After the trial, Chris Shelton and Tony Ortega interviewed the foreman of the hung jury in the Danny Masterson criminal rape trial.
The following is the full transcript of that interview.
Chris Shelton 00:00:08
Hello and welcome to the sensibly speaking podcast. This is Chris Shelton your host, thank you very much for inviting me into your home this week. This is an exciting one. I am actually really excited right now to be doing this interview. Because, through happenstance circumstance, coincidence and good fortune I have and I’ve invited Tony to join me in the interviewing the foreman, the jury foreman for the Danny Masterson round one or the or the trial that just happened which resulted in a mistrial on Danny Masterson’s rape case. And his name is Earl, and we’re just gonna get right into it here. So Earl, welcome to my show. And thank you very much for agreeing to be interviewed.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:00:54
Chris Shelton 00:00:57
And Tony, welcome to my show. Of course as always, as the person I is you are you were actually there in the courtroom every day reporting on this, giving us transcripts of the testimony and what was happening and on the ground summaries after the fact and it was it was a night and day ability to understand that because of what you were doing there. So So kudos and big acknowledgments for that, and, and, you know, thank you for doing this.
Tony Ortega 00:01:29
Well, thank you for having me on Chris. And yeah, I was just doing my best to put people there and and since I was there every single day including jury selection, I can confirm that Earl is the jury foreman that I saw every day of the Danny Masterson trial, and I thought maybe we could start out. I mean, just some very general things. I mean, when I was sitting there, I just thought about what a commitment this was and how much time this took. And you know what it was like in general, setting aside the specific cases for now, just what it was like in general to be in that group, day after day over all this period, how you all got along and what you thought of when you realized kind of what this case was all about.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:02:20
We got along really well until we started deliberations. I remember going October 11. I was getting ready for jury duty I was told to report and I thought I’d go in for a day or two and be done like I did last time. And just so happen to Channel Five news here in Los Angeles was watching TV a little bit that says jury deliberations began today for Masterson’s trial. Well, I wouldn’t be on that one. Thank goodness. I went to court and then there’s like I think in our group, there’s 125 people or so and they told us we had to be there for three weeks or more in order to be in that pool and I already knew my job said I would be able to stay for as long as it took. The next thing you know I was on this trial and that’s how that started.
Tony Ortega 00:03:24
And yeah, so then I guess the tough part in that first section was just establishing a situation where you could all get along and talk but but not talk about the case so hard was that I mean, you’ve been on a journey before and you kind of knew the routine.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:03:40
Right? That was the second jury trial had been involved. And initially when we first went back, like the first few times after the judge had us go to a jury room just during the trial before deliberation. We really didn’t know what to talk about. And then people started talking about events that were coming up in their personal life about sports things that were going on at LA City Hall because we could see the different steps from where we were right. So we just kind of kept light conversation. Then we got interested in food so we started bringing different things everybody brought things and just to keep ourselves kind of busy. But without breaking any rules or the protocol.
Tony Ortega 00:04:31
Okay, well Chris, shall we go ahead and get into the case itself and Okay, yeah, I guess we should probably go in the order that so so let’s start with the Jane DOE 1. Danny Masterson was accused of forcible rape in three counts three women. Danny is well known Scientology celebrity and he was accused of raping three women who had been Scientologists at the time and are not today. And the first woman to testify is known as Jane Doe 1 and just real briefly, she had known Masterson, but was not dating him. They had a previous sexual encounter in September 2002. And then in April 2003. She described went to his house because she wanted some keys. He gave her a drink in a red cup that made her suspiciously intoxicated. He ended up, according to her testimony, they were throwing her in a Jacuzzi. She felt really sick. He took her up to his bathroom and put his fingers down her throat, made her throw up, and then began a sexual assault that ended up in his bedroom. And she described coming in and out of consciousness and about him choking her, putting a pillow on her face. And at one point she said he brandished a gun. She tried to reach for it at one point and and then he slammed the door on her hand and injured her hand, and she ended up by later crawling into a closet of his making her way out of the house the next afternoon, flying to Florida that same day, and being there for about a week and then coming back. So that’s kind of the basics of Jane Doe 1 testimony. You know, once you got into deliberations and started talking about this case, and this is the one that ended up with two guilty votes…
strong>Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:06:14
2 of 10
Tony Ortega 00:06:15
…10 Not guilty votes. Earl can you tell us what that discussion how that progressed about her specific case and what the concerns were and what the the kind of things of that were in disagreement among you.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:06:28
Sure. Jane Doe 1 had written a letter to the church of scientology stating what she said happened between her and Danny, kind of asking for permission to make a police report or file charges and or maybe the church would step in and help out. In that report, she said that she was in the kitchen Danny asked if she wanted a drink. She said yeah, she went to the refrigerator. And she got a juice box and he has what are you trying to say you have any vodka and she made her drink. She That’s what she said in her letter to the church.
In court she testified that she was on the landing to the entrance to the house. And then Danny came out and gave her a drink. Hey, what do you drink and she said you got Vodka? And so that he gave it to her while she was outside. So then we started going through layer by layer. What was in her police reports, and what was not in police report, and what she testified to. In the police report. She testified that she woke up in bed the next afternoon with Danny lying next to her. In court, she testified she woke up in the closet. There were some other inconsistencies with her story that credibility and the jurors were absolutely all we have really to go on were the stories that were told by the victims. We had two photos and Jane DOE’s number one’s case. We had no other evidence. and one of the main ones that came up. When Jane Doe one reported to the police, and she talked to the officer. She talked to the detective on both occasions she did not mention a gun. In court, she testified that he pulled the gun up and raised it. He never pointed at her but brandishing it, and during examinat… during testimony by the officer, he said that if a gun were mentioned it would be in his report. Right? The detective said the same thing. So as we went through, and all these inconsistent elements of the story came out jurors were concerned that not that people can not remember exactly what happened. But if you tell two different stories of the same event, one has to be not true. And that’s kind of where that ended up at two for guilty and 10 for not guilty.
Tony Ortega 00:09:27
The other thing that’s interesting, I think, in her case is of the three she’s the one who defied Scientology and did go to the LAPD in 2004 and didn’t wait and your thing and when that investigation failed, she said she was forced into an agreement by the Church of Scientology and Danny Danny paid her $400,000. I some of the people I talked to are a little surprised that her case did so poorly when she’s the one who went to the police and Danny paid her a lot of money to shut her up. How did that discussion of those items go in the in the written jury room as far
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:10:17
as far as the $400,000. The jury didn’t weigh that as much as they did her testimony and her written statement and what she reported. Right.
