Danny Masterson’s appellate attorneys turned in their appeal brief a couple of days early, and we knew you’d want to dig into it and give us your thoughts.
I have only scanned the appeal. But…blame the victims sticks in my craw. There are so many WTF moments and I’m really going to have to go over the financial gain section with a fine tooth comb.
The main thing that stands out to me is that there is so little aimed at Judge Olmedo. An appeal is supposed to take the trial and find the errors in it and point them out. This appeal brief seems to be attempting to retry the case.
" the testimony eventually offered at the two trials by both J.B. and N.T. was sufficient to support a conviction for forcible rape." Said Rapey's lawyer.
The attack on Claire Headley was uncalled for and her testimony was totally relevant to the situation.
As for violating the CO$'s First Amendment Rights, what gall and insufferable hubris. I wonder how those lines were inserted? No, don't wonder, Miscavige must be involved in this whining pleading. Guess who is paying for this? Masterson must be bankrupt by now and I don't see how he could pay for this very expensive appeal. Your mileage may vary and I do not play a lawyer on TV or any where else.
"In gauging the fairness of a trial, “few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.” (Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, 294, 302.)"
And yet, in both trials the defense rested and called no witnesses.
How much money and time has Scientology spent defending Masterson? They won’t support the human rights of their own staff. They will spend millions on a celebrity rapist. This only tarnishs their horrible public image further. It also shows how insane the organization and its leader are.
Okay, finally done. Some additional thoughts, catches, and questions. If any more legal minded folks can offer their non-official insight here that would be wonderful.
1. The appellate attorney appeared to do a good job on behalf of his client. Obviously one would expect that of an appellate specialist, but to my chagrin if you only had that brief to go off of - because of cherry picked excerpts, glossing over other facts, ignoring huge parts of the trial courts decisions, etc. - it is great for the defense.
2. Is it actually recommended to repeat arguments many, many times across sections? I.e., is the goal to stick it in their brains and it doesn't annoy the judges?
3. Speaking of... "There is no need to repeat arguments made previously in this brief about how central credibility was to this case." -- I actually laughed out loud here. Predictably, at this point, I was right to assume this wouldn't hold and continued to read a brief that did just that over and over and over again.
4. "And common sense, as well as substantial authority discussed below, suggests that the most likely reason an adult woman would urinate in a public street is because she is intoxicated" -- What the actual [beep]. According to this section there are multiple case law results supporting this notion.
1. Is there a reason why, with the exception of Luke Watson going from initials to full name, that they stated they were using initials but then full names appeared but only for those on the prosecution/JD's side?
2. Has this appeal already been assigned to a specific panel in that court? If so, who are the judges on that panel?
Once again, big thanks to our Propietor for getting us the whole brief!
j) remind the panel that even if the witnesses stories showed inconsistencies between the first and second trials, that the jury was not told there was a first trial and convicted without knowledge of what was said in the first trial. All parts relating to the first trial that wouldn't directly affect the outcome of the second trial or DM's constitutional rights are moot and should not factor in to whether or not the convictions in the second trial BY A JURY should be reversed or remanded (again, I am not a lawyer)
k) this would never happen, but pointing to the interview with the foreperson from the first trial admitting they just ignored some things that were presented could have contributed to a hung jury
l) remind the panel of the gun and how the defendant owned multiple guns and some couldn't even be accounted for when instructed to be turned in
5. Things that don't necessarily belong in a rebuttal brief, but would be great to see addressed or even just for the general public to understand:
a) a sexual encounter can be both consensual and rape. In the case of the one incident it is possible for the victim to feel the sex is consensual in the beginning (e.g. the vaginal intercourse) and then become rape (non-consensual anal sex)
b) JD1's father would also be under constraints as to what he could say to law enforcement and why he might have been 'motivated 'to send a letter to DM that allegedly undercuts his daughter's position because he was a Scientologist at the time.
c) of course they might not have told friends and family it was rape, especially when tge church says that is not a thing and they are told not to use that word. In addition, they omit the fact that one of the JDs only considered it rape after talking to a (non-Scientologist, if I recall correctly) friend who was like (paraphrase) 'no, that's rape' and explained why what she experienced was not okay
d) I want the prosecution to note how many times the defense brought up the importance of calling witnesses and then point to how they stated upfront they CHOSE to rest without calling any of their own.
e) Of course, the stories changed when law enforcement went to talk to witnesses who are also Scientologists. They are taught to not trust wog authorities and you don't rat out someone like DM.
f) to point out how defense first pointed to CoS doctrine and policies including directly to a specific book (if memory serves)
g) how they shot themselves in the foot by opening the door to some lines of questioning, including on harassment, and Honorable Olmedo pointed that out in some of her rulings
h) point out Olmedo might have good reasons to not trust letting defense get subpoenas for discovery from various victims -- case in point: EARLY IN TRIAL TWO WE FIND OUT THE DEFENSE HAS HANDED OVER DISCOVERY TO A THIRD PARTY!
i) point out that one, some juries do take a 'long time' to deliberate and not just because it's close. First, maybe knowing someone is facing multiple counts that could lead to life in prison makes people extra careful. Second, they have no way of knowing how much of the 'lengthy' deliberations was specifically on the count they hung on versus the two convictions.
"...the Sixth Amendment provides that a criminal defendant has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . . .”
Again, despite this being about CoS, the defense did NOT call up their 'expert witness', Claire Headley's stepfather. Who, similar to their complaints about Ms. Headley, I would also say could be characterized as someone who would be biased - both positively for Scientology and negatively towards the stepdaughter he disconnected from.
I am one of the few who actually enjoy reading criminal appeals, at least certain ones. It was my profession for many years and this is one I will want to read. Thank you for posting this.
I have only scanned the appeal. But…blame the victims sticks in my craw. There are so many WTF moments and I’m really going to have to go over the financial gain section with a fine tooth comb.
The main thing that stands out to me is that there is so little aimed at Judge Olmedo. An appeal is supposed to take the trial and find the errors in it and point them out. This appeal brief seems to be attempting to retry the case.
" the testimony eventually offered at the two trials by both J.B. and N.T. was sufficient to support a conviction for forcible rape." Said Rapey's lawyer.
The attack on Claire Headley was uncalled for and her testimony was totally relevant to the situation.
As for violating the CO$'s First Amendment Rights, what gall and insufferable hubris. I wonder how those lines were inserted? No, don't wonder, Miscavige must be involved in this whining pleading. Guess who is paying for this? Masterson must be bankrupt by now and I don't see how he could pay for this very expensive appeal. Your mileage may vary and I do not play a lawyer on TV or any where else.
"In gauging the fairness of a trial, “few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense.” (Chambers v. Mississippi (1973) 410 U.S. 284, 294, 302.)"
And yet, in both trials the defense rested and called no witnesses.
Good point.
How much money and time has Scientology spent defending Masterson? They won’t support the human rights of their own staff. They will spend millions on a celebrity rapist. This only tarnishs their horrible public image further. It also shows how insane the organization and its leader are.
Okay, finally done. Some additional thoughts, catches, and questions. If any more legal minded folks can offer their non-official insight here that would be wonderful.
1. The appellate attorney appeared to do a good job on behalf of his client. Obviously one would expect that of an appellate specialist, but to my chagrin if you only had that brief to go off of - because of cherry picked excerpts, glossing over other facts, ignoring huge parts of the trial courts decisions, etc. - it is great for the defense.
2. Is it actually recommended to repeat arguments many, many times across sections? I.e., is the goal to stick it in their brains and it doesn't annoy the judges?
3. Speaking of... "There is no need to repeat arguments made previously in this brief about how central credibility was to this case." -- I actually laughed out loud here. Predictably, at this point, I was right to assume this wouldn't hold and continued to read a brief that did just that over and over and over again.
