Criminal Defense Attorney Philip Cohen unsuccessfully defended Danny Masterson in his criminal trial on three counts of forcible rape.

Danny Masterson’s appellate attorney Eric Stephen Multhaup of Mill Valley, California, has filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of his client. The writ was filed in California’s 2nd Appellate District: 

Prisoners routinely file writs of habeas corpus at the State level to challenge the legality of their confinement by the State.  These prisoners are seeking to be released from prison by alleging that they have been falsely imprisoned.

In the writ of habeas corpus, Scientologist Danny Masterson seeks to have his two forcible rape convictions overturned and to be set free.

The most common allegations made by prisoners in writs of habeas corpus are ineffective assistance of counsel; exculpatory evidence was withheld; and prosecutorial misconduct. 

Masterson’s was convicted by a jury for violently drugging and raping two women and is now demanding that his conviction be overturned because his attorney Philip Cohen was massively incompetent as we read below. 

Danny Masterson, 49, was sentenced to 30 years and is confined at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. This is the same Central California coastal town where L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986 while medicated on the psychiatric tranquilizer Vistaril.

Danny Masterson’s earliest parole eligibility date is scheduled for June 2042:

In his Writ of Habeas Corpus, Masterson lays down a beating of blistering excoriation upon his criminal defense attorney Philip Cohen for rendering ineffective assistance at trial. We quote from Masterson’s writ, a portion of which was posted at Tony Ortega’s formidable Underground Bunker:   

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner Daniel Masterson through his attorney Eric Multhaup petitions for a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his two convictions for rape and the accompanying judgment of 30 years to life. Petitioner Masterson is being held in custody by the Warden of the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, California, in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights, and in violation of his statutory rights under the laws of the State of California. By this verified petition, petitioner alleges as follows.

INTRODUCTION
This habeas corpus petition contains 11 claims, significantly more than the number of claims generated in the great majority of criminal cases, including many other serious cases with life sentences like this one.

Most of these numerous claims are attributable to an unexpected and unreasonable failure of trial counsel to present any of the mountain of exculpatory evidence that had been amassed by predecessor counsel. This breakdown occurred as follows. As of May 31, 2022, four months before trial, attorney Shawn Holley was petitioner’s trial counsel of choice, with attorney Philip Cohen assisting her. In August 2022, attorney Cohen was thrust into the role of lead counsel when the court denied a continuance request by Holley due to her conflicting obligations in another case and she effectively withdrew.

Unbeknownst to petitioner at the time that Cohen became lead counsel, Cohen had a longstanding aversion to presenting affirmative defense evidence in the cases he tried. By all accounts (including his own), Cohen had a settled practice of cross-examining prosecution witnesses based on inconsistencies and implausibilities in their statements and testimony; making a personal assessment of whether he had established reasonable doubt through cross-examination; and if so, resting without presenting defense evidence.

Cohen adhered to that practice in this case, but did so without engaging in the due diligence necessary to make a reasoned choice of trial strategy. He personally spoke to only two of the more than 20 potential witnesses who had been strongly recommended by co-counsel Karen Goldstein and investigator Lynda Larsen. He wrote off the great majority of them without any personal contact, notwithstanding their manifestly exculpatory prior statements to the police and to investigators.

This failure of due diligence violated the well-settled principle of Sixth Amendment case law that an attorney must interview potential defense witnesses as a necessary foundation for making a reasoned decision about trial strategy. See Exhibit 12, Declaration of Jack Earley, and the case law contained therein, including Lord v. Wood (9th Cir. 1999) 184 F.3d 1083. [1. “We would nevertheless be inclined to defer to counsel’s judgment if they had made the decision not to present the three witnesses after interviewing them in person. Few decisions a lawyer makes draw so heavily on professional judgment as whether or not to proffer a witness at trial. A witness’s testimony consists not only of the words he speaks or the story he tells, but of his demeanor and reputation. A witness who appears shifty or biased and testifies to X may persuade the jury that not-X is true, and along the way cast doubt on every other piece of evidence proffered by the lawyer who puts him on the stand. But counsel cannot make such judgments about a witness without looking him in the eye and hearing him tell his story.” 184 F.3d at 1095 (emphasis supplied).]…

Danny Masterson’s writ of habeas corpus was filed under seal: 

The appellate docket also shows that the Respondent’s, i.e. the People, were granted permission by the court in August, 2025, to file a brief in excess of 25,500 pages. Whatever it is the People are preparing to submit, it will be massive and likely awash in Scientology documents. The People were given 180 days in extensions to file this extraordinarily large brief:  

The Brief: