Will Danny Masterson Be Retried if the Judge Declares a Mistrial?


Well-known member

Hold on - remember that Cohen threw a monkey wrench in his final arguments about degrees of guilt, and the jury asked for the I don't know why the prosecution didn't have an expert testify on the effects of date rape drugs. Sure no traces remain, and Cohen would assert that, but it educates the jury what he did. They don't get that sodomizing an unconscious woman is a heinous crime.

THE REASON WHY: Because Masterson was not charged with drugging anyone. Having an expert witness testify to something that wasn't alleged and for which there is no forensic evidence is something that the judge would not let in. There has a be a "foundation" for trying to build such a hypothetical theory. And if the prosecution had tried to build a secondary "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" proof of rape, it could have easily been defeated by the defense simply creating reasonable doubt -- since the plaintiffs could have been feeling sick from drinking too much.

A circumstantial case would introduce reasonable doubt for no reason and that could well unstabilize or negate all the credible layers of DIRECT EVIDENCE of the rapes.

Just recall that some jurors can very easily be mislead into "reasonable doubt" when pelted with logical fallacies delivered with masterful sophistry. No reason to give the defense easily defeated inferential evidence.


Lee #28

Well-known member

Upon being raped.....some women go straight to the Hospital....and or Police.

I think these days, hospitals do a "rape kit"......and I would imagine a blood sample....which would have found any date rape drug...if present.

Due to Scientology being a factor......going to a hospital / police was not an option... And or altered what any other woman might do in this case?
Last edited:

Lee #28

Well-known member
Short story...

Years ago....working as a Temp....I took a job to be in a Mock Trial.

There were about 25 of us....at a small college campus room....and we spent the best part of a day there.

It was a Law Group practicing for a Civil Trial....

The situation was an older man in a truck pulled out on a country road....and a kid speeding ( over 100 mph ) ran into the side of him and died.

The old man....was not charged.

But the parents of the kid were doing a wrongful death suit.

Anyway.....the Lawyers did the whole trial...and closing argument....

AND they brought up that concept of "degree of guilt." They were asking how guilty was the kid.... 100% 80% 60%....and so on.

This was all about 8 years ago....so kinds fuzzy memory of it. But that was the gist of it...

I imagine a Jury would give the Kid's Parents.....something....maybe a lot?