May 29, 2009 - Los Angeles - The drama of the Anand Jon case was on maximum overdrive as rogue juror Alvin Dymally took the stand. Dymally has been accused of juror misconduct during the trial that would lead to a new trial for the young fashion designer.

In yet another dramatic plot twist to the trial reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan movies, “a bombshell was dropped Friday by [the defense] presenting an audio tape they say proves a juror spoke with their client's sister during trial, contradicting the juror's sworn testimony given hours earlier.” (AP / Greg Risling) “[Defense attorney Leonard] Levine said he had never been involved in a case with so many twists and turns.”

The hearing Friday brought to light the seriousness of the allegations. Dymally seemed to be playing a game as he testified. He neither fully denied nor really accepted the serious juror misconduct allegations.

“Let me put it this way…I don’t fully remember” was all the juror kept repeating like a broken record. He would go on major tangents elaborating on even the simplest “yes” or “no” response but committing to nothing fully.

Defense attorney Leonard Levine spent 5 grueling hours deciphering Dymally’s studied “rambling”, stripping away his lies under oath with past inconsistent statements. “I know I didn’t have a conversation with her,” Dymally adamantly testified. (AP)

The wait was well worth it as Dymally’s perjury and major inconsistencies left huge holes in his own stories. Finally he had no choice to concede that he had, in fact, initiated the communication with the Anand Jon’s sister, Sanjana.

The shocked courtroom erupted when a surprise taped communication was revealed. Dymally was left speechless and his lawyer repeatedly requested a recess insisting that his client Dymally answer no further questions. The tape, played in court minutes after Dymally had just denied under oath any such communications with Sanjana during the trial, revealed Dymally speaking with Sanjana.

The quality could have been much better, however, Dymally’s non-stop chatter and accent was distinctly obvious. Dymally talked away for 90% of the 4 ½ minute conversation. Sanjana just kept repeating “thank you.” And “thank you very much.” Profusely thanking a juror would not happen after a guilty verdict, which supports Sanjana’s story and clearly contradicts the juror’s.

The tape starts out simple, but powerful: “Um, I got this number in the cafeteria?”

Then the confirmation from the juror: “Oh, yes, hi. How are you?”

Sanjana’s answer is delayed, scared and shaky: “OK. Um, how are you?”

In the sing-song-y cadence of the juror: “I’m doing all right. I’m doing all right?”

In addition, the facts presented at the hearing are undeniable - the subpoenaed phone records for October 27th and November 3rd corroborated the phone calls between the two occurring during the trial, which concluded November 13, 2008. The defense also contends that the length of the taped phone call equals the first call shown on the phone records.

It was also revealed that there was mysterious contact between the DA investigators and Dymally meeting and speaking on the phone more often than the police reports indicate. Was and is Dymally being coached? Although they are supposed to be independent Dymally’s attorney, Pierpont Laidley, was discussing strategy with the prosecution during the hearing.

A quick Google search for misconduct involving a juror clearly demands a new trial. In the case of Remmer v. United States (347 U.S. 227 (1954)) which states that "[i]n a criminal case, any private communication, contact or tampering, directly or indirectly with a juror during a trial about the matter pending before the jury is, for obvious reasons, deemed presumptively prejudicial."

Also, the facts stated in People v. Barber, (124 Cal.Rptr.2d 917) mirror what occurred in the Anand Jon trial back in November 2008 where a “new trial ordered where jury reported that it was hopelessly deadlocked and trial court then erred by: (1) questioning jurors in a manner that revealed the identity of the lone holdout; (2) allowing the prosecutor to examine the holdout juror; and (3) allowing testimony from only those jurors who claimed the holdout juror was not deliberating in good faith.”

This mistrial hearing now supports the last hearing that focused on the recusal of the prosecution. The prosecution intentionally thwarted a defense undercover operation; that operation may have eliminated any doubt regarding this juror’s intentions.

There were several misconduct hearings that put the prosecution on the stand and under a microscope. During those hearings the prosecution team each told different stories amounting to someone, if not everyone, was committing perjury. Surprisingly, they got away with it even though Judge Wesley was “troubled by the interception of the juror” (LA Times / Jack Leonard) “…but the remedy”, stated by the judge in court, “will be in the mistrial hearing.”

Also during those hearings the prosecution tried to take the spotlight off of themselves and their misconduct by sidetracking the court with a collection of images of the accusers. As it turns out these images (most of which were available online) were collected by one of the witnesses in a desperate attempt to make everyone and anyone take notice of the racy character of these girls involved in the trial.

This witness, Lauren Boyette, testified as to the role of her old roommate, Holly G, as a ring leader and conspirator in soliciting, pressuring and instigating these girls to file false allegations against Anand Jon. Lauren testified that she and many of the girls that came into the apartment to meet with Holly (as well as those that Holly spoke to on the phone) were promised fame and money for their participation in the conviction. The carrot dangling was her involvement in a TV reality show that Holly is producing and actively shopping around Hollywood.

Holly’s “sugar daddy”, Sal, was also exposed as the money behind the TV project. They met on a website appropriately named “sugardaddyforme.com” (http://www.sugardaddyforme.com/index.php?page=profile&id=263286). Holly G was also exposed as an escort /prostitute trying to establish a “service” using these same girls.

Boyette testified that prosecutor’s lead detective George Elwell offered “deals” to the girls in order to get them to testify against Anand Jon. Referenced was Holly G’s and Lauren Boyette’s arrest and conviction together in Virginia that would be “wiped away”. Boyette continued that she chatted online with Holly G. It was admitted during the chats that Holly committed perjury during the trial with the knowledge of the prosecution. These newly discovered chats were turned over to the court.

Boyette concluded her revealing testimony by stating that she was intimidated by the prosecution not to testify – surprisingly just outside the courtroom. She testified that DDA Young and two burly DA investigators cornered her in the hallway filled with people, including many attorneys. Their hands were on their weapons and Young said “if you testify you will regret it”. Boyette hasn’t been seen in court since this intimidation.

Anand Jon has already beaten a whopping 43 counts of sexual allegations. The once hyped up dozens of charges against Anand Jon have fizzled out dramatically to a whimper of absurd allegations mainly involving varying degrees of “inappropriate touching” formally known as “sexual assault”. Then there is the only serious count of “forcible rape”. However, the rape kit from this one improbable allegation for Jessie B was negative for any signs of trauma. The prosecution’s own expert examiner Dr. Shulman concluded that there were “no threats, no signs of any use of force, violence, no injuries, no weapons used.”

It was revealed that Holly G was a roommate of Anand Jon and admitted to disappearing with Jessie B for 2 ½ hours convincing her to press charges against Anand Jon. Upon their return she suddenly she claimed their relationship was strictly professional, in sharp contrast to the personal “Hi Babe. Miss you. Can’t wait to see you!” email that anticipated her visit and that the consensual sexual contact was forced.

However, Anand Jon went on to pass a polygraph exam to scientifically verify his innocence. Regardless, he has been in solitary confinement for over two years held on no bail.

The timing of these charges is suspect as Anand Jon’s Wall Street financing for his jeans line was just kicking in.

“Almost all of these charges were initially rejected and the allegations in the other jurisdictions are simply frivolous with little merit” stated attorney Saji Vettiyil, who worked on the Youngblood case where an innocent man was wrongfully convicted and years later was overturned. Unfortunately Youngblood died in prison before he was exonerated.

In fact, the NY prosecution told the defense that on its own they would not have filed even a single charge. It was simply due to pressure from LA prosecution and their package of seemingly similar charges.

In short it was a façade to create a bail gridlock and keep Anand Jon in custody at any cost. Yet another violation of his civil rights.

What seems apparent is that Anand Jon did not get a fair trial, did not get an impartial jury and did not get an even-handed prosecution. Two years later Anand Jon deserves a new unbiased trial and fair bail.

