As a seasoned observer of legal proceedings and someone who has closely followed the Danny Masterson case, I find myself deeply troubled by the recent allegations against his defense team. Having spent years studying the intricacies of law and its application, it is disheartening to see what appears to be a blatant disregard for established protocols and ethical standards.
The legal team representing Danny Masterson has come under scrutiny due to accusations of reaching out to jurors from the trial without their approval.
In a motion obtained by NBC News on November 13th, prosecutors asked a Los Angeles court to hold a hearing and consider imposing sanctions for any harassment or inappropriate behavior from Masterson’s defense team members, who allegedly contacted jurors after his May 2023 conviction.
After the jury verdict, it appears that this court has been contacted by multiple jurors about contacts from the defense team, as stated in the document. These emails detail unwanted home and work visits by members of the defendant’s legal group, with defense attorney Shawn Holley even making contact at one juror’s workplace.
In a recent development, one of the lawyers representing an alumnus from the show “That ’70s Show” admitted to contacting multiple jurors, yet firmly maintained that no impropriety occurred.
In court filings made during the last week, the lawyer stated that she initially reached out to the presiding juror back in June 2023, and subsequently met with her in July. This encounter took place about two months after Masterson was convicted of raping two women in the early 2000s. Later in September of that same year, the actor was sentenced to 30 years to life imprisonment for this crime; he is currently appealing this sentence.
In a document dated November 20th, obtained by TopMob News, Holley wrote: “I clarified in the message I left for her that she was not required to talk to me. However, I expressed my hope that we could have a phone conversation to share thoughts on the jury’s views regarding the case.
A week after my initial query, on July 6, 2023, I received an email from her. In it, she expressed a preference for a face-to-face meeting instead of a phone conversation.
Nevertheless, the defense team mentioned in a motion that some jurors had voiced worries to the court regarding how Holley managed to get their private contact details. It’s important to note that the identifiers of these jurors were supposed to remain confidential following the verdict.
As a dedicated follower, I’d like to clarify that after a jury has been dismissed, it is permissible for a lawyer to engage in discussions about jury deliberations or verdicts with individual jurors – but only if the juror willingly consents first. In this case, I want to bring attention to an email from the foreperson, who communicated to the court that they were approached by Holley and granted her permission for a meeting.
After receiving a recent complaint from a juror, they issued an order in September, which forbids the defense team from directly communicating with trial jurors. Any such communication must be done through the Court Clerk first.
In her statement from November 14th, Holley mentioned that she found the jury foreperson’s contact details by searching for her online since the job information she disclosed in public court aligned with available data about her workplace.
In a declaration made on November 14, Holley asserted that they had a lunch meeting the next day in Santa Monica, California.
At our midday gathering, the chairperson was amiable, polite, and straightforward, as she explained. Towards the end of the discussion, she shared her opinion that certain other jury members might also wish to converse with me.
Holley stated that she found the foreperson’s details online on November 14th, and in a later declaration, she mentioned this. The foreperson then reached out to Holley, informing her of two other jurors who were open to meeting with her and even provided their phone numbers (with their supposed consent). Holley claimed that she contacted these individuals and met each one of them separately at restaurants for discussions.
Holley stated that both jurors were friendly and approachable. He is certain, given his conversations with the jurors and their readiness to talk to him, that none of the three jurors he met perceived or have ever perceived his contact as unwelcome, inappropriate, or harassing.
Meanwhile, the prosecution mentioned in their filing that some jurors had voiced worries to the court regarding how Holley managed to get their private contact details. This information should have been kept confidential since it was ordered to be sealed following the verdict.
The motion submitted by the prosecutors stated that while a lawyer can talk about jury discussions or verdicts with a juror after the jury has been dismissed, the juror must first agree. The document contained an email from the foreperson stating that Holley had contacted them and requested permission to meet, which they shared with the court.
After getting a juror complaint last month, they issued an order in September restricting the defense team from directly communicating with trial jurors; all such interactions must be channeled through the Court Clerk instead.
Read More
- DYM PREDICTION. DYM cryptocurrency
- CYBER PREDICTION. CYBER cryptocurrency
- ZK PREDICTION. ZK cryptocurrency
- JASMY PREDICTION. JASMY cryptocurrency
- SKEY PREDICTION. SKEY cryptocurrency
- Top gainers and losers
- LDO PREDICTION. LDO cryptocurrency
- MPL/USD
- TURBO PREDICTION. TURBO cryptocurrency
- EUR CAD PREDICTION
2024-11-22 01:22