Chris Shelton 00:10:25
So the big problem for her credibility wise was gun present in the testimony but not in the early reports. Waking up in a closet versus waking up in his bed or waking up with him in his bed. These were the factors that couldn’t be gotten past.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:10:47
Those were some Yes. Okay. And others Correct. Okay.
Tony Ortega 00:11:01
Okay, let’s talk about Jane Doe 3. She was actually second in the order. Jane Doe 3 is the one who was in a relationship with Danny for six years that began when she was 18 18 years old. And she testified that after the first year, she was really unhappy with the way that Danny treated her and it was kind of a loveless relationship. And then she kind of became used to the idea that he would demand sex when she didn’t want it. She’d kind of give in. And one of the things that made her case particularly complicated, and this is what I’m hoping you can help me describe how the jury dealt with it, was there were two separate incidents in her case. In November 2001, She described waking up and Danny was on on top of her and inside her and she didn’t want to have sex. She said she tried to push him off. He pushes her weight down on top of her. He put he pinned her arms down she got a hand free. She knew he had this no touch face no touch hair rule. She grabbed a handful of hair and a side of his head yanked it over and that finally pulled him off. He got on the side of the bed, smacked her and spit on her and called her white trash. And this is actually the charging incident from the DHS office that this was you know they specifically are looking at forcible rape, which in California means overcoming the will of a woman to force or fear. So the fact that she was trying to get him off of her, but he was pushing his way down and staying inside of her that’s that’s how she described it in her testimony.
That’s followed a month later with a December 2001 incident. Where the two of them went to LaPubel Bell, the restaurant of Franklin Street. And after a couple glasses of wine she was getting up to go home and the next thing she remembers is waking up the next day. At home in a lot of pain. She went to the bathroom. She went to the bathroom and discovered that her anus had been torn and bleeding was bleeding. She confronted him and he supposedly said that I had sex with you there. And she asked, was I unconscious the whole time and he said yes. So this is the unconscious sodomy of December 2001
This is not the charged incident. And this was something that the jury was not told. And we’ll get into that later – why it why it wasn’t charged. But for now the point is that it was that incident that she said motivated her to finally go to the Church of Scientology, to the Celebrity Center to the ethics officers and say, you know Danny Madison raped me. But again, the DA charged her on the previous incident, not the December 2001 incident, and that’s something that defense attorney Philip Cohen focused on. Was that… okay… But then when you subsequently told your husband about it, and then you went to the Austin PD and many years later, you were always referring to the rape as being the December unconscious sodomy, but the DA charged on the November 2001. Okay, so that’s that’s what we have with Jane Doe three, please tell us how that discussion went in the jury.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:14:17
Well, there was a lot of confusion even amongst us. That’s why we had what part of see part of the thing Jane Doe’s number three, testimony read back because right the confusion was in. At one point she made a statement about either the November or December incident and she said to the detective during an interview. I can’t give you much about that night because I really don’t recall
Tony Ortega 00:14:58
Right that was the detective Reyes, I believe. Correct.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:15:02
And one of the jurors said it she’s claiming that all of these things happen if she gave very meticulous detail, How can she then turn around and say she doesn’t recall or she that it’s kind of foggy? So we started talking about that. And there was jurors that were saying that she was in a relationship with him for this long. And she said that it’s happened so many, many times before that he had intercourse with her when she didn’t want to. And then with some of other information. There were times she said he would just get upset and walk away and we’re not talking to her for a couple of days. So all of those things were discussed. And then in the end that was five in favor of guilty seven in favor of not guilty. I won’t say which way I voted but there was some difference of opinion. And people were not willing. Well, we all listened. But at the end of the day people did not change their mind.
Tony Ortega 00:16:05
Okay. Well, I mean, it’s already obvious to me that you pay very close attention to the details and we’re back there talking specifically about the details of what you heard on the witness stand. I you know, I’m very impressed that you know, this the only day so I was gonna mention the I don’t think you can tell me if this ever came up that the jury was specifically not told why the December 2001 incident was not charged and that’s because of California’s definition of forcible rape, which is again, overcoming the will of the woman through force or fear that
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:16:47
matter of fact we wrote them down on the board in the jury room so I remember that,
Tony Ortega 00:16:51
but to so that people realize that the reason why the December 2001 couldn’t be charged was because she wasn’t conscious the whole time.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:16:57
So we did not realize that because um the question was who I mean several jurors asked, Why did they not charge him on this one? Right. There was so many references matter of fact, when she called the rape hotline, the question she asked was, if you’re unconscious if someone has sex with you is that rape? Well, that wasn’t the charged case. Right? There was another item where she was she. I think initially when she went to Austin PD. She was telling about the November I mean, the unconscious sodomy incident. Right. So very, I think the defense attorney did a really good job of confusing most, on the are interwoven episodes that happened, right, because while we were in deliberations, there was still jurors in there that did not understand that was she talking about the unconscious sodomy or the forcible rape there? She was awake for when she said, I don’t really recall much about that night. It’s kind of foggy. Right. Okay. That’s why we have some of her testimony read back because we wanted clarification. Soon as we got done with that, we came back and we were hung.
Tony Ortega 00:18:14
Okay, yeah, it was very quick. That’s the last day, which was Wednesday.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:18:20
Yeah, Wednesday afternoon after we carry room for about 25, 30 minutes and everyone felt they needed. They have what they needed. We voted again. It was the exact same as it was before and we went around, and each person had a chance and asked I said listen. Is anyone here willing to change the way they feel based on what we just saw? Don’t all answer at once. We’ll go around the table one at a time and each individual say what they got to say. Went around everybody said what they needed to say and what they felt and it was the same vote.
Tony Ortega 00:18:55
Well it sounds like the methods you were using were really, really good. So the third person to testify was actually Jane Doe 2 correct. This woman was an actress who knew Danny socially and they had been brought together by a mutual friend a one night at a bar and she sat down he was staring at her intently and went up to her and sort of demanded her phone number to be able to text her. And she said you know it was kind of aggressive but she thought maybe he thinks that’s his way of flirting. And then after that, he began texting her saying you’re gonna come over you’re gonna get into a bathing suit, you’re gonna get in my jacuzzi… and again she she said no, that was just too aggressive. But she didn’t. She thought maybe that was his way of flirting. And as she described saying to him, I will come over but I’m going to put down some boundaries we can have a drink, we can talk with you, and that’s all it’s gonna happen. And she, she said she made it very clear that they were not going to have sex.
So she went over to his house and she testified that he immediately gave her this big glass of red wine. And she was saying, Well, you know, this beautiful house on HollyMont can i get a Tour and he was insisting drink, just drink this. So she drank from the glass of wine. And then, you know, sometime later 20 minutes later started to feel as suspiciously intoxicated, and they ended up in as they finally did end up in his Jacuzzi. And we’re making out and she’s you know, described that this was kind of more than she had bargained for.
