Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 years to life

do you understand civil and not criminal? wrote:

BigBoy wrote:

Not trying to be a jerk, but you clearly know nothing about the practice of criminal law. A single witness’s testimony about what happened to them IS THE EVIDENCE. It’s actually classified as “direct evidence” (as opposed to circumstantial). In fact, the jury is specifically instructed by the judge, “The testimony of any witness whom you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact in this case.” Rape cases are tried and proved all the time based on witness testimony alone. Rarely is a crime of this nature caught on video or seen by a third party. Rape kits can show whether the perpetrator’s DNA was left behind, but any forensic scientist worth his salt will testify that whether DNA is deposited and can be collected and tested is a big question mark in every case. It’s simply not always left behind. Moreover, DNA testing was in its infancy in the early 00’s and not used nearly as frequently or reliably as it is today. “Them’s the facts Joe.”

Are you a police officer or prosecutor? I could argue the criminal defense side better than your pro-prosecution argument. Probably a friend of a cop.

BigBoy wrote:

Newname wrote:

There was no evidence other than the accusations made.

You know that. The trial is over and the media all seems happy with the verdict so had there been evidence we would have seen it. But we have been told of no "other" evidence save the accusations.

I find it terrifying that someone can get hit with 30 years to life on the sole evidence of an accusation.

Throw in the fact that the 1st trial was hung, with 10-2 for acquittal per the foreman of that jury and you have to wonder what went on here. Typically with a 10-2 for not guilty there will be no retrial.

I honestly don’t know anything about this case. I don’t get on social media much and don’t have TV. The decision to re-try a hung case is in the sole discretion of the government. It doesn’t always happen, as you mentioned. But in high-stakes sex cases, the wishes of the victim(s) will likely play an important role in the decision. Again, I have no idea what evidence the government presented, so I’m not making any comment on the strengths or weaknesses of it.

Gorilla MD PhD wrote:

Here is the judge's statement prior to sentencing. It's clearly targeting at the public idiots like Newname who don't understand the trial:

“Mr. Masterson, I know that you’re sitting here steadfast in your claims of innocence and, thus, no doubt feeling victimized by a justice system that you feel has failed you. And I’m sure you’re asking yourself how you can be convicted of a each charge of a sexual incident occurring 20 years ago based on the testimony of a woman that you believe is disgruntled and has a vendetta against you.
But you were not convicted of the testimony on one person, although the testimony of one person is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. And you were not convicted based upon rumors, innuendo, gossip, or speculation.
You were convicted based upon the testimony and evidence that 12 people from the community found to be credible. You were convicted because the victims testified about what occurred back in 2001 and 2003.
You were convicted because each of the victims reported the rapes to someone shortly after the rapes occurred, also back in 2001 and 2003.
Jane Doe 2 told her mother and friends; thus reporting the rape. Jane Doe 1 reported the rape to Scientology officials and also wrote letters to Scientology’s International Justice Chief reporting the rape.
They also reported the rape to Los Angeles Police Department almost, approximately a year later. And Jane Doe 3 reported the rape to Scientology ethics officers and higher officials within the Scientology organization shortly after the rape.
In addition, shortly after the rape, you paid Jane Doe 1 approximately $400,000 to keep quiet about the charged sexual incident. And while some may argue that whether you believed her story was true or not, you just didn’t want the bad publicity, she was seeking money from you, close to half a million dollars is an awful lot to pay for the silence about an incident that you claimed never happened.
The events as relayed by the victims were similar to each other. And during the time that victims told other people about the rapes shortly after the rapes had occurred, the victims were still Scientologists. They had not left the organization yet.
So the argument that they only colluded with each other decades later after leaving Scientology to get money from you does not make sense in light of their earlier reporting, nor does it diminish the truth or impact of the earlier statements made at or near the time of the rapes when they had no motive to life, retaliate or gain money.
In addition to what I have just mentioned, there was further testimony and evidence presented at trial And after hearing all of the evidence, the jury from the community found you guilty of counts 1 and 2 by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Masterson, you are not the victim here. Your actions 20 years ago took away another person’s voice and choice. Your actions 20 years ago were criminal, and that is why you are here.
Ultimately, one way or another, you will have to come to terms with both your prior actions and the subsequent consequences. To quote Martin Luther King, quote, the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
As to count 1, a violation of penal code section 261 (A)(2) of the penal code, I order Mr. Masterson to be imprisoned in state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
As to count 2, also a violation of penal code section 261 (A)(2), I order Mr. Masterson to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years to life. I order the sentences to run consecutive.
The total sentence is 30 years to life with actual conduct, I’m sorry, with actual custody credit of 100 days and conduct credit of 15 days for a total credit of 115 days.”

