Karen#1
Well-known member
TONY ORTEGA
Excerpt:
[Philip Cohen with Bijou Phillips and Danny Masterson after the mistrial was declared. Photo by Brian Melley/AP]
Once again, we want to thank the readers of the Underground Bunker, who have been so supportive during the eight weeks we were covering the Danny Masterson trial.
After Judge Charlaine Olmedo declared a deadlocked jury and a mistrial yesterday afternoon, we quickly sent you our report of what had transpired.
As we reported, the jury had told Judge Olmedo that they had tried and tried, but were unable to come to unanimous verdicts. Here was the breakdown:
Count 1 (Jane Doe 1): 2 for guilty, 10 not guilty
Count 2 (Jane Doe 2): 4 for guilty, 8 not guilty
Count 3 (Jane Doe 3): 5 for guilty, 7 not guilty
Judge Olmedo set January 10 for a status conference, and March 27 for a retrial date.
After her ruling, the Masterson family left the courtroom, the reporters went upstairs in preparation for a press conference, and the attorneys for both sides were allowed to go into the jury room and speak with the jurors for several minutes.
They then emerged, and as they began to leave, we asked defense attorney Philip Cohen for a statement. “I’ll tell you what I told the jury: I’m really appreciative of the time they put in and it says a lot about our system.”
We then asked Deputy DA Reinhold Mueller for a reaction. “It was apparent that this jury took it seriously, and I’ve always been a strong proponent of the jury system. It was very helpful to have some time back there to speak with them. They were able to provide some valuable impressions of how they saw the case. And we proceed on from here.”
Numerous Sheriff’s deputies had arrived as Judge Olmedo was determined that the jurors be able to leave the building with protection. We then exchanged some pleasantries with the court reporter, the clerk, and Judge Olmedo herself and then exited the building so we could record our short video report for you.
While we did that, up on the 12th floor Philip Cohen was giving a short press conference. We obtained a transcript of it for you. After Cohen delivered these words, he then exited the building with Danny Masterson and his family, who didn’t speak for reporters.
Philip Cohen: So first and foremost, I really want to truly thank this jury. There was a lot of information that came out. There were a lot of pieces of testimony to follow. And the incredible due diligence and thoughtfulness and time that they put into it just speaks volumes about the jury and quite frankly, speaks volumes about our jury system. To care so much about getting something right for someone that you don’t know, is truly the magic to our system. And it was just so rewarding to, number one, see it at work. And number two, see it work the right way. Every day you get up in court and you think you’re making head roads and you think that you’re bringing out contradictions and inconsistencies and you think you’re gutting the case against you but you never know what a jury is thinking, and to see that they were all basically on board with what we hoped to demonstrate — and I think what we did demonstrate — again, speaks volumes to this jury. And quite frankly, it says something about this case itself. I think this case has significant issues, and I think the jury saw those issues.
Q: Mr. Masterson, what was his reaction?
Cohen: I think his attitude and his reaction mirrored ours. You know, it’s, you don’t know how a trial is going until you hear what a jury has to say. And as confident as he is in his lawyers, you never know what a jury is thinking. So there’s a lot of relief on his part, obviously, but there’s still a fight ahead and we may have to do this thing again. And hopefully, what the jury indicated in this case will be looked at by the District Attorney’s Office in terms of how the jury saw this case.
Q: How significant is it that the jury was basically overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal, should that be factored in?
Cohen: I do. I think it’s incredibly significant. This was not a short trial. This was not a jury that just meant to get out of this. This is a jury that went through literally each bit of testimony. And I think had some very heartfelt and significant discussions about credibility. And to hear ten For not guilty and eight for not guilty and seven for not guilty speaks volumes. So yes, I do think it’s a significant factor.
Q: If the prosecution wants to proceed, do you have any plans to file a motion to dismiss the case?
Cohen: We will be filing a motion with the court. That’s a very difficult motion to ask a court to preclude a another trial. But again, I look to the jury’s due diligence, to their effort, and most significantly to what their votes were on on all three counts. This was across the board.
Q: OK, so you will be filing a motion to dismiss?
Cohen: Yes.
Q: Were you able to talk to any of the jurors?
Cohen: We were.
Q: What did you get from them?
Cohen: You know, they were very kind to speak with us. I’d really rather not get into what they spoke with us about. I will say, and Karen can certainly echo, it was incredibly helpful. And illuminating. And I think really gave insight as to what was important to them and what was not important to them in taking a look at this case.
Q: If the prosecution decided to try the case again, will you represent him again?
Cohen: If Danny asked me to represent him, I will absolutely be there.
Q: Can you talk about the demeanor of the jurors at all when you were talking to them? I mean, this is a really stressful process that we make people go through, to just disrupt their lives and then try to hack this all out with a bunch of strangers. How were they?
Cohen: Well, I think the fact that they’ve stuck around to talk to us speaks volumes, after how long they’ve been in trial and after how long they’ve been deliberating. And again, I’ll just repeat, it’s amazing to me how much work and thought and care twelve people put in to determining the fate of someone that they don’t know, no connection with, and how I say this all the time, as much as people want and try to get out of jury duty, I think when you speak to jurors after they sat through trial and they deliberated, they tell you I think to a person what a rewarding and meaningful experience it is. You don’t get a lot of chances in life to truly determine the fate of somebody.