But you know, as long as it wasn’t crossing her line… and they ended up back in his shower. I might be it’s been a little while earl. And they ended up first and then a shower. They went into the shower, and he was fingering her and making out and then suddenly he put his penis beside her and she was really shocked. And she said, No, this is not what I wanted. And they moved to the bed. And the way she described it, she was trying to control the situation is that you know, she’s allowed a certain amount of making out and that kind of thing. As long as you know, they needed to do that again. And then she said he said at some point he finally said, Okay, that’s it. We’re over on our hands and knees and began attacking her from behind in a really violent way. He talked about him pounding her like a jackhammer. And the whole time she kept saying, no, no, no, I don’t want this. No, no, no, and she was in a lot of pain.
Then also after that was done, she still stayed there for quite a few hours and they went back to talking. And when she was asked about that, she talked about how she was trying to categorize what had just happened that this was so shocking to her. And, and she ended up leaving almost at dawn the next day. And they continue to have some contact after that.
A few days later, he had not called her so she called him and kind of blew her off. And and she felt like wow, okay, this really did happen, what happened and she described over the years trying to understand it and in sort of categorize it for herself. And eventually she she decided this yes, this really was a rape and she she had told several people over several years, and we heard from some of those witnesses. So that’s generally what Jane Doe 2 described. Please tell us how that played in the jury room.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:22:12
Okay. At the beginning, we went through layer by layer of the whole story. So going back to where they met at the restaurant and the staring, and she indicated she felt uncomfortable about the glare and that had an easiness about it. But she gave him her phone number anyway.
So we started with that. And the Jane Doe number. She’s 2 Right. Yeah, yeah, she’s 2. She had a phone conversation with her mom before she went over there. And she told her mother, according to her own testimony that she was excited to go and see him and that she was looking forward to it and during have a testimony on her interview with one of the detectives. She said I don’t want to be the hoe in the mansion. I don’t want to be the whoe in the jacuzzi with the asshole in the mansion, something to that effect.
That she did not want to be disrespected or what was another word she used?… taken for granted. So she had she had all these ideas set up …. She also testified that she did not want to have sex. And at one point, she did testify so she was okay with the fingering and the kissing and the Heavy Petting going on. And when he told her to go to the bed after he penetrated her in the shower, she said that it was kind of like an order.
So she did she went to the bed and jurors have an issue with that. If he had penetrated her against her will in the shower. We that say we that round, not just me, but others believe it. Why would you go get in a bed, someone that just raped you if you believe that’s what happened?
Um, in after he got into bed they had the incident that she described as that’s it and over and he started having sex with her from behind. And then after that was done, they stayed in bed. She testified they went out on the balcony they talked, they talked some more. And she stayed until like 6am I believe the time she gave right. And then she went back home.
She also said that she had expected a phone call from Danny. Next day or two, they had to say hey, give me a call. Let me know how things are going. And then she had this statement that he didn’t call her back. She called him and she wanted to know if what had happened was I’m not sure if he used the word rape but she wanted know if it was won’t say rape. Or if it were something else. Maybe the beginning of a relationship. She wasn’t sure so she said that she was processing what happened. Right. But when she did now get the phone call and she called him and the group that I was with the jurors were things this is kind of the sequence they put it she didn’t like staring, but she gave him the number anyway, she called her mom she was excited to go. She when things didn’t go the way she exactly planned for him to go. He didn’t call her she called him back. He blew her off. And now she’s in this state of mind that she’s going to get revenge or give him more than what he asked for because he didn’t get the romance that she wanted. And it was talked about several times she wanted a romantic evening. She wanted romance, but not necessarily sex. She She said we can talk we can have wine and she didn’t even say anything about the other things just those two but at the end of the day when all of those elements were put together the juror at 8 not guilty for guilty. Right believed that she was manipulating the situation because she did not get the romance she wanted from DM
Chris Shelton 00:26:46
to the point where it was just not enough to see that the act itself of what had happened there was a forcible instance of sexual intercourse, regardless of her intent, because I’m kind of thinking well, there’s an act of a or that regardless of she whether she wanted or didn’t want a relationship but there
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:27:05
isn’t There’s reason why. The jury kind of went down the path that they did. and that was again the under in the opinion of eight people the unreliability of it possibly been under the influence of something more than alcohol and that remembering things exactly as they, were passing out coming to. There was enough reasonable doubt there to say. Maybe everything didn’t go the way exactly the way she said it did. Okay, doing someone who’s those times where she didn’t really recall what happened. And then others should recall the exact details. The jury didn’t fully believe that you could do both at the same time.
Chris Shelton 00:27:44
That’s an important piece of information.
Tony Ortega 00:27:55
Um, one thing that I was also present at the preliminary hearing which took place the previous May, that was the first time these three women got a chance to testify. And it was a different defense attorney, the previous defense attorney Earl was really pushing a theory that this was kind of a plot to take down Scientology, and it was very heavily about Scientology being a big part of what the defense was saying. Cohen took a different tack and really stayed away from Scientology after hearing you talk about all three. It sounds like the Scientology component was not very much part of the conversation or how would you describe it?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:28:33
Extremely minimal. We did not talk about Scientology in the sense of why the delayed reports or being afraid. We understood. It was explained to us. That if in the Scientology church if he were declared a suppressive person, you could lose your family and your friends, school for your daughter. All the relations things could change because they would not have contacted me. We understood that. But when each Tatum went to report, and they did at different times, we took it from that point we did not hold the church accountable for their practice, or non practice or whatever it was. The judge often read an admonition to us, right? The evidence is allowed for consideration to the to the listener and not based on whether it’s true or false. And we just did not take the Church of Scientology and add a negative or positive to determine what we believed in the victims case you have to understand. We were asked to decide in honestly, and something that happened that was solely based upon each individual statement. Who they told it to who they shared it with. It was still there information, basically hearsay for a second person. Knowing that we have one bit of evidence, two photos that prove kind of like it was it actually was opposite effect of what they thought it would show. So with that being the case, we really came down to credibility. And that was a starting point for us. Because we had nothing else. We had no raised kids we had no eyewitnesses. We had no photos we had no we had nothing just statements. So we have normally are now we did not hold the Church of Scientology responsible for delay or all the other things because at some point, each individual decided that they will go forward and report right so when whatever timeframe that was we didn’t know hold that against anyone.
Tony Ortega 00:31:15
Okay. Okay, interesting. So let me just go through a few characters there, just in general, out of the jury room out of the jury feel about Judge Charmaine Olmedo.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:31:27
They liked her and what I mean by that is, I heard comments from the judge, she seemed like a nice lady. You know, we had she was very credited for jury service. I think she was courteous because she was like, you guys. Okay, you guys want to launch early? Is it okay if you go early. Get back on time and then how are you back? But she was always in our opinion, I think most of us she was just professionally courteous with us and then never like, even if she makes she could have she never really demanded anything of us. Other than that we just follow her instruction.
Tony Ortega 00:32:06
deputy DA Reinhold newer.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:32:10
We thought that he could have done a much better job and presentation. I’ll give you a couple examples. One is with the detective. For the rails, I think is the guy the guy’s name.
Tony Ortega 00:32:24
Detective Javier Vargas is the male Argus.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:32:27
We went I think it was on a Thursday he was testifying and coin has come across. Have you had a chance to review the transcript and order video audio of these interviews? Because me and he said no, I just reviewed my my notes and notes from the several summary reports. So you start asking questions. And close say well, would it refresh your recollection? If you take a look at the transcript? He’d read it he asked the question, maybe next question, you might get a little bit right. And next question. Would it refresh your memory or refresh your recollection? He’d have to go back came back on that Monday. And same thing. Cohen asked him, Have you had a chance to review the reports or the transcript reports for transcript and or audio video of the of the interviews? It says no, I have not. And we as a jury felt that. That was he was not meeting his due diligence as a professional lead investigator on the case by Matt take into time and go reviewed information that’s gonna be very important to him. This This was very important to a lot of people. The victims, answered Daniel Masterson, so we felt that everyone should have given every effort possible to do their best to see where this came out. We didn’t feel that way about Vargas. And we didn’t feel that way about the DA because Mr. Mueller I remember doing for Dyer I was asked one question by him. And he said do you think you could be fair and open mind and with a victim who may not remember all the facts of things that might have happened 20 years ago? And I said yes, I can be fair and not be judgmental. I wouldn’t be open minded to listen to someone who may not remember all the facts. But what happened was that when Jane Doe one it was two totally different stories, and several several points where she woke up the gun and there was one other one so he said this happened 20 years ago and in the police report, the victim said she woke up in one place and then our testimony here in court. She said another place but the important things are this hadn’t been forthcoming in that way. It might have been different.
But we felt that he never could have done better. Let’s just put it that way.
Tony Ortega 00:35:10
I see what you’re saying. I also noticed how different he was in opening versus closing and opening he seemed very tentative. And then in closing, he seemed more forceful. But anyway, I see. I see what you’re saying about that. Okay, Bill of tone defenses.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:35:33
We thought he was really good at his presentation. And one of the jewelers said he was really good at smoking mirrors and he’s one of the guys that have voted not killed. I mean guilty. And we really deliberate it quite intensely about some of the tactics that Mr. Coyne use that we had one lady in there that was she was she had a marketing background and she recognized some tactics if you will. That were had a marketing base. And he would start out with one thing and then stop and go, Oh, by the way, and be on a hotel and it’s like a gotcha kind of moment. And we felt he was very competent, and he represented well he asked certain questions and he is probably the main reason we had doubt because he was able, he was able to articulate his essay style very clearly all these differences in the stories, the contradictions for each case, and I know when we went in one of the opening conversations one of the ladies had was we weren’t there. We don’t know exactly what happened. But we owe it to society to do our very best and come up with the very best that we can. And we all agree with that little sins are true. But Coyle was very good at what he did. And the jurors were very receptive to what he had to say, in the way that he delivered the facts of the case as we knew them in court.
Tony Ortega 00:37:05
You said that da Muller could have set up that situation a little better from the beginning, by being a little more forthcoming about what you might be eating later on. Are there any other suggestions that you or the other jurors voiced? About? What might be different on a free trial? What do you think would be more effective on presenting this evidence?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:37:38
Rather than the one we talked about? Let me just think about that for a moment. us off the top of my head, I can’t think of any, but I know I would share you really zeroed in on credibility and what we found things to be. And one of the things you have to keep in mind too, until the charges, there was an alcoholic beverage suspicious alcoholic beverage involved where things weren’t recall but then when it was so much in your favor, it was recalled very vividly. And then one of the Jane Doe said she passed out seven times. And then she had a phone call with someone for a minute and 42 seconds. But to not remember some of the very important details. That’s not very credible. In our opinion, it wasn’t right. Okay. And I think if the DA had saw all these different things going on and brought them out on himself, or at least I can’t, I can’t understand why. If he talked to, let’s say Take, for example, Jane Doe number one, and they read her report to the church or her letter to the church that have a report from officer Slagle and they ran with it, they can’t get her ready to testify. Why would they not go over that with her and say, This is what we have just said what you said we’re good. But she goes and tells about again that no one ever heard about you got a detective. A police officer, then is saying there was no gun mentioned that is really, really hard to overcome as far as credibility. How can you not mention a gun involved? In this case? to two different law enforcement officers? And we did not give more credibility to the officers but there’s two of them, saying that in their line of work that would absolutely be written down.
Tony Ortega 00:39:45
Did you notice in da Mueller’s questioning of Schlegel for example, that he seemed to be implying that a gun was mentioned and that Schlegel just failed to record it.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:40:02
We observed that Yes. But also in the cross, Cohen asked me if there had been a gun mentioned would that be an important item? Yes. Would that be in your police report? Yes. How many years have you been doing this? X amount of years. So you have experienced and so you have to look at the facts as they are. You don’t have to read into it or add anything to it. We use common sense and experience. What two officers forget or not mentioned this item if it were mentioned to them? And we thought probably not okay.
Tony Ortega 00:40:40
I mean, everything you’ve said so far URL seems just really I liked that. You’re talking about the evidence in front of you and all considered and and talked about it. Let me ask about some sort of peripheral things because we couldn’t help wondering the media. We were in the back row. I don’t know if you noticed, but all the reporters were in the back row. And so we were always kind of curious about what we’re seeing right in front of me. And to my left was the very large masters and family section. And then Danny Masterson himself. Was there any discussion at all about Danny’s appearance Danny’s sort of composure in the courtroom? The size of his family? You know component there are any consideration about them at all?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:41:33
Yes, I’m sure as we walk down the hall every day there for about five or six weeks or so. And going and coming. When we get back in the jury room to delivery or even just doing a trial. Jurors would say that lady staring at me or that guy standing there kind of really, really gawking at us and it’s like, well, that’s kind of coming to territory. You know, you’re gonna be out here every day. So and then even in court and I our jury deliberation room before and during deliberation. conversations where LEDs always staring and she’s always she’s always looking here and there was one that really actually change one vote. It had nothing to do with the people outside but it had to do with something that happened at the table. Is he was he was number two, Jane Doe who testified. And we have an idea of what she was going to because well you know, we had she been there the day before. I think she was there two days. And we kind of knew where she was born and what I mean by that she had more testimony to do. And so we had a break. Someone just said okay, did you see that? And I was like No, I said but we can’t talk about yet. So let’s just wait. And it’s okay. And then so when we finally got to deliberations, and he was able to as I said what are we talking about? Remember the day you said Did you see that as he goes? Well, the lady that was way Cohen it was the lady that she had curly hair. She was at the table pretty much every day we coin and Daniel maximuscle when Jane Doe number two is testifying. She says something to him. And they both kind of smile. And the juror was offended that they would find some reason to smile during this person’s explaining this traumatic thing that happened to them. And he held that against them. He changed his vote because of that. Okay,
Tony Ortega 00:43:37
so too. So Danny Masterson and the other two people that were there at the table besides Bill Cohen, we’re
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:43:43
not sure. I know who Kevin Goldberg was not an adult
Tony Ortega 00:43:47
Karen Goldstein was the attorney but the others woman was their lead their
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:43:50
paralegal? Yeah, the paralegal lady, that lady.
