Shawn Holley were in court that day, arguing that the first of the three counts against him, the allegations of Jane Doe 1, should be dismissed.

We were fortunate to have Jeffrey Augustine in the courtroom, who helped us break the news that the motion had been denied, and that Masterson’s trial is still scheduled for October 11.

Now we’ve obtained an official transcript of the hearing, and it gives us an even better view of not only what happened that morning, but once again shows how well prepared Judge Charlaine Olmedo is for this case.

Right off the bat, for example, Judge Olmedo admonished both sides that she was not going to allow the filing of any more documents making allegations about the “past sexual history or conduct” of the three victims unless it was under seal.

Throughout this case, Masterson’s defense team has been filing highly inflammable accusations in their court documents, and in the latest motion there was a questionable document that made some pretty distasteful allegations about Jane Doe 1 that had nothing to do with the case. It was a letter supposedly written by a friend of Masterson’s who had died in 2006.

The defense had entered it ostensibly to argue that the long passage of time prejudiced the case against Masterson because, for example, his friend who had died in 2006 couldn’t testify. But as Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller pointed out, the letter was a farce: It was unsigned and undated, and California’s rape shield law would have prevented it from being entered as evidence in the trial anyway.

Judge Olmedo was clearly not amused. She told both sides there would be no further submitting evidence about the women unless it was done under seal.

She then briefly reviewed what the morning’s business was, a continuation of the May 21 hearing to argue Masterson’s motion to dismiss Jane Doe 1’s count. Jane Doe 1 alleges that she was raped at Masterson’s house in the early morning hours of April 25, 2003. She has testified that over the the objections of the Church of Scientology (she was a member then), she reported the incident to the LAPD in June 2004. Later that month, however, the DA’s office declined to file charges. But twelve years later, in 2016, the LAPD reopened the investigation after two more women had come forward with similar allegations and from around the same time period. The DA’s office finally filed charges, three counts of forcible rape, in June 2020. (If Masterson is found guilty of all three counts, he’s facing 45 years to life in prison.)

Masterson’s team was attempting to sway Judge Olmedo that the long delay between 2004 and 2020 prejudiced the case against their client, and this morning they had a new example.

Cohen said they had become aware of a letter written in 2004 by Jane Doe 1’s father to Masterson. It was seven pages, single spaced, and in it Jane Doe 1’s dad accused Masterson of raping his daughter.

Cohen read some portions of the letter in court, including this passage: “Obviously, if you didn’t think having sex with a girl who is so out of it you have to carry her upstairs to throw up, prop her against the wall while you turn on the shower, one you have to undress to get her in the shower, one you actually have to have her wash the vomit out of her hair meets the legal definition of rape, any other girl in that condition is not safe being around you.”

Cohen argued that the letter actually helped prove their point, saying that no reference was made in the letter to “physical force being used by Masterson to effectuate the rape.”

Jane Doe 1’s father died in 2010, and once again here was someone the defense could not call to testify at the trial because of the long delay in the case. Cohen repeated some of the other things he had said at the May 21 hearing, about other reasons the Jane Doe 1 charges should be tossed out, including items supposedly missing from the 2004 police file.

Deputy DA Mueller began his rebuttal by arguing that the things Cohen had submitted simply didn’t add up to prejudice. Before taking on the letter written by Jane Doe 1’s father, he referred to the way the defense was misquoting a “Knowledge Report” written by Masterson’s assistant, Brie Shaffer, about the evening. (Shaffer today is married to Scientology celebrity and actor Michael Peña.)

At that point, Judge Olmedo stepped in.

Judge Olmedo: And just so we’re clear for the purposes of these proceedings and should there be a review in the future — both sides, please let me know if the court is correct — a Knowledge Report is a document used in Scientology, the practices of Scientology, where one Scientologist reports another Scientologist for conduct, for lack of a better term, otherwise unbecoming of a Scientologist or against Scientology principles.

Mueller: Thank you.

Olmedo: Correct? Am I correct in that?

Mueller: Yes, you are.

Once again, Judge Olmedo showed she had studied up and cared about this kind of detail regarding Scientology.

Returning to the letter written by Jane Doe 1’s father, Mueller said that he had seen it for the first time only that morning. But even after his brief examination of it, Mueller pointed out that it was a mistake to assume that the man had written it based solely on talking to his daughter. The letter actually made reference to several different written reports, not a conversation.

Mueller read another passage from the letter: “After reading [Jane Doe 1’s] description of events along with Brie’s write-up done the day of the rape and after hearing about Luke Watson’s sessions, KRs, and additionally after having spoke to Luke Watson in person and having him explain to me exactly what condition [Jane Doe 1] was in that night, all that, coupled with your own write-up leaves no room for doubt in my mind that what occurred is essentially a rape.”

(Watson and Shaffer were both named on the police report that Jane Doe 1 submitted to the LAPD in 2004. It’s also important to note the reference here to a report written by Masterson himself, presumably his own Knowledge Report or similar to the church.)

