Filed Preliminary Hearing Brief 5.14.21.Pdf
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 allegations. 2 However, the prosecution has chosen to create a complicated case. The evidence that the 3 Court will hear over the course of the preliminary hearing is contradictory and confusing. Mr. 4 Masterson submits this brief as a guide to the bizarre – and unjust – twists this case has taken. The 5 evidence will show that the prosecution has been usurped by conspiracy theories and self-interested 6 TV personalities. It will show glaring contradictions in the statements by the complainants that 7 8 cannot support the charges. It will show constant communications among the complainants and 9 between them and potential witnesses, even after repeated admonitions from law enforcement that 10 such collusion would undermine the case against Mr. Masterson. The evidence will show an 11 investigation that from the early days of this matter was far more interested in attacking Mr. 12 Masterson's religion than investigating whether crimes had occurred. Ultimately, the evidence will 13 show that Mr. Masterson should not be held to answer for the charges in the criminal complaint. 14 15 16 II. THE CHARGES AND THE LEGAL STANDARD 17 On June 17, 2020, the Los Angeles County District Attorneys’ Office filed a three-count 18 criminal complaint against Mr. Masterson. Count 1 alleged a forcible rape under Penal Code Section 19 261(a)(2) on April 25, 2003 against Jane Doe 1. Count 2 alleged a forcible rape “on or between 20 October 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003” against Jane Doe 2. Count 3 alleged a forcible rape “on or 21 22 between January 1, 2001 and November 30, 2001” against Jane Doe 3. 23 Under the applicable statute, a defendant must be held to answer if “it appears from the 24 examination that a public offense has been committed, and there is sufficient cause to believe that 25 the defendant is guilty.” Penal Code § 872(a). However, if, “after hearing the proofs, it appears 26 either that no public offense has been committed or that there is not sufficient cause to believe the 27 defendant guilty of a public offense, the magistrate shall order the complaint dismissed.” Penal 28 2 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON 1 Code § 871. 2 Consistent with the statutorily recognized purpose of the preliminary hearing, the phrase 3 “sufficient cause” in Penal Code Sections 871 and 872 has been interpreted as equivalent to a 4 probable cause standard. See Penal Code § 866 (“It is the purpose of a preliminary examination to 5 establish whether there exists probable cause to believe that the defendant has committed a felony.”); 6 People v. Eid, 31 Cal. App. 4th 114, 130 (1994) (“The issues before a magistrate on preliminary 7 8 hearing are whether a public offense has been committed and whether there is probable cause to 9 believe the defendant is guilty thereof.”) “Probable cause is shown if a man (or woman) of ordinary 10 caution or prudence would be led to believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the 11 guilt of the accused.” Curry v. Superior Ct., 217 Cal. App. 4th 580, 588 (2013) (quoting Rideout v. 12 Superior Court, 67 Cal.2d 471, 474 (1967)). 13 At the preliminary hearing, the Court may assess the credibility of witnesses in determining 14 probable cause. “The credibility of witnesses at the preliminary examination, of course, is a question 15 16 of fact within the province of the committing magistrate to determine.” De Mond v. Superior Ct. of 17 Los Angeles Cty., 57 Cal. 2d 340, 345 (1962); see also People v. Uhlemann, 9 Cal. 3d 662, 667 18 (1973) (at the preliminary hearing, the magistrate may “give or withhold credence to particular 19 witnesses”). The “magistrate is not bound to believe even the uncontradicted testimony of a 20 particular witness, especially where the statements are self-serving and the magistrate has reason to 21 22 believe that other testimony of the witness is untruthful.” De Mond v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles 23 Cty., 57 Cal. 2d 340, 345 (1962). 24 Accordingly, the Supreme Court of California has held that a court may properly find that the 25 prosecution has failed to establish probable cause at the preliminary hearing based on a lack of 26 witness credibility. See Jones v. Superior Ct., 4 Cal. 3d 660, 667 (1971) (upholding the Superior 27 Court’s decision to resolve “various conflicts in [defendants’] favor” at the preliminary hearing by 28 3 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON 1 “withholding credence to the testimony” of a prosecution witness); see also Cooley v. Superior Ct., 2 29 Cal. 4th 228, 258 (2002), as modified (Jan. 15, 2003) (applying felony preliminary hearing 3 standards to a Sexually Violent Predators Act “probable cause hearing” and holding that the Superior 4 Court “properly exercised its adjudicatory functions to render the findings of fact that the opinions of 5 the district attorney’s [expert witnesses] lacked persuasiveness” in dismissing the district attorney’s 6 petition for involuntary commitment, but remanding the matter on other grounds). 