![]() ![]() The Church was not a party to this case and religion did not belong in this proceeding as Supreme Court precedent has maintained for centuries.” The church said in a statement after the verdict that the “introduction of religion into this trial was an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment and affects the due process rights of every American. They said he used his prominence in the church - where all three women were also members at the time - to avoid consequences for decades. “He does this to take away his victims’ ability to consent.“I am experiencing a complex array of emotions - relief, exhaustion, strength, sadness - knowing that my abuser, Danny Masterson, will face accountability for his criminal behavior,” one of the women, whom Masterson knew as a fellow member of the church and was convicted of raping at his home in 2003, said in a statement.Ī second woman, a former girlfriend, whose count left the jury deadlocked, said in the statement: “While I’m encouraged that Danny Masterson will face some criminal punishment, I am devastated that he has dodged criminal accountability for his heinous conduct against me.”Ī spokesperson for Masterson declined to comment, but his attorneys will almost certainly appeal.Īfter a deadlocked jury led to a mistrial in December, prosecutors retried Masterson, saying he drugged and forcibly raped three women in his Hollywood Hills home between 20. “The defendant drugs his victims to gain control,” Deputy District Attorney Ariel Anson said in her closing argument. The second time, they were allowed to argue it directly, and the prosecution attempted to make it a major factor, to no avail. At the first, Olmedo only allowed prosecutors and accusers to describe their disorientation, and to imply that they were drugged. The issue of drugging also played a major role in the retrial. The third, Masterson’s then-girlfriend of five years whose count left the jury deadlocked, said she awoke to find him raping her, and had to pull his hair to stop him. He knew both from social circles in the church. The two women whose testimony led to Masterson’s conviction said that in 2003, he gave them drinks and that they then became woozy or passed out before he violently raped them. Testimony in this case was graphic and emotional. The Associated Press does not typically name people who say they’ve been sexually abused. The evidence involved links that the lawyer accidentally included in an email to Mueller. The women have also filed a civil lawsuit against the church and Masterson over harassment they say they’ve endured since coming forward, which the church denies.Īnd next week the judge who oversaw the criminal case will hold a hearing to determine how a lawyer who represents the Church of Scientology had evidence that the prosecution had shared with the defense. The church vehemently denied having any policy that forbids members from going to secular authorities. ![]() You have the opportunity to show them there is justice.” “Scientology told them there’s no justice for them. “They were raped, they were punished for it, and they were retaliated against,” Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller told jurors in his closing argument. The women testified that when they reported Masterson to church officials, they were told they were not raped, were put through ethics programs themselves, and were warned against going to law enforcement to report a member of such high standing. The judge kept limits on how much prosecutors could talk about the church, and primarily allowed it to explain why the women took so long to go to authorities. Ron Hubbard, the Church of Scientology has many members who work in Hollywood. Tensions ran high in the courtroom between current and former Scientologists, and even leaked into testimony, with the accusers saying on the stand that they felt intimidated by some members in the room.Īctor Leah Remini, a former member who has become the church’s highest-profile critic, sat in on the trial at times, putting her arm around one of the accusers to comfort her during closing arguments.įounded in 1953 by L. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |