Judge Slams Masterson's Defense Team for Coercive Tactics Targeting Jurors

In a dramatic courtroom scene on Tuesday, Judge Charlaine Olmedo voiced her strong disapproval of the conduct exhibited by Danny Masterson’s appellate team, which has come under scrutiny for allegedly coercive tactics in contacting jurors from the actor’s recent rape trial. The judge's remarks came during a hearing in Los Angeles, where the integrity of the judicial process and the protection of jurors' privacy were central concerns. Masterson, who was convicted in May 2023 on multiple counts of rape, is currently appealing his 30-year-to-life sentence. As part of his defense strategy, his appellate attorneys employed a private investigator to locate jurors from his trial, leading to a series of disputes over the appropriateness of this contact. Judge Olmedo highlighted her discomfort with the investigator's approach, particularly an incident involving a juror who was approached at her home. The judge characterized this interaction as "tacitly coercive," raising alarms about the pressure exerted on jurors during the appeals process. Despite the significant concerns raised, Judge Olmedo clarified that she lacked the legal authority to initiate a full evidentiary hearing into the allegations, as Masterson’s conviction remains under appeal. Nonetheless, she indicated her intention to refer the matter to the state bar for potential disciplinary action against the attorneys involved, as well as reporting the investigator's conduct to the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. The implications of this controversy extend beyond the courtroom. A Jane Doe, one of the individuals who accused Masterson of rape, revealed that the same investigator had also contacted people linked to her personal life, causing distress among those individuals. "I found it objectionable," she stated, emphasizing the emotional toll the investigator's actions had imposed on her support network. Masterson’s two trials revealed harrowing testimonies from the three women who accused him of drugging and assaulting them while they were involved with the Church of Scientology, which they alleged provided protection to the actor. The trials culminated in a conviction for two of the women, while jurors could not reach a unanimous decision regarding the third victim's allegations. During the hearing, the prosecution, led by Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller, expressed confusion regarding how the appellate team managed to identify jurors, given that their personal information had been sealed. This uncertainty raised further questions about potential breaches of protocol by Masterson's defense team. One juror, who communicated with the defense after the trial, described the investigator's tactics as harassing, noting that there was a communal sense of intimidation among the jurors following the unwanted approaches. The foreperson of the jury confirmed that the investigator’s actions had made jurors feel pressured and uncomfortable, highlighting the chilling effect such tactics can have on the post-trial landscape. As the hearing progressed, Judge Olmedo engaged in a tense exchange with Masterson's habeas lawyer, Eric Multhaup, regarding the investigator’s failure to properly inform jurors of their rights before initiating contact. Multhaup’s defense of the investigator's methods was met with skepticism from the judge, who emphasized the importance of ethical conduct and the need for respect towards jury members. In a further twist, the ongoing civil lawsuit involving the Jane Does against Masterson and the Church of Scientology continues to unfold alongside the appellate process. Concerns over the preservation of sealed documents from the criminal trial were raised, with calls for additional protective measures to safeguard the identities and information of the victims involved. As the legal battles continue, the courtroom remains a focal point for discussions about juror safety, ethical legal practices, and the broader implications of high-profile cases such as Masterson's on the judicial system. The unfolding drama underscores the complexities of navigating appeals in high-stakes criminal cases while ensuring that the rights and well-being of all parties involved are maintained.