Q: You alluded to the things that were not important to them, is Scientology one of those things?
Cohen: Again, in respect to the jury, I’d rather not get into the things that we talked about. I will say, I think the count reflects how critical credibility was in this case. Credibility, truly, is everything in this case. And I think the vote count speaks to that.
Q: Given what the jury said at the end, do you feel that they really didn’t take Scientology into account and that it wasn’t as big an issue as you thought it was going to be?
Cohen: I think the vote count probably answers your question.
Q: Do you have any concerns about if there’s a retrial, given that two iterations of the jury said they were basically hung on the charges, that a jury could come to a verdict on this case?
Cohen: I think given the facts in this case, the testimony in this case, the evolution of statements in this case, I think it would be very difficult to find twelve people who truly consider this case to be guilty.
Q: On the flip side, do you think you can get twelve people to acquit?
Cohen: I always think I can get twelve people to acquit.
Q: I’ve heard that retrial is basically always in favor of the prosecutors because they’re able to reply to your case and clean it up. And they kind of know the defense. Would you change your case?
Cohen: No. I love this case.
Q: Do you think a retrial would favor prosecutors or do you think you would have the advantage?
Cohen: I think we will be well-prepared to try this case again. It would be another set of statements. Another bit of testimony. And we are ready to do that, if that’s what the government sees fit. Thank you all.
Also, we were emailed a statement from the attorneys representing Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and two others suing Masterson and the Church of Scientology in a separate civil lawsuit: “We would first like to thank the jury for its public service. We are obviously disappointed that, at least for the time being, Daniel Masterson has evaded criminal accountability for his deplorable acts. However, we are collectively resolved to continue our fight for justice, including in civil court, where we have alleged that Mr. Masterson, along with the Church of Scientology, its leader David Miscavige, and others conspired to systematically stalk, harass, and intimidate us when we sought to shed light on Mr. Masterson’s actions. This legal fight is far from over, and it is critical that we reckon with Scientology’s alleged role in covering up reports of abuse and threatening victims.”
And this statement from Alison Anderson, who is one of the attorneys representing them in that case: “Our clients showed tremendous courage in testifying about such personal and horrendous acts in a very public forum and despite persistent harassment and intimidation. They remain hopeful that Mr. Masterson will experience some criminal consequences for his vile conduct and are eager to now pursue their claims in civil court and seek redress for the nightmare they have been made to suffer.”
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…
Excerpt:
 |
Once again, we want to thank the readers of the Underground Bunker, who have been so supportive during the eight weeks we were covering the Danny Masterson trial.
After Judge Charlaine Olmedo declared a deadlocked jury and a mistrial yesterday afternoon, we quickly sent you our report of what had transpired.
As we reported, the jury had told Judge Olmedo that they had tried and tried, but were unable to come to unanimous verdicts. Here was the breakdown:
Count 1 (Jane Doe 1): 2 for guilty, 10 not guilty
Count 2 (Jane Doe 2): 4 for guilty, 8 not guilty
Count 3 (Jane Doe 3): 5 for guilty, 7 not guilty
Judge Olmedo set January 10 for a status conference, and March 27 for a retrial date.
After her ruling, the Masterson family left the courtroom, the reporters went upstairs in preparation for a press conference, and the attorneys for both sides were allowed to go into the jury room and speak with the jurors for several minutes.
They then emerged, and as they began to leave, we asked defense attorney Philip Cohen for a statement. “I’ll tell you what I told the jury: I’m really appreciative of the time they put in and it says a lot about our system.”
We then asked Deputy DA Reinhold Mueller for a reaction. “It was apparent that this jury took it seriously, and I’ve always been a strong proponent of the jury system. It was very helpful to have some time back there to speak with them. They were able to provide some valuable impressions of how they saw the case. And we proceed on from here.”
Numerous Sheriff’s deputies had arrived as Judge Olmedo was determined that the jurors be able to leave the building with protection. We then exchanged some pleasantries with the court reporter, the clerk, and Judge Olmedo herself and then exited the building so we could record our short video report for you.
While we did that, up on the 12th floor Philip Cohen was giving a short press conference. We obtained a transcript of it for you. After Cohen delivered these words, he then exited the building with Danny Masterson and his family, who didn’t speak for reporters.
Philip Cohen: So first and foremost, I really want to truly thank this jury. There was a lot of information that came out. There were a lot of pieces of testimony to follow. And the incredible due diligence and thoughtfulness and time that they put into it just speaks volumes about the jury and quite frankly, speaks volumes about our jury system. To care so much about getting something right for someone that you don’t know, is truly the magic to our system. And it was just so rewarding to, number one, see it at work. And number two, see it work the right way. Every day you get up in court and you think you’re making head roads and you think that you’re bringing out contradictions and inconsistencies and you think you’re gutting the case against you but you never know what a jury is thinking, and to see that they were all basically on board with what we hoped to demonstrate — and I think what we did demonstrate — again, speaks volumes to this jury. And quite frankly, it says something about this case itself. I think this case has significant issues, and I think the jury saw those issues.
Q: Mr. Masterson, what was his reaction?
Cohen: I think his attitude and his reaction mirrored ours. You know, it’s, you don’t know how a trial is going until you hear what a jury has to say. And as confident as he is in his lawyers, you never know what a jury is thinking. So there’s a lot of relief on his part, obviously, but there’s still a fight ahead and we may have to do this thing again. And hopefully, what the jury indicated in this case will be looked at by the District Attorney’s Office in terms of how the jury saw this case.
Q: How significant is it that the jury was basically overwhelmingly in favor of acquittal, should that be factored in?
Cohen: I do. I think it’s incredibly significant. This was not a short trial. This was not a jury that just meant to get out of this. This is a jury that went through literally each bit of testimony. And I think had some very heartfelt and significant discussions about credibility. And to hear ten For not guilty and eight for not guilty and seven for not guilty speaks volumes. So yes, I do think it’s a significant factor.
Q: If the prosecution wants to proceed, do you have any plans to file a motion to dismiss the case?
Cohen: We will be filing a motion with the court. That’s a very difficult motion to ask a court to preclude a another trial. But again, I look to the jury’s due diligence, to their effort, and most significantly to what their votes were on on all three counts. This was across the board.
Q: OK, so you will be filing a motion to dismiss?
Cohen: Yes.
Q: Were you able to talk to any of the jurors?
Cohen: We were.
Q: What did you get from them?
Cohen: You know, they were very kind to speak with us. I’d really rather not get into what they spoke with us about. I will say, and Karen can certainly echo, it was incredibly helpful. And illuminating. And I think really gave insight as to what was important to them and what was not important to them in taking a look at this case.
Q: If the prosecution decided to try the case again, will you represent him again?
Cohen: If Danny asked me to represent him, I will absolutely be there.
Q: Can you talk about the demeanor of the jurors at all when you were talking to them? I mean, this is a really stressful process that we make people go through, to just disrupt their lives and then try to hack this all out with a bunch of strangers. How were they?
Cohen: Well, I think the fact that they’ve stuck around to talk to us speaks volumes, after how long they’ve been in trial and after how long they’ve been deliberating. And again, I’ll just repeat, it’s amazing to me how much work and thought and care twelve people put in to determining the fate of someone that they don’t know, no connection with, and how I say this all the time, as much as people want and try to get out of jury duty, I think when you speak to jurors after they sat through trial and they deliberated, they tell you I think to a person what a rewarding and meaningful experience it is. You don’t get a lot of chances in life to truly determine the fate of somebody.
Q: You alluded to the things that were not important to them, is Scientology one of those things?
Cohen: Again, in respect to the jury, I’d rather not get into the things that we talked about. I will say, I think the count reflects how critical credibility was in this case. Credibility, truly, is everything in this case. And I think the vote count speaks to that.
Q: Given what the jury said at the end, do you feel that they really didn’t take Scientology into account and that it wasn’t as big an issue as you thought it was going to be?
Cohen: I think the vote count probably answers your question.
Q: Do you have any concerns about if there’s a retrial, given that two iterations of the jury said they were basically hung on the charges, that a jury could come to a verdict on this case?
Cohen: I think given the facts in this case, the testimony in this case, the evolution of statements in this case, I think it would be very difficult to find twelve people who truly consider this case to be guilty.
Q: On the flip side, do you think you can get twelve people to acquit?
Cohen: I always think I can get twelve people to acquit.
Q: I’ve heard that retrial is basically always in favor of the prosecutors because they’re able to reply to your case and clean it up. And they kind of know the defense. Would you change your case?
Cohen: No. I love this case.
Q: Do you think a retrial would favor prosecutors or do you think you would have the advantage?
Cohen: I think we will be well-prepared to try this case again. It would be another set of statements. Another bit of testimony. And we are ready to do that, if that’s what the government sees fit. Thank you all.
Also, we were emailed a statement from the attorneys representing Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and two others suing Masterson and the Church of Scientology in a separate civil lawsuit: “We would first like to thank the jury for its public service. We are obviously disappointed that, at least for the time being, Daniel Masterson has evaded criminal accountability for his deplorable acts. However, we are collectively resolved to continue our fight for justice, including in civil court, where we have alleged that Mr. Masterson, along with the Church of Scientology, its leader David Miscavige, and others conspired to systematically stalk, harass, and intimidate us when we sought to shed light on Mr. Masterson’s actions. This legal fight is far from over, and it is critical that we reckon with Scientology’s alleged role in covering up reports of abuse and threatening victims.”
And this statement from Alison Anderson, who is one of the attorneys representing them in that case: “Our clients showed tremendous courage in testifying about such personal and horrendous acts in a very public forum and despite persistent harassment and intimidation. They remain hopeful that Mr. Masterson will experience some criminal consequences for his vile conduct and are eager to now pursue their claims in civil court and seek redress for the nightmare they have been made to suffer.”
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…
