A state appeals court has rejected Danny Masterson’s appeal of his 2023 conviction on forcible rape charges, upholding both the verdict and his 30-year prison sentence.
In a detailed 89-page ruling, a three-judge appellate panel systematically dismantled each of the arguments raised by the defense. The panel specifically dismissed claims that the presiding trial judge harbored a bias against the Church of Scientology that compromised the integrity of the proceedings.
Masterson, a former star of the television comedy “That ’70s Show,” was found guilty by a jury for raping two women at his Hollywood Hills home in 2003. While the jury convicted him on those two counts, they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on a third charge involving a former girlfriend who alleged she was also raped by Masterson in 2001.
During the appellate proceedings, Masterson’s defense team centered a significant portion of their challenge on the conduct of Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo. The attorneys argued that a series of remarks and adverse rulings made by the judge regarding Scientology infringed upon Masterson’s First Amendment rights. However, the appellate panel concluded that the judge’s statements demonstrated “no animus or departure from neutrality regarding Scientology.”
During the high-profile trial, Judge Olmedo permitted a former member of the church to testify as an expert witness regarding the organization’s internal beliefs, rules, and practices. Prosecutors utilized this testimony to explain why the victims—all of whom were members of the church at the time of the assaults and have since left—waited years before reporting the crimes or defining them as rape. According to the state’s case, the victims feared severe church retaliation and excommunication for violating an internal rule prohibiting members from reporting other Scientologists to law enforcement.
Defense attorneys strongly objected to the inclusion of this testimony during the trial and argued on appeal that the lower court had improperly waded into the interpretation of religious doctrine.
“The jury in this case was not asked to determine the truth or falsity of Scientology doctrine or beliefs,” the appellate court wrote, noting the narrow and specific legal purpose for which the religious evidence was admitted. The panel added that the “admission of Scientology evidence for those purposes did not contravene the First Amendment.”
Beyond the First Amendment claims, the three-judge panel rejected additional defense arguments challenging evidentiary rulings and the application of the statute of limitations. The court also summarily denied a separate habeas corpus petition filed by the defense that contended Masterson was deprived of adequate legal representation during his trial.
Following the release of the appellate decision, Masterson’s appellate lawyers, Cliff Gardner and Eric Multhaup, issued a public statement indicating their intention to take the case to the California Supreme Court while simultaneously pursuing another habeas petition.
“Danny is serving a life sentence for crimes he did not commit,” Gardner stated, criticizing the outcome. “No one in California—not defendants and not victims who have actually been the victim of a sex crime—is safer by virtue of today’s unfortunate decision.”
