Judge Olmedo rules: Here are the details from the rulings on Danny Masterson’s retrial

[Judge Charlaine Olmedo and Danny Masterson]

Yesterday Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo issued lengthy rulings about Danny Masterson’s retrial, which is now scheduled to start on April 17. Late in the afternoon, we gave you a quick rundown of the major issues she covered in those rulings, including her decision to allow the testimony of Claire Headley as a Scientology expert, and Kathleen Jenkins as a fifth victim. Neither one of them took part in the first trial.

We know, however, that our audience loves the details. So we have pulled out the 23 individual rulings from Judge Olmedo’s 39-page document, holding back her lengthy citations of case law.

In the first part of the document, she goes into some length about how much time the defense has had to prepare, and she grants a short delay, moving back the start of jury selection from April 11 to April 17.

Then, she begins rolling out the many issues she has been asked to consider…

1. Request for Additional Time for Attorney Voir Dire…

The Court GRANTS additional time for counsel to question the prospective jurors as discussed in court with the parties. Counsel may also ask for additional time if necessary, subject to the Court’s discretion, or submit additional questions to the Court for further inquiry. The Court will entertain these requests so long as the attorney-conducted voir dire does not include improper questioning of the prospective jurors for the purpose of preconditioning and/or indoctrinating the prospective jurors.

 
2. The Admissibility of Evidence Regarding Scientology…

The Court ADMITS Scientology evidence in the case at hand. Defendant lacks standing to raise a First Amendment claim on behalf of Scientology. Additionally, the admission of Scientology practices and beliefs in no way interferes with defendant’s own beliefs and practices related to Scientology. Assuming arguendo defendant has standing to raise this claim, the Court finds that the admission of Scientology evidence does not violate defendant’s First Amendment right, the Ecclesiastical Doctrine or Evidence Code Section 789.

The admission of Scientology evidence in the above-captioned case provides an important context for the victims’ delayed reporting of the crimes which itself bears on the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility and the actual occurrence of the crimes. In addition, Scientology practices and beliefs are relevant to understanding the meetings and relationships that the victims had with defendant; defendant’s actions towards the victims; the victims’ actions before, during and after the charged crimes; the victims’ initial acceptance of defendant’s behavior and the families’ subsequent reactions. Thus, Scientology practices and beliefs are relevant to determining whether defendant committed the alleged crimes.

Scientology evidence (including the definitions and explanations of Scientology terms and positions within the organization) is admissible for the following purposes:

a. To explain the victims’ delay in reporting the charged crimes including reports made to individuals within the Scientology organization and their response to those claims including any correspondence and/or documents;

b. To explain the victims’ belief that Scientology prohibits them from reporting crimes committed by other Scientologists in good standing to outside (non-Scientologists) law enforcement. This includes the belief that Scientologists hold disdain for outside law enforcement and the secular court systems;

c. To explain the victims’ fear of retaliation, fear of being declared a suppressive person and fear of harassment experienced after reporting the charged crimes to outside law enforcement;

d. To explain the victims’ actions before, during and after the charged incidents and relevant to the charged incidents;

e. To explain all witness’ (prosecution and defense) ties to the Scientology organization, past and present, in order to understand the nature and context of the relationships between the individuals testifying before the jury;

f. To explain the discrepancy between [Jane Doe 1’s] first statement as written under the direction of and supervision by Scientology officials and [Jane Doe 1’s] later statements made free from any direct and immediate Scientology influence; and

g. Expert testimony regarding Scientology relevant to the above listed categories and as further set forth later in this Order.

 
3. Testimony that Complainants Felt Drugged…

The Court ADMITS testimony regarding how the victims, charged and uncharged, felt after drinking a beverage provided by the defendant. First, whether or not the complainants were intoxicated or drugged is directly relevant to their ability to perceive the events of the charged incidents and to communicate regarding the facts of the charged incidents. This is especially true in light of the fact that defendant has vigorously cross examined the complainants about their ability to perceive the incidents and their ability or inability to repeatedly recount the detailed facts of those incidents after the occurrence of the incidents. Second, being intoxicated and the circumstances surrounding the intoxication during the incidents are directly relevant to how the sexual intercourse occurred and if it was completed forcefully and against the victims’ will. In other words, it is inextricably intertwined with the commission of the sexual intercourse and is a circumstance relevant to the use of force to complete the act and overcome the victims’ will and lack of consent. The fact of intoxication by either alcohol or drugs does not negate or supersede the use of force, if present, during the commission of the charged incidents. The ingestion of alcohol and/or drugs by the victim and the use of force by the perpetrator are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, the intoxicated state of the victim may facilitate the use of force by the perpetrator. Accordingly, this evidence is admissible.

However, the Court EXCLUDES any evidence regarding [Jane Doe 1’s] urination in the street. Defense argues that this constitutes evidence of [Jane Doe 1’s] intoxication prior to the incident. There are multitude of reasons why one may urinate in the street that are unrelated to alcohol consumption. To spend trial time debating all of those reasons is collateral and time consuming. Furthermore, the defense has no contrary evidence to show that [Jane Doe 1] consumed alcoholic beverages prior to her urination, and she denies having had any such beverages. Thus, defense is requesting permission for the jury to wholly speculate, which is directly contrary to the charge that the Court will give the jury. The Court finds that such assertion is speculative at best and more prejudicial than probative. For reasons pursuant to Section 352, the Court will not allow questions in this area.

 
4. Expert testimony…

The Court ADMITS the proffered expert testimony of Dr. Barbara Ziv on the subjects of 1) intimate partner sexual assault and violence and 2) effects of alcohol and drugs on the brain and memory.

The Court also GRANTS the admission of the proffered expert testimony of Claire Headley on the subjects of 1) Scientology teachings that a person in an intimate relationship cannot be raped; 2) that Scientologists cannot use the word rape and 3) that Scientologists are prohibited or discouraged from reporting other Scientologists in good standing to outside law enforcement or face repercussions for doing so; and 4) the purpose and meaning of conversations with, statements to, and correspondence between the victims and Scientology officials regarding the charged incidents. The Court finds that the proffered subjects fall outside the common knowledge of the lay person and that the proffered testimony would assist the jury. The Court finds that questions of qualifications and bias go to the weight, not the admissibility of the proffered testimony.

The Court GRANTS the testimony of an LAPD analyst regarding toxicology and date rape drugs in the People’s case in chief. How date rape drugs are ingested and the impact of ingesting date rape drugs are beyond the common knowledge of the jury. The toxicologist cannot render an opinion if date rape drugs were utilized in conjunction with any of the charged or uncharged incidents. However, the toxicologist may render an opinion regarding a hypothetical that contains facts established by the evidence in the instant case.

 
5. Uncharged Sex Offenses and Prior Bad Acts…

The Court ADMITS the testimony of [Jane Doe 3’s] testimony regarding the uncharged sexual assault, Tricia V.’s testimony regarding two incidents of uncharged conduct and Kathleen J.’s testimony regarding uncharged conduct. Defendant, at the first trial, argued that all of the charged sexual incidents in fact, never occurred and that the victims colluded together to manufacture the charges against the defendant. Thus, the defense is squarely attacking the victims in all aspects of their testimony and alleging that their recounting of the charged incidents are utter fabrication. By emphasizing collusion and fabrication on the part of the victims, the Court finds that the 1108, 1109 and 1101(b) evidence to be more probative than prejudicial. The testimony of Tricia V., Kathleen J. and [Jane Doe 3] regarding uncharged bad acts is admissible.

6. Victims’ Prior Sexual Histories and Partners…

The Court EXCLUDES the victims’, charged and uncharged, prior sexual history and prior sexual partners. This includes the exclusion of alleged incidents of [Jane Doe 2’s] prior sexual history and prior sexual partners, [Jane Doe 1’s] claim of rape by Aikan Abrey, alleged sexual conduct between [Jane Doe 1] and Bryten Goss, any dating relationship between [Jane Doe 1] and any other partner including an officer from the LAPD Wilshire Station, testimony regarding Johnny Houston’s statement of opinion about [Jane Doe 3], and any statement by [Jane Doe 3] regarding intimacy with the defendant’s brother, whether true or untrue. Should defendant seek to introduce any evidence regarding the sexual conduct of the complaining witnesses to attack their credibility, defendant must follow the procedure set forth in Evidence Code Section 782 or at the very least, notify the Court to prior to seeking the introduction of such testimony.

