Danny Masterson has suffered a major legal defeat after a California appeals court rejected his bid to overturn his rape convictions, ruling that evidence about Scientology did not unfairly prejudice his trial.
The former That '70s Show actor, 50, will remain behind bars serving a sentence of 30 years to life after a three-judge panel upheld his convictions on Tuesday, 27 October. His lawyers have vowed to take the fight to California's highest court, but the ruling leaves his convictions intact and his earliest parole eligibility in 2042.
The 89-page decision rejected Masterson's argument that the admission of evidence concerning the Church of Scientology, its practices and its leader, David Miscavige, violated his constitutional rights. The judges also dismissed his wider claims that alleged errors during the proceedings deprived him of a fair trial.
Court Rejects Masterson's Scientology Claims
In its ruling, California's Second Appellate District concluded that the trial judge had not abused her discretion by allowing Scientology-related evidence to be presented to jurors. The panel also rejected Masterson's argument that admitting the material violated the First Amendment, which protects freedom of religion.
'Admission of Scientology evidence did not violate the First Amendment and was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion,' the judges ruled.
They stressed that jurors had not been asked to determine whether Scientology's teachings or beliefs were true or false. Instead, the evidence was considered in the context of the case and the complainants' relationships with Masterson and the Church.
'The jury in this case was not asked to determine the truth or falsity of Scientology doctrine or beliefs,' the ruling stated. 'Admission of Scientology evidence for those purposes did not contravene the First Amendment.'
Masterson had challenged evidence concerning a civil lawsuit brought by the two women against him, Scientology and Miscavige, alleging harassment and stalking. The appeal also questioned the admission of a settlement agreement between Masterson and one of the women, identified in court as J.B., including the amount she received.
The panel rejected his contention that the alleged errors, considered together, had denied him due process and a fair trial. Its decision means the convictions will stand unless a further legal challenge succeeds.
Lawyers Plan Fresh Legal Challenge
Masterson was convicted in May 2023 of raping two women at his Hollywood Hills home in separate incidents in the early 2000s. His first trial, in 2022, ended without a verdict, while the retrial resulted in convictions on two counts of forcible rape and a deadlocked jury on a third allegation.
Both women were members of Scientology at the time of the assaults and testified that Church officials discouraged them from reporting the incidents to police. They said they feared expulsion from the organisation and losing access to their families and wider community, allegations the Church has disputed.
Masterson's defence argued that a Scientology representative should have been called to explain the organisation's internal processes and challenge the women's accounts. His lawyers maintained that additional testimony and evidence could have affected the outcome of the retrial.
The actor was sentenced to 30 years to life in prison on 7 September 2023 and was taken into custody immediately afterwards. He is serving his sentence at California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo and is not eligible for parole until 2042.
Following Tuesday's ruling, his lawyers, Cliff Gardner and Eric Multhaup, told in an interview that they intended to seek review by the California Supreme Court. They also plan to pursue habeas corpus relief, a legal procedure through which a prisoner can challenge the lawfulness of their detention, citing what they describe as substantial exculpatory evidence that was not presented to jurors.
The Church of Scientology did not respond to the request for comment on the latest ruling. For Masterson, the decision closes one avenue of appeal but does not prevent him from pursuing further legal challenges.
