LA prosecutors relied on one key difference in Danny Masterson retrial which may have helped swing the case in favor of victims, expert says

• On Wednesday, actor Danny Masterson was found guilty of two counts of rape in a retrial.
• Los Angeles prosecutors were allowed to argue that Masterson had drugged some of his victims.

A key distinction in how Los Angeles prosecutors presented their retrial against actor Danny Masterson may have ultimately sealed his conviction on two counts of rape, a legal expert told Insider.

On Wednesday, a Los Angeles jury convicted "That 70's Show" actor Danny Masterson of two counts of rape, months after a jury couldn't come to a unanimous conclusion on any of the three criminal rape charges against the actor.

Jurors this week were hung on a third count of rape, leaning 8-4 towards a third guilty count, according to the Los Angeles Times.

"This conviction is remarkable because prosecutors turned around a case that, in the last trial, ended with a hung jury that was leaning toward an acquittal," Los Angeles criminal defense attorney Joshua Ritter, a partner with El Dabe Ritter Trial Lawyers and a former Los Angeles County prosecutor, told Insider after the verdict.

This time around, prosecutors relied more on the argument that Masterson had drugged the women he raped, per The Associated Press. The judge in the case gave them the green light to make the argument, unlike in the first trial, when prosecutors had to tiptoe around the assertion that Masterson drugged the women and could only ask the women how they felt after having drinks that Masterson handed them.

In opening and closing arguments, LA district attorneys centered the narrative on the control Masterson sought to impose over his victims. In the retrial, the women again testified to feeling woozy and disabled after having drinks prepared by Masterson.

"They were all drugged," Deputy DA Ariel Anson argued at the retrial, according to Variety. "The defendant drugs his victims to be in control. He does this to take away these victims' ability to consent. This is not about consent. This is not about the defendant misunderstanding these victim's signals. When he drugs them, he's able to completely physically control them. You don't want to have sex? You don't have a choice."

No evidence of the drugging was introduced at the trial — which Masterson's attorney centered — partially as the incidents transpired more than 15 years ago.

Ritter told Insider that ultimately, more authoritative victim testimony and prosecutor argument about the drugging likely played a role in swaying the jury, who deliberated for eight days.

"Jurors sometimes have a difficult time when an alleged rape involves a dating relationship, because they have trouble figuring out how sex can be consensual in one instance but rape in another instance," Ritter said. "When prosecutors can say the victims were drugged, that allows the jurors to wrap their heads around what changed to make the sex suddenly not consensual."

Masterson faces up to 30 years in prison at a later sentencing date, according to NBC News. Masterson's attorney did not have any comment on the verdict.