At a court hearing on May 31, Danny Masterson fired his famous defense attorney, Tom Mesereau, which bought Masterson a six-week delay for his criminal rape trial. The trial is now scheduled for October 11. Also on that day, Masterson’s remaining attorneys, Philip Cohen and Shawn Holley, argued for one count of the three in the case to be thrown out because of how long it had taken for the charge to be brought against the That ’70s Show actor.
They count they are focused on is the case of Jane Doe 1, who alleges she was raped in the early morning hours of April 25, 2003, at Masterson’s Hollywood Hills house. In June 2004, Jane Doe 1 reported the incident to the LAPD in defiance of the Church of Scientology (she was a member of it then). Scientology then had members submit affidavits calling Jane Doe 1 a liar, and the District Attorney’s office decided not to file charges.
Twelve years later, in 2016, the LAPD reopened the case, and in 2020, the DA filed charges against Masterson. But his defense team argues that this delay tramples on Masterson’s constitutional rights because some of the witnesses who might have been key in 2004 were never interviewed or can’t recall things now. And if the DA didn’t think it was a chargeable offense in 2004, why was it one in 2020?
Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller, at the hearing on May 31, explained that what’s different is that in 2016, when Jane Doe 1’s case was reopened, she was no longer alone. Two other women had joined her to make similar allegations, and others came forward later. When the DA’s office filed charges in 2020, it said that it had considered the allegations of five women, and chose to file charges in regards to three of them.
Mueller also disputed the idea that the delay from 2004 to 2020 had prejudiced the case against Masterson. But Judge Olmedo said that she couldn’t render a ruling without further briefing from both sides.
In the supplemental brief that Mueller filed, he explains that the DA’s office in 2004 simply didn’t realize that there were other victims whose allegations were all very similar to Jane Doe 1’s, which bolstered her case…
At the time of the initial declination of [Jane Doe 1's] case, the reviewing deputy district attorney was unaware of the additional two prior victims and one later victim who each had reportedly been raped by the same defendant under factually similar circumstances. Discovery of the additional victims did not occur until they each reported to law enforcement in December of 2016 and January of 2017.
Mueller went on to explain what he meant by the cases resembling each other…
The similar circumstances include the defendant being closely acquainted with the victims as well as having mutual friends in common; all three incidents occurring within an approximate 2-1/2 year period of time between 2001 to 2003; each incident taking place at the defendant's residence on Holly Mount Drive; defendant offering the victims alcoholic beverages and becoming inexplicably intoxicated while sexually assaulted; each victim was reportedly raped in the defendant's bedroom on his bed; in two of the alleged rapes, defendant either pulled or commanded the victims into the shower in his master bathroom where he then sexually assaulted them before taking them to his bed where he committed further assaults; and the use of physical force by the defendant to restrain each victim and accomplish his acts by overcoming their will.
Further, the defendant and each victim were members of the Church of Scientology at the time of their incidents. Both [Jane Doe 1] and [Jane Doe 3] reported their rapes by the defendant to a Church Ethics Officer on staff at the time. Both were told it's not rape and that they could not report it to law enforcement. Doing so would be a "high crime" and they would be declared a "suppressive person." Both were provided Scientology-related reading material(s) by the Ethics Officers who directed them to review specific Church policies. And both were made to attend an ethics program under the direction of the Church officials as a result of their disclosures. Each of the three victims delayed reporting to law enforcement out of fear of being declared a "suppressive person" by the Church and suffering the consequences therefrom.
It was only after these additional facts became known in 2016 that the DA’s office come to the conclusion “that sufficient evidence exists to warrant bringing charges and to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
Masterson’s attorneys, Cohen and Holley, responded that Mueller’s assertions didn’t address the argument in their motion, that the passage of time has made some witnesses unavailable and others unreliable, which they say prejudices the case unfairly against their client.
They claim that Jane Doe 1’s claims are “weak,” and that additional women coming forward doesn’t make them stronger. "Regardless of how the prosecution tries to characterize its case, the applicable balancing test, in light of the significant prejudice caused by the delay points to a violation of Mr. Masterson's right to a fair trial and to the need for dismissal," they write.
The defense team insists that, in contrast to Mueller’s argument, "...the essence of the [Jane Doe 1] case has hardly changed."
Today in court, Cohen and Mueller will argue this issue and Judge Olmedo will decide if the Jane Doe 1 count should remain, and if she does, we should be in the homestretch until the trial itself.
Last time, at the May 31 hearing, Cohen got pretty worked up and Judge Olmedo admonished him that he was “talking in circles.” We are curious to hear whether he’s a little more restrained this time, and also if Shawn Holley says much. We don’t expect Masterson to be there himself, but he surprised us last time and did show up. (He needed to be in court to tell Olmedo in person that he was firing Mesereau and his co-counsel, Sharon Appelbaum).
Yesterday, Jeffrey Augustine was on the scene as the civil lawsuit against Masterson made its return to the courtroom of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Steven Kleifield. We had wondered if there might be some fireworks after the case had been revived by a stunning January appellate ruling, but Jeffrey said the proceeding was not very exciting at all.
Basically, the stay on the civil lawsuit remained in place while the criminal case is ongoing and as Scientology will be petitioning the US Supreme Court about the January appellate ruling. Also, a future status hearing was set for October 25. (In the civil lawsuit, Masterson’s accusers are suing the actor and Scientology for harassing them. It’s not about the rape allegations themselves.)
So the civil suit is essentially on hold, and the criminal case has what could be a final hurdle to get over today before heading to trial. We’ll let you know what we hear from court.
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: A bonus for our supporters
In order to thank our subscribers for their generosity, we finally decided to put together something that people have been asking us about for a long time: Yes, we recorded the first Underground Bunker podcast this week. It went out Saturday to our paid subscribers, and features the inimitable Marc Headley telling us some great stories about Scientology leader David Miscavige that we had never heard before. Give it a listen!
"...the use of physical force by the defendant to restrain each victim and accomplish his acts by overcoming their will." - Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller
That's an extraordinary study in economy of words. Whoever wrote this brief deserves a medal.
It appears that Danny's attorney's understand that they will have a very hard time successfully defending their client if this case indeed goes to trial (given all the evidence, documentation, witness statements, political environment, etc). What is the strategy for the defense in the delay tactics? Just buying more "free time" for their client? Seeing if something sticks to the wall?