LOS ANGELES: Anand Jon is still fighting for justice. It’s been several months since the shocking verdict and at each hearing something new is uncovered.

Recently the prosecution was on the defensive; nine members of the LA DA’s office took the witness stand to testify as to why the prosecutor’s office intentionally sabotaged an undercover operation by the defense.

This was the subject of a defense motion to recuse the prosecution from further proceedings in the case and have an independent investigation conducted by the State Attorney General’s office.

What was surprising was that the defense’s closing argument for this recusal motion didn’t focus more on the prosecution’s perjury under oath. “Who ordered the sabotage?” was the question during the April 1 and April 17 hearings. As it turned out the decisions went to the top of the DA’s office to Curt Hazel, however, each prosecution team member told a different story with each testimony contradicting the previous.

What was the real truth? Why was DDA Frances Young present with police during the sting? Why did two detectives visit the target of the sting at his home and work yet never create a police report saying such? Why the cover-up? There are no answers to these questions, but shouldn’t there be?

The judge made it clear that the court was immensely disappointed with the prosecution thwarting the court approved undercover operation regarding juror misconduct. Did the prosecution act even-handedly? Was there bias? Personal malice? Was the sabotage done to investigate the juror or to stop the defense or protect the verdict? One thing is certain; their actions were certainly not about uncovering the truth.

Defense attorney Leonard Levine argued that there was such a conflict that the prosecution “changed their investigative techniques”. “They were so biased that they couldn’t conduct an even-handed investigation.”

Judge Wesley stated that he was “troubled by [the prosecutor’s] actions.” At least a half dozen times Judge Wesley expressed his immense disappointment. However, Wesley could find no law that was violated. This then begs the question “is the prosecution above the law?” According to this ruling the DA investigators are allowed to do what anyone else would be arrested for.

Then came the afternoon session, which was bizarre. Prosecutors called a defense witness in connection with the distribution of a flyer / email that listed many of the women involved in the Anand Jon conspiracy. The women were shown nude or semi-nude, several involved in questionable activity. Most of these images were posted online by the women bragging about their escapades. Why wasn’t this brought up during trial?

Prosecutors questioned Lauren Boyette about the material. Defense attorneys Ronald Richards and Dana Cole defended her First Amendment rights. The judge acknowledged that Ms. Boyette has the right to criticize anyone involved in the case. Especially when she testified that many of them were involved with prosecution witness Holly G in a prostitution ring.

It was alleged that Holly G coordinated the girls to lie against Anand Jon. Evidence showed that Holly G is actively pursuing media regarding the case in order to make money off the situation. Holly G is also pushing a reality TV show focused around all this. Clearly this shows motive.

Holly G also admitted in writing that the DA’s office OK’s her admission of perjury. Holly G admits in writing that the prosecutors pushed a drug angle with their witnesses, even though they knew there were NO drugs found in the apartment. Isn’t this inciting and instigating perjury?

Ms. Boyette witnessed Holly G with stolen goods and money from Anand Jon. These girls were proven to be opportunistic. The title of the flyer was Prostitutes for the Prosecution” – it appears that this is closer to the truth than the prosecution would like us to realize.

Then in a special request Ms. Boyette stated that she was threatened by DDA Frances Young right outside the courtroom. In the hallway, Ms. Young, two DA investigators and Richard Doyle, Young’s boss, cornered Ms. Boyette against the wall and threatened her about testifying. This was witnessed by a hallway full of people.

Isn’t this blatant abuse of power by the DA’s office? These actions are despicable. Knowing what we know about prosecutorial misconduct, how can anyone receive a fair trial?

This morning Judge David Wesley heard arguments from Anand Jon defense lawyer Leonard Levine as to why the entire District Attorney's office should be recused from prosecuting a new trial that the fashion designer's attorneys are seeking -- as well as from investigating why a juror in Jon's trial had contacted Jon's sister, Sanjana.

Jon was convicted in November of 15 counts of sexual assault and one charge of rape. Currently in custody at the Men's Central Jail, he faces a minimum prison sentence of 67 years. He has not been sentenced because his lawyers have raised two explosive charges: that Juror No. 12 had, during and after the trial, contacted the defendant's sister with a mysterious promise to "help" Anand, and that D.A. investigators had crudely prevented a meeting between the juror and Sanajana by intercepting the man moments before their scheduled rendezvous.

Several hearings have been held to learn why the D.A. investigators interrupted the defense's exploratory contact with the rogue juror. Two weeks ago, in a sensational sideshow, Judge Wesley also tried to find out who on the defense team had circulated an online flyer showing nude and semi-nude photos of Jon's accusers -- some of whom were under-aged.

Today Levine said the fact that during these hearings no one on the prosecution's side criticized the sabotaging of the defense's attempt to interview Juror No. 12 (with Sanjana wearing a wire to record their conversation) showed the entire D.A.'s office had such a vested commitment to preserving the guilty verdict won by prosecutors Frances Young and Mara McIlvain that it created what's called a "disabling conflict of interest".

During Levine's comments and those by Steven Matthews of the Attorney General's office (which the defense is calling upon to replace the D.A.'s office), Judge Wesley made it clear he did not accept the idea that the entire D.A. apparatus was tainted by the action of a relatively few people, who included Young, McIlvain (neither of whom addressed the court this morning), a handful of investigators and senior D.A. officials Richard Doyle and Curtis Hazell. However, he let it be known he was deeply disturbed by the investigators' interception of Juror No. 12.

"I am troubled," Wesley said, "that the District Attorney stopped this meeting from taking place. I don't buy the explanation that the meeting could have been 'scripted.' Was the driving force behind this to protect the verdict at all costs, and not to investigate the jurors? This bothers me that they interferred -- I don't think it was a good idea."

After a 50-minute break Wesley returned to announce his decision: As much as he disliked the D.A.'s investigators' interception of Juror No. 12 before he had a chance to converse with Sanjana Jon Alexander, the judge found that no laws had been broken and that, besides, a district attorney should feel a commitment to preserving a verdict.

"I find no misconduct on behalf of Frances Young and Mara McIlvan," Wesley said. "There's nothing I've heard in this case that proves the prosecutors have an axe to grind . . . I find there is no conflict of interest and the motion to recuse is denied."

May 5 was then set as the date to begin hearings on the defense motion for a new trial, a motion that will focus on possible juror misconduct. Juror No. 12, Lenny Levine assured Wesley, would be subpoened by the defense for those hearings. Court will resume at 2 p.m. this afternoon to resolve questions about those salacious flyers that had, besides showing Anand Jon's accusers in various states of undress, included their names and ages.

"I know you weren't responsible for this," Wesley had angrily told Jon and his lawyers nearly two weeks ago, "but it hurts the credibility of the defense."

LOS ANGELES: Prosecutors were in the spotlight on the witness stand in the latest hearing involving prosecutorial misconduct in the Anand Jon case. Defense attorney Leonard Levine stated to the court, “The actions of the prosecution are supposed to be unbiased and even-handed. We believe that they are not.”

“Lawyers for Anand Jon Alexander also accused the Los Angeles County district attorney's office of sabotaging their attempts to investigate.” “…the designer is seeking to recuse the DA’s office from the case and his attorneys grilled prosecutors and DA investigators.” (LA Times)

The prosecution could not hide dismay and panic. Outwardly defiant DDA Francis Young and DDA Mara McIlvain smugly took the stand with a self-described “we are paramilitary” attitude. “Deputy district attorneys McIlvain and Young did not appear at ease in their unaccustomed roles as witnesses compelled to explain their actions.” (LA Weekly)

DDA McIlvain shrugged and shifted blame to her “supervisors” for having made the decision to violate the court instructions. McIlvain testified that she did not even know about the decision to “intercept the juror”. When supervising investigator Brian Bennett took the stand, he revealed that everything was discussed with both McIlvain and Young in the room.

The DDAs did not inform Bennett that the court had authorized the defense’s operation or mention that Judge Wesley raised concerns about possible extortion.

“Wesley sharply questioned investigators about their behavior, suggesting if the defense had interfered with a prosecution sting, the defense operatives would have been arrested.” (Linda Deutsch, Associated Press.) "That says it all, your honor. No further questions," finished defense attorney Leonard Levine. (LA Weekly)

DDA Young admits she discounted this (court approved) undercover operation as a “charade” mainly because they would not have “control” over it. Young squirmed in the witness chair, clearly not accustomed to explaining their illicit actions.

DDA Young contradicted both McIlvain and Bennett. Young’s version was that “only one of the DDA’s was present”.

Young also admitted phone calls with Curt Hazell (“#3” in the DA’s office) as well as supervisor Richard Doyle “popping his head into the room”.

[Note: Mr. Hazell himself was recently the center of a misconduct hearing regarding a written confession never turned over to defense. That 1982 death penalty conviction was finally overturned in 2009. According to LA Weekly instead of sanctions, Hazell was promoted to one of the highest administrative positions in the DA’s office by his college roommate, DA Steve Cooley.]

DA investigators Laurie Devine and Chris Turpin then took the stand. Each contradicted the previous testimony of their bosses. Investigator Turpin verified that both DDAs were in the room and gave “instructions” regularly throughout this case. However, Investigator Devine stated that neither DDA was “present”!

Each testimony that day was contradictory. What is the truth? Who was perjuring themselves? Will justice prevail? “This [testimony] gives new meaning to the phrase ‘win at any cost’; such blatant misconduct should cause the recusal of the entire DA’s office, at the same time granting Anand Jon a new trial” expressed Leonard Levine after the proceedings.

California State Attorney General representative Stephen Matthews was present and was observed at times sinking his face into his hands. Imagine the embarrassment watching this mockery of the justice system. During the trial itself lead detective George Elwell was exposed “not officially booking” vital exculpatory evidence, making racist comments, and pressuring, coaxing and intimidating witnesses to suit the prosecution’s agenda. Other jurisdictions also admit that LA pressured them to file charges against Anand Jon.

Elwell pointed to the prosecutors stating that he turned over everything to them. Those same prosecutors, McIlvain and Young, in turn blamed Elwell with incompetence. At this point the defense filed a motion for mistrial. It was denied.

One or more of the jurors had admitted that they wanted to vote “not guilty” for Anand Jon. This may explain why the prosecution took a huge risk and intercepted the juror from coming forward.

During the trial Holly G and Britny O stated that the prosecutor’s office coached them about “drugs found in the apartment.” However, detectives testified there were no drugs. Also, the prosecution pushed a “violent crimes” mantra to the court, the world and the media, yet six months later recanted “no violence, no injuries, no weapons”. Why is it OK for these DDA’s to lie to get a conviction? How are they allowed to flaunt this flagrant miscarriage of justice?

The sheer audacity of the prosecution to deny a vendetta, prejudice and racism in this case is mind boggling. “Curry smelling dick”, “India head”, “sandnigger” are some of the comments heard around this case.

Defense attorney Ronald Richards stated: “Today was the first time I really saw hard evidence Anand’s family is a victim of a bias and partial prosecution team. The explanations the DA and the three investigators gave for the reasons why they intercepted the juror were incredulous, nonsensical, and trampled Anand Jon’s due process of law.”

Judge David Wesley has taken the bench. Everyone seems to be here except Anand Jon. Jon's sister, Sanjana, is wearing a long, scarf-like wrap that is pale-green -- will her brother be wearing a green tie? During the trial his ties matched her wraps. At the last hearing he wore the orange shirt and trousers of a county jail inmate. He was also handcuffed.

Richard Doyle, head of the D.A.'s special prosecutions division, has arrived. There seems to be a rep from the state Attorney General's office present and word has spread that there will be no sentencing today -- only a motion to recuse the D.A.'s office.

Confirmed: Deputy Attorney General Steven Matthews is here to represent the AG.

Jon has just arrived in a suit -- and light green tie.

Judge Wesley: He's not going to proceed on the defense's motion for a retrial. Judge has not listened to the tape of an interview of Juror No. 12, conducted by defense lawyers. The juror had attempted to meet with Jon's sister, Sanjana, after the trial, but investigators from the D.A.'s office ultimately blocked that meeting from happening. The defense is seeking to have a new trial with the D.A.'s office recused from the case and replaced by counsel from the California Attorney General's office.

Testimony is about to begin, with trial co-prosecutor Mara McIlvain just sworn in to explain her role in the events surrounding Juror No. 12's attempt to speak to Sanjana. Judge Wesley has ordered all potential witnesses to leave the room, including Sanjana and some of the defense's support staff -- and Richard Doyle.

Judge David Wesley takes the bench on April 1 for fashion designer Anand Jon’s latest sentencing hearing, following his conviction in November on 15 counts of sexual assault and one count of rape. Nearly everyone involved is in the courtroom except the defendant, Anand Jon Alexander, better known by his brand name Anand Jon. There’s Jon’s sister, Sanjana, wearing a pale-green scarflike wrap — will her brother enter wearing a green tie? During the trial his ties matched her wraps. But at the last hearing he wore the orange shirt and trousers of a county-jail inmate. He was also handcuffed.

Richard Doyle, head of the D.A.’s special-prosecutions division, arrives, and court watchers notice that there seems to be a rep present from the state Attorney General’s Office — Deputy Attorney General Steven Matthews. The defense is seeking to have a new trial with the D.A.’s Office replaced by counsel from the California Attorney General’s Office.

Moments later Jon makes his entrance. He’s wearing a suit — and a pale-green tie.

Call it the extension of March Madness. Those of us reporting on Jon’s post-trial hearings have known for more than a month that today’s hearing would likely take on the explosive charges that the District Attorney’s Office had thwarted a January 7 meeting between Jon’s sister and a rogue juror who’d expressed to her his sympathy for the defendant. Yet some of us in the media came to the hearing speculating that Judge Wesley would reject the defense’s motion for a new trial and summarily sentence Jon, who faces the possibility of life in prison.

April Fool’s, it quickly turns out, but the madness continues throughout the day. During the hearing, Jon’s lead defense attorney, Leonard Levine, questions a list of witnesses who were connected to the trial and to the bizarre events surrounding Sanjana Jon and Juror No. 12. A little recap is in order: Toward the end of the trial, and before deliberations had begun, Juror No. 12 contacted Jon’s sister in the courthouse’s cafeteria and gave her his phone number on a slip of paper.

Then, after the trial, Sanjana allegedly got a call from Juror No. 12 requesting a meeting.

“You know we can help,” the man is said to have told her. “We need to meet with you alone.”

A meeting was arranged to take place in a Starbucks on January 7. It wasn’t clear today whether the juror and Sanjana were acting against court instructions — or whether they thought they were — by meeting nearly two months after Anand Jon’s conviction. The juror definitely broke the law, however, if he reached out to Sanjana during the trial, or if he really said, as alleged, “We know this is a difficult time for your mother and brother. Tell them not to worry. We know your brother’s innocent. Everything’s going to be okay.”

What the maverick juror had on his mind may never be known. When Sanjana disclosed her planned meeting to Anand’s lawyers, they contacted Judge Wesley shortly before the scheduled meeting, informing him and also prosecutors Mara McIlvain and Frances Young about the meeting. The attorneys asked Wesley’s permission to place a wire on Sanjana for the Starbucks meeting, in order to learn the juror’s intentions. Wesley acceded to the request, agreeing that it was possible that the juror could be trying to carry out an extortion plot. (Without that extortion element it would have been illegal for civilians on the defense team to run a surreptitious recording of the juror.)

