Danny Masterson, right, and his wife Bijou Phillips arrive for closing arguments in his second trial, May 16, 2023, in Los Angeles. A jury found “That ’70s Show” star Masterson guilty of two counts of rape Wednesday, May 31, 2023, in a Los Angeles retrial in which the Church of Scientology played a central role. (AP Photo/Chris Pizzello, File)
The lawyers for actor and convicted rapist Danny Masterson have come under fire for allegedly harassing jurors from his trial at their homes and places of employment, reports say.
According to documents filed this month by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office obtained by Rolling Stone and the Los Angeles Times, Masterson’s appeal team made contact with the jurors that was “neither wanted nor was it made at a reasonable time and place as required.” Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller requested a hearing to consider forbidding “harassing or otherwise improper conduct by members of the defense team.”
A jury convicted Masterson last year of two counts of rape and a judge sentenced him to to 30 years to life behind bars. The “That 70s Show” star filed an appeal following his conviction.
More coverage from Law&Crime: ‘That ’70s Show’ actor Danny Masterson’s wife files for divorce days after he was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison for raping two women
In July, a juror sent an email to the court requesting assistance.
“Some of the jurors have been visited at their homes by Danny Masterson’s Appeal team. We thought our information was going to be sealed. We don’t recall the timeframe of this. We are concerned,” the email reportedly said.
Another juror sent an email in September to complain about being approached by Masterson’s legal team. Journalist Tony Ortega posted the email on his Substack page.
“I was doing yardwork in my front yard when a car pulled up, parked, and a woman got out and approached me. She asked if I was [redacted],” the email said. “I said yes. She said she is a member of Mr. Masterson’s habeas team and wanted to ask me some questions about incidents regarding parking and in the hallway in front of the courtroom that resulted in the jury being sequestered.”
Apparently the lawyer got the juror’s information from another juror. The juror was uninterested in speaking with the attorney.
“I told her I was declining and that I would be letting the juror know of this because juror information is confidential and there should be no contact with me by Mr. Masterson’s legal team,” the email said.
In response, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo, who presided over the trial, sent all parties a letter saying some jurors “felt pressured” to speak with defense attorneys. Olmedo issued an order that said all future contact with jurors must go through the court clerk. She said she would have a hearing over the matter if necessary.
Masterson’s former attorney, Shawn Holley, reportedly told the court she had contacted jurors but emphasized to them they were no obligation to speak with her. Holley reportedly told the court she had lunch with the jury foreperson and described the conversation as “friendly, cordial and forthright.”
Actor Danny Masterson, left, stands with his lawyers Thomas Mesereau, right, and Sharon Appelbaum during his arraignment in Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles, Friday, Sept. 18, 2020. “That ’70s Show” actor Masterson was convicted on three rape charges. (Lucy Nicholson/Pool Photo via AP)
This is not the first time Masterson’s lawyers’ conduct has been called into question.
As Law&Crime previously reported, two former attorneys of his were sanctioned by the court for leaking sensitive information about his victims to the Church of Scientology.
Criminal defense attorneys Thomas Mesereau and cocounsel Sharon Applebaum represented Masterson through May 2022 — but were taken off the case before it went to trial. Criminal charges were initially filed against their ex-client in June 2020, several years after numerous women accused Masterson of rape.
Masterson is a practicing Scientologist. However, Olmedo made a conscious decision to keep the religion out of both criminal trials. The first one ended in a mistrial.
Before the first trial, Mesereau and Applebaum shared criminal discovery information — including police reports and addresses of alleged victims — with the church by way of its attorney Vicki Podberesky, Olmedo determined on Wednesday. Also allegedly shared with the controversial organization were text messages and emails between the victims and LAPD investigators — and victims’ banking information.
According to The Los Angeles Times, Mueller voiced concerns on why defense attorneys would provide “these documents to the very people who defense counsel was fully aware had certain tactics these victims were worried about.”
In the attorneys’ defense, Mesereau’s lawyer, Edith Matthai, reportedly argued there was never a formal protection order placed on any of the documents at issue, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“The court made a number of statements without question saying that it would not allow certain discovery and that discovery didn’t happen,” Matthai said. “What is being alleged as being shared is discovery that was allowed, and there was no order or statement that I’ve seen anywhere in any transcript that says that discovery cannot be shared for purposes of the civil actions.”
Olmedo dismissed that line of argument outright.
The court said the defense’s position “flies in the face of both statutory and caselaw authority” and “thwarts [victim protection] law, legislative intent, governmental and privacy interests; and most importantly is contrary to this Court’s previous findings and orders.”
Olmedo lectured the defense that the court had previously “made numerous statements during contested discovery hearings repeatedly telling the defense that the criminal discovery process would not be used for discovery in civil cases.”
Providing those documents to the Church of Scientology, the court’s order says, violated “lawful court orders regarding the sharing of criminal discovery with a party to the related civil action.”
In the end, the attorneys were sanctioned $950 with payment to be made “jointly and severally,” the court’s order notes.
Colin Kalmbacher contributed to this report.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
