A jury in the second rape trial of Danny Masterson was expected to begin deliberating Wednesday after a brief wrap-up from the prosecution concludes its closing arguments.
The prosecution began closings first on Tuesday, with Deputy District Attorneys Ariel Anson and Reinhold Mueller taking turns throughout the day. Los Angeles prosecutors chose to re-try Masterson after a hung jury and mistrial last November.
This time around, prosecutors focused more on the allegation that Masterson somehow drugged his victims, brining on expert witnesses and saying outright – as opposed to merely inferring – that the “That ’70s Show” star used some kind of date-rape drug to get “control” of his victims.
“It all starts with a drink. How many times have you hear the defendant give a drink to an unsusepecting victim?” Anson said to begin her closing statement. “This is what he does. Over the last few weeks you’ve learned a lot about the defendant, and how he assures he gets what he wants.”
Defense attorney Philip Cohen addressed the jury around midday, carefully picking apart bits of testimony from the three Jane Doe witnesses who took the stand in both trials, and highlighting their inconsistencies. All three women said Masterson raped them in his Hollywood home in the early 2000s.
Cohen went witness by witness, pointing out how their stories had evolved from what they told police years before. He also brought up the communications between the witnesses, who are also pursuing monetary damages in a separate civil trial.
“Let’s talk about this issue of contamination,” Cohen said. “Let’s be clear, I’m not claiming there is this grand conspiracy, that there are three women who just came out of the woodwork and claimed this … he was in a relationship with (Jane Doe 3). She knew Jane Doe 1, and no question, knew Jane Doe 2 … and they knew each other for a number of years.”
The civil case, also filed in Los Angeles, is against Masterson and the Church of Scientology, which also figured more prominently in the second case. Prosecutors brought in experts to support witness’ testimony that the church demanded conflicts between members be handled internally, and tried to hush the women with settlement money and intimidation.
Cohen suggested that the women had a clear vendetta against their former church, of which Masterson is still a prominent member.
“Might that be a motive?” he said. “If one thing became clear, it’s that all of the Jane Does, and a number of witnesses have very strong feelings against Scientology. Might that be a motive?”
Mueller disputed that the women had come forward – now twice – to testify in a criminal matter because they wanted money.
“So as I listen to Mr. Cohen coming up here, and look he’s got a job to do and that’s fine, but when I listen to him and I hear what these women have gone through, he now gets up here and essentially indicates that they’re liars,” Mueller said.”That there’s some kind of conspiracy-light going on. That they have this motive because it’s all about money, they want to sue about money. Or they have some animus for the Church of Scientology.
“Don’t be fooled by this,” he continued. “Why do I say that? Because there is no proof of that. No evidence that any of that is true. … This is about evidence that has come in in this case, not some speculation.”
Masterson has denied any wrongdoing but has chosen not to testify on his own behalf.
“Our clients have consistently and repeatedly stated that Mr. Masterson brutally raped them, from their first reports to the LAPD to their testimony in court years later,” the accusers said Tuesday via personal attorney John Kucera. “Testifying in this re-trial and reliving these horrific moments – in front of strangers and hostile parties – speaks to their courage and resolve.”
In each trial, three different women told jurors that Masterson raped them at his Los Angeles home in separate – but chillingly similar – incidents between 2001 and 2003. A fourth Jane Doe had also testified as a support witness, but her allegations were not among the charges.
Masterson must be convicted on at least two of the three charged cases, in order to clear a California statute-of-limitations bar. He faces a maximum sentence of 45 years to life in prison.
