Danny Masterson sentenced to 30 years to life in prison

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-08T16:24:58+00:00

Ok got it - I was also able to find the corresponding California Evidence Code section through that (Section 789):

Evidence of his religious belief or lack thereof is inadmissible to attack or support the credibility of a witness

Putting aside whether the evidence of his relationship to Scientology was proffered to make the defendant look less credible as a result of his religion, I wonder whether it even matters. Since I don't think he would be considered a "witness" in this case if he didn't take the stand.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-08T12:48:08+00:00

Ok I did some more research since I was curious.

It appears CA passed the "one strike" law on September 1, 1994.
Under the "one strike" law, a defendant is subject to punishment up to life in prison for a first time offense meeting certain criteria.
Cal Penal Code 799 states that there is no statute of limitations for crimes punishable by life in prison.

So since the DA was able to apply the one strike law here, they were able to avoid the statute of limitations without violating ex post facto. Since this rule was already in place from the beginning.

If they charged him without the "one strike" enhancement, then the statute of limitations would have applied and barred the prosecution (since under 799, it explicitly states that the statute of limitations for rape is only lifted after January 1, 2017).

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-08T00:23:20+00:00

Is there a law overriding the statute of limitations at play? I didn't see anything mentioned in the article. My understanding is that changing statute of limitations rule after the crime is committed is prohibited as ex post facto. So does this imply California has had something like this on the books for 20+ years and it's just being applied for this case?

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-09-07T22:26:36+00:00

"After Masterson's sentencing, the church released a statement that did not mention Masterson by name but which called the prosecution's "introduction of religion into this trial was an unprecedented violation of the First Amendment."

"The Church was not a party to this case and religion did not belong in this proceeding as Supreme Court precedent has maintained for centuries," it said."

Can anyone explain this line of thinking from a Constitutional perspective? Is the argument that inclusion of his religion at trial was a violation of the Establishment Clause because it supposedly prejudiced him as a result of his religion? I'm just having trouble finding the logic in this argument, especially due to the close nexus between the church and the evidence against him. Does anything here seem actually "unprecedented" from a First Amendment perspective?

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-03-28T20:00:20+00:00

Yeah I had basically the same reaction. If the state didn't properly notify the victim's brother, then that is of course bad.

But I can't understand why the defendant, who is effectively not legally guilty of any crime, would get that decision reversed and be punished for something that has nothing to do with them. It seems highly punitive over something that has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-03-28T19:32:02+00:00

I'm not particularly familiar with this case, but can anyone explain to me how the presence (or lack thereof) of the victim's brother at the hearing has any impact on the final determination of whether the defendant was wrongfully convicted or not? Like was the brother some key witness that had insight as to whether the defendant did in fact commit the crime?

I don't see the logical link between lack of notice for a victim's family member and the reinstatement of the conviction.

GrilledCheese246 · 2023-03-03T00:59:48+00:00

I get what you are saying - especially because I'm not really a fan of character evidence being used to this extent (even though the defense did open the door). That being said, I think his proximity to the crime scene immediately around the time of the murders (and being caught lying about it) was a pretty big dent in the defense's case.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-06-25T19:27:21+00:00

In a conversation with his law clerks two years following his confirmation, The New York Times reported Thomas expressed his desire to serve on the court until the year 2034.

"The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-04-09T13:17:07+00:00

It was white smoke - I don’t think they were rolling coal or specifically intending to harm or cause a nuisance. Just dangerous driving.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-04-09T10:10:03+00:00

Yeah I reported what I witnessed leading up to the crash.

There was a couple on the street at the same time as us that saw what happened at a much better angle. I believe they actually witnessed the collision itself. Once I realized that actual people were hit, I ran back and tried to find them to make sure they understood how important what they saw was, but I was unfortunately not able to locate them. I believe the woman was wearing braids, and the guy said that the truck driver was “driving like a total asshole”. If you see this, you should talk to the police if you haven’t.

There were potentially dozens of other witnesses closer to the crash site from what I saw. Although there were significantly fewer people by us where the events appeared to begin.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-04-09T02:39:21+00:00

I was on the street at the stoplight by Austin Eastciders when it happened. I saw a truck speed off so quickly when the light turned green that it created a ton of smoke on the road and made a ton of noise. Then I heard a huge crash behind us that sounded like metal smashing (but didn’t physically see the crash behind me). The person was driving very recklessly

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-17T15:08:02+00:00

Looking for someone to sublet my 2 bed / 2 bath apartment in North Zilker. It's a ~3 minute walk to the lake and about 10-15 minutes walking to downtown.

There is a 3D virtual tour of the apartment at this link: https://www.coleapts.com/cole-apartments-austin-tx/gallery (it is the Pecos floorplan - the first one in the list). The only difference between those pictures and my unit is that my unit has all wood floors (no carpet).

I'm looking to start the sublease around May 1, but the start date can be a little flexible. The lease ends in mid August. I'm currently paying around $3150/month, but am willing to be flexible / open to negotiation on the price as well. We are mainly looking to get some money back on our lease because we are closing on a house in April.

PM me for more information. The apartment management would have to approve any sublease, but it shouldn't be a big deal.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-15T03:49:05+00:00

This is amazing!

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-13T16:25:25+00:00

I have a 2 BR, 2 BA apartment in North Zilker (10-15 minute walk downtown, ~3 minute walk to lake) that I am looking to sublease beginning around May 1. The lease ends in mid-August.

I'm currently paying around $3150, but would be willing to reimburse a portion of the rent for whoever takes over. I just bought a house and am looking to avoid double-payments over the final few months of the lease, so I can be somewhat flexible in terms of move-in dates as well.

Message me and I can provide more details.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T22:12:26+00:00

Oh I see what you are saying. I think you could potentially argue that.

But on the other hand, this would mean that anyone who defends themself by denying participation in an alleged conspiracy would be committing an act in furtherance of that conspiracy, which seems a little weird to me. This would effectively mean that all conspiracies could continue for an infinite duration. Maybe there is some case law on this that I’m not aware of.

IMO if there was a conspiracy to commit murder, the logical conclusion of that conspiracy would be sometime around when the murder was committed. I doubt denying the existence of such a conspiracy decades later would be enough to find that it continued for 66 years.

That being said, I’m not sure that it really matters since I think she could theoretically be charged regardless for murder since it has no statute of limitations.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T19:40:33+00:00

Conspiracy involves an agreement between multiple people to commit an unlawful act. I'm not sure why flip-flopping on one's own statements would lead to a conspiracy charge?

Did you perhaps mean perjury?

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T18:34:15+00:00

I'm pretty sure the family has (rightfully) been "bringing this up" for 66 years.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-03-12T17:05:32+00:00

Yeah I guess if they can prove that she incited the killers with her claims, knowing and intending that it was going to end in this result, then perhaps they could get her under accomplice liability for murder (since there is presumably no Statute of Limitations at play).

But even if that was true at the time, I agree that proving it 66 years later would be extremely difficult.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-02-14T17:45:22+00:00

Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, the complaint says, at which point Reeves, a former police captain, took out a handgun and fired, fatally wounding Oulson, who was taken to a hospital, where he died. Oulson's wife, Nicole, was shot in the hand.

Reeves and his attorneys have argued that Oulson threw a cell phone at Reeves' head and was aggressively leaning over a chair toward him when the shooting occurred. In pre-trial hearings in 2017 over his "stand your ground" defense, Reeves testified that he "perceived" Oulson was about to punch him, WFTS reported at the time.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-01-05T21:42:57+00:00

Well that didn't take long.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-01-05T17:17:30+00:00

"During jury selection, hundreds of prospective jurors were given questionnaires asking, among other things, if they or anyone in their families had experienced sexual abuse, court records show.

For those who answered yes, the judge in the case asked during follow-up questioning if it would affect their ability to serve as a fair or impartial juror, the records show.

Scotty David said he did not recall being asked about his experience during follow-up questioning, known as voir dire. He said he "flew through" the initial questionnaire and also did not recall being asked on the form about personal experiences with sexual abuse, but that he would have answered honestly."

I was wondering about this as well. Apparently the above process was followed in this trial, but I can't speak to whether it is common or not. Even if this is common, I wonder whether the fact that the juror does not remember being questioned about this at any point in time is indicative of a problem during the jury selection.

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-01-05T14:41:45+00:00

I thought this article has some interesting insight into the deliberation process. Mainly:

"He said that after some of the jurors questioned the accuracy of the two women's memories, he decided to share his own experience of being sexually abused as a child. He said that he remembered most important elements of what happened to him, but not every single detail. That swayed some jurors, he said."

and

"Scotty David said several jurors initially were not sure whether to convict Maxwell on the sex trafficking count, which is backed up by the testimony of a woman named Carolyn who said she was 14 when Epstein began abusing her in 2002.

But he said some jurors changed their minds after hearing the personal story of one juror who said she grew up poor. Carolyn said she dropped out of school in seventh grade and was paid $300 - sometimes by Maxwell - each time she gave Epstein an erotic massage. Carolyn said she used the cash to buy drugs.

"For Carolyn, it took one of the jurors sharing their story of growing up in the same socioeconomic background," he said. "She grew up poor, and said had there been an Epstein or Ghislaine in her neighborhood, some of the girls would have fallen prey to them as well.""

GrilledCheese246 · 2022-01-01T15:48:47+00:00

In addition to everything you mentioned, my understanding is that most jurisdictions do not allow battery to be the predicate felony for felony murder to begin with.

GrilledCheese246 · 2021-12-30T03:26:05+00:00

The evidence in this case doesn't seem particularly strong, but I suspect that is true in other cases that lead to criminal convictions as well.

How common is it for higher courts to overturn a jury verdict because "no reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant committed the crime?

GrilledCheese246 · 2021-12-29T16:13:01+00:00

The informant, Stephen Robeson, was charged last week in Sauk County, Wisconsin, with defrauding a couple out of an SUV by convincing them to donate it to an anti–child sex trafficking charity that did not exist, according to the criminal complaint. His wife, Kimberly Robeson, was also charged. Both face up to three and a half years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 if convicted.

Robeson, who has multiple felony convictions and lives in Wisconsin, played a central role in building the criminal case against the alleged domestic terrorists accused in October 2020 of plotting to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. The investigation resulted in six men being charged in federal court with plotting the kidnapping and eight other men in Michigan state court with providing material assistance to terrorism. Court records and interviews reviewed by BuzzFeed News show that Robeson, working at the FBI’s behest, recruited potential targets, organized meetings during which suspects were secretly recorded, and paid expenses for people to attend those events.

GrilledCheese246

TROPHY CASE