More than two years after his conviction, That ’70s Show actor Danny Masterson has filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that investigative bias and ineffective assistance of counsel led to his guilty verdicts for raping two women. The filing asks the court to grant an evidentiary hearing, arguing the outcome of his 2023 trial was compromised by errors that deprived him of a fair defense.
What Masterson’s New Petition Claims
Submitted by attorney Eric Multhaup on Monday, November 17, the petition sets out multiple claims aimed at reopening the case. According to ABC News, the filing argues that the conviction should be revisited because the defense failed to investigate and present exculpatory evidence, and because law enforcement’s inquiry was tainted by bias.
Central to the new filing is the assertion that Masterson’s trial counsel, Philip Cohen, did not call key witnesses who, the petition says, would have offered accounts contradicting the accusers’ testimony. As reported by People, the petition claims that certain individuals were available to testify that the encounters in question were described as positive and consensual by the complaining witnesses in the days and weeks after they occurred.
“Among the available witnesses were individuals who would have testified that the complaining witnesses described their encounters with Masterson as positive and consensual in the days and weeks after they occurred … another complaining witness discussed her encounter with a close friend, describing it in a lighthearted and positive manner,” the petition alleges, per People. It further asserts that other guests in Masterson’s home on a date at issue “heard what they believed to be enthusiastic, consensual sexual activity.”
Ineffective Assistance Allegations
The petition outlines a broad challenge to the defense’s performance at trial. “This petition contains eight separate ineffective assistance claims relating to a broad array of defense evidence that was not adequately investigated and/or presented,” the filing states, according to ABC News. It argues that, when viewed together, the alleged deficiencies amount to a “major miscarriage of justice.”
Multhaup contends the jury was prevented from hearing testimony and evidence that could have altered the outcome. In a statement to ABC News, he said, “The unfairness of the second Masterson trial was the result of prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias and the failure of defense counsel to present exculpatory evidence.” He added that the habeas filing is supported by 65 exhibits, which he says document evidence of innocence that was not presented to jurors.
“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,” Multhaup said.
Alleged Investigative Bias and Scientology Context
Separate from its ineffective assistance claims, the petition also alleges that the investigation was compromised by bias stemming from what it calls the prosecution’s “excessive entanglement” with Leah Remini. Remini, a former member of the Church of Scientology who left in 2013, has become a prominent critic of the organization. Masterson is a current Scientologist.
The filing suggests that this alleged entanglement contributed to a prejudiced law enforcement approach, though the petition does not change the underlying verdicts on its own. Rather, it asks the court to review whether the process that led to those verdicts comported with legal standards required for a fair trial.
Case Background And What Comes Next
Masterson was convicted in 2023 of sexually assaulting two women in the early 2000s and subsequently sentenced to 30 years to life in prison. The actor, 49, has maintained his innocence. The new petition marks his latest legal effort to challenge the convictions after the trial court proceedings concluded.
A habeas corpus petition is a post-conviction remedy that allows a defendant to argue that constitutional errors or other fundamental defects undermined the fairness of their trial. Granting such a petition is not automatic. The court will first consider whether the claims warrant an evidentiary hearing where new witness testimony and additional evidence can be formally presented and tested.
If the court agrees that the issues raised—such as alleged ineffective assistance of counsel—meet the legal threshold, it could schedule a hearing to evaluate the new material cited in the petition’s 65 exhibits. If the court finds the claims persuasive after that process, potential remedies could include a new trial. If the court denies the petition, Masterson’s convictions and sentence remain in place.
The petition’s claims have not been adjudicated, and no hearing date was included in the materials cited by outlets. Prosecutors and law enforcement agencies connected to the case were not quoted in the reports referenced, and additional responses may be filed as the petition proceeds through the courts.
For now, Masterson’s legal team is framing the filing as a comprehensive accounting of what they view as critical omissions and procedural flaws in the original prosecution. Whether those arguments meet the stringent standards for post-conviction relief will be determined by the court in the coming stages of review.