The D.A.’s Office assigned a team of investigators to attend the Starbucks sit-down as unobtrusive background actors. However, when the juror approached the coffeehouse, investigators intercepted the man and attempted to interview him for 15 minutes. During that time they divulged to him that they were investigating a possible case of jury tampering in the Jon trial. “Weirded out,” as the juror described himself to the investigators, he left the scene without meeting with Sanjana.

At today’s hearing, the defense’s Levine wants to find out why the D.A.’s Office interfered with the Starbucks meeting. Why, he asks throughout the day, couldn’t the D.A. investigators have allowed the meeting to take place, and then interviewed the juror afterward? The clear implication from Levine’s questions is that the defense believes the prosecution, in order to protect the guilty verdicts it has won, deliberately sabotaged a meeting whose secretly recorded conversations might result in a mistrial.

Deputy district attorneys McIlvain and Young appear ill at ease in their unaccustomed roles as witnesses compelled to explain their actions. Both prosecutors tell Levine that they observe a hands-off attitude in regard to their department’s investigators and let them run the surveillance as they saw fit. McIlvain even says she hadn’t inquired about the results of the critical Starbucks meeting after it had been interrupted by the investigators, and only learned later about what had transpired.

The day’s highlight, however, is testimony from lead investigator Brian Bennett, a by-the-book straight arrow who seems to have stepped into court from out of a David Lynch movie. It was his decision to question the juror at Starbucks before the man had a chance to meet with Sanjana, and his plan that scared off the juror without getting him to divulge anything to her — or to investigators. Over and over, Levine asks Bennett what possible damage would have been done to the D.A.’s investigation if the Sanjana meeting had unfolded before his people confronted Juror No. 12. And over and over, Bennett replies that letting “civilians” run an investigation involving a recording device was not the way his office operated and was “not a road we were going to go down.” After all, he says, the defense could have been concocting the whole meeting as a prescripted show designed to win their client a new trial.

Before long, Lenny Levine, who’s been questioning witnesses from the defense table, is up on his feet prowling around the podium, unable to contain himself. Here is a D.A. investigator claiming that his department inadvertently wrecked the defense “sting” simply because he couldn’t “control” it.

“What was there to control?” Levine repeatedly asks, doubling over in disbelief, as though punched in the gut. “Was this a turf battle?”

Bennett denies this — just as he denies the insinuation that he thought his interception and attempted interrogation of Juror No. 12 would have a chilling effect on the man.

Before lunch recess, Judge Wesley asks Bennett a question of his own. What would Bennett have done had a civilian investigator behaved the way Bennett and his team had, during a police-run sting?

“I see where you’re going with that,” Bennett smiles, knowingly.

“No,” Wesley cuts him off, “don’t tell me where you think I’m going. You’d have him arrested, wouldn’t you?”

“Probably,” Bennett says quietly. Wesley then returns the witness to Levine.

“That says it all, your honor,” Levine says. “No further questions.”

The questions Judge Wesley puts to the D.A.’s investigators, and his clear impatience with their answers to Levine, does not augur well for the prosecutors, who are trying to keep this case from being taken away from them and given to the state Attorney General’s Office for retrial. Juror No. 12 has yet to be called into court and questioned under oath. The next hearing, with more D.A. witnesses, is scheduled for April 17. After today, this strange, shape-shifting case is no closer to a conclusion than before, but the search for something resembling light continues.

“The truth,” prosecutor McIlvain tells Levine, “is whatever the truth is, and that’s what we have to get to.”

The future is looking grim for prosecutors across the United States. A full page Op-Ed piece in the New York Times (April 3, 2009) said it all: Prosecutors Gone Wild. The contributor, John Farmer, former NJ Attorney General, noted several significant recent state and federal cases including those of former US Senator from Alaska Ted Stevens and the Duke University case.

These cases, alongside the recent overturning of the 1982 Miranda verdict and the current Anand Jon case have all brought into the spotlight the subversive prosecutor. The prosecutor that hides crucial exculpatory evidence. The prosecutor that turns a blind eye to truth and justice. The prosecutor that skirts the law.

Mr. Farmer expertly wrote in the NY Times editorial that the role of the prosecutor is “not to seek the maximum penalty…nor an impressive tally of convictions…nor use emotional pain and personal ruin…to advance one’s career or personal agenda.” They are not allowed to “overzealously prosecute”. “The prosecutor’s only duty is to seek justice. Period.”

Prosecutors were in the spotlight on the witness stand in the latest hearing on prosecutorial misconduct in the Anand Jon case. The prosecutor’s initial arrogance as the facts unraveled regarding their blatant abuse of power shocked the courtroom. Defense attorney Leonard Levine stated to the court, “The actions of the prosecution are supposed to be unbiased and even-handed. We believe that they are not.”

LA Times journalist Jack Leonard reported that, “Lawyers for Anand Jon Alexander also accused the Los Angeles County district attorney's office of sabotaging their attempts to investigate…” “the designer is seeking to recuse the district attorney’s office from the case and his attorneys grilled prosecutors and district attorney’s investigators in court Wednesday.”

The prosecution could not hide its dismay and panic. Outwardly defiant DDA Francis Young and DDA Mara McIlvain smugly took the stand with a self described “we are paramilitary” attitude and were quickly exposed once again of some of the worst examples of prosecutorial misconduct on recent history. Reported by LA Weekly, “Deputy district attorneys McIlvain and Young did not appear at ease in their unaccustomed roles as witnesses compelled to explain their actions.”

DDA Mara McIlvain was called first. Ms. McIlvain’s attempt at cuteness turned desperate and deceptive incoherent mumbling trying to feign ignorance. She shrugged and shifted all responsibility and testified that she did not even know about the decision to “intercept the juror”.

Their own supervising investigator Brian Bennett took the stand to reveal that McIlvain was lying under oath as he stated that though the investigative team made the decision it was first discussed with BOTH DDA Mara McIlvain and DDA Francis Young in the room! And that both DDA’s (conveniently) did not inform him that the court had in fact authorized the vital sting operation nor mentioned the fact that Judge Wesley himself raised concerns about possible extortion plot.

Bennett testified that “We wanted to control each of the six or so members of the investigative team.” Bennett bragged and repeatedly mocked and ridiculed the defense’s investigation as “just civilians”. [Isn’t the defense investigator licensed by the state? That takes him / her out of the “civilian” category and into the “professional” category along with the defense attorneys. Incidentally, did Bennett forget how many crimes are solved as a result of the diligence of regular common citizens, bank tellers, citizen’s arrests, surveillance from convenience stores, etc. – thank God we have these “just civilians” helping out law enforcement.]

Steve Mikulan, in LA Weekly, described Bennett as a character right out of a David Lynch movie. (Not a compliment.) Supervisor Bennett admitted that they were in fact targeting Sanjana Jon (Anand Jon’s sister) and not the REAL issue at hand of juror misconduct and potential extortion attempts.

“Wesley sharply questioned investigators about their behavior Wednesday, suggesting if the defense had interfered with a prosecution sting, the defense operatives would have been arrested.” reported Linda Deutsch, Associated Press.

In LA Weekly, Steve Mikulan reported that “…before lunch recess Judge Wesley asked Bennett a question of his own. What would Bennett have done, had a civilian investigator behaved the way Bennett and his team had, during a police-run sting?

"I see where you're going with that," Bennett smiled, knowingly.

"No," Wesley cut him off, "don't tell me where you think I'm going. You'd have him arrested, wouldn't you?"

"Probably," Bennett said quietly. Wesley returned the witness to Levine.

"That says it all, your honor. No further questions."

The questions Judge Wesley put to the D.A.'s investigators, and his clear impatience with their answers to Levine, does not augur well for the prosecutors, who are trying to keep this case from being taken away from them and given to the state attorney general's office for retrial.”

