NO VERDICT AFTER FIRST DAY: Danny Masterson Trial, Day 22, end of day report
Well, folks, we have ended the first day of deliberations at the Danny Masterson trial without a verdict, and we’ll be coming back for the morning.
After the jury broke for an early lunch, we heard nothing from them in the afternoon, and we had to fill the time chatting with the other journalists.
At one point, a little after 3 pm, Judge Charlaine Olmedo came out to engage in a little small talk with us, and that was a special treat.
The Masterson clan stayed out in the hallway. They had only come into the courtroom when the question from the jury was read, which we reported on in our earlier dispatch today.
Naturally, people are speculating about that question, about the time the jury is taking, about every little thing. But of course we really don’t know what’s going on in the jury room or how long this is going to take.
We’ll be back in the morning to take up our vigil again. We are all counting on the jury delivering a verdict this week. We’ve heard that the Harvey Weinstein trial will be taking all of next week off for Thanksgiving, and we don’t want to contemplate something like that here.
The jury will be back here at 9 am, and so will we!
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…
Thanks for keeping us informed Tony! It’s been a treat to see the twinkle in your eye as you report the weekday videos—they’re a real treat—and your expressive nature brings things to life for us.
Re the question from the jury:
The judge should have said more than "The attorneys' closing arguments are not evidence, and any demonstrative charts not previously entered are not evidence."
The jury's question referred to the following 5-paragraph statement in Cohen's closing:
"In talking about this concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (Shows a chart) It goes through the stages about how you're feeling about the evidence in this case.
It goes from the bottom, proven not guilty. And remember, Ms. Goldstein and I could have done nothing and not asked a single question. The presumption of innocence starts there. And it goes up the ladder. He may be guilty, maybe not. If that's the mindset, it's not even close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
You then work your way up the ladder. You think he may be guilty. The women took the stand, they all said he raped them. I think he maybe, possibly may be guilty. You know that requires? A not guilty verdict.
Up the ladder: He's probably guilty. But that means nothing. Up the ladder. His guilt is highly likely. Again, that requires a not guilty verdict.
It is only if you get to an abiding conviction, the most compelling, the most thorough feeling I could have, that that man is guilty is of what he's charged that -- that, and only that, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of what you may think of anyone in this trial."
The judge should have said something on the order of... "The defense attorney outlined "stages" of guilt which are NOT recognized by this or any other court. These are the "opinions" of the defense attorney, solely, and are not to be considered evidence, a gauge of evidence, or a degree of the defendant's guilt."