The prosecution’s argument that won the day for a retrial of Danny Masterson

[Deputy DAs Ariel Anson and Reinhold Mueller. Photo by Meghann Cuniff]

On Tuesday, we were back in court to find out if Scientology celebrity and accused serial rapist Danny Masterson would get a retrial after his first trial ended on November 30 with a hung jury.

Going into the hearing, we had obtained the defense’s motion to dismiss the charges, and we told you that it largely rested on defense attorney Philip Cohen’s interest in our interview with the first trial’s jury foreman.

In the court hearing Tuesday, it was revealed that the DA’s side had filed its response only the day before, and so we hadn’t had an opportunity to see it.

Deputy DA Reinhold Mueller did cite his response in court as he explained that the DA’s office has decided to retry Masterson.

We thought you’d be interested in some of the specific things Mueller included in his written response, which give us some idea of how he’s going to do things differently in the retrial.

Specifically, he talks about how he believes the first jury had not considered crucial information about Scientology and testimony by the DA’s expert, Dr. Mindy Mechanic. And Mueller also indicates that the prosecution intends to call some new expert witnesses, as well as a new fresh-complaint witness who can testify to what Jane Doe 3 said after her attack.

We have some extensive quotes for you that we thought you would find interesting.

The document opens with an explanation of why dismissing charges against him now would not be in the interests of justice.

Dismissal of the charges against defendant Daniel Masterson following a hung jury is not in the "furtherance of justice" as required by Penal Code section 1385. Particularly, where there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reach a guilty verdict. The considerations for dismissal as first set forth in People v. Superior Court (Howard) weigh in favor of a retrial and not in favor of a dismissal. First, the defendant is charged with forcible rape committed against three women on separate occasions. Arguably, there are few charges more serious and violent. Second, this was the first trial and this case has not been previously dismissed. That is, a second trial does not amount to harassment of the defendant. Third, the People intend to introduce additional evidence at the retrial against the defendant. Fourth, the jury foreperson admittedly revealed that the majority of jurors "did not consider" a significant amount of the evidence presented during the trial, including the influence of Scientology on the victims, the testimony of the fresh-complaint and prior consistent statement witnesses, as well as the testimony of the People's expert, Mindy Mechanic, Ph.D.

Mueller then explains that the penal code lists several factors to be considered before dismissing a case.

None of these factors favor the defense. First, as mentioned above, there is sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict. Second, arguably,, there are few crimes more serious and violent than the forcible rape of a person, not to mention three women. Third, the defendant has not been incarcerated awaiting trial. Fourth, this was the first trial, the case has not been previously dismissed and refiled, and all the continuances were at the request of the defense. That is, retrial in this case does not amount to harassment of the defendant or impose unreasonable burdens but furthers society's interest in obtaining a just judgment. Lastly, there is additional evidence the People seek to introduce at the retrial of the defendant. At the retrial, the People will seek to introduce additional expert testimony on the "Neurobiology of Trauma," "Memory for Traumatic Events," and "Alcohol and Memory." The additional testimony will assist the jury on retrial to understand common responses to perceived threats in the context of a traumatic event; that trauma survivors may experience gaps in their memories, yet also possess vivid, unforgettable, distressing memories of the event; and the prominent effects of alcohol on memory functioning. Finally, the investigation is ongoing and there is at least one additional potential witness that the People intend to locate and interview regarding any observations of an/or materially relevant statements made by [Jane Doe 3] in the course of her relationship with the defendant.

And Mueller said he was basing his assessment of the jury on the time he spent in the jury room after the mistrial was declared, not on the interview we did of the foreman later.

On November 30, 2022, the court found the jurors hopelessly deadlocked in this case and a mistrial was declared. Subsequently, counsel for the People and the defense had the opportunity to spend a few minutes and talk with the deliberating jurors in the jury room. There were questions asked regarding broad categories of evidence presented in the case. I inquired about their thoughts on the testimony of the fresh-complaint and prior consistent witnesses. The foreperson stated that they "did not consider it," and considered only the statements of the victims themselves. I inquired about their thoughts of the testimony by the People's expert, Mindy Mechanic, Ph.D. The foreperson stated that they "did not consider it, except for a couple of jurors or so," and that, again, they considered only the statements of the victims themselves. Similarly, the Scientology evidence presented to show the then existing state-of-mind of the victims and their post-sexual assault reactions and behavior as well as its influence on their reporting of the crimes was not considered or was an "extremely minimal" part of the conversation at best.

This reveals that a large swath of the evidence presented at trial was essentially not considered by a majority of this jury. Dismissing the case under these circumstances is not in the furtherance of justice.

At the hearing, Cohen argued that Mueller was mischaracterizing the jury, saying that it had considered all the evidence when they were unable to come up with verdicts.

Judge Olmedo at one point admonished both sides that the opinions of the jurors from the first jury really didn’t matter much at this point. She based her opinion, she said, on the factors in the 1385 penal code, and her list sounded a lot like Mueller’s.

She dismissed Cohen’s motion, and then set dates for pretrial hearings, saying that jury selection for the new trial would begin on March 29.

That is coming up soon, so we’ll be interested to see if Masterson’s side comes up with any gambits to slow things down, which they tried to do numerous times last year.

After the hearing, a statement was released from Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, Jane Doe 3’s husband, and Bobette Riales, who are all suing Masterson and the Church of Scientology in the separate civil lawsuit.

“We are pleased that Danny Masterson will not be permitted to simply escape criminal accountability. Despite suffering years of intimidation and harassment, we are completely committed to participating in the next criminal trial to the extent requested by prosecutors and again testifying about Mr. Masterson’s depraved actions.”

---

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…