Contrary to McIlvain’s testimony, Bennett stated that both the prosecutors were involved in the planning meeting to subvert the defense investigation. This contradictory statement then begs the question, who was lying under oath? This perjury reached new lows as they, one by one, began seriously contradicting each other’s testimony.

Defense attorney Leonard Levine was so outraged by the audacity of the prosecution team that at one point he even questioned them as to why they were laughing and if they found all of this “funny”?

The answer to that came when DDA Francis Young was ordered on the stand. (Ms. Young tried to avoid and delay her testimony by asking the defense to call other witnesses first.). Young admits she distracted this (court authorized) undercover operation as a “charade” mainly because they would not have “control” over it. DDA Francis Young squirmed in the witness chair, clearly not accustomed to explaining their illicit actions.

DDA Young gestured dramatically as Leonard Levine completely ripped apart her inconsistent statements. She too contradicted both Mara McIlvain and supervisor Brian Bennett. The convoluted story now mutated into “ONE of the DDA’s was present during the decision” [to sabotage the defense nvestigation].

However Francis Young clearly not used to being under so much scrutiny let the big cats out of the bag. Young specified [phone calls with] Curt Hazell as well as Richard Doyle “popping his head into the room” [referring to the subversive juror interception meeting to sabotage the defense’s court approved undercover operation.] DA Director Doyle was actively involved in this case from the start. Doyle religiously attended almost every single day of the trial often addressing the DDA and frantically putting out fires.

[Note: Mr. Hazell found himself the subject of a prosecutor misconduct hearing involving Adam Miranda. Mr. Miranda’s conviction was recently overturned by Judge David S Wesley when it was revealed 20 years later that the prosecution, lead by Mr. Hazell, kept hidden a written confession that was never turned over to defense and never was heard in court by the jury that convicted. They lied and said that it didn’t exist. George Hedges, Miranda lawyer stated, “when the system breaks down, where the DA withholds evidence of innocence, the system is so corrupt that it can no longer be called a judicial system.”

Instead, according to LA Weekly (Aug 17, 2006), Mr. Hazell was promoted to one of the highest administrative positions in the DA’s office by his college roommate, District Attorney Steve Cooley. (In addition, it was also uncovered that Mr. Hazell had an affair with one of the prosecution’s key witnesses in the Miranda case. They had a son. 20 years later as this misconduct is being investigated, public records reveal that Mr. Hazell was then living with the head of the Pubic Integrity Division of the DA’s office. [How convenient.])]

[Ironically, referring to the Senator Stevens case that was thrown out by US Attorney General Eric Holder, Judge Emmet G Sullivan echoed, “how does the court have confidence that the public integrity section has public integrity?” Judge Sullivan reminded that, “…this is a search for the truth and people ought not to forget that.”]

Clearly, the prosecutorial misconduct and personal malice against Anand Jon, an innocent victim, is not isolated simply to disgraced DDA McIlvain and Young but goes to the top of the paramilitary food chain.

“This gives new meaning to the phrase ‘win at any cost’; such blatant misconduct should cause the recusal of the entire DA’s office, at the same time granting Anand Jon a new trial” expressed defense attorney Leonard Levine after the proceedings where these prosecutors were caught in their own schemes and lies under oath.

California State Attorney General representative, Stephen Matthews, was observed sinking his face into his hands. One can only imagine the embarrassment to be even remotely associated with this prosecution who has made a mockery of the justice system.

DA investigators Laurie Devine and Chris Turpin then took the stand. Each contradicted the previous testimony of their bosses. Investigator Turpin verified that BOTH DDA’s were in the room and gave “instructions” regularly throughout this case. However, Investigator Devine stated that neither DDA was “present”! Each testimony that day was contradictory. What is the truth? Who was perjuring themselves? Will justice prevail?

Even during these hearing there is still a question regarding the prosecution turning over exculpatory evidence to the defense. This echoes of problems that occurred during the trial with the defense constantly asking for the court’s help in obtaining information that leads to innocence.

The court ordered all discovery related to the hearing handed over by March 23, 2009 including several recorded interviews with Sanjana Jon. As of the hearing this was still not handed over. How is this considered “fair and even-handed”? The self-proclaimed “independent investigation” is absurd considering it involves the DA’s own investigators. How is it independent?

Seen throughout the trial a majority of the prosecution’s own witness’ testimony acknowledged that the prosecution team has done things “off the record”. Lead detective George Elwell was exposed “not officially booking” vital exculpatory evidence, making racist comments, and pressuring, coaxing and even intimidating witnesses to suit the prosecution’s agenda to “win at any costs and by any means.” Even other jurisdictions admit that the LA prosecution team had pressured them to file charges against Anand Jon.

Testifying during the trial, Detective Elwell pointed to the prosecutors stating that he turned over everything that he had in his files to them. Those same prosecutors, McIlvain and Young, in turn blamed Elwell with incompetence. At this point the defense filed a motion for mistrial. It was denied.

Both the prosecution and the investigator were let off the hook then only to continue their nefarious and blatant abuse of power. New evidence surfacing indicates a similar pattern and technique was used with this juror under investigation as well. It looks like there was quite a bit done “off the record” with the juror to serve the prosecution’s agenda. Vile. Unlawful. Unethical. But certainly not surprising misconduct from THIS prosecution.

No longer a question of who was lying (all the prosecution team seemed to be committing perjury under oath) but how much were they lying? Why do they still have jobs? The condescending, chilling, snickering attitudes from the DDA’s and the prosecution team’s contempt for “civilians” and their “above the law” attitudes they seem to flaunt despite being caught in blatant abuse of power, prosecutorial misconduct and perjury; they could face no consequences.

When will their big boss DA Steve Cooley, reputed to be fair and capable, finally realize the absurdity of the allegations against Anand Jon? Will this rampant prosecutorial misconduct of a few rotten apples like these DDA’s and renegade investigators taint his entire office? The nervous expressions of the DDA’s indicated they knew they were caught red-handed.

Meanwhile some of the most ridiculous excuses made by veteran supervisors like Bennett (and backed up by his team) as to why they decided to interrupt the juror / sabotage the undercover operation was that as it stood the operation was “unauthorized” and “civilians” were involved.

Bennett’s further explanation of “technical difficulties” as the “inside of Starbucks was the worst place for a recording”. Bennett gave his “thought process” with a convoluted explanation of acoustics and sound waves dispersing. (The operation was in fact specifically court authorized while civilians are regularly involved in undercover operations. Incidentally the DA investigators first interview after interception was out in obnoxiously loud traffic in downtown LA. Ironically when the defense questioned WHERE the prosecution team choose as a location to have the follow up interview with the juror (the next day?) the grim faced and embarrassed investigator whimpered the under oath response “Starbucks”.

At least one or more of the jurors have in fact admitted that they wanted to vote “NOT GUILTY” for Anand Jon across the board on ALL charges and that they know those women are “lying” and even seemed “coached”, a dramatic series of events during the deliberations including criminal and improper behavior allegations, threats to walk out, and being pressured to vote against their will. This lead to over nine days of gridlocked jury and several hearing and court inquiries.

Judge David Wesley even indicated that “the case may be headed for a mistrial” Abruptly and suspiciously something seems to have happened and allegations very similar to how the juror was intercepted have raised concerns if the prosecution also had a hand in influencing the unexpected jury verdicts. This also may explain why the prosecution took a huge risk and intercepted the juror from coming forward but ended up getting caught and collapsing their own house of cards.

We may never know what really happened as the juror has admittedly been “freaked out” by the prosecution team but what we do know is that Anand Jon was denied a fair investigation, a fair bail, and a fair trial so far.

During the trial several women admitted these prosecutors, including Lily Gonzales, made direct incriminating statements that affected their perception of their relationship with Anand Jon negatively and influenced them to turn against him. Doesn’t this scream of witness coaxing?

Others accused DDA Lily Gonzales of implanting them with the idea that Anand Jon had drugged them including Britny O and her friend [and prostitute turned alleged victim] Holly G. These two women not only admit they illegally hacked into Anand Jon’s computers but Britny O even stated under oath that she knew it was illegal and when she confessed this to DDA Lily Gonzales, Ms Gonzales asked for and took these illegally hacked passwords.

The perjury of Holly G was the highlight of many articles written about the Anand Jon case. It was clear that she was getting caught in her own web of lies. However, Holly G has further verified in writing that the “DA told her about the mind numbing drugs they found” in Anand Jon’s apartment and that the DA told her “people lie under pressure. It’s OK”. Contrary to what the DA’s were pushing, their own investigators during the trial testified that “no drugs and not even cigarettes” were actually found in Anand Jon’s apartment. Why is it OK for these DDA’s to lie to get a conviction? How are they allowed to flaunt this flagrant miscarriage of justice?

DDA Mara McIlvain shifts part of the blame to her “supervisors” for having made the decision to violate the court instructions. The sheer audacity of the prosecution to deny the vendetta, the prejudice and the racism in this case is mind boggling. “Curry smelling dick”, “India head”, “sandnigger” are some of the comments heard around this case. Even in open court the prosecution spewed venomous comments like “this arrogant and narcissistic man”, “fake designer” and ‘fallen angel”. Clearly, if these were criminal, most of Hollywood would be in jail.

Threatening a defense lawyer, juror interception, and extreme witness coaxing, intimidation, tampering with and even destruction of evidence and racism have all been verified in this case yet the prosecution simply shrugs it off as just doing their job”? It’s astounding that this team is still employed. Does DA Steve Cooley know what’s been going on?

Having beaten a whopping 43 counts already Anand Jon is left with a dozen or so charges of inappropriate touching and behavior including allowing underage drinking. The one and only very serious charge of forcible rape has not only turned out to have a negative rape kit result (ie no signs of any assault related findings but the prosecution own expert witness, Dr Schulmann testified “no force, no trauma, no injuries”. Anand Jon even took and passed a lie detector test. However this “win at any cost and by any means” prosecution lied to the court, the world and the media of “violent crimes” yet six months later recanted “no violence, no injuries, no weapons”.

Anand Jon has become the symbol of the innocent man falsely accused, fighting for his freedom and justice. He especially represents the colored man who once successful or recognized becomes a target for the greedy, the wicked and the racist.

There has been a major outrage from public worldwide demanding to free Anand Jon. For starters he deserves a new trial and a fair bail. The court is expected to rule a new trial, as the misconduct clearly and obviously denied this innocent man anything even close to a fair trial. Practically all his civil rights were also violated including fair bail and due process. The prosecutorial misconduct in this case is one of the worst abuses of power in recent history and it’s high time to hold them accountable.

Fashion designer Anand Jon has spend the last TWO YEARS in solitary confinement due to trumped up charges brought on by an overzealous prosecution and a group of conspiring women each with their own agenda. Every one of these women was caught perjuring themselves during the trial. Unbelievably the jury voted to convict. This conviction is in dispute as at least one of the jurors contacted the defendant’s family.

During a court authorized undercover operation the defense team’s investigation was thwarted by a rogue group of DA investigators. That leads to the April 1st 2009 hearing where the prosecutors in the Anand Jon case including DDA’s Mara McIlvain and DDA Francis Young were ordered to take the stand. Their testimony was followed by investigators and supervisors involved in the interception of the juror and the flagrant sabotage of the undercover investigation.

Anand Jon has upheld his innocence from the beginning. He even passed a polygraph. Anand Jon has alleged misconduct by the prosecution as well as law enforcement since the beginning. The problem is that it’s hard to prove.

Defense attorney Ronald Richards stated: “Today was the first time I really saw hard evidence Anand’s family is a victim of a bias and partial prosecution team. Instead of letting the juror be secretly recorded by Sanjana, the DA and its investigators intentionally prevented the juror from meeting her so she canrecord why he contacted her during deliberations.”

“The explanations the DA and the three investigators gave for the reasons why they intercepted the juror were incredulous, nonsensical, and trampled Anand Jon’s due process of law.”

Los Angeles, April 7 (ANI): Each testimony in the latest hearing on prosecutorial misconduct in Anand Jon case was contradictory, sparking rumours that some members of the prosecutorial team may have committed perjury.

During the hearing, Brian Bennett, the supervising investigator on the case for the Los Angeles district attorney’s office, admitted that a juror was stopped from meeting Jon’s sister Sanjana, reports LA Weekly.

Bennett testified that Juror No. 12 was intercepted on his way to the meeting because he knew the defence would place a wire on Sanjana and record the meeting at a coffee shop.

DDA Mara McIlvain testified that she did not even know about the decision to ‘intercept the juror’.

However, Bennett took the stand to reveal that McIlvain was lying under oath as he stated that though the investigative team made the decision it was first discussed with both McIlvain and DDA Francis Young.

He also said that both DDA’s did not inform him that the court had in fact authorized the vital sting operation nor mentioned the fact that Judge Wesley himself raised concerns about possible extortion plot.

Contrary to McIlvain’s testimony, Bennett stated that both the prosecutors were involved in the planning meeting to subvert the defense investigation.

DA investigators Laurie Devine and Chris Turpin then took the stand. Each contradicted the previous testimony of their bosses. Investigator Turpin verified that both DDA’s were in the room and gave ‘instructions’ regularly throughout this case.

However, Investigator Devine stated that neither DDA was present.

After the proceedings where these prosecutors were caught in their own schemes and lies under oath, defense attorney Leonard Levine said: “This gives new meaning to the phrase ‘win at any cost’; such blatant misconduct should cause the recusal of the entire DA’s office, at the same time granting Anand Jon a new trial.” (ANI)

NEW DELHI : Alleging that Anand Jon was a victim of ‘‘conspiracy’’, ‘‘racism’’ and ‘‘prosecution misconduct’’, the mother and sister of the Indian-American fashion designer convicted of sexually assaulting budding models, along with students from Delhi University, held a candlelight vigil at Jantar Mantar on Wednesday to appeal to the Indian government to ensure ‘‘justice’’ for Anand.

‘‘Anand has become the symbol of the innocent Indian fighting for truth and justice.

He has been forcibly detained in prison for the last two years despite evidences indicating his innocence. We want President Obama to look into the issue since he knows about racial prejudice. If he does not, I will launch a fast-unto-death demanding justice for my innocent brother. We also want the Indian government to intervene and will present a memorandum to the American Embassy,’’ said Sanjana Jon, Anand’s sister, who is currently in Delhi with her mother Shalini Abraham to drum up support for the ‘Free Anand Jon’ campaign.

From Jantar Mantar to the fashion runway in Delhi is a bit of a switch when it comes to campaigning for a cause, but that’s what Sanjana Jon did during WIFW.

She walked the ramp for Charu Parashar, and she did not smile, did not act like a model at all. But her objective was to be a model for a few minutes.

“I did it for Anand,” says Sanjana. “The fact that I can be a model and walk the ramp is a statement that I want to make to the other models. If I’m gonna dress for the ramp, somebody is going to touch me and if I turn around and accuse him of inappropriate touching – it’s ridiculous. I want those models (who’ve accused Anand) to get the message that I walked the ramp too.

But I am not going to accuse people of touching me because that’s part of their job. I am not standing on the other side of the fence – I am where they are,” she says vehemently.

What else has she planned? “I’m going to the US. Anand’s trial is on April 1 and I want to see what comes next. I’m thinking of organising a big fundraising event with all designers participating in it. The message of this event will be that what’s happening to Anand can happen to anyone else. There should be legal enforcements and valid contracts so that nobody can use anything against them. It’s not that prevalent in India, but it’s not that far away either. Like doctors have strong unions and they protect each other, our industry should have the same. Through this, we’ll also be able to gauge how many people actually stand by us,” she says.

Mumbai: A high-level delegation is planning to meet US president Barack Obama to protest the imprisonment of Indian-American fashion designer Anand Jon. The 34-year-old fashion designer has been convicted for molestation and sexual abuse.

Jon's mother and sister said they had sent letters to Obama asking him look into the matter.

"We have now decided to get our point across by holding demonstrations before Obama. We will also be sending letters of support from MPs. We believe that my brother has been targeted because he is brown-skinned and Obama can help him get a fair trial," said Sanjana, Jon's sister.

Criminal lawyer Majeed Memon, yoga guru Bikram Chaudhary, US based model-cum-actor Lauren Boyette and Madhu Kapur who, the family claims, is one of the main witnesses in proving Anand innocent, was also present. "The girls who filed a case against Jon had asked me to file a fake case, but I refused. When I approached the authorities, they did not allow me as a witness," said Boyette.

NEW DELHI: The family of Indian-American fashion designer Anand Jon, who has been convicted of several counts of sexual abuse, on Monday appealed to U.S. President Barack Obama to look into the case, alleging “racial discrimination” and “conspiracy.”

Addressing a press conference here, Mr. Jon’s sister Sanjana Jon and his mother Shashi Abraham said he was being victimised and had been “falsely accused” in the cases of sexual abuse.

“I request the Indian Government to intervene. I urge President Obama to look into the case. Being a person of colour, he knows about racial prejudice. If he does not, I will launch a fast-unto-death demanding justice for my brother,” said Ms. Sanjana fighting back tears.

“Anand was charged on 59 counts. Just before the trial began, several counts were dropped. He has held steadfast to his innocence and already beaten 43 counts. The only remaining rape count was based on a ‘negative’ rape kit test. My brother even took and passed a lie detector test. He is being framed. All the charges were levelled against him when his company was to get funding from the Wall Street,” she charged.

The family is here in India to mobilise support for Mr. Anand before a crucial hearing on April 1.Ms. Sanjana and her mother claimed that the U.S. media was not highlighting their side of the story.

U.S. model-cum-actor Lauren Boyette who claimed to be a witness, told reporters that Jon was being targeted as per a “conspiracy” hatched by one of the alleged victims.

Ms. Abraham demanded a new and “fair” trial for her son.

The family supported by various students of Delhi University, including the Law Faculty, will stage a march to the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi on Wednesday.

LOS ANGELES, CA: Following the latest hearing in his case, Anand Jon said, "I will wait as long as it takes for the truth to come out and for justice…"The next step in that struggle for justice will take place at an April 1 hearing, at which time his attorneys are expected to discuss alleged prosecutorial and juror misconduct.Recently filed defense motions are presently under seal, but during a Feb. 27 hearing in the case (BA327190, LA Criminal Court) before Honorable David S. Wesley, Jon's attorneys alleged that one or more jurors contacted the defendant's family on at least one occasion.

According to the defense, the law would demand a new trial in such an instance.Also discussed during the hearing were the actions by the investigators for the prosecution. According to the defense, the prosecution defied a court order barring any contact from either side with any of the jurors as their investigators intercepted a juror just prior to an outside meeting. As the defense asserted in court, the reason for the contact will never be known, but a new trial is again warranted according to established case law."I've never seen anything like this in my 25-plus years practicing law," said Leonard Levine, defense attorney for Anand Jon.

"The motions are under seal and still cannot be discussed at this time," Levine said. "We trust that the court will do the right thing by granting these motions. We are enthusiastic for a new trial for Anand Jon, a trial that will send an innocent man back home to his family." On Nov. 5, 2008 a special hearing occurred during deliberations where at least one juror (juror #12) admits that they wanted to vote not guilty on all counts but other jurors were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring some to vote against their will. In a 180-degree turn, the prosecution is now protecting the same juror whom they tried to have removed from the jury.

On Nov. 13, 2008, the prosecution filed a motion to have juror #12 removed. The reasons include: 1) refusing to follow the law; 2) potentially breaking another law; 3) disagreed with the law as instructed by the court and 4) would not properly participate in deliberation. "There is still a considerable amount of discovery that needs to be uncovered," commented defense attorney Ronald Richards.

"But for the District Attorneys blocking the door to justice…we would have found out why the juror contacted (the defendant's sister)," Richards said at the news conference as reported in LAWeekly. DDA Francis Young was absent from these proceedings on February 27th, however, Mara McIlvain, the lead DDA, indicated to the court that the decision came from supervisors above.

"The D.A.'s office thwarted the defense's ability to get to the truth. We don't know how high up (in the prosecutor's office) it goes," Richard told MSNBC. "At this point, nobody is immune from being called to the stand and explain what happened," said Judge Wesley in the MSNBC report. During the Feb. 27 proceeding, it was also alleged by the defendant that prosecution threatened one of the defense attorneys directly.

The court would address any motions regarding these actions during subsequent hearings after April 1.Anand Jon has beaten 43 counts during his ordeal. Early on, during news conferences and press releases in March 2007, the prosecution painted him in the media as a serial rapist. However, in the end they recanted those statements in court in November 2007 and on the eve of trial in September 2008 they dropped more than half of the charges against including all but one rape count.

According to trial testimony, that sole rape count produced a negative rap kit result - there were no signs of trauma. Also important to note is that Anand Jon passed a lie detector test regarding the testimony from that same complaining witness in December 2008 as reported by numerous news agencies.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my 25+ years practicing law,” said Anand Jon defense attorney Leonard Levine. One thing is clear from the Anand Jon hearing on February 27, 2009 in Department 102 of the LA Criminal Courts Building in front of Honorable David S. Wesley, that Anand Jon did not get a fair trial. It’s also clear that at least one or more jurors contacted the defendant’s family more than once. That alone, according to the law, demands a new trial.

The question is, were these jurors trying to do the right thing since at least one admits during a special hearing that they wanted to vote not guilty on all counts but other jurors were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring some to vote against their will. Or were they up to something malicious like extortion? Were they reaching out to expose the lies and misconduct going on? Regardless of the reasons, according to case law there has to be a new trial.

[An important note: During deliberations in November, there was a special hearing held regarding these same jurors. One juror stated that others were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring others to vote against. One of the jurors requested to speak with the judge in private. What was going to be disclosed remains a mystery as private conversations with the judge are not allowed. As the deliberations dragged on, after 9 days the judge commented that it “looks like we’re heading for a mistrial.”]

The recently filed defense motions are currently under seal. However, pertinent clues to those motions were discussed in court. It would appear that the motions focus on misconduct by the juror and the prosecutor. “The motions are under seal and still cannot be discussed at this time,” said Leonard Levine. “We trust that the court will do the right thing by granting these motions. We are enthusiastic for a new trial for Anand Jon, a trial that will send an innocent man back home to his family.”

While Judge Wesley indicated that Anand Jon may get a new trial, the staggering abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct practically demands not only a new trial but also the removal of the prosecution. There is substantial case law that has obviously been violated when the sanctity of the jury system itself has in any way, shape or form been influenced, contaminated or compromised – it automatically and immediately leads to a new trial.

“There is still a considerable amount of discovery that needs to be uncovered,” commented defense attorney Ronald Richards. On April 1, 2009 a full evidentiary hearing has been scheduled. What we do know for now is that at least one or more jurors were under surveillance and investigation with very suspicious activity during the trial. Despite a formal court order the prosecutor’s office intercepted a truth seeking process and intentionally sabotaged it.

"But for the District Attorneys blocking the door to justice…we would have found out why the juror contacted [the defendant’s sister]," Richards said at the news conference as reported in LAWeekly.

Defense attorneys Leonard Levine and (recently reinstated first attorney) Ronald Richards indicated the magnitude of the calculated move by the prosecution had essentially destroyed any chance of a fair trial and the truth coming out. Mara McIlvain, the prime character a majority of the misconduct seems to have repeatedly stemmed from indicated the decision came in from supervisors above. While this opens up a Pandora’s Box for the prosecution, even top-of-command can be subpoenaed. (This would be another unprecedented occurrence to have top district attorneys under oath, scrutinized for breaking the law.)

Ronald Richard stated “The D.A.'s office thwarted the defense's ability to get to the truth. We don't know how high up (in the prosecutor's office) it goes.” (as reported by MSNBC)

"At this point, nobody is immune from being called to the stand and explain what happened," said Judge Wesley [standing up for justice being equal for all / no one is above the law] as reported by MSNBC.

This would not be the first time Mara McIlvain has avoided any repercussions and shrugged off serious responsibilities upon others such as lead detective George Elwell of BHPD who was blamed entirely for the shamelessly tainted investigation that included witness coaxing, disappearing evidence, and destruction of exculpatory materials, personal bias and even racism. Elwell, in turn, under oath pointed fingers or at least tried to share the blame with the prosecution who he claimed he had given everything to and they in fact called the shots. In either case as the saying goes, the prosecutor and their investigators are “two cheeks of the same backside”.

The prosecution constantly and consistently lied to the courts, to the media, and to the world that these are naïve helpless, small-town girls, with no motives, and don’t know each other. This is the furthest thing from the truth. Even a preliminary overview of their disturbing lifestyle and pattern of behavior shows the following: a history of extortion, illegal drugs, work in the porn industry, past false allegations with other men, and criminal records including theft. Some continue to work as escorts and prostitutes to this day. Some of the girls got together tried to sell media stories. Some hired civil attorneys together. The prosecutors knew about all of this and kept it hidden. Prosecutors actually encouraged perjury on the stand. Many of these instances listed involved witness for the prosecution Holly Gavel. Many articles and blogs during the trial focused on Holly Gavel as the most severe and clear example of perjury that they had witnessed.

The prosecution and their press agents spent two years holding massive press conferences all the while courting each individual journalist. In light of these recent accusations of misconduct they have no comments. This shows hypocrisy and double standard.

During the February 27th proceeding it was also brought up that prosecution threatened one of the defense attorneys directly. Did they also threaten the juror? (Note: the Dept 102 case immediately following Anand Jon’s was thrown out due to prosecutor misconduct.) Is there a pattern emerging in the LA District Attorney’s office? Scare tactics. Intimidation. Manipulating defense attorneys and witnesses. And now jurors? Did these prosecutors deny an official court order? The court will be looking closer at the details of their actions.

Anand Jon has beaten 43 counts during this ordeal. The prosecution painted him in the media as a serial rapist, however, in the end they dropped over 50% of the charges against including all but one rape count. That sole rape count produced a negative rap kit result-there were no signs of trauma. Also important to note is that Anand Jon passed a lie detector test regarding the testimony from that same complaining witness.

Anand Jon’s uncle, Yesudas, the Frank Sinatra of India, recently discussed his nephew’s situation in the Times of India:

“I will wait for the truth to come out and for justice” stated Anand Jon in court on Friday. This indication was spoken by a truly innocent man who is facing and beating incredible adversity and suffering with dignity while inspiring people of all colors to unite against the blatant abuse of power. You or your loved ones could be their next target. Demand a new trial for Anand Jon.

Los Angeles: Indian-American fashion designer Anand Jon who was convicted of sexually assaulting aspiring models is seeking a new trial because prosecutors stopped a juror who apparently tried to meet his sister before a verdict was reached.

The story came out on Friday in the court of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge David S. Wesley who said he will hear evidence to determine whether the juror’s and prosecutors’ actions warrant a mistrial, according to media reports.

According to Jon’s defence attorneys, during deliberations a male juror contacted a defence investigator to set up a meeting with his sister at a Starbucks coffee shop, MSNBC said.

A defence investigator put a recording device on Jon’s sister and sent her to the Starbucks, but the juror was “intercepted” by District Attorney investigators before the meeting could take place. Jon (35), who worked with such celebrities as Paris Hiltonand Mary J. Blige faces a maximum sentence of life in prison. — IANS

 LOS ANGELES: "I've never seen anything like this in my 25+ years practicing law," said Anand Jon defense attorney Leonard Levine. One thing is clear from the Anand Jon hearing on February 27 in Department 102 of the LA Criminal Courts Building in front of Honorable David S. Wesley, that Anand Jon did not get a fair trial. It's also clear that at least one or more jurors contacted the defendant's family more than once. That alone, according to the law, demands a new trial.

The question is, were these jurors trying to do the right thing since at least one admits during a special hearing that they wanted to vote not guilty on all counts but other jurors were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring some to vote against their will. Or were they up to something malicious like extortion?

Were they reaching out to expose the lies and misconduct going on? Regardless of the reasons, according to case law there has to be a new trial. [An important note: During deliberations in November, there was a special hearing held regarding these same jurors. One juror stated that others were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring others to vote against. One of the jurors requested to speak with the judge in private.

What was going to be disclosed remains a mystery as private conversations with the judge are not allowed. As the deliberations dragged on, after 9 days the judge commented that it "looks like we're heading for a mistrial."]The recently filed defense motions are currently under seal. However, pertinent clues to those motions were discussed in court. It would appear that the motions focus on misconduct by the juror and the prosecutor.

"The motions are under seal and still cannot be discussed at this time," said Leonard Levine. "We trust that the court will do the right thing by granting these motions. We are enthusiastic for a new trial for Anand Jon, a trial that will send an innocent man back home to his family."While Judge Wesley indicated that Anand Jon may get a new trial, the staggering abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct practically demands not only a new trial but also the removal of the prosecution.

There is substantial case law that has obviously been violated when the sanctity of the jury system itself has in any way, shape or form been influenced, contaminated or compromised - it automatically and immediately leads to a new trial. "There is still a considerable amount of discovery that needs to be uncovered," commented defense attorney Ronald Richards. On April 1, 2009 a full evidentiary hearing has been scheduled.

What we do know for now is that at least one or more jurors were under surveillance and investigation with very suspicious activity during the trial. Despite a formal court order the prosecutor's office intercepted a truth seeking process and intentionally sabotaged it. "But for the District Attorneys blocking the door to justice…we would have found out why the juror contacted [the defendant's sister]," Richards said at the news conference as reported in LAWeekly.

The Inside Story of Prosecutor Misconduct in the Anand Jon Trial
Prosecution Defied A Court Order and Intercepted a Juror

February 27, 2009 / International News Services / Los Angeles

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my 25+ years practicing law,” said Anand Jon defense attorney Leonard Levine. One thing is clear from the Anand Jon hearing on February 27, 2009 in Department 102 of the LA Criminal Courts Building in front of Honorable David S. Wesley, that Anand Jon did not get a fair trial. It’s also clear that at least one or more jurors contacted the defendant’s family more than once. That alone, according to the law, demands a new trial.

The question is, were these jurors trying to do the right thing since at least one admits during a special hearing that they wanted to vote not guilty on all counts but other jurors were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring some to vote against their will. Or were they up to something malicious like extortion? Were they reaching out to expose the lies and misconduct going on? Regardless of the reasons, according to case law there has to be a new trial.

[An important note: During deliberations in November, there was a special hearing held regarding these same jurors. One juror stated that others were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring others to vote against. One of the jurors requested to speak with the judge in private. What was going to be disclosed remains a mystery as private conversations with the judge are not allowed. As the deliberations dragged on, after 9 days the judge commented that it “looks like we’re heading for a mistrial.”]

The recently filed defense motions are currently under seal. However, pertinent clues to those motions were discussed in court. It would appear that the motions focus on misconduct by the juror and the prosecutor. “The motions are under seal and still cannