Reading Time: 3 minutes

It looks like the “the judge is biased against Scientology” defense isn’t going to fly.

In 2023, disgraced actor Danny Masterson was convicted on multiple rape charges.

He is now desperately appealing his sentence, throwing everything at the wall until something sticks.

The appeals court isn’t buying any of it.

He’s serving 30 to life

Masterson, once famous for his role on That 70s Show, is serving a 30-to-life prison sentence.

That is not going to change, the three-judge appeals court has ruled.

The 2023 court found him guilty of raping two women at his Hollywood Hills home back in 2003.

The jury deadlocked over the charge of raping his former girlfriend in 2001.

Masterson’s attorneys claimed that Judge Charlaine Olmedo had made statements indicating some sort of anti-Scientology bias during the trial.

The appeals panel found that the judge demonstrated “no animus or departure from neutrality regarding Scientology.”

The organization itself was central to the case. The prosecution demonstrated that victims, all former members of the Church of Scientology, had delayed reporting the incidents for fear of retaliation.

Prosecutors brought in a former Scientologist to testify about the organization’s practices, including a rule against reporting such matters to police.

To Masterson’s legal team, the court allowing this means that an anti-Scientology bias had tainted the entire trial.

(One wonders at the defense strategy of arguing that the predatory organization to which the convicted rapist belongs, the one that he used to keep his victims silent while hunting for more, also created a bias against him and should therefore invalidate his conviction.)

‘Admission of Scientology evidence for those purposes did not contravene the First Amendment’

In the 89-page ruling, the appeals court explained that discussion of Scientology was relevant to the case, and not a First Amendment issue.

“The jury in this case was not asked to determine the truth or falsity of Scientology doctrine or beliefs,” the court noted.

As such, the panel ruled: “Admission of Scientology evidence for those purposes did not contravene the First Amendment.”

The court also ruled on the statute of limitations, on evidentiary rulings, and even a wild claim that Masterson had inadequate legal representation in the first trial.

None of these rulings were in Masterson’s favor.

There are countless real examples where a defendant’s religion is brought up in court, off-handedly or at length, in order to prejudice a jury and skew the trial in the prosecution’s favor.

This can happen with an innocent person or with someone who is just as guilty as Masterson.

There are minority religions whose organizations are under surveillance in America simply for existing. Most notably but not exclusively, Islam.

However, if the perpetrator and victims are all part of the same organization — one known for massive retaliation against criticism from within and without — then knowing about that organization’s tactics and how it might protect an evil man is very relevant to the case.

It is sad and sickening to see, once again, people use real injustices — the marginalization of minority faiths and their adherents — in an effort to let a bad man weasel out of the prison cell where he belongs.

Get the app — celeb news firstPush alerts the second a story breaks · 4.8★ · Free

Get the App