Danny Masterson Files New Appeal, Citing Ineffective Counsel and Anti-Scientology Bias
A former star of the 1970s sitcom “The Roaring ‘70s,” Danny Masterson, is challenging his rape convictions with a new habeas petition alleging inadequate legal representation and a trial unfairly influenced by anti-Scientology sentiment.
Danny Masterson, currently serving a 30 years to life sentence in a California prison, is attempting to overturn his convictions through a new legal challenge. The petition, filed Monday and obtained by Rolling Stone, centers on claims that his trial attorney failed to adequately defend him and that the court allowed prejudicial evidence related to his and the victims’ involvement in the Church of Scientology.
Retrial and Initial Deadlock
Masterson appeared at his retrial on May 31, 2023, at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center in Los Angeles alongside his then-wife, Bijou Phillips. The retrial stemmed from a mistrial in November 2022, when the initial jury deadlocked on all counts after a lengthy deliberation. This deadlock, according to the new petition, foreshadowed the issues that would plague the subsequent proceedings.
Claims of Ineffective Counsel
The core of Masterson’s appeal rests on the assertion that his then-lead attorney, Philip Cohen, provided “defective” representation. Masterson claims Cohen failed to adequately challenge inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and, critically, did not call a single defense witness during the second trial. Despite identifying over 20 potential witnesses – including friends and expert testimony – Cohen reportedly spoke to only two.
Cohen, according to the filing, “standardly” relies on cross-examination to create doubt and often concludes cases without presenting affirmative defense evidence. Cohen did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
The Scientology Factor
A pivotal point in the case, according to Masterson’s legal team, was the judge’s decision to allow testimony from Claire Headley, a former Scientologist. Headley’s testimony detailed Church of Scientology beliefs and practices, specifically alleging that members are discouraged from reporting crimes committed by fellow Scientologists and are discouraged from using the term “rape” in internal communications.
Masterson’s appeals attorney, Eric S. Multhaup, argues that Cohen should have countered Headley’s testimony with a Scientology expert who could have attested that the church does not forbid members from contacting law enforcement. Masterson reportedly had a prominent Scientologist prepared to testify under oath to this effect.
Allegations of Judicial Bias and Prosecutorial Misconduct
The petition further alleges that Judge Charlaine Olmedo exhibited “judicial bias” by admitting Headley’s testimony, claiming it improperly interfered with religious doctrine. It also contends that the investigation itself was tainted by anti-Scientology bias, pointing to the involvement of Leah Remini, a former Scientologist and vocal critic of the church.
According to the filing, Remini was positioned as an “advisor, strategist, key arbiter of the policies and practices of the Church of Scientology, and as an advocate for the plaintiffs.” The application alleges that the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) was aware of Remini’s “ongoing vendetta” against Masterson. Furthermore, the petition suggests the prosecution benefited from the publicity generated by Remini’s A&E docuseries about the Church of Scientology.
Emotional Testimony and Jury Decisions
Both trials featured emotional testimony from three women, referred to as Jane Does, who accused Masterson of rape. All three alleged that Masterson drugged them before the assaults. While the first jury leaned toward acquittal, the second jury ultimately convicted Masterson of raping two of the women in his Hollywood Hills home in 2003. The third accuser was in a long-term relationship with Masterson at the time of the alleged assault, and all three women were practicing Scientologists who claimed church officials protected Masterson.
The Significance of the Habeas Petition
Masterson’s pending direct appeal focuses on alleged errors made by the judge during the trial. However, this new habeas petition seeks to secure his release based on the claim that a “mountain of exculpatory evidence” was never presented to the jury. The petition is accompanied by 65 exhibits intended to support this claim.
“The unfairness of the second Masterson trial was the result of prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias and the defense’s failure to present exculpatory evidence,” Multhaup stated on Monday. “The habeas corpus petition is accompanied by 65 exhibits documenting the evidence of innocence that could have been presented. But was not. The jury only heard half the story. The prosecution’s side. Danny deserves a new trial where the jury can also hear his side.”
The prosecution will have the opportunity to respond to the petition before the appeals court renders a decision.
