Danny Masterson’s bid to overturn his 2023 rape convictions and 30-year prison sentence was denied by a California appeals court on Tuesday, leading lawyers for the That ‘70s Show star to vow they’ll seek review in the state’s highest court.
In their 89-page
ruling, obtained by Rolling Stone, a panel of three appellate justices rejected Masterson’s arguments that his trial judge improperly handled evidence, violated his right to a fair trial, and “exhibited hostility toward Scientology.” Masterson claimed the judge had demonstrated bias by “comparing Scientology to white supremacists, gangs, and Satanists,” according to his appeal filings.
The justices disagreed. “All of these statements, viewed in context, evidence no animosity toward Scientology,” they wrote.
The panel noted that Masterson himself had asked the trial court before his 2022 trial to limit references to Scientology, citing the public’s generally negative perception of the organization. During arguments over that request, the trial judge questioned why evidence involving Scientology would be considered “more inflammatory than, let’s say, evidence concerning street gangs, prison gangs, white supremacy, outlaw motorcycle clubs.” Such evidence “comes in all the time and it certainly is negative,” the trial judge observed.
“The jury in this case was not asked to determine the truth or falsity of Scientology doctrine or beliefs. The jury instructions clearly limited the purposes for which the jury was to consider Scientology evidence: to explain the victims’ delay in reporting defendant’s actions; to explain the victims’ behavior before, during, and after the charged crimes; to explain the witnesses’ ties to Scientology; and to evaluate the circumstances under which statements were made and the weight to give statements made by all of the witnesses. Admission of Scientology evidence for those purposes did not contravene the First Amendment,” the appellate justices said in their ruling. “Defendant fails to establish any abuse of discretion or First Amendment violation by the trial court.”
Masterson, a prominent Scientologist, was charged in 2020 with forcibly raping three women on different occasions during the height of his sitcom fame in the early 2000s. An initial trial ended with a hung jury, but a follow-up jury convicted him in May 2023, finding that he raped two of the Jane Does. Both trials included emotional testimony from the three women. They all said Masterson drugged them before forcibly raping them. They were practicing Scientologists at the time and testified that Church of Scientology officials protected Masterson.
The actor filed his direct appeal a few months after his conviction. He later filed a separate habeas petition claiming his former lead attorney failed to put on an adequate defense at his retrial.
The appellate court on Tuesday rejected both Masterson’s appeal of his convictions and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In an email, his lawyers said they planned to seek review by the California Supreme Court while separately pursuing habeas corpus relief based on what they called “exculpatory evidence that was never presented to the jury.” They contend that the two women whose allegations led to Masterson’s convictions told friends their sexual encounters with him were consensual. The appellate justices were not persuaded that the evidence should have been admitted at trial or that it would have changed the outcome.
“Danny is serving a life sentence for crimes he did not commit. No one in California, not defendants and not victims who have actually been the victim of a sex crime, is safer by virtue of today’s unfortunate decision,” his lead appellate lawyer, Cliff Gardner, said in a statement.
Eric Multhaup, the lawyer leading Masterson’s habeas corpus challenge, called the ruling “fundamentally wrong.” He accused the appellate panel of dismissing the petition with “a one-paragraph summary of the one-sided evidence presented by the prosecution.”
“This cursory treatment reflects poorly on the administration of justice in the Court of Appeal and will be rectified by a petition to the California Supreme Court,” Multhaup said.
Click here to read the full article.