Tony Ortega 00:43:54
The parents of the paralegal and Danny shared some Little Caesars.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:43:58
They both smiled and
Tony Ortega 00:44:00
mentioned somebody that changed from not guilty to guilty. That’s very interesting.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:44:07
Not I’m sure not in its totality, but very heavily weighed,
Tony Ortega 00:44:12
and then how any other hallway interactions that might have affected any of the deliberations at all.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:44:18
No, not at all. None of jurors ever said anything to us. We never said anything to him as far as I know. There was no, just Judaism. Realize that people were looking at people or whatever in court, you’re sitting there. All you have to do is look in front of you and listen. And of course you see what’s out there. I was more focused on looking at the DA or right. Well, let
Tony Ortega 00:44:40
me tell you, what’s the DZ I mean, I wrote up in the elevator with you guys every day and it was you know, I just I’d see somebody like you and I’d be like, Oh, I gotta look somewhere else because you know, they I knew that. You know we were going to share the same space but that when you and I are you in the other jurors and I absolutely could not speak and I think I think we were all pretty conscious of that. But you know, get back to us that certain interactions have gone into hallway. The Manson family was always in the hallway during deliberations. I guess some of us were curious if that did affect the deliberations at all, and you’re saying it didn’t affect the deliberative care.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:45:15
We didn’t we didn’t we didn’t mind that at all. The people that were there, they were pretty resilient about doing their civic duty. And they weren’t intimidated. Believe me they were not intimidated by anyone. They went with what they believe to be their case. And that’s what they support it.
Tony Ortega 00:45:35
I should have brought this up earlier but the expert Dr. Mindy mechanic was explaining that when a woman is raped by someone she knows or is in a relationship with they will have a very different reaction than being raped by a stranger. And I it appeared to me that what the DEA was trying to do was even though mean the mechanic was not talking specifically about what had happened to Jane Doe one, two and three. She was describing things that were very similar to what didn’t happen to them. Was Was her testimony used very much in deliberations.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:46:10
The short answer no, one of the jurors, one of the ladies said if she had interviewed these victims, we could give more weight to what she has to say. But she was speaking from a study that had been done with college students that were given credit, and also that whatever information was that they could find another study that said just the opposite. But the important thing is we did agree we listen very intently. We took a lot of notes and we understood what she was saying. But then again, we went back to the credibility of witnesses what they said and that evidence that’s what we had. Really, that was the whole anchor of our decision was based on exactly what each victim said and the things that they said against some of the things they said. We listened to Dr. Mechanical, we did not give much weight to that at all.
Tony Ortega 00:47:15
Another issue I wanted to bring up with you was the makeup of the of the jury when when the trial began. There were 12 Jurors jurors and seven alternates and almost right away. A woman on the jury said she just couldn’t take it and left and was replaced by an alternate and then ultimately, there was only one alternative left after by the end. Can you remind me Were you on the original journey of jury or did you start out as one of the alternates? I can’t remember
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:47:41
I started out on the jury. Okay, what does he stay there the whole time?
Tony Ortega 00:47:46
Okay. And you know, obviously some of those replacements took place during the evidence phase and would not have affected deliberations that you know of, but then we did have two people replaced right in the middle of deliberations because two of the jurors were ill. And how do you think that might have affected things too? I mean, it couldn’t have been fun to have to start over from scratch. Right.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:48:12
Well, you know what, let me just say something about that when we went back into court and the judge said, Forget everything you talked about. Start over. First of all, that’s not even possible to forget everything you talked right. When you try and we started we went back in and we started from square one we started at candle one and we went through the whole process again. We did what she asked us to do, right. With that in mind do me a favor, ask your question again.
Tony Ortega 00:48:45
Because also I want to make a point here because I see a lot of readers that bring up this question. Let me just make sure people understand. When the trial began, there were 12 jurors and seven alternates over the next five, six weeks of testimony. All of those alternates, were there for every bit of testimony. And so when somebody on the jury needed to be replaced, there was somebody that was ill there was somebody that you know, there were problems, that the alternate taking their place, had seen every bit of testimony. I know there were people that maybe aren’t familiar with our system of justice and thought that the alternates would have to be brought in and read transcripts or something. No. Okay. So my question is, during deliberations that were three, two and a half days of deliberations, you guys indicated to the judge that you were unable to reach a verdict then all three, we took the week off, and Thanksgiving, we came back, and we ended up with two new jurors that go to jurors were out for COVID and two alternates were put on at that point. And Judge Olmedo asked you to start over from scratch. And my question is, how much of an effect did that have? Do you think on the way the vote ended up ultimately?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:49:59
Well, one juror I know for sure that was replaced. See had voted guilty and that’s the remain an excuse me. She voted not guilty. And that seat remained passe that seat because that’s right, that will remain that not guilty. Okay. On the other seat I think on one that particular person had two different opinions on I mean, one was guilty and within two were two and I go to my was guilty. Okay. And that see went to all my guilty
Tony Ortega 00:50:40
so, okay, so small, small effect.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:50:45
I think maybe one one vote on one of the verdicts may have changed
Tony Ortega 00:50:51
from guilty to not killed, right. Sounds like yeah, okay. Okay, Chris, you got any?
Chris Shelton 00:51:00
I do. I’m curious about this. You know, you and I spoke with course before this interview as well. And, and then you know, you’ve repeated what you’ve talked about. Miss mechanic, the expert witness right. And they only called one I think they had three on their witness list, if I remember right, Tony.
Tony Ortega 00:51:20
One more time, the defense. The defense had 3 different experts on their witness list and didn’t call any of them.
