Danny Masterson seeks to overturn his rape convictions, claiming errors made by his legal team during the trial.

Convicted rapist and former actor from “That ’70s Show,” Danny Masterson, has filed a motion seeking to overturn his guilty verdict and to reduce his prison sentence, which currently stands at 30 years to life. This development follows his conviction in 2023 on two of three charges of rape, stemming from incidents that allegedly occurred between 2001 and 2003. Masterson, 49, is currently serving time and will be eligible for parole in 20 years. His initial trial ended in a mistrial, necessitating a second court proceeding.

In a recent motion submitted to California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, Masterson alleges that his trial was marred by inadequate legal representation provided by his former attorney Philip Cohen. The actor’s habeas corpus petition asserts that crucial exculpatory evidence, amassed by his pretrial lawyer, Shawn Holley, was not presented during the trial. Masterson’s legal team claims that the failure to introduce this evidence constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights.

Additionally, the motion alleges that Cohen overlooked 18 out of 20 potential witnesses who could have provided testimony favorable to Masterson. According to the petition, only two witnesses were called by Cohen, which the defendant argues led to a skewed presentation of the case. Masterson’s petition emphasizes that the jury was not exposed to a breadth of evidence that could have significantly influenced their deliberations, stating that the evidence presented only represented “the tip of the iceberg” of the available defense arguments.

Further complicating the case, Masterson has made claims of judicial bias against presiding Judge Charlaine Olmedo, linking this perceived bias to his affiliation with the Church of Scientology. Both Masterson and his accusers were associated with the Church, adding layers of complexity to the proceedings.

Currently, Masterson is represented by attorney Eric Multhaup, who has a history of challenging high-profile sexual assault convictions. Multhaup stated that Masterson’s second trial was beset by prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, and the failure of defense counsel to adequately present available evidence. He contends that the jury was privy to only a fraction of the narrative and asserts that Masterson deserves another chance to present his case.

As the legal process unfolds, Masterson’s appeal and subsequent motion for a new trial will be scrutinized as the overarching issues of representation and judicial fairness continue to come to the forefront of discussion.

Media News Source