 
7. Harassment of and/or Threats to the Complainants and Witnesses…

The Court ADMITS testimony regarding the witnesses fear of retaliation, fear of being declared a suppressive person and thus separated from family and friends or excommunicated from Scientology, belief that they had been harassed by Scientology for cooperating with police regarding the charged offense, the fact that the victims filed a civil law suit alleging instances of stalking and harassment related to reporting the charged incidents in the above captioned case, and the settlement agreement regarding the incident and the amount paid pursuant to the agreement entered into between [Jane Doe 1] and defendant. This evidence is more probative than prejudicial and is relevant to the evaluation of the witness’s credibility and truthfulness, to the evaluation of any inconsistencies between witnesses statements, to explain the witnesses actions after the incidents and to explain the delay in reporting the incidents to outside law enforcement.

 
8. [Jane Doe 1’s] Lay Opinion that Attempted Penetration was Accidental…

The Court EXCLUDES any questions of [Jane Doe 1] regarding her lay opinion of whether, in 2002, defendant accidentally attempted to penetrate her anus with his penis. This falls outside Evidence Code Section 800 as permissible lay opinion testimony as [Jane Doe 1] cannot testify to defendant’s state of mind. She can, however, testify to defendant’s actions and objective behavior.

 
9. Detective Reyes’ Testimony Re Victims’ Statements…

The Court ADMITS the testimony of Detective Reyes regarding inconsistent and consistent statements of the victims as set forth below. If defendant impeaches the victims with portions of Detective Reyes’s report encapsulating their interviews with inconsistent statements, the People are allowed to bring forth those statements from the same interview that are consistent with the victims’ trial testimony as well as the entirety of the remainder of the interviews, subject to any 352 determinations. The defense cross examined each victim at length regarding all statements made about the incidents including all statements made to various police officials.

The defense alleges that the victims have colluded together to fabricate their entire version of events and further alleges that the charged events never occurred. In so questioning, the defense makes a broad claim of fabrication as to all victims. In addition, defense questioned both the victims and the police officers regarding various statements, both what was in those statements and what was missing from those statements. Thus, various statements were admitted by the defense as prior inconsistent statements, and then by the People as prior consistent statements. If defense brings forth portions of statements of victims as inconsistent with their trial testimony, the People may bring forth the full interview of the witness as prior consistent statements.

 
10. Pending Civil Suit and 2004 Settlement Agreement…

The Court ADMITS evidence regarding the facts that the victims filed a civil lawsuit in 2017 [actually August 2019], which is still pending, alleging claims of harassment and stalking against defendant, the Scientology organization and David Miscavige, and seeking damages. The Court EXCLUDES any further inquiry into this matter.

 
11. Judicial Notice of CCP 340.3…

The Court EXCLUDES any testimony or evidence regarding CCP 340.3. Defense wants to argue that the existence of civil statutory law extending the statute of limitations under certain circumstances for certain sex offenses provides a motive for the victims to lie in the instant case. In so doing, defense alleges that the victims are further motivated to fabricate the charged offenses so that upon conviction in the criminal case, they can bring a new civil action against defendant for the specific sex offenses. All of this is speculative and requires the jurors to both speculate about actions which have not yet occurred and to further consider the impact of a guilty verdict on the defendant. With the exception of a death penalty case, this type of argument is in direct conflict with the charge a trial court gives to every jury in a criminal case. The Court finds that this proferred evidence is speculative, irrelevant or collateral at best. Furthermore, it would be confusing and misleading to the jury. Thus, it is excluded.

 
12. Defendant’s Possession of Guns:

[Jane Doe 1] testified that defendant displayed a gun during the charged incident. An independent record search established that defendant had a firearm registered to him during the relevant time period. The Court ADMITS this evidence. However, the Court EXCLUDES any reference to other firearms unless permission is first sought from the Court for its admission.