Chris Shelton 00:51:26
Right. And the prosecution only had MS mechanic then. Yes. Okay. So my question was clearly there was this idea because of the cross examination of MS mechanic that oh, this was you know, some she was basing her expert Nisour her opinions on, you know, the study that was done on college students and they get paid and so the Cross did an effective job of nullifying her testimony based on, you know, kind of marketing tactics. Really, yes, I agree with what you were saying that that badger was saying there, right, because it’s spin in order to invalidate scientific data. So my question is, do you think from your position and the vibe in the room and all the data that was considered and how it was considered that further expert testimony or different expert testimony of that nature could have made a difference or or could have been presented in such a way that it could have had more of an influence on the various thinking as to why these women were acting the way they were? Because of this relationship thing and because of the influence of Scientology?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:52:37
Now, what’s your question? No, I don’t think any further information from another professional or doctor or someone that I feel would have made any difference and here’s why. Yeah. Most of us that were in the room, trying to decide the fate of this case one way or the other. Once again, go back to we went with the facts in the case that were given by each victim individually. And there was debate I mean, it wasn’t 12 zero across the board there were there were debate you can see the numbers, and in each case was a little different. But we really spent a lot of time and I mean, meticulously we went through. We had the fortune of having one lady that took notes, and I think they were probably just as accurate. As the court reporter. She was really, really good really, really fast. And so we had a lot of information that we could share. And I don’t think it would have made much difference. If they put someone else out there because at the end of the day, we were trying to decide something that we were not there for, nor was anyone else but we had to go on the statements given by the victims. Based on what they said in several different venues whether it was police record statements at a church or things they testified to in court.
Tony Ortega 00:54:01
Then can I ask you, early in the I guess in his opening, defense attorney Philip Cohen made a point to say that, you know, Danny, very well dressed, well groomed person, you know, as Dr. Mueller said, and, but Phillip Cohen has said, you know, you’re gonna hear some really bad stuff about this, you’re gonna hear
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:54:23
is not a good parent. He’s an asshole. I’ve never
Tony Ortega 00:54:26
really bad behavior, you’re gonna hear about some really bad behavior, but you’re gonna have to make a decision about whether these, you know, rapes that occurred and I’m just curious I mean, I think one of the challenges juries have in a case like this is looking across the room at this person. And I’m not I’m not asking you know, whether it was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s obviously it wasn’t for you guys. But did was there some discussion about whether that person you saw the room was capable of these acts that he was being accused of?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:55:00
Not in that sense, but if you remember, there was a fourth no charge victim, Jane Doe four, right. And so and I would show and discussion. There were shores that said, Guys, look at this, for women, accusing the same person of the same type behavior, similar circumstance, some involving beverages, some one not. And then one thing that that said that was kind of stood out is we’re a jackhammer with several victims use the very specific word, like a jackhammer and during testimony, it was told to us that Jane Doe number two had conversations with Jane Doe one and three, and they all talked about their cases together. That was not good for the prosecution. The other part that came out that was interesting to us was that and it was very quietly put in the admonition section of the jury instructions. The very last page and it had initially was, although there may have been a civil complaint filed in this case against the police department, it is not to and it went on to say but when we started reading that then we came to realize we went back and remember turn testimony that Jane Doe number two, I made a complaint against the detective for asking about almonds and sending smiley faces, and a couple of things she thought were inappropriate. And one juror even said, Well, maybe that’s why the detective wasn’t really prepared because maybe he didn’t really care, because she was made a complaint against him. He was like, well, maybe maybe maybe we have to go on what’s in front of us. So let’s go through that. But those things came up in discussion. And when you’re talking about reasonable doubt, people use every bit of information received to decide how they’re going to vote.
Tony Ortega 00:57:14
And brought up you brought up Jane Doe four but she didn’t really how do people view her? I know she wasn’t sure incidents weren’t charged. But what was generally the discussion about her in the jury room about case
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:57:27
if we had to vote, it would have been Hi not guilty. So and the main reason was after her the first incident where she said she was forcibly raped, and then she’s walking down the street and he picks her up in the car and she he comes over. He’s downstairs, he gets out. Hey, I’m here. I got a flask of whiskey. Let me come up. She lets him upstairs and they go through the same thing all over again. And we thought a reasonable person would not do that. If someone if you think someone raped you, you’re not going to have them come to your house and come back in your house, spend the night and have sex with him again, it just it didn’t pass the smell test for a lot of jurors. It just didn’t.
Chris Shelton 00:58:16
How many times do you remember because I saw through going through the transcript and testimony that we had right because I don’t have court records. How many times did the term coercive control come up?
Because I only saw it once. I remember one time. Yeah. And not even
defined for what it is as a repeating pattern of course of behavior that that creates a mindset or people that I’m wondering about the exposure to that
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:58:46
there were several people on this jury that absolutely wanted DM to be found guilty, and they were adamant about it to the point where sometimes people first names changed. For me in
Chris Shelton 00:59:05
the testimony, people’s names,
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 00:59:07
I’m just saying that people were having to do like, you know, curesword, so on and so forth. You know, Oh, got it. They were cursing each other out in the jury rooms to be shoved around and just like Damn it, I said, you know, that kind of cool. Yeah, yeah. It was heated it got heated. Very.
Tony Ortega 00:59:23
Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I don’t know if it means anything but but the detective that Jane Doe two was referring to about filing a claim was the first detective was the female the first Yeah, for Detective Reyes. Not detective Vargas. Correct. And I think DMU that was you know, there was a lot of stuff that was said outside of your hearing that you went into the jury room and then Muller and Cohen would fight over things. And one of the things they fought about outside of your hearing was the idea that the women felt that the first detective Reyes did a poor job. And the second detective Vargas did a better job. And they actually complained to the LAPD about the first detective. And so the to the DA and the defense attorney kind of went around that around about how much are we going to let the jury hear that there was a big dispute about this and in general, I thought they kept it away from you. And I wondered about whether that if they should have done that. I wonder if they should include you
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:00:24
it was it was in a stipulation and what we did one of the first things we did when we went to the jury room now the judge had read the entire jury instructions. One of the ladies when we went back she goes Listen, we have a very important responsibility. So I would like to say or motion that we read the entire jury instructions over again, and I would like also each person to take a turn reading and we did that. Wow. We went through the entire document. It’s like 40 pages, 35 pages, and the stipulations and admonitions we read every single page. And what was really good about that is that there were things in there. The judge read it but you know after about sometimes after about 1015 minutes or somebody reading to you right? It starts coming across like blah blah blah, blah. Yeah, yeah. But that was very effective that they helped us
Chris Shelton 01:01:23
on my main, you know, concerns for my little my end of things is you know how much information y’all were given. And it’s and I’m not at all judging you guys for for the decision making process you engage in a sounds like you were you were passionate you were in there, you are interested, you are doing the work that is expected of you. And I couldn’t ask anything more. I’m just upset that the prosecution didn’t present a better case because there were things that could have been brought in or I believe should have been brought in, that could have made some of that irrational or unreasonable behavior, maybe make a little bit more sense. I can’t speak to, you know, some of those direct contradictions. That’s, you know, it is what it is. But I think that I’m a site guy, so I’m in people’s heads, all right, and, and, you know, unreasonable behavior to the order of the day around predatory people. And so that’s, I wish that kind of stuff could have been explained more. I don’t know based on what we’re talking about here today. Whether it would have made a difference or not, but I would have liked to have seen it anyway.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:02:29
Are there any other there was one guy that he said, Hey, guys, something bad happened to one of these people? Is that like four folks are going to come in? Yeah. And that didn’t happen. But at the same time, then there were other people say, well, listen, we have to go and based on the evidence that has been given us so we can go on that or you know our our guess what, when we would ask very different questions to one another what What makes you say that what show us what’s in the evidence that gives you that fiber that feel why and we went through that? A lot. I mean, it sounds like
Tony Ortega 01:03:04
everyone got a chance to say what they wanted to say that all the evidence was pretty thorough. I think the thing people worry about in charities is you end up with one or two people that are really unreasonable and are not participating. And that’s kind of the nightmare scenario of a miss trial is you’ve got, you know, whether it’s for acquittal or for conviction. The point is, you’ve got somebody who’s not cooperating, but it sounds like you kind of got people on both sides, and that everybody was cooperating in participating.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:03:34
Everyone participated. And just like with any group, some more than others, but one thing that I had an opportunity to do as the foreperson was, when we went in and they still came down to like a four person and one of the guys next to me said, I nominate this guy. And someone said, Well nominate this this Coronavirus leader, this guy and say, Okay, well, I got this guy. And so I got selected. And one of the first things I asked him, I said, Well, this is very difficult and very important information that we’re going to share things we have to do, but I would like to set some ground rules if we can agree. No basic things like when someone’s talking we all listen. No cut in each other off and to very best in our of my ability. We were able to do that. But when you sometimes you get to a place where someone answers answer back into going back and forth. And it’s not controlled. Well, it’s a control but it’s not mitigated anymore. As you say many times will say you guys Guys, guys, hold on, hold on. It’s our turn. It’s his turn. Right? And everybody has to take a deep breath. But I think we do really, really good with that. And it really had to do with the people that were there. They were respectful of one another. It didn’t take away anyone’s passion. Out of the 12 I think probably nine or 10 and people were very well spoken and then the other two people they spoke well and they they represented yourselves, but sometimes they waited a little longer than others so they will put their hand up and wait your turn. And when we did that. I think we did really really good. Any other scenes conversation, control to the extent that we weren’t all in there yet at the same time.
Tony Ortega 01:05:24
And the other scenes you want to share with us any particular incidents during the deliberations that you haven’t told us about?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:05:32
Um, after the trial was over, and had been declared a mistrial, the next one. The judge asked me in open court to tell what the votes were right when we were done. And we went back to the deliberation room and we were there. And it was almost like a celebration of sorts in a sense that I could feel the relief. And I could see that in the other tours. I mean, smiles came back and people were like hey, you know we’re good job and you know, I didn’t mean that and you know we wouldn’t it was like becoming a small family unit almost like that. Kind of feeling right before we went out. It was those inaccuracies in those guilties and no one was changing your mind and it was kind of tense. Right? But after that when we went back and then one of the deputies came back and say, hey, the attorneys, both sides. And same prosecutor would like to know if you guys can hang around for a minute and talk with him voluntarily if you’d like. It’s not mandatory and every person in there how 13 said I’ll say that we did after about five, seven minutes of talking with them and answering your questions. And on both sides. Muller. I think her name is Hanson and then Cohen and Natalie Caracal. Close team. Yeah, right. And they were all they all four were back there. And they were asking questions and we were answering in the church herself came back for Hey, guys, give me five more minutes, because the deputies are ready to escort these guys downstairs. And you know, we’re not going to be able to wait I thought that was interesting that they came back and we talked to them.
Tony Ortega 01:07:24
I think the attorneys found that very, very useful. When once I stayed when Cohen came back into the courtroom, he said to judge Olmedo, I’ve never had that opportunity before I want to thank you that was very, very valuable. And when I interviewed asked me your first statement a little later, he also said how much he felt that that was useful. To them. I have to ask you, Cohen’s daily fashion show that this have any effect on the jury whatsoever.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:07:57
One of the guys that was sat right next to me during the deliberations and he said, Do you know that this guy has never worn the same suit? And as like, well, I hadn’t really noticed. It was kind of funny, but yeah, he was he was very much aware of his attire, his hats and the ties and the shoes. And then New York acts. I don’t know if he’s from New York or Boston, but he’s got to exit from somewhere. bakkies. We thought we caught on tonight as well.
Tony Ortega 01:08:31
And do you think that any influence on the deliberations at all
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:08:36
No, sir, I know. I can tell you after spending those five and a half days and they’re going over all information that was given to us. Well, people in there, no matter which 12 the first file the second time the last vote. We all deliberated, deliberated on information that was presented in court, the jury instructions that munitions, and that’s how we went on. Now mind you, some people took it guilty. Some took it now guilty. But we stuck to that script pretty much and the DEA could have done better? I absolutely think so. And I didn’t tell him that during that question and answer thing, but I did say to him and Miss Anson that one thing that would have been better in your favor if the detectives were more prepared in their testimony? Because we’re trying to get credibility on every single thing that we can and their testimony was very important, but they weren’t prepared that told him that in that little meeting, and he thought that was helpful.
Chris Shelton 01:09:48
Do you want to Oh, I’m sorry, real fast. I also want to share that elephant in the room question because I thought that was really interesting. When they came in and asked about that, was it Cohen or Muller, who brought that?