Gorilla MD PhD wrote:

Here is the judge's statement prior to sentencing. It's clearly targeting at the public idiots like Newname who don't understand the trial:

“Mr. Masterson, I know that you’re sitting here steadfast in your claims of innocence and, thus, no doubt feeling victimized by a justice system that you feel has failed you. And I’m sure you’re asking yourself how you can be convicted of a each charge of a sexual incident occurring 20 years ago based on the testimony of a woman that you believe is disgruntled and has a vendetta against you.
But you were not convicted of the testimony on one person, although the testimony of one person is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. And you were not convicted based upon rumors, innuendo, gossip, or speculation.
You were convicted based upon the testimony and evidence that 12 people from the community found to be credible. You were convicted because the victims testified about what occurred back in 2001 and 2003.
You were convicted because each of the victims reported the rapes to someone shortly after the rapes occurred, also back in 2001 and 2003.
Jane Doe 2 told her mother and friends; thus reporting the rape. Jane Doe 1 reported the rape to Scientology officials and also wrote letters to Scientology’s International Justice Chief reporting the rape.
They also reported the rape to Los Angeles Police Department almost, approximately a year later. And Jane Doe 3 reported the rape to Scientology ethics officers and higher officials within the Scientology organization shortly after the rape.
In addition, shortly after the rape, you paid Jane Doe 1 approximately $400,000 to keep quiet about the charged sexual incident. And while some may argue that whether you believed her story was true or not, you just didn’t want the bad publicity, she was seeking money from you, close to half a million dollars is an awful lot to pay for the silence about an incident that you claimed never happened.
The events as relayed by the victims were similar to each other. And during the time that victims told other people about the rapes shortly after the rapes had occurred, the victims were still Scientologists. They had not left the organization yet.
So the argument that they only colluded with each other decades later after leaving Scientology to get money from you does not make sense in light of their earlier reporting, nor does it diminish the truth or impact of the earlier statements made at or near the time of the rapes when they had no motive to life, retaliate or gain money.
In addition to what I have just mentioned, there was further testimony and evidence presented at trial And after hearing all of the evidence, the jury from the community found you guilty of counts 1 and 2 by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Masterson, you are not the victim here. Your actions 20 years ago took away another person’s voice and choice. Your actions 20 years ago were criminal, and that is why you are here.
Ultimately, one way or another, you will have to come to terms with both your prior actions and the subsequent consequences. To quote Martin Luther King, quote, the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
As to count 1, a violation of penal code section 261 (A)(2) of the penal code, I order Mr. Masterson to be imprisoned in state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
As to count 2, also a violation of penal code section 261 (A)(2), I order Mr. Masterson to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years to life. I order the sentences to run consecutive.
The total sentence is 30 years to life with actual conduct, I’m sorry, with actual custody credit of 100 days and conduct credit of 15 days for a total credit of 115 days.”

Newname wrote:

BigBoy wrote:

I honestly don’t know anything about this case. I don’t get on social media much and don’t have TV. The decision to re-try a hung case is in the sole discretion of the government. It doesn’t always happen, as you mentioned. But in high-stakes sex cases, the wishes of the victim(s) will likely play an important role in the decision. Again, I have no idea what evidence the government presented, so I’m not making any comment on the strengths or weaknesses of it.

Steve Wynn has been accused by multiple women of sexual abuse and rape over a period of decades yet he was never charged with anything.

Why?

In the Masterson case, the trial is over so why would the media not report any of the evidence presented? They would. Don't you agree? Yet the only "evidence" is the accusation.

Let's face it. The Justice System is just another tool used by the powerful against everyone else.

Newname wrote:

Gorilla MD PhD wrote:

Here is the judge's statement prior to sentencing. It's clearly targeting at the public idiots like Newname who don't understand the trial:

“Mr. Masterson, I know that you’re sitting here steadfast in your claims of innocence and, thus, no doubt feeling victimized by a justice system that you feel has failed you. And I’m sure you’re asking yourself how you can be convicted of a each charge of a sexual incident occurring 20 years ago based on the testimony of a woman that you believe is disgruntled and has a vendetta against you.
But you were not convicted of the testimony on one person, although the testimony of one person is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. And you were not convicted based upon rumors, innuendo, gossip, or speculation.
You were convicted based upon the testimony and evidence that 12 people from the community found to be credible. You were convicted because the victims testified about what occurred back in 2001 and 2003.
You were convicted because each of the victims reported the rapes to someone shortly after the rapes occurred, also back in 2001 and 2003.
Jane Doe 2 told her mother and friends; thus reporting the rape. Jane Doe 1 reported the rape to Scientology officials and also wrote letters to Scientology’s International Justice Chief reporting the rape.
They also reported the rape to Los Angeles Police Department almost, approximately a year later. And Jane Doe 3 reported the rape to Scientology ethics officers and higher officials within the Scientology organization shortly after the rape.
In addition, shortly after the rape, you paid Jane Doe 1 approximately $400,000 to keep quiet about the charged sexual incident. And while some may argue that whether you believed her story was true or not, you just didn’t want the bad publicity, she was seeking money from you, close to half a million dollars is an awful lot to pay for the silence about an incident that you claimed never happened.
The events as relayed by the victims were similar to each other. And during the time that victims told other people about the rapes shortly after the rapes had occurred, the victims were still Scientologists. They had not left the organization yet.
So the argument that they only colluded with each other decades later after leaving Scientology to get money from you does not make sense in light of their earlier reporting, nor does it diminish the truth or impact of the earlier statements made at or near the time of the rapes when they had no motive to life, retaliate or gain money.
In addition to what I have just mentioned, there was further testimony and evidence presented at trial And after hearing all of the evidence, the jury from the community found you guilty of counts 1 and 2 by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Masterson, you are not the victim here. Your actions 20 years ago took away another person’s voice and choice. Your actions 20 years ago were criminal, and that is why you are here.
Ultimately, one way or another, you will have to come to terms with both your prior actions and the subsequent consequences. To quote Martin Luther King, quote, the ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
As to count 1, a violation of penal code section 261 (A)(2) of the penal code, I order Mr. Masterson to be imprisoned in state prison for a term of 15 years to life.
As to count 2, also a violation of penal code section 261 (A)(2), I order Mr. Masterson to be imprisoned for a term of 15 years to life. I order the sentences to run consecutive.
The total sentence is 30 years to life with actual conduct, I’m sorry, with actual custody credit of 100 days and conduct credit of 15 days for a total credit of 115 days.”

Gee.

I wonder what these unbiased Judge's instructions to the jury were?

BigBoy wrote:

Newname wrote:

Steve Wynn has been accused by multiple women of sexual abuse and rape over a period of decades yet he was never charged with anything.

Why?

In the Masterson case, the trial is over so why would the media not report any of the evidence presented? They would. Don't you agree? Yet the only "evidence" is the accusation.

Let's face it. The Justice System is just another tool used by the powerful against everyone else.

I cannot answer your questions about the Masterson case or the Wynn case. Without actually seeing their investigative files, there is no way of knowing how strong or weak the evidence might be. People usually have no idea what a case file looks like, and the media often does not know many of the important details available to the attorneys when they make charging decisions. I would also point out two important things: (1) the media frequently fails to report critical details about legal proceedings. I’ve tried multiple sex cases, murders, and everything in between. It never ceases to amaze me how poorly some journalists understand and communicate about what just happened in court. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cracked open a newspaper after a trial and been stunned by the fact that the journalist missed almost every import detail about the proceeding. It happens all the time. It would not surprise me to find out that the supporting evidence in the Masterson case simply wasn’t mentioned in the article(s) for that reason. (2) Some sex cases cannot be proved at trial because there is zero corroborating evidence uncovered by detectives during their investigation. Without ANY supporting evidence, charges are unlikely to be filed in the first place. However, there is often evidence that corroborates certain surrounding details, which, taken as a whole, may bolster the victim’s allegations. For example, there may be phone records showing the Defendant called the vic an hour before the offense occurred. There might also be video surveillance of the two walking down a hallway in a dormitory and entering the vic’s dorm room. The victim might also have been seen on a park bench nearby sobbing twenty minutes later. All of this taken together would corroborate the victim’s allegations that the Defendant called her, came to her dorm room, and sexually assaulted her (non-consensual). But without video of the event or a third-party witness in that dorm room, it comes down to whether the jury believes the victim or not. A rape kit would be useless if the defendant testified the sex was consensual. Juries simply have to make findings of credibility in those instances, which the law tells them to do.

I guess I would be very surprised if no corroborating evidence exists in the Masterson case. My assumption is that the media simply failed to report on it because there wasn’t a “smoking gun” or a headline grabber. And I agree that our jury system is not perfect. Ideas for improvement are always useful topics of discussion.

Testimony enjoyer wrote:

BigBoy wrote:

I cannot answer your questions about the Masterson case or the Wynn case. Without actually seeing their investigative files, there is no way of knowing how strong or weak the evidence might be. People usually have no idea what a case file looks like, and the media often does not know many of the important details available to the attorneys when they make charging decisions. I would also point out two important things: (1) the media frequently fails to report critical details about legal proceedings. I’ve tried multiple sex cases, murders, and everything in between. It never ceases to amaze me how poorly some journalists understand and communicate about what just happened in court. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cracked open a newspaper after a trial and been stunned by the fact that the journalist missed almost every import detail about the proceeding. It happens all the time. It would not surprise me to find out that the supporting evidence in the Masterson case simply wasn’t mentioned in the article(s) for that reason. (2) Some sex cases cannot be proved at trial because there is zero corroborating evidence uncovered by detectives during their investigation. Without ANY supporting evidence, charges are unlikely to be filed in the first place. However, there is often evidence that corroborates certain surrounding details, which, taken as a whole, may bolster the victim’s allegations. For example, there may be phone records showing the Defendant called the vic an hour before the offense occurred. There might also be video surveillance of the two walking down a hallway in a dormitory and entering the vic’s dorm room. The victim might also have been seen on a park bench nearby sobbing twenty minutes later. All of this taken together would corroborate the victim’s allegations that the Defendant called her, came to her dorm room, and sexually assaulted her (non-consensual). But without video of the event or a third-party witness in that dorm room, it comes down to whether the jury believes the victim or not. A rape kit would be useless if the defendant testified the sex was consensual. Juries simply have to make findings of credibility in those instances, which the law tells them to do.

I guess I would be very surprised if no corroborating evidence exists in the Masterson case. My assumption is that the media simply failed to report on it because there wasn’t a “smoking gun” or a headline grabber. And I agree that our jury system is not perfect. Ideas for improvement are always useful topics of discussion.

You’re replying to a guy that thinks everything is a conspiracy.
He’s been banned 3 times for blatant anti-semitism.
Sometimes you just have to give up on the stupid.

BigBoy wrote:

Newname wrote:

Steve Wynn has been accused by multiple women of sexual abuse and rape over a period of decades yet he was never charged with anything.

Why?

In the Masterson case, the trial is over so why would the media not report any of the evidence presented? They would. Don't you agree? Yet the only "evidence" is the accusation.

Let's face it. The Justice System is just another tool used by the powerful against everyone else.

I cannot answer your questions about the Masterson case or the Wynn case. Without actually seeing their investigative files, there is no way of knowing how strong or weak the evidence might be. People usually have no idea what a case file looks like, and the media often does not know many of the important details available to the attorneys when they make charging decisions. I would also point out two important things: (1) the media frequently fails to report critical details about legal proceedings. I’ve tried multiple sex cases, murders, and everything in between. It never ceases to amaze me how poorly some journalists understand and communicate about what just happened in court. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve cracked open a newspaper after a trial and been stunned by the fact that the journalist missed almost every import detail about the proceeding. It happens all the time. It would not surprise me to find out that the supporting evidence in the Masterson case simply wasn’t mentioned in the article(s) for that reason. (2) Some sex cases cannot be proved at trial because there is zero corroborating evidence uncovered by detectives during their investigation. Without ANY supporting evidence, charges are unlikely to be filed in the first place. However, there is often evidence that corroborates certain surrounding details, which, taken as a whole, may bolster the victim’s allegations. For example, there may be phone records showing the Defendant called the vic an hour before the offense occurred. There might also be video surveillance of the two walking down a hallway in a dormitory and entering the vic’s dorm room. The victim might also have been seen on a park bench nearby sobbing twenty minutes later. All of this taken together would corroborate the victim’s allegations that the Defendant called her, came to her dorm room, and sexually assaulted her (non-consensual). But without video of the event or a third-party witness in that dorm room, it comes down to whether the jury believes the victim or not. A rape kit would be useless if the defendant testified the sex was consensual. Juries simply have to make findings of credibility in those instances, which the law tells them to do.

I guess I would be very surprised if no corroborating evidence exists in the Masterson case. My assumption is that the media simply failed to report on it because there wasn’t a “smoking gun” or a headline grabber. And I agree that our jury system is not perfect. Ideas for improvement are always useful topics of discussion.