7 8 The Supreme Court of California also has recognized that bias or malicious intent by law 9 enforcement weighs against a felony complaint surviving judicial scrutiny at the preliminary 10 hearing. Jaffe v. Stone, 18 Cal. 2d 146, 150, 114 P.2d 335, 338 (1941) (“The purpose of the 11 preliminary hearing is to weed out groundless or unsupported charges. The more unwarranted 12 the charge, the more reckless and malicious the motives which inspired it, the less likelihood there 13 is of its surviving this initial scrutiny by a judicial officer.”) (emphasis added); see also People v. 14 Herrera, 136 Cal. App. 4th 1191, 1201 (2006), that determining whether probable cause exists can 15 16 weed out groundless charges of grave offenses and relieve the accused of the degradation and 17 expense of trial. Id. (emphasis added). 18 19 III. THE POTENTIAL EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE PRELIMINARY 20 HEARING 21 The following is a summary of the evidence present in the discovery that could be presented 22 at the preliminary hearing. As this summary and the attached exhibits show, this prosecution is 23 flawed. The stories of the complainants have been inconsistent and contradictory, and do not support 24 the charged offenses. The complainants have repeatedly engaged in improper communications with 25 26 each other and with potential witnesses. By their own admissions to law enforcement, they leaked 27 compromising information to the media in the early days of the investigation, thus contaminating the 28 statements of potential witnesses. Leah Remini, who has a personal grudge against Mr. Masterson, 4 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON 1 has interfered with the investigation – even sending a police officer she uses as her personal 2 bodyguard to obtain confidential files. The complainants taped segments for her television show, she 3 and her co-host, Mike Rinder, appeared with the complainants in their interviews with the 4 prosecutor, and corrected them when deviating from the script. Law enforcement has been swayed 5 by anti-Scientology bias and has let it interfere with its examination of and appraisal of the 6 complainants, other witnesses, and the case as a whole. Further prosecution of this matter would 7 8 result only in injustice. 9 A. Jane Doe 3 10 Jane Doe 3 lived with Mr. Masterson as his girlfriend from approximately 1995 to March 11 1 2002. At the time they became a couple, Jane Doe 3 was a model and Mr. Masterson was an actor. 12 His fame increased greatly during their relationship, as Jane Doe 3’s career waned. She “put her 13 career on hold” for him and anticipated raising a family with Mr. Masterson.2 14 Jane Doe 3 has described Mr. Masterson as a loving partner. As Jane Doe 3 told the LAPD, 15 16 “I loved him. ... He got me out of all this sadness and introduced me to Scientology. … ‘he is a really 17 good person he’s saved my life.’”3 18 As time went by, Jane Doe 3 asserts that the relationship deteriorated. She recalls drinking a 19 lot, “Back then I could put down probably a bottle and a half of wine and still remember most of the 20 night.”4 Other nights she drank to the point that she could not remember things.5 She and Mr. 21 22 Masterson fought. 23 Jane Doe 3 told investigators of fights with Mr. Masterson that did not lead to sex. This 24 included a night where Jane Doe 3 refused sex and then, as she told investigators, “He was calling 25 26 1 12/9/2016 Austin PD Report at Bates 338. 2 6/1/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 3. 27 3 1/17/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 3. 4 Id. 28 5 Id. 5 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON 1 me names like ---, he was saying I was white trash. …” When DDA Mueller asked, “Okay did he 2 then have sex with you?” Jane Doe 3 replied, “That night, no.”6 Jane Doe 3 has been clear that at no 3 time in their relationship did Mr. Masterson threaten to hurt her.7 4 The incident that appears to be the basis for Jane Doe 3’s initial report to police in December 5 2016, occurred 15 years earlier, in December 2001. Regarding this event, Jane Doe 3 says, “It’s hard 6 to talk about, because I don’t have a memory. I just know.”8 What Jane Doe 3 does recall from that 7 8 night is that she first had dinner with Mr.