Not only was it a mistake to assume that the letter reflects a conversation between father and daughter, Mueller pointed out, but the letter actually ends up confirming much of Jane Doe 1’s testimony in the preliminary hearing, including Masterson taking her into the shower before attacking her.

Judge Olmedo then raised a question that should make Scientology very nervous. She pointed out that all of these people, witnesses like Shaffer and Watson, and Jane Doe 1’s father, were all Scientologists, and that would influence their accounts. It should also be kept in mind in regards to witnesses who might have told police that they didn’t recall things, but might say something different under oath on the witness stand. We will quote at length from Judge Olmedo’s remarkable observation…

Judge Olmedo: Neither side had really addressed the issue of crimes that are committed when all individuals belong to the same organization or their sphere of organization. That organization can be a street gang, it can be a corporation, it can be a religious organization like the Catholic Church, you know, and the sex crimes within the Catholic Church.

But there is a different dynamic that goes on when you interview witnesses as it relates to the statements they give and sometimes the changing nature of those statements based upon their fear, fear of repercussion, fear of individuals, fear of organizations. And so this court doesn’t take the view that, because someone made one statement, that must necessarily be true at that time or that the statement that’s first given to the police might necessarily be true at the time. It’s this court’s experience, for having done — most of the crimes I have tried in the last ten years have been organizational crimes.

The statements — the witnesses can give a whole range of statements. Some are true and some are not true. And both sides argue to the jury, for a variety of reasons, you should believe this statement, you shouldn’t believe that statement. And that whether you believe it or not is dependent upon the relationship of the people, the relationship of the people to the organization, the fear that the people might have of different matters within the organization.

Obviously, here we’re dealing with Scientology. The defense, not just in this motion but many of your motions has brought in a number of Scientology documents as it relates to the statements of the witnesses or victims in trying to argue what is true or not true.

When it was Cohen’s turn again, he tried to belittle the idea that two more women coming forward was really significant. But Judge Olmedo stepped in with a telling retort.

Cohen: I haven’t heard of any statements, concessions, admissions made by Masterson. I haven’t heard of any new tangible evidence. I haven’t heard of anything. So the only thing that has changed are these two Jane Does.

Judge Olmedo: That could be a valid consideration, can’t it?

And then she caught Cohen in a contradiction:

Judge Olmedo: On the one hand you say they absolutely could have prosecuted the case and they could have won the case had it been charged in 2004. But you also now just argue that it’s a weak case and therefore the justification has to be stronger. Aren’t you, by saying it’s a weak case, undercutting it should have been prosecuted in 2004?

In her recitation of the case, Judge Olmedo went over all of the defense’s arguments. And once again, she made a telling observation about Scientology and this case.

Judge Olmedo: What is interesting to note is that at various times through these proceedings, notwithstanding the defense argument that Scientology is not involved in this case, the defense has submitted a number of Scientology documents, used arguably to impeach the alleged victims in this case but which show clearly that there was Scientology proceedings taking place as relates to this incident which have documents some of the incidents. So if Brie Shaffer’s memory has faded, you have the Knowledge Report that she had authored. And to the extent any other witness statement or report could be used to refresh someone’s memory, it appears to this court at least at this point there is a number of Scientology documents that the Scientology witnesses can use to refresh their memory if they need to with regard to this incident. So the defense is not prejudiced on that basis.

Then, she delivered her ruling.

Judge Olmedo: For those reasons, the court finds there is no prejudice. But assuming the court is incorrect and assuming, arguendo, if there is a reviewing court down the road — and I’m not trying to foreshadow anything — if there is a review down the road and the court is incorrect, then, and the defense has established prejudice such that the people need to justify the delay, the court finds that, back in 2004, when the case was a he-said-she-said type of case, as the court said there was only two people in the room, that the justification that the passage of time resulted in more women coming forward and resulted in new evidence in the form of 1108 and 1101 evidence and, therefore, new charges, that that delay is more akin to an investigative delay and nothing more.

So the court finds that justification is sufficient to overcome any claim of prejudice.

Balancing out the potential harm of the defendant against the justification for the delay, the court finds, as in Bracamontes, that the strong public interest in prosecution outweighs any potential for prejudice as I’ve already outlined.

For all of those reasons, the defense motion to dismiss Count One for pre-accusation delay is denied.

Once again, Masterson’s inflammatory filings had not worked to throw the case out of court. Of course, his attorneys can bring the evidence they’ve been citing in these motions into the trial itself, and they no doubt will. And they’ll hope it puts doubt in the minds of jurors.

Will Danny roll the dice with a jury when he might be facing life in prison? October 11 will be here before you know it.

---

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 for 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…

---

Now available: Bonus for our supporters

Episode 3 of the Underground Bunker podcast has been sent out to paid subscribers, and it’s a conversation about the Scientology litigation we’re keeping a close eye on. Our LA correspondent Jeffrey Augustine helps us keep track of what’s going on in court right now. Meanwhile, we’ve made episodes 1 and 2 available to everyone, with Claire Headley exposing Tom Cruise, and Marc Headley on what it must be like for David Miscavige living in Clearwater, Florida. Go here to get the episodes!