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. Masterson at La Poubelle in Hollywood and at dinner
9 drank one or two glasses of wine.9 The last thing she recalls was leaving the restaurant.10
10 Jane Doe 3 told investigators that she then recalled waking up the next morning and feeling
11 11 pain in her rectum and that “something was wrong.” She says that she went to the bathroom and 12 discovered blood in her rectum.12 She reports confronting Mr. Masterson. She claims he stated that 13 they had anal sex while she was passed out.13 Jane Doe 3 also asserts that the very next day she 14 reported this incident as “rape” to personnel at the Church of Scientology.14 Jane Doe 3 did not 15
16 report the La Poubelle incident, or any other incident involving Mr. Masterson, to any law
17 enforcement agency until 15 years later. Jane Doe 3 explained to investigators that this incident of
18 unconscious anal sex is what she is now reporting as “rape.”15
19 Mr. Masterson and Jane Doe 3 did not split up until March of 2002. For years afterwards, 20 Jane Doe 3 continued to socialize with Mr. Masterson at events hosted by the Church of Scientology 21 22 as well as email and communicate with him through the years. Jane Doe 3 married in 2009. She
23 6 6/1/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 3; 1/17/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 3. 24 7 6/1/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 3. 8 Id. 25 9 Id. 10 Id. 26 11 Id. 12 1/17/2017 Interview of Jane Doe 3. 27 13 6/1/2017 Interview of Jane Doe 3. 14 FBI Summary Complaint at 303. 28 15 1/17/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 3. 6 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 introduced her husband to the Church, in the hopes that its anti-drug teachings would help him with
2 his addictions. By both of their accounts, he was cured of his addictions through Scientology.
3 According to Jane Doe 3, in approximately early 2016, she received a phone call from an
4 16 acquaintance, D. P., who asked if Mr. Masterson had ever raped her. “He straight out asked me did 5 Danny ever rape you?”17 This contact with D. P. led Jane Doe 3 to get in touch with Jane Doe 1, 6 whom D. P. indicated had confided in him. As D. P. put it, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 1 “got[] in 7 18 8 cahoots” regarding their experiences with Mr. Masterson.
9 Later in 2016, Jane Doe 3 found her way to actress and anti-Scientologist Leah Remini. Ms.
10 Remini was producing an anti-Scientology television show at the time. Ms. Remini required that
11 Jane Doe 3 report the December 2001 La Poubelle evening to law enforcement as an “initiation” for 12 Jane Doe 3 to appear on her show.19 Jane Doe 3 did so in December 2016.20 13 However, another, unspecified incident must serve as the basis of Count 3 of the Criminal 14 Complaint, as Count 3 specifies “rape” (and not “sodomy”) and that the alleged “rape” took place 15
16 sometime before December 2001.
17 B. Jane Doe 1
18 Jane Doe 1 knew Mr. Masterson socially through growing up in the same Church and having
19 21 a shared group of friends. Jane Doe 1 and Mr. Masterson had a sexual encounter in September 20 2002 that Jane Doe 1 confirms was consensual. (“DDA Mueller: Okay. And this was consensual? 21 22 22 [Jane Doe 1]: Yeah.”).) The 2002 consensual sexual encounter between Jane Doe 1 and Mr. 23 Masterson is not the basis of any charge in this case.
24
25 16 1/17/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 3. 17 D.P. recalls that it was Jane Doe 3 who initiated contact with him, not vice versa. 3/23/2017 LAPD interview of D.P. 26 18 3/23/2017 LAPD Interview of D.P. 19 1/3/2017 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 27 20 12/9/2016 Austin PD Report. 21 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 28 22 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 7 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 Jane Doe 1 alleges that Mr. Masterson sexually assaulted her at his house on April 25, 2003;
2 this alleged assault forms the basis of Count 1 of the Felony Complaint. A few weeks after the now-
3 alleged assault – and before she made her complaint to the LAPD in June 2004 – Jane Doe 1 wrote a
4 23 document in which she stated her April 2003 encounter with Masterson was consensual, but she 5 now, in a recorded interview, disputes authorship of that document.24 6 Jane Doe 1 first reported the April 2003 alleged assault to the LAPD in June 2004. Following 7
8 this report, in June 2004, the LAPD conducted an investigation during which they received
9 documents pertinent to the case and interviewed Jane Doe 1 and witnesses identified by Jane Doe 1,
10 including her friends and her father.25 On June 18, 2004, the investigative file was sent to the deputy
11 district attorney, DDA Darcy Johnson, to review the case. Less than a week later, DDA Johnson 12 rejected the case with a declination to prosecute Mr. Masterson regarding Jane Doe 1’s allegations in 13 Count 1 of the Felony Complaint.26 Handwritten notes from the LAPD regarding the 2004 14 investigation state: “credibility issues,” “no support from people present,” and “about sex w/ susp – 15 27 16 best sex she ever had.”
17 In 2017, following the report of Jane Doe 3, the LAPD reopened an investigation into Jane
18 Doe 1’s June 2004 report of the April 2003 alleged assault. In the current investigation, Jane Doe 1’s
19 ever-changing story of the alleged assault in April 2003 has given rise to further credibility issues. 20 DDA Mueller has expressed concern about the “quite extensive” “inconsistencies” between Jane 21 22 Doe 1’s account of the alleged assault in June 2004 and her account of the alleged assault in 2017 to 23 the present.28 Jane Doe 1 herself has admitted that the inconsistencies are “major”, and the defense is
24
25 23 June 2003 O/W Write Up. 26 24 7/22/2020 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 1, part 3. 25 6/18/2004 LAPD Follow-Up Investigation. 27 26 2004 Detective’s Case Progress Log at Bates Pages 252-253. 27 LAPD Chronology notes at Bates Pages 815-816. 28 28 3/15/2017 LAPD call between Det. Vargas and Jane Doe 1. 8 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 “going to have a field day if you want to talk about thinking I contradicted myself on details.”29
2 Perhaps the most disturbing inconsistency is Jane Doe 1’s very recent assertion that Mr.
3 Masterson brandished a gun during the assault. She made no mention of a gun in the accounts she
4 30 wrote of the incident in 2003. Over the course of her interviews with police in the 2004 5 investigation, she never once mentioned a gun.31 In 2005, her attorneys sent to Mr. Masterson a draft 6 civil complaint with allegations of sexual assault. That complaint did not say a word about a gun. It 7
8 was not until 2017, 14 years after the event, that Jane Doe 1 first claimed that Mr. Masterson was
9 holding a gun during the alleged assault. Det. Reyes noted this inconsistency in her 2017 report.32
10 There are also significant questions about the integrity of the 2004 police file. On December
11 14, 2016, the chronological record for the investigation notes: “Located police report made by Jane 12 Doe-1 in 2004 that Daniel Masterson had assaulted her.” Then, in response to discovery requests 13 from the defense, Det. Vargas and DDA Mueller stated that the “Original LAPD [2004] case file 14 missing.”33 The prosecution asserted that the District Attorney’s Office kept a file of the original 15
16 investigation from 2004 and that it had been produced. There has been no explanation of what
17 happened to the LAPD file or what could still be missing. Significantly, the portions of the 2004 file
18 that survive show critical inconsistencies in Jane Doe 1’s story.
19 Due to the extensive inconsistencies with her account of the events, it is difficult to 20 summarize Jane Doe 1’s allegations against Mr. Masterson. As best as the defense can decipher, 21 22 Jane Doe 1 alleges that on the night of April 25, 2003, Jane Doe 1 (and various others) arrived at Mr. 23
24 29 3/15/2017 LAPD call between Det. Vargas and Jane Doe 1. 30 June 2003 O/W Write Up; 12/2003 Knowledge Report at Bates 706 (Addendum C to 6/7/2004 LAPD Injury 25 Investigation Report). 31 6/7/2004 Injury Investigation Report; 6/18/2004 LAPD Follow-Up Report. 26 32 3/21/2017 LAPD Report at Bates 474 (Det. Reyes: “The main ones [i.e., inconsistencies with 2004 statements], were in her interview with the officer and her interview with the detective in 2004, she did not mention the 27 suspect having a gun.”). 33 Emailed 3/18/2021 discovery response from Det. Vargas; see also 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1 28 (DDA Mueller, in response to questioning by Remini, states four times that the 2004 file is incomplete.). 9 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 Masterson’s house following a night out. Jane Doe 1 either fixed herself a drink,34 or was present
2 with Mr. Masterson in the kitchen when he made her a drink,35 or Mr. Masterson fixed Jane Doe 1
3 drink when she was not present.36 Jane Doe 1 next claims that she got into the hot tub, perhaps fully
4 37 38 dressed or perhaps not fully dressed. She began to feel ill and exited the hot tub. Next, Mr. 5 Masterson either allegedly “guided [Jane Doe 1] up a flight of stairs,” “holding onto [Jane Doe 1] so 6 that she wouldn’t fall down,”39 or carried her upstairs while she was screaming “no,”40 to a bathroom 7
8 in the house. After vomiting and taking a shower, Jane Doe 1 claims that she ended up in Mr.
9 Masterson’s bedroom where the alleged assault occurred. In her various accounts of the alleged
10 assault, Jane Doe 1 claims that Mr. Masterson pointed a gun at her41 or never mentions a gun,42 or
11 43 44 states that Mr. Masterson choked her or that she attempted to choke him. According to Jane Doe 12 1, the day after the assault, Jane Doe 1 woke up at either 9:00 in the morning45 or 3:00 in the 13 afternoon,46 either naked47 or clothed, 48 either in Mr. Masterson’s closet or next to Mr. Masterson in 14 his bed.49 Also according to Jane Doe 1, she and Mr. Masterson either had a conversation that 15 50 51 16 morning, or Mr. Masterson was in the bathroom when she woke up, or Mr. Masterson was not
17
18 34 June 2003 O/W Write Up. 19 35 12/2003 K/R, Bates 706 (Addendum C to 6/7/2004 LAPD Injury Investigation Report). 36 1/26/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 1. 20 37 June 2003 O/W Write up; 12/2003 Knowledge report at Bates 706; 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview with Jane Doe 1; 8/2/2017 LAPD Follow-Up Investigation. 21 38 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 39 6/7/2004 Injury Investigation Report at Bates 239. 22 40 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview with Jane Doe 1. 41 1/26/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 1; 7/14/2017 Interview via phone and memorialized in 8/2/2017 Follow-Up 23 Investigation at 18. 42 6/7/2004 Injury Investigation Report; 6/18/2004 Follow-Up Report; Ex. 8, 4/24/2017 Interview. 24 43 6/7/2004 Injury Investigation Report at 4. 44 12/2003 Knowledge Report at Bates 707. 25 45 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 46 12/2003 Bowen KR at Bates 707. 26 47 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 48 1/26/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 1. 27 49 12/2003 Bowen Knowledge Report at Bates 707. 50 12/2003 Bowen Knowledge Report at Bates 707. 28 51 6/7/2004 Injury Investigation Report at 5. 10 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 home when she woke up.52
2 Despite the significant credibility issues with Jane Doe 1, her shifting accounts of the alleged
3 assault in question, and the mysterious circumstances concerning the 2004 file, the prosecution has
4 chosen to proceed with the charges in this case. 5 C. Jane Doe 2 6 Jane Doe 2 knew Mr. Masterson through socializing with other young actors in Hollywood 7
8 and through their common Church. She also knew him through Mr. Masterson’s younger brother,
9 Chris.
10 Jane Doe 2 admits that her memory of the events with Mr. Masterson is imperfect.53
11 54 Sometime in the later part of 2003 or early 2004 (she is not sure what year this happened), Jane 12 Doe 2 met up with Mr. Masterson at a bar with a couple of other friends.55 Perhaps on that night, 13 perhaps on a different night,56 Jane Doe 2 went over to Mr. Masterson’s house by herself. She was 14 excited to so do, “Danny was like somebody who just had this confidence, and it was sexy, . . .”57 15 58 16 She was nervous though, and drank vodka or wine or both before she went to Danny’s house. Mr.
17 Masterson had made clear beforehand that this was going to be a sexual assignation, texting her,
18 “You’re taking off your clothes, and you’re getting in my jacuzzi.”59 The message was not lost on
19 Jane Doe 2, who realized before she went to Mr. Masterson’s house, “I’m going to get used, because 20 he’s going to have a lot of power over me. I could feel it.”60 Still, Jane Doe 2 went to his house. 21 22
23 52 1/26/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 1; 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 53 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview with Jane Doe 2 (“HERE'S -- HERE'S WHAT I HAVE -- THE PROBLEM IS IS THAT I 24 CAN'T REMEMBER”.). 54 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview with Jane Doe 2. 25 55 Id. 56 Id. (“WE WERE ALL SITTING HAVING DRINKS, AND THEN I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED 26 AFTER. AND THEN I REMEMBER WHAT I BELIEVE WAS A DIFFERENT NIGHT.”). 57 Id. 27 58 Id. 59 Id. 28 60 Id. 11 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 Jane Doe 2 “definitely wanted to drink” when she arrived at Mr. Masterson’s house, and
2 continued drinking alcohol.61 Her recall of what followed is hazy: “I only remember then something
3 happened where we were kissing. Then I don’t remember what he did. I don’t remember being in
4 62 the jacuzzi.” She recalls that she “ended up” in the shower with Mr. Masterson, but doesn’t recall if 5 “it was his idea or mine.”63 Mr. Masterson digitally penetrated Jane Doe 2, which she enjoyed: “I 6 was getting into it with him.”64 7
8 At some point in the shower, and/or later in bed, Jane Doe 2 believes Mr. Masterson
9 penetrated her. Jane Doe 2 “wasn’t sure [it] was rape,” at the time, because I felt like “it was just
10 dominant sex.”65 Mr. Masterson did not hit or choke her, did not brandish any weapons, and did not
11 66 67 threaten her. Jane Doe 2 did not fear that Mr. Masterson would hurt her. 12 After sex, Jane Doe 2 and Mr. Masterson spoke and listened to music till 4 a.m.68 She 13 thought, “Oh, now he’s going to fall in love with me. We’re going to go on dates.”69 Jane Doe 2 14 doesn’t remember if she had sex again that morning with Mr. Masterson.70 15
16 In the days that followed, Jane Doe 2 waited for Mr. Masterson to call her. She eventually
17 called him, telling him, “I thought you were going to call. I really like you.”71 Mr. Masterson
18 explained that he had been busy.72 It appears no further relationship developed. Jane Doe asserts that
19 she told her mother and a couple friends at the time that she and Mr. Masterson had sex. She did not 20 tell any of these people that Mr. Masterson had raped her, because she did not believe that to be the 21
22 61 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 23 62 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 2. 63 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 24 64 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 65 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 2. 25 66 1/27/2017 Interview, 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 67 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 2. 26 68 1/27/2017 Interview; 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 69 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 27 70 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 71 5/17/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2. 28 72 Id. 12 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 case.73
2 It was not until 2011, over seven years later, that Jane Doe 2 formed the opinion that Mr.
3 Masterson had raped her that evening. The triggering event was not a therapy session, or an
4 interaction with Mr. Masterson. It was reading an interview of film director Paul Haggis in The New 5 Yorker.74 That interview concerned Mr. Haggis’ decision to leave the Scientology religion. It did not 6 mention Mr. Masterson, Jane Doe 2, or even rape. However, it did disparage the Scientology religion 7
8 as a “cult,” and that was enough of a connection for Jane Doe 2, “When I read that article I was like,
9 ‘this is what really happened. This is – you’ in a cult. You were raped. These things happened.’”75
10 After that, Jane Doe 2 then told some friends that Mr. Masterson had “raped” her years
11 before, but she still did not go to the police. Then in 2016, she was contacted by Jane Doe 3, who 12 shared her allegations against Mr. Masterson.76 This was at the same time Ms. Remini was in 13 production for her debut season of her anti-Scientology television show “Scientology and the 14 Aftermath”. 15
16 D. Leah Remini and the Origins of the Investigation
17 The allegations relating to this matter lay dormant for years until activated by a series of
18 unrelated events. Leah Remini is an actress and a producer. She also is a former member of the
19 77 Church of Scientology and a very public antagonist of the Church. In 2015, a documentary was 20 released that featured former Scientology members who attacked the Church. Mr. Masterson 21 22 defended his religion in an interview, where he said, “I work, I have a family and I’m a spiritual
23 73 As Jane Doe 2’s mother put it, “BUT SHE PRESENTED THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE WAS VERY UNHAPPY AND - 24 - WITH THE WAY THAT HE TREATED HER AND HANDLED HER. AND, YOU KNOW, THE ONE PARTICULAR THING THAT I TOLD YOU. AND I DIDN'T PUT IT TOGETHER AS RAPE, YOU KNOW? IF I 25 HAD I WOULD HAVE SAID, "WELL, WE SHOULD REPORT IT," YOU KNOW?” 1/28/2020 J. B. Interview 74 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 2. 26 75 Id. 76 Id. 27 77 The repeated assertions by Remini and the LAPD that Scientology is not a legitimate, recognized religion is offensive and unfounded Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, 2 F.3d 1514, 1520 (11th 28 Cir. 1993) “no genuine factual issues existed to dispute Scientology’s claim of being a bona fide religion.”). 13 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 being who likes to understand why things happen in the world and want to learn more so that I can
2 have them not affect me adversely. So if that’s weird, then, well, you can go f--- yourself.” That
3 interview was picked up worldwide with the simplified headline, “Danny Masterson to Scientology
4 78 Critics: You Can ‘Go F---’ Yourselves.” 5 The news coverage put a target on Mr. Masterson for anti-Scientologists, Ms. Remini in 6 particular. She, along with Mike Rinder, another former Scientologist, began developing The 7
8 Aftermath, an anti-Scientology television show for cable television. The teasers for The Aftermath
9 first aired on November 1, 2016. On November 8, 2016, Jane Doe 3 tweeted in support of Leah
10 Remini, who responded, “If you like, you can email your story here and it can be looked into
11 79 [email protected].” Ms. Remini decided to “test” Jane Doe 3’s story by telling her 12 to file a police report.80 13 On December 9, 2016, Jane Doe 3 made a report to Austin, Texas Police Department PD, 14 where she was then living. By the time of this report, Jane Doe 3 already had been in communication 15
16 with complainants 1 and 2, and other individuals associated with the alleged events, such as D. P.,
17 and Ms. Remini. Jane Doe 3 made a report of single incident of sexual assault to Officer Green of
18 Austin PD. Jane Doe 3 told Officer Green that in December 2001, she went out to dinner with Mr.
19 Masterson at La Poubelle, passed out back at their house, and awoke the next day to the suspicion 20 that Mr. Masterson had anal sex with her while she was passed out.81 Jane Doe 3 reported this same 21 82 22 December 2001 incident of unconscious anal sex to Claire McCullough of the Austin PD. 23 On December 13, 2016, LAPD received the Austin PD report, and the next day created a
24
25 78 The Hollywood Reporter, February 12, 2015. 26 79 Tweets between Jane Doe 3 and Ms. Remini, November 8, 2016. 80 1/3/2017 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. (“So, I tested her and said, file a police report. She called me the next day, 27 she said I filed it.”). 81 12/09/2016 Austin PD report at Bates 338. 28 82 12/09/2016 Austin PD report at Bates 342. 14 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 report for Jane Doe 3 identifying the complaint as “Sodomy.”83 On December 14, 2016, the same
2 day the Jane Doe 3 complaint was opened, Officer Kevin Becker inserted himself into the case.
3 Officer Becker moonlighted as Ms. Remini’s bodyguard and had a history of trying to
4 84 influence LAPD investigations at Ms. Remini’s direction. Officer Becker contacted Austin PD and 5 asked about Jane Doe 3’s report. The LAPD later learned that Ms. Remini had directed Becker to 6 obtain Jane Doe 3’s Austin PD report.85 The Austin PD told Becker that the report had already been 7
8 referred to LAPD. As noted in the police records, “This phone call from Becker made such an
9 impact on Detective Acosta [of Austin PD], that she documented this call in her report. Of note:
10 Detective Becker has no professional investigative interest in this report, as he does not investigate
11 86 sexual assault cases. It is later revealed that he is Leah Remini’s close friend.” Months later, after 12 learning of Becker’s direction to obtain confidential reports at the direction of Ms. Remini, the 13 LAPD removed the victims’ statements from the computer system “as a precaution.”87 14 The LAPD originally assigned Detective Esther Reyes as the lead investigator. On December 15
16 14, 2016, Det. Reyes contacted Jane Doe 3 by phone. Jane Doe 3 told Det. Reyes that she already
17 had communicated with two other women – complainants 1 and 2 – regarding assaults Mr.
18 Masterson allegedly committed against them.88 Detective Reyes notes that Jane Doe 3 “also
19 mentions she spoke with Leah Remini, who was a COS [Church of Scientology] high ranking 20 member. JD-3 gave me her phone number and told me Remini wanted me to call her.”89 21 22 On December 16, Detective Reyes made contact with complainants 1 and 2 and instructed 23
24 83 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 468-469. 84 For instance, in 2013, she asserted that the wife of the ecclesiastical leader of the Scientology religion was “missing.” 25 Officer Becker filed a Missing Person Report at the behest of Ms. Remini., LAPD Chronology at Bates 816. The LAPD investigated the Missing Person Report and determined it was “unfounded.” Id. 26 85 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 471. 86 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 469. 27 87 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 471. 88 LAPD Chronological Record at Bates 135; 3/21/2017 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 470. 28 89 3/21/2017 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 470. 15 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 them not to talk to other victims or to witnesses “for the integrity of the investigation”, an instruction
2 she had given the day before to Jane Doe 3.90 None of the complainants followed this instruction.
3 Jane Doe 2 even told Det. Reyes that she “did not agree” to the request and that it was “her right to
4 91 continue to talk to” complainants 1 and 3. Complainants 1 and 3 shortly afterwards also made plain 5 that they would not follow this instruction, as Jane Doe 3 told the LAPD on December 28 that “she 6 spoke to [Jane Doe 1] again regarding the case”.92 7 93 8 On December 22, Jane Doe 3 again urged Detective Reyes to call Ms. Remini. On that
9 same day, Jane Doe 3 forwarded a “Screenshot from Leah” to Detective Reyes. The screenshot
10 refers to Mr. Masterson’s interview of 2015 in which he defended his religion against detractors such
11 94 as Ms. Remini. All of these communications are puzzling, considering that none of the 12 complainants claim that Ms. Remini is a witness to any of the events. 13 Ms. Remini called Detective Reyes on December 23, 2016. The purpose of that call had 14 nothing to do with investigating allegations against Mr. Masterson. The apparent purpose was to bias 15
16 the investigation against Mr. Masterson as a Scientologist: “She advised me about the COS and how
17 they operate. Remini believed that members of COS conduct illegal operations to spy on the
18 members who don't abide by their bylaws.”95 As if on cue, the complainants began making
19 complaints of harassing and stalking – pointing the finger at Mr. Masterson and his Church – 20 complaints that the LAPD have investigated and found unsubstantiated. 21 22 Given that the LAPD knew that Ms. Remini was promoting an anti-Scientology television 23 show, that her opinions on how Scientology “operates” might be biased, that her bodyguard was
24
25 90 Id. 26 91 Id. 92 LAPD Chronological Record at Bates 136. 27 93 LAPD Chronological Record at Bates 135. 94 Email from Jane Doe 3 to Det. Reyes at Bates 493-494. 28 95 3/21/2017 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 470. 16 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 trying to obtain confidential files, and that she was not in fact a witness to anything relevant to the
2 case, one would expect – after this initial contact – for the LAPD to politely show her the door.
3 Instead, the LAPD actively encouraged her further participation in the investigation. As Detective
4 Reyes told Ms. Remini in her December 23, 2016 phone call, “I think this case is … has the potential 5 to become very big. … you’re vital to this investigation.”96 Ms. Remini’s star-power had already 6 bewitched the LAPD, who chose to believe all Ms. Remini was instructing them about Scientology 7
8 and saw Mr. Masterson’s religion as inseparable from the alleged crimes. Detective Reyes told Ms.
9 Remini in that same phone call: “I want this [case] to be big. I want to shake this group
10 [Scientology] down. . . . Like this is an abomination . . . . I want this, like this is so huge and I cannot
11 97 believe that this is happening in 2016, almost 2017. . . . It should be a class action type of lawsuit.” 12 Det. Reyes spoke again with Ms. Remini on December 28, 2016, and Ms. Remini spoke of 13 meeting in person the next day “if her [Remini’s] schedule allowed.”98 Remini then had Officer 14 Becker “facilitate a meeting” with LAPD on January 3, 2017. The January 3, 2017 meeting between 15
16 Ms. Remini and Detectives Reyes and Vargas was the very first in-person LAPD interview in the
17 investigation of this matter – before those of the complainants.
18 The purpose of the “kick-off” interview of this case was not for the LAPD to learn anything
19 about the allegations but for Ms. Remini to poison the well by casting any witness who corroborated 20 Mr. Masterson or undermined the credibility of the complainants as part of a plot by the Church and 21 22 to align the LAPD with the complainants by giving credence to their completely unsubstantiated 23 assertions of harassment. Ms. Remini and the Detectives “discussed the procedures and bylaws of
24 the COS, and how they controlled their members.”99 Ms. Remini warned the Detectives that the 25
26 96 12/23/2016 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 27 97 12/23/2016 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 98 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 470. 28 99 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 471. 17 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 Church would hide or destroy evidence on Mr. Masterson’s behalf.100 The detectives appear to have
2 bought into the narrative painted by the anti-Scientologist, volunteering that Scientology used
3 procedures “to kind of keep you hostage.”101
4 Ms. Remini also was candid that she was planning to have the complainants appear on her 5 television show after they met with the police. She referred to Jane Doe 3’s police report as “an 6 initiation.”102 “Remini also discussed her television series and wanted to tell the stories of [the 7
8 complainants] on her show. She stated she had spoken to the girls and had intentions of putting them
9 on her series.”103 Not surprisingly, as the complainants’ de facto booking agent, Ms. Remini stated
10 that she wanted to attend the District Attorney’s interviews of the complainants.104 Surprisingly, the
11 Deputy District Attorney acquiesced to this demand. 12 E. The Complainant’s Collusion and the Investigation. 13 Before the meeting with the Deputy District Attorney in this case or even with the Los 14 Angeles Police Department detectives, the complainants had communicated with each other about 15
16 their claims and communicated with witnesses as well. The complainants communicated with the
17 host and producer of an anti-Scientology television show, who had targeted Mr. Masterson for the
18 defense of his Church105 and was encouraging them to appear on her show. That same person
19 dispatched an LAPD officer to get Jane Doe 3’s police report – a police report she described as an 20 “initiation.” She then met with the lead detectives on the case to “explain” Scientology doctrine in a 21 22 clear – and successful – attempt to prejudice the investigators against Mr. Masterson and 23 corroborating witnesses. The investigators found this prejudiced perspective “vital.”
24
25 100 1/3/2017 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 101 1/3/2017 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 26 102 1/3/2017 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 103 3/21/2017 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 471. 27 104 1/3/2017 LAPD Interview of Leah Remini. 105 The LAPD was aware of the feud between Remini and Mr. Masterson. Det. Vargas’ notes state: “Susp spoken out 28 against Ms. Remini.” LAPD Chronology notes at Bates 816. 18 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 As the LAPD began in-person interviews of the complainants and the other potential
2 witnesses, two distinct trends emerged: 1) the complainants continued to speak among themselves
3 and other potential witnesses; and 2) law enforcement was contaminated by Ms. Remini’s anti-
4 Scientology agenda. These two trends combined to permit Ms. Remini and the complainants to 5 direct the course of the investigation, both by exerting pressure on the LAPD and having the LAPD 6 pursue unsubstantiated claims of harassment. All of this served to obscure the most important point – 7
8 that the accusations the complainants were making were untrue.
9 1. Collusion and Pressure
10 Potential prosecution witness D.P. laid out for the LAPD how he facilitated the
11 communications among the complainants and Leah Remini before any reporting to the LAPD: “I 12 called Tony [Ortega, an anti-Scientology blogger] and yeah, I think it was January or early February 13 and I told him about this whole thing. I said, ‘Tony listen, I’ve got two girlfriends of mine 14 ....’...Now, at this point I already of course had talked to [Jane Doe 3] and caught up with her and 15
16 talked to [Jane Doe 1] and caught up with her and put a lot of pieces together that all made sense and
17 they had gotten in cahoots and talked. And I think Leah at some point got involved with talking with
18 them as well.”106
19 D. P. claims that Jane Doe 1 yelled to him during the April 25, 2003 get together at Mr. 20 Masterson’s house that Mr. Masterson had just raped her. No one else – including Jane Doe 1 – 21 107 108 22 places him at the party. He did not surface at all in the 2004 investigation. D.P. also calls 23 himself a “secret informant” and “weird mole” for anti-Scientology blogger Tony Ortega.109 It is fair
24
25 106 3/23/2017 LAPD Interview of D.P. 107 3/21/2017 LAPD Follow-up Investigation at Bates 471 (Det. Reyes: “Another difference was in [Jane Doe 1’s] first 26 two interviews in 2004, she never mentioned that one of her closest friends, [D.P.] was there. In 2004, she listed 9 witnesses at the party, and [D. P.] was not on her list. [Jane Doe 1] mentioned [D. P.] in her interview with me, however, 27 she did not remember him being at the party.”). 108 Id. 28 109 3/23/2017 LAPD Interview of D.P. 19 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 to say that the LADA’s decision to reverse its 2004 charging decision is based on D.P.’s convenient
2 emergence as a witness to the events of April 25, 2003. And now D.P. credits his coordination of
3 “dialogue” among the Complainants and Ms. Remini as leading to the “opening salvo” against
4 Masterson, D.P. even bragged to the LAPD of supplying details to Jane Doe 1 of the events of the 5 night she claims she was assaulted, such as what clothes she was wearing.110 6 The collusion and sharing of information – of being in “cahoots” as D.P. put it –had been 7
8 realized before the investigation even started, with an interested witness suggesting details of long
9 ago events and the complainants insisting that these communications continue throughout the
10 investigation. As noted, Jane Doe 2 flat-out refused to cease communicating with the other
11 complainants even though she acknowledged that such communications could serve to “cross- 12 pollinate” testimony and appear as collusion.111 Nevertheless, she spoke with critical witnesses about 13 what she supposedly told them in 2003 regarding her evening with Mr. Masterson before they spoke 14 with investigators.112 Jane Doe 2’s own mother admitted to the LAPD that “there’s been so much 15
16 talk over the last few years it's hard to separate out what I learned recently from what actually
17 happened.”113
18 When confidential information about her case was leaked to anti-Scientology blogger Tony
19 Ortega, Jane Doe 2 confirmed that she was the source. But when Det. Reyes wanted to know who 20 asked Jane Doe 2 to speak to Ortega, “she became hostile and told me I did not need to know that 21 22 information. I also asked her if she had been in contact with the other victims and she refused to 23
24
25 110 “You know like that was kind of [Jane Doe 1] and my going, I’m like, “[Jane Doe 1], did I?” She’s like “Yeah. Oh my gosh that’s right,” even down to like, “weren’t you wearing a pair of black jeans that night?” She’s like, “yeah.” 26 I was like, “oh okay cool.” 3/24/2017 LAPD Interview of D.P.. 111 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 2. 27 112 3/10/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 2; 1/28/20 LAPD Interview of J.B; 5/17/2017 Interview of Jane Doe 2, at 76; 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 477. 28 113 1/28/2017 LAPD Interview of J. B. 20 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 answer the question.”114
2 Complainants 1 and 3 also colluded in sharing investigative details with each other, with
3 witnesses, and the press before the LAPD could independently corroborate their accounts. As Det.
4 Reyes noted about Tony Ortega’s coverage of the investigation, “The first report contained 5 information that only [Jane Doe 3] would have known. Copies of the [police] reports that I gave 6 [Jane Doe 3] and [Jane Doe 1] were also included in his article.”115 7
8 Getting – and leaking – copies of the police reports had been a goal of Jane Doe 3. Jane Doe
9 3 continued to convey information about the investigation to Leah Remini even after she was warned
10 by LAPD not to.116 JD-3 “demanded” that she receive a copy of her entire police report (which was
11 117 against protocol) and then became “angry” when Det. Reyes refused. Jane Doe 3 then went to 12 Officer Becker, who asked for the reports on behalf of the complainants and recommended to Jane 13 Doe 3 that she make a complaint against Det. Reyes.118 As noted above, Jane Doe 3 supplied details 14 about the investigation that “only she could know” to the anti-Scientology blogger thus corrupting 15
16 future witness interviews. She also remained in frequent contact with Leah Remini, D. P., and the
17 other complainants.
18 Jane Doe 1 was affirmatively disruptive to the investigation. She secretly recorded a phone
19 119 call to Jenni Weinman, Mr. Masterson’s publicist, and then leaked the recording to the press. She 20
21 114 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 477. Det. Reyes’ anger is disingenuous. In an interview she attended, Det. Villegas gave encouragement to Jane Doe 2 to leak confidential details of the investigation to the press. Ex. 19, 1/27/2017 22 Interview of Jane Doe 2: Jane Doe 2: WHAT IF SOMEBODY LEAKED SOMETHING, AND THEN WE WENT TO YOU AND -- DO -- 23 Det. Villegas: THE THING IS IF IT DOES HIT THE PRESS EVENTUALLY WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS MORE VICTIMS WILL COME FORWARD. 24 Jane Doe 2: THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WAS THINKING. Det. Villegas: RIGHT.” 25 115 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 477. 116 1/17/2017 LAPD interview of Jane Doe 3. After Jane Doe 3 admitted that she still spoke with Remini about the case, 26 Det. Reyes told her that was “not ok,” and then volunteered, “she’s [Leah] great.” Id. 117 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 477. 27 118 Id. 119 11/22/2017, Huffington Post, “Danny Masterson’s Publicist Suggested A Woman Can’t Be Raped By A Man She’s In 28 A Relationship With.” 21 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 misrepresented herself as an investigator for Mr. Masterson in an attempt to gain the confidences of
2 likely defense witnesses.120 She brought a complaint against Det. Reyes for supposedly not pursuing
3 leads Jane Doe 1 suggested.121 And, as mentioned, she continued to be in “cahoots” with D. P. and
4 incorporating alleged details supplied by D. P. of her evening at Mr. Masterson’s house in 2003. 5 The three complainants combined with Ms. Remini to exert an undue influence on the 6 investigation. Det. Reyes wrote, “On March 2, 2017, I received a phone call from Leah Remini. She 7
8 told me she could no longer control the victims on this case. She told me, the victim's on this case,
9 demanded that I interview D. P. by tomorrow or they would go to the press. I told her that I could
10 not interview [D. P.] by tomorrow. I told her the case would be compromised if the victims talked
11 122 about it to the media.” The very next day, anti-Scientology blogger Tony Ortega ran his story 12 exposing the details of the Complainants’ accounts and the police reports.123 13 Against police wishes, all three Complainants recorded interviews with Ms. Remini and her 14 co-host Mike Rinder for The Aftermath in April 2017.124 15
16 In August 2019, the complainants filed a lawsuit against Mr. Masterson and the Church of
17 Scientology seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages (Jane Doe 3 used her actual
18 name in the public filings of the civil case). The complainants all are represented by the same
19 lawyers, and file common pleadings in that case. Only after all three complainants had filed a civil 20 lawsuit against Mr. Masterson in August 2019 did the network air the interviews, under the guise of 21 22 covering allegations in a filed lawsuit. 23 The collusion among the Complainants and Ms. Remini was not limited to communications
24
25 120 LAPD Chronological Record at Bates 154-155. 26 121 5/1/2021 tonyortega.org (publishing letter from Jane Doe 1). 122 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 477. 27 123 Id. 124 Ms. Remini’s alliance is with anti-Scientologists, not victims of sexual assault. When anti-Scientologist Paul Haggis 28 was sued by women for sexual assault, Ms. Remini publicly sided with Haggis. 22 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 of case details among themselves and case witnesses. The complainants filed complaints for what
2 they considered a lax investigation.125 The LAPD was sensitive to the criticism and removed Det.
3 Reyes as lead detective. No doubt emboldened, the complainants and Ms. Remini used social media
4 to embarrass DA Jackie Lacey for not bringing charges against Mr. Masterson (without disclosing 5 that Ms. Remini’s ratings and the complainants’ civil lawsuit would benefit greatly from such 6 charges). In late 2019, DA-candidate Gascon – tweeted in support of tweets by Tony Ortega and 7
8 other anti-Scientologists calling DA Lacey a “coward” for not bringing charges against Mr.
9 Masterson.126 Those tweets – by a person who could not have known anything about the state of the
10 evidence against Mr. Masterson – were perhaps the most decisive event in the investigation. DA
11 Lacey, behind in the polls, authorized the filing of the criminal complaint in June 2020. 12 2. The Prosecution’s Anti-Scientology Bias and Obsession. 13 There is no good reason why the word “Scientology” should be mentioned even once in this 14 investigation. This is a sexual assault case, where the accused happens to be a Scientologist. There is 15
16 no allegation that Mr. Masterson acted in any capacity with his Church in committing any assault, or
17 that the alleged assaults took part on Church grounds or were part of some Church rite. The issue of
18 religion is a complete red herring. Were Mr. Masterson Jewish, it is inconceivable that the LAPD
19 would court the nation’s most notorious anti-semite as a guide to its investigation. Were he Catholic 20 or Muslim, it would be an international scandal that law enforcement endorsed opinions that 21 22 members of his faith lie and destroy evidence to protect each other, and that the prosecution needed 23 to “take down” the religion. Were the church a prominent African American church, for example,
24 the First African Methodist Episcopal Church (First AME), if the complainant wanted its pastor
25 dead, the prosecution would reject this case entirely. 26
27 125 3/21/2017 LAPD report at Bates 477-478; 5/1/2021 tonyortega.org (publishing Jane Doe 1 letter). 28 126 12/10/19 tonyortega.org. 23 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 As noted, from the very beginning, the prosecution accepted without question Remini’s
2 biased and self-interested narrative that any current member of the Church could not be trusted as a
3 witness and that the multiple inconsistencies and delays in the complainants reporting their
4 allegations was due to supposed Scientology “brainwashing” and intimidation. Here are just a few of 5 the instances of bigotry infecting the investigation against Mr. Masterson: 6
7 Det. Reyes: I want this [case] to be big. I want to shake this group [Scientology] down. . . . Like this is an abomination . . . . I want this, like this is so huge and I cannot believe that this 127 8 is happening in 2016, almost 2017. . . . It should be a class action type of lawsuit.
9 Det. Reyes to Jane Doe 3: But then you have all of that brainwashing and what they told you 10 -- and how they told you it wasn’t a crime. You have all those layers to get past, and you’ve come this far.”128 11
12 Det. Villegas to Jane Doe 1: Something tells me that the Church of Scientology is going to blow up soon. 13 Jane Doe 3: Yeah, I hope so. 14 Det. Reyes: Yeah. Det. Villegas: Something tells me the Church of Scientology is going to blow up.129 15
16 Jane Doe 1: That guy [leader of the Scientology religion] can’t be getting any younger. I always wish for his death. I know it’s horrible. . . . anyway, he can’t live forever, right? 17 Det. Reyes: Right.130
18
19 Det. Reyes to Jane Doe 3: It’s in their [Scientology’s] doctrine that they can do, they’re 131 above the law . . . 20
21 Det. Villegas: They’re [Scientology] on their way down. Det. Reyes: Uh-huh. 22 Jane Doe 2: Yeah. For sure it’s the end. It’s the last battle call. Det. Villegas: Yeah…. 132 23
24 DDA Mueller: I need to tune in [to Remini’s anti-Scientology tv show].
25 127 12/23/2016 LAPD interview of Leah Remini. 26 1281/17/2017 LAPD Interview with Jane Doe 3. 129 1/26/2017 LAPD Interview with Jane Doe 1. 27 130 1/26/2017 LAPD Interview with Jane Doe 1. 131 1/17/2017 LAPD Interview with Jane Doe 3. 28 132 1/27/2017 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 2. 24 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 Jane Doe 1: You do.133
2 Det. Vargas to Jane Doe 1: “Different entities and agencies will be looking at this 3 information to see what we can do to attack this problem [i.e., the Church of Scientology...].”134 4
5 These are just examples of some of the overt bias expressed by law enforcement. Far more
6 pernicious are the effects of the bias that have warped the investigation. First is the participation of
7 Remini and her co-host and co-producer Mike Rinder in the interviews of the complainants. Ms. 8 Remini from the first had made known her interest in this matter, as an anti-Scientologist who had a 9 public feud with Mr. Masterson and promoter of an anti-Scientology television show. She made 10
11 known that she had coaxed Jane Doe 3 to file her report as an “initiation” to qualify her as a guest on
12 the Remini show and had recruited all three complainants as featured guests. Her and Mr. Rinder’s
13 separate self-interest in demonizing Mr. Masterson’s religion and heightening the drama of the
14 complainants’ claims is admitted. Yet, contrary to every protocol for interviewing victims of alleged 15 trauma, DDA Mueller welcomed the active participation of Ms. Remini and Mr. Rinder in the 16 interviews of the complainants. 17 Ms. Remini attended the April 24, 2017 interview of Jane Doe 1. In front of Jane Doe 1, 18
19 Remini played out for DDA Mueller what questions Church officials would have asked her if Mr.
20 Masterson had raped her. In response to the imagined interrogation that Ms. Remini concocted, 21 DDA Mueller responded, “Oh my God.”135 In addition to this coaching session, Ms. Remini 22 corrected Jane Doe 1’s statements in real time and piping in, “What you told me is not what you’re 23 telling him.”136 In the course of the interview – and in front of Jane Doe 3 – both DDA Mueller and 24 Det. Vargas assented to statements by Ms. Remini that witnesses who are Scientologists would “lie,” 25
26 133 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 27 134 10/10/2018 LAPD interview of Jane Doe 1. 135 4/24/2017 District Attorney Interview of Jane Doe 1. 28 136 Id. 25 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 “cheat,” “destroy your life” in order to “protect the Church” and because of “the doctrine of
2 Scientology.”137 When Ms. Remini offered further guidance on “how Scientologists will talk,” DDA
3 Mueller responded, “Oh, I’m sure I’m going to need some input.”138 Ms. Remini had left law
4 enforcement with little choice but to accept her guidance, as she threatened the prosecution with a 5 negative PR campaign if it did not do her bidding: “I told [Det.] Reyes from the beginning, ‘I’m 6 telling you, if you screw this up I’m putting you and the whole LAPD on Blast. Not because I want 7
8 to, but because they deserve to be heard.’ And you can’t keep being in business with the Church of
9 Scientology because you have no balls.”139
10 The influence of Ms. Remini’s propaganda about the Church and its members is clear in the
11 conduct of the investigation. The detectives suggested to the victims that inconsistencies in their 12 stories and their prolonged failure to report the incidents are the result of Scientology 13 “brainwashing” or intimidation. Law enforcement has credited the complainants assertions that they 14 are the targets of harassment by Mr. Masterson and Scientology because those claims fit with the 15
16 narrative adopted by the LAPD in the first couple days of this investigation – that Scientology was
17 an “abomination” that should be the subject of a “class action lawsuit.” But, it appears from the
18 records produced, when the LAPD runs down the complainants’ reports of harassment by Mr.
19 Masterson or Scientology, the reports prove to be unsubstantiated. 20 Jane Doe 1 reported that she had been the victim of “tampering” or “hacking” of her 21 140 141 22 phone. LAPD Electronics Unit inspected the phone. It found “no evidence of hacking” and 23 “didn’t notice anything suspicious.142 Jane Doe 1 also reported that a suspicious man was surveilling
24
25 137 Id. 26 138 Id. 139 Id. 27 140 5/18/18 LAPD Follow-Up Investigation Report at Bates 459. 141 Id. 28 142 E-mail from November. 8, 2017 at Bates 722. 26 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON
1 her house and going through her garbage. LAPD eventually determined that the individual had
2 “mild mental developmental issues” and was in Jane Doe 1’s neighborhood “to collect
3 recyclables.”143
4 Jane Doe 3 asserted that she and some of her on-line supporters were harassed through 5 tweets, and “we were able to bypass their vpn and caught them tweeting from the . . . .COS 6 headquarters in Clearwater, Fl.”144 Austin PD however, “had not been able to obtain confirmation of 7 145 8 the identity or location of the social media posts.” Jane Doe 3 complained that she found a “blob
9 of bubble gum” on the inside of her car window at a Target parking lot – what she described as a
10 “scary” situation and denied that it could have been the work of her children. Detective Vargas
11 followed up and asked Jane Doe 3 to email him a description of her car and the date and time so he 12 could pull the video from the Target parking lot cameras, he received “no response”.146 13 Jane Doe 3 also accosted a man parked on the street across from her house and accused him 14 of being a spy for the Church. In hearing her description of the altercation, Detective Vargas opined, 15
16 “So it sounds like he is connected to the church. His verbiage; his mannerisms. His reactions. It
17 sounds like he is connected.” 147 Had Det. Vargas met the individual, he would have learned that the
18 man was a building contractor who pulled over to make a phone call; the man has never been a
19 Scientologist. 20 IV. THE EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED DOES NOT WARRANT HOLDING 21 MR. MASTERSON TO ANSWER TO THE CHARGES 22 The evidence to be presented does not warrant holding Mr. Masterson to answer for charges 23 of forcible rape. Penal Code Section 261(a)(2) defines forcible rape as an act of rape “accomplished 24 25
26 143 5/18/18 LAPD Follow-Up Investigation Report, at Bates 464. 144 5/18/18 LAPD Follow-Up Investigation Report, at Bates 461. 27 145 5/18/18 LAPD Follow-Up Investigation Report, at Bates 463. 146 LAPD Investigation at Bates 736. 28 147 10/10/18 LAPD Interview of Jane Doe 3. 27 PRELIMINARY HEARING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DANIEL MASTERSON