 
13. Girls Gone Wild References:

The Court EXCLUDES this evidence unless permission is first sought from the Court for its admission.

 
14. Detective Vargas’s Instruction to [Jane Doe 1] Re Clarifications:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

15. “Gun” has Special Meaning to Police Report Writing:

The Court EXCLUDES this evidence. Detective Schlegel can testify that the word gun has unique importance to him based upon his training, but he cannot and does not speak for all law enforcement generally, all Los Angeles Police Department officers, nor all officers at a particular station.

 
16. [Jane Doe 1’s] Omission to Detective Schlegel:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

 
17. Scientology Lawyer’s Actions regarding Trial Witnesses:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

 
18. Defendant’s DJ Name of “DJ Donkey Punch”…

[The Court] RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial.

 
19. Testimony regarding Lily:

The Court EXCLUDES any mention of Lily or the circumstances surrounding her death and alleged incident involving defendant.

 
20. [Jane Doe 2’s] Prior Incidents with Watson and Others and her Father’s Death:

The Court RESERVES ruling on this until the Court hears the testimony and proposed questions during trial. However, the Court ADMITS testimony regarding [Jane Doe 2’s] previous attempts to report sexual assaults, if any, to officials within the Scientology organization and how the previous interaction with Scientology officials impacted her conduct related to the charged offense.

 
21. Testimony of Nicolas Olszewski:

The Court EXCLUDES the testimony of Nicolas Olszewski in the People’s case in chief. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 352, the Court finds this testimony unduly time consuming and remote in time, having occurred more than a decade after the most recent charged incident. Moreover, this proffered testimony does not establish that defendant had this knowledge in the period of time from 2000 to 2004. Should defendant testify on his own behalf or the door be opened as to this testimony, the People may request reconsideration of this ruling.

 
22. Mention of “D.A. Reject” Status…

The Court EXCLUDES any mention or reference to the status of the case or investigation as a “D.A. Reject.” This is irrelevant, misleading to the jury and unduly time consuming. Such evidence leads the jury to infer that the District Attorney’s Office did not believe [Jane Doe 1] when in fact, there are many reasons why a case may not initially be filed. To rebut this evidence would require the District Attorney’s Office employees to become witnesses in the case and to possibly assert that they do in fact believe that [Jane Doe 1] is truthful and that defendant is guilty — both opinions of which would be improper to render in front of a jury. The defense may bring forth that in 2004, and then again more than a decade later, the Detectives had contact with the District Attorney’s Office regarding the 2003 incident. The defense may also bring forth that after the later contact Detectives had with the District Attorney’s Office, charges were filed shortly thereafter. The Court will not allow ANY questions regarding the opinions or actions of the District Attorney’s Office in the intervening time, any questions or use of the term “DA reject” or “declination” or any questions regarding actions taken by the District Attorney’s office in 2004 regarding the 2003 incident. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 352, the Court finds that this term and status and any questions in this area are more prejudicial than probative, confusing to the jury and misleading. What is relevant is whether the jury believes the charges have been proven at trial, not the opinion of the District Attorney’s filing deputy on an earlier date.

 
23. Reasonable Doubt Chart:

The Court AUTHORIZES the use of the reasonable doubt chart with modification. The Court will allow the chart to be displayed once the word “definitely” is removed from appearing directly in front of “reasonable doubt.” Nowhere in the reasonable doubt jury instruction does the word “definitely” appear. While defense may use a chart, it must also accurately state the law and the charge to the jury. Accordingly the word “definitely” must be removed to comport with the law. In addition, the defense and the People must submit any demonstrative charts to the Court for approval before their use in argument or any other stage of the trial.

— Charlaine F. Olmedo, Judge of the Superior Court

---

Ready to become a Scientologist?

Ever wonder what Scientology’s courses are actually like? Or the auditing levels? What does a Scientologist learn, and how much does it cost?

We’re offering a podcast series featuring technical expert Sunny Pereira as thanks to our subscribers for helping to support the work we do here at the Underground Bunker.

Episode 6, on ARC Straightwire, goes out today at noon Eastern!

---

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