The Los Angeles courtroom was a scene of raw emotion as Jane Doe One, the first accuser in the Danny Masterson rape trial, broke down while recounting the alleged assault. Masterson, best known for his role in “That ’70s Show,” sat stoically as the jury listened intently to the harrowing details.
Tony Ortega, a journalist who has been diligently covering the case for years, provided insights from outside the courtroom. He noted a palpable shift in the jury’s demeanor, with their attention now fully captivated by the testimony of the accuser.
Day Two: The Charged Incident and Emotional Testimony
The focus of day two was the alleged rape itself. Jane Doe One described the horrifying experience, alleging Masterson choked her and raped her. Ortega described how the detailed account, particularly the description of being choked, visibly shook the accuser. She was unable to speak and began crying on the stand, prompting Judge Charlaine Olmedo to call for a short recess.
Danny Masterson leaves court with his wife, Bijou Phillips
The defense team, led by Philip Cohen, raised objections at the end of the session. They argued that the jury could hear Jane Doe One’s advocate comforting her during the emotional breakdown, claiming it was picked up by a hot mic. Judge Olmedo refuted this claim, asserting her confidence that no such conversation occurred in the jury’s presence. Ortega emphasized Judge Olmedo’s no-nonsense approach in managing the courtroom, highlighting her tendency to run a tight ship.
Engaged Jury and Detailed Evidence
Ortega observed the jury’s intense focus during Jane Doe One’s testimony. They were particularly engrossed when presented with photographs of Masterson’s house, meticulously examining the interior as the accuser recounted the alleged assault. This heightened attention signifies the weight of her testimony, as the jury now grapples with assessing her credibility and comparing her account with other evidence presented throughout the trial.
Contrasting Opening Statements
Ortega analyzed the contrasting styles of the opening statements. Deputy District Attorney Reinhold Mueller opted for an understated approach, meticulously weaving a compelling narrative based on factual evidence. In contrast, Philip Cohen delivered a more animated and forceful opening, directly attacking the accusers’ accounts and suggesting inconsistencies in their stories.
Scientology Takes Center Stage
A significant point of contention arose concerning the role of Scientology in the case. Judge Olmedo agreed to allow a limited discussion of Scientology to provide context for the accusers’ mindsets. However, the defense objected to what they perceived as excessive emphasis on Scientology, leading to motions for a mistrial.
Danny Masterson and his lawyer, Philip Cohen, in court
Cohen specifically took issue with the accuser using the word “enemy” to describe how Scientologists view non-Scientologists and the term “wog,” a derogatory term used by some Scientologists. Judge Olmedo and Mueller countered by pointing out that these terms were already mentioned during the preliminary hearing and should not come as a surprise. The judge denied the mistrial motions, but the back-and-forth highlighted the sensitive nature of Scientology’s involvement.
Show of Family Support
Ortega also noted the presence of Masterson’s family members in the courtroom, highlighting the close-knit nature of the family. Billy Baldwin, brother of Alec Baldwin and brother-in-law to Masterson’s wife, Bijou Phillips, was present on the first day of testimony. Masterson’s siblings and mother have also been present, demonstrating a united front in support of the accused.
Masterson’s Demeanor and What’s Next
Throughout the proceedings, Masterson has maintained a composed and controlled demeanor. He was initially permitted to greet the jury each morning during jury selection, a practice that struck some as unusual. However, Judge Olmedo allowed it.
As the trial progresses, all eyes remain on the courtroom, where the jury must carefully weigh the emotional testimony and evidence presented. The outcome of this trial hinges on their assessment of Jane Doe One’s credibility and their interpretation of the events that transpired.