Tony Ortega 01:10:00
Cohen who was Cohen Cohen. Oh, he had some kind of a diagram over the elephant that had about Scientology
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:10:07
or something. Yeah, that plus, the boyfriend being bad and different things like that. That was an eye opening argument the big blue elephant on the screen. But he asked about that during that question answer um, after the trial was over, and he asked if the elephant in the room, excuse me. had anything to do with how you are deliberating or your decisions and it had to do the Church of Scientology. And I told him and one of the cancer as well. But I said to him that just like I told you guys once we were given information we just went based on testimony. Whenever the victims reported is when they recorded. We did not hold that against them or against the church or against anyone we went strictly based upon what they said and what they shared with others. One of the other things well, we’re at this point now, there’s one other one I remembered about. Jane Doe number one that came up that we hadn’t mentioned, but yeah, well when she went to Florida, or what to Florida for her father’s birthday. She had written in her initial Well, there was an initial report to the church or in her report to the police. That she had bruising on her body when she flew down to Florida. And as she covered up, you know, Rachel said she has all kinds of clothes and scars. And then she later testified that she didn’t get the bruising until five days later. And that was another one of the ones that at the time, I had all my notes that I had taken him all lined up and everyone else did too. So that was just one of the other reasons why the credibility that’s why I ended up two to 10. My
Tony Ortega 01:11:54
and I noticed that Cohen really hammered that 2003 report that Jane Doe one wrote for the church and I was kind of surprised the DA didn’t make a big deal of the fact that she wrote that with the Ethics Officer at the Church of Scientology Chris. Chris knows Chris knows what I’m talking about. So to use that as sort of the definitive version of what happened, I think is really problematic. And I don’t know why Muller didn’t make a bigger deal about that. Of course. Earl you don’t you know, Chris and I in a lot of others were were interested about there were other witnesses that would have brought more Scientology and that we’re not allowed, but you know that that might have been a slightly different trial. But that that was interesting to me. And tonight, you’ve you’ve said that that 2003 report was very important and I wonder if maybe there’s a retrial they need to they need to challenge that report a little bit more.
Chris Shelton 01:12:55
Yeah. Did that come across to that she bet that report had been something she had been writing with somebody looking over her shoulder and correcting and changing and even editing
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:13:07
it to the best of recollection answers yes, because I think there was one point where the person’s name it begins with the letter S the lady the ethics officer.
Tony Ortega 01:13:20
Julian Schwartz was the one
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:13:25
at one point, during the testimony, it was said that you can use the word rate. Yeah. And so we were aware that this report was done with some direction to change words or to change certain elements of it. But at the same time, I think the DA would have done the case much more justice, so to speak, and he got to that a little bit more explaining to us. Sometimes different the statements were different than what was testified to in court. Yeah. And also the importance of someone else being there telling Jane Doe one what she could and could not say. Although we remember I remember about the word right not being used. It didn’t come across to me at that time that the gravity of that direction or that that overseeing so to speak. And it might have directed the way that letter was written.
Chris Shelton 01:14:30
That’s exactly my problem with the prosecution’s case was the failure to create that construct that picture for you guys. Of what these women’s lives were actually like, under Scientology and with Scientology, and why that’s important because of Danny Masterson and his status as a Scientologist and these things in the real world actually do matter. But y’all weren’t even we, you know, there was so little that of this that could get in
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:14:59
was and then I remember the other thing, when they were talking to one of the victims that she said that she then was an upset that she was less important than he was in the church. And that stood out because we people did talk about that. Well, how is it that someone can be less important than was like well, okay, we’ll go back to the admonition that this information has been allowed based so that the listener can have an understanding of the credibility of the other person saying they’re not for the tutorial because of what was being said. Right. So we couldn’t we didn’t go into that much more. But I think if the DA had several friends where he could have done a much better job of presenting information. It may have been different. But based upon what I experienced, and the jurors that I worked with, and I worked with me and harbor. That’s where we ended up based on what we have in front of us.
Tony Ortega 01:16:02
Do you have any questions for us or a little?
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:16:06
No, and just, I hope you answered some questions. You wanted to hear her responses to? Oh, yeah, absolutely. The only reason I did this was because of my daughter. And if it weren’t for her, I wouldn’t be talking to you. And she didn’t she just asked me that. I noticed guy and I said honey for you.
Chris Shelton 01:16:26
Awesome. Awesome. Well, I again, I’m gonna thank you for taking the time and and helping us with this. And I’m telling you, you know, right, wrong, good, bad, whatever, you know, outcomes or outcomes. This interview is going to help people to understand what happened and why and remove a lot of conjecture that’s going on right now. And for that reason, I am so happy that you have agreed to do this and thank you again.
Tony Ortega 01:16:55
Yeah, I feel the same way. So you know, I was there every day and I was just trying to write down what happened but of course, we couldn’t see what was going on. With you guys in the jury room. And a lot of speculation arose about what you were paying attention to or what you weren’t paying attention to. And I’m just really reassured that this jury took this job seriously. You obviously set up some ground rules so that you’d be able to discuss things civilly. You looked at the actual evidence that was presented to you and the case, everything outside Masterson is what was said in the hallway, all that stuff was just not something that entered into it. And you came up with a hung jury, which is unfortunate but you know, that’s it may be because of the way the prosecution laid out the case. I mean, it’s, I’m just really, really
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:17:47
from talking to me that they’re probably a good four or five points where they could have done better in their presentation and their sharing of information with the jury, even given the definition by the court. And there was nothing else we can do but go with what was given, you know, right. Right.
Tony Ortega 01:18:08
I totally appreciate it. I think I just really am glad that you guys took it seriously. And I know it must have been a lot of hard work.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:18:14
But I’ll tell you what, after we were dismissed the last day of deliberation, and we were the hung jury. I was in the service. I’ve done a lot of other things, but I had I just felt totally spent I was exhausted mentally. And I described it like arguing for three days in a row. Eight hours a day. Hold on argument, pretty much how I felt. I was just relieved. I just needed a break. And I was I was glad that it was over.
Tony Ortega 01:18:46
Yeah, I mean, I remember when you spoke up when the judge asked you to speak I mean, I have to say that you spoke really strongly about look, this is how it is. I mean, it was very clear.
Danny Masterson Jury Foreman 01:19:02
She was maybe expecting the answer, but when those folks told me in there, we’re not doing anything different or we’re done right make sure to if she asked any questions that you have you say that let’s say okay, I understand the mind you I might have been a fourth person but I was really doing what they asked me to do. I just got a chance to see it. But that was all of us speaking. Right.
Chris Shelton 01:19:28
Cool. Well Earl again, thank you. And we’ll just kind of wrap up now. This has been incredibly informative and helpful. And folks out there I hope you feel the same. I hope that this has helped clarify for those of us who are following this on a day by day, paying attention to all the details, hoping against hope that we would see some results that we didn’t end up seeing, but now we know why. And now we can prepare better for next time. And believe me, with the Church of Scientology and with the stuff that goes on there. There will be more times in the civil case. So and a potential for a retrial of this case. So we’re just gonna have to see what happens as we sit here right now. You know, we don’t know. But let’s, let’s see what happens and let’s be better prepared and and do this better next time. Thanks for coming around and watching. See you next week. Bye bye.