Danny Masterson Blames Lawyers for 30-Year Prison Sentence

Danny Masterson is blaming his trial attorney for giving him a weak defense as he tries to overturn his 30-year prison sentence. The former That ’70s Show actor is serving time at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo after being convicted of two r*** charges in 2023.

According to a habeas corpus petition filed Monday, Masterson’s appellate lawyers say his trial attorney, Philip Cohen, failed to call key witnesses and did not challenge prosecutors’ claims about Scientology. The petition states that Masterson “implored (Cohen) to present at least a minimal modicum of defense evidence, but counsel refused.”

The charges stem from incidents at Masterson’s Hollywood Hills home in 2003. He was convicted on two counts, while the jury deadlocked on a third. At his first trial in 2022, jurors were leaning toward acquittal on all three charges, but the jury could not reach a verdict.

Scientology was a major topic in both trials. Prosecutors argued that the victims were pressured not to report the crimes because of the church. Two women said they were threatened with excommunication if they went to the police. During the retrial, Claire Headley, a former Scientologist, testified that the church requires special permission before going to authorities.

The habeas petition claims that the church’s lawyers suggested Cohen call Hugh Whitt, a longtime Scientologist, to counter that testimony. While Whitt was on the defense witness list, Cohen and his co-counsel decided not to call him.

Instead, Cohen downplayed the role of Scientology in the trials. “Why have we heard so much about Scientology? Could it be there’s problems otherwise with the government’s case?” he asked during closing arguments.

The petition argues that Cohen’s general strategy was to avoid putting on an affirmative defense and rely only on cross-examination. While this approach almost worked at the first trial, the retrial featured stronger evidence and a more aggressive prosecution. Cohen reportedly did not adjust his strategy or interview many potential defense witnesses who could have challenged the accusers’ credibility.

The petition says, “In sum, the jury saw only the tip of the iceberg of available defense evidence in the form of the complaining witnesses’ inconsistent statements while the wealth of directly exculpatory evidence went unused for no viable tactical reason.”

Masterson’s lawyers also filed a separate appeal last December, challenging several of the judge’s rulings. The habeas petition focuses on evidence that was not presented at trial. Eric Multhaup, one of Masterson’s appellate attorneys, told reporters, “The jury heard only half the story – the prosecution’s side. Danny deserves a new trial where the jury can hear his side as well.”

Have something to add? Let us know in the comments!