4. "And common sense, as well as substantial authority discussed below, suggests that the most likely reason an adult woman would urinate in a public street is because she is intoxicated" -- What the actual [beep]. According to this section there are multiple case law results supporting this notion.
Two final questions for now:
1. Is there a reason why, with the exception of Luke Watson going from initials to full name, that they stated they were using initials but then full names appeared but only for those on the prosecution/JD's side?
2. Has this appeal already been assigned to a specific panel in that court? If so, who are the judges on that panel?
Once again, big thanks to our Propietor for getting us the whole brief!
j) remind the panel that even if the witnesses stories showed inconsistencies between the first and second trials, that the jury was not told there was a first trial and convicted without knowledge of what was said in the first trial. All parts relating to the first trial that wouldn't directly affect the outcome of the second trial or DM's constitutional rights are moot and should not factor in to whether or not the convictions in the second trial BY A JURY should be reversed or remanded (again, I am not a lawyer)
k) this would never happen, but pointing to the interview with the foreperson from the first trial admitting they just ignored some things that were presented could have contributed to a hung jury
l) remind the panel of the gun and how the defendant owned multiple guns and some couldn't even be accounted for when instructed to be turned in
5. Things that don't necessarily belong in a rebuttal brief, but would be great to see addressed or even just for the general public to understand:
a) a sexual encounter can be both consensual and rape. In the case of the one incident it is possible for the victim to feel the sex is consensual in the beginning (e.g. the vaginal intercourse) and then become rape (non-consensual anal sex)
b) JD1's father would also be under constraints as to what he could say to law enforcement and why he might have been 'motivated 'to send a letter to DM that allegedly undercuts his daughter's position because he was a Scientologist at the time.
c) of course they might not have told friends and family it was rape, especially when tge church says that is not a thing and they are told not to use that word. In addition, they omit the fact that one of the JDs only considered it rape after talking to a (non-Scientologist, if I recall correctly) friend who was like (paraphrase) 'no, that's rape' and explained why what she experienced was not okay
d) I want the prosecution to note how many times the defense brought up the importance of calling witnesses and then point to how they stated upfront they CHOSE to rest without calling any of their own.
e) Of course, the stories changed when law enforcement went to talk to witnesses who are also Scientologists. They are taught to not trust wog authorities and you don't rat out someone like DM.
f) to point out how defense first pointed to CoS doctrine and policies including directly to a specific book (if memory serves)
g) how they shot themselves in the foot by opening the door to some lines of questioning, including on harassment, and Honorable Olmedo pointed that out in some of her rulings
h) point out Olmedo might have good reasons to not trust letting defense get subpoenas for discovery from various victims -- case in point: EARLY IN TRIAL TWO WE FIND OUT THE DEFENSE HAS HANDED OVER DISCOVERY TO A THIRD PARTY!
i) point out that one, some juries do take a 'long time' to deliberate and not just because it's close. First, maybe knowing someone is facing multiple counts that could lead to life in prison makes people extra careful. Second, they have no way of knowing how much of the 'lengthy' deliberations was specifically on the count they hung on versus the two convictions.
"...the Sixth Amendment provides that a criminal defendant has the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor . . . .”
Again, despite this being about CoS, the defense did NOT call up their 'expert witness', Claire Headley's stepfather. Who, similar to their complaints about Ms. Headley, I would also say could be characterized as someone who would be biased - both positively for Scientology and negatively towards the stepdaughter he disconnected from.
[Edited due to typos.]
I am one of the few who actually enjoy reading criminal appeals, at least certain ones. It was my profession for many years and this is one I will want to read. Thank you for posting this.
"The “other witness” which the trial court may have been referring to could have been prosecution witness Shaun Fabos."
Is that last name just a coincidence or is Shaun related to the "Fabis Factor" duo?
https://tonyortega.substack.com/p/the-shaun-fabos-factor-what-happens
Thanks!!