A Los Angeles judge said she was "troubled" that disgraced actor Danny Masterson’s attorneys were tracking down the jurors from his rape trial in 2023.
Attorneys working for Masterson reportedly contacted jurors even though Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charlaine Olmedo issued an order intended to protect their identities from the public.
According to Olmedo, the attorneys have been visiting the jurors at their homes and at work in an attempt to schedule interviews, as part of Masterson’s effort to appeal his conviction.
Masterson was found guilty in 2023 of sexually assaulting three other members of the Church of Scientology in the early 2000's and sentenced to 30 years to life in state prison.
Shawn Holley, one of Masterson's attorneys, said that three jurors agreed to speak with her voluntarily, and insisted to the LA Times that nothing "harassing or improper" had occurred during their discussions.
However, Olmedo she said she received complaints from other jurors who "felt pressured by the defense team" and who were "not first advised that they had the absolute right to not discuss the case if they did not want to do so."
Court documents reviewed by the LA Times found that some jurors were "concerned" by the interview requests and were under the assumption that Masterson's attorneys were not supposed to know their home or work addresses.
In one email from September 15, a juror said they looked out their window and saw "a member of Mr Masterson's habeas team" standing on their front lawn.
Olmedo wrote that she was "troubled that [the jurors] were approached at their homes" and noted that they had asked her to "inquire how the defense team obtained their identifying information."
She passed an order on September 17 barring attorneys from directly contacting the jurors.
Eric Multhaup, one of Masterson's attorneys, confirmed to the LA Times that one of his investigators approached a juror at their home on September 15, but said the agent "comported herself in complete compliance with the [California] Code of Civil Procedure."
He insisted that Olmedo's ruling simply prevented attorneys and others from accessing the court documents relating to the juror's service, which would include details like their names and addresses. He said that his investigator did not use those intake forms, but instead tracked the attorneys via a general person search like a journalist or private investigator might use.
“In short, up until September 17, it was fine for defense representatives to contact jurors directly, subject to...requirements of reasonable time and place,” he said. “Broad daylight is eminently reasonable.”
Holley, who did not visit the jurors but spoke to them over the phone, insisted in an email to the LA Times that she feels “confident that none of the three jurors with whom I spoke/met reported our interaction to Judge Olmedo as harassing or improper.”
“I made it clear to all 3 jurors with whom I spoke—and ultimately met— that they were under no obligation to speak with me or to meet with me, and they all were more than willing to do so. I met all three of them [separately] at times and places which were convenient for them and I was cordial and respectful of their time and boundaries,” she added.
Prosecutors are pushing to have Olmedo sanction Masterson's attorneys, which would be the second disciplinary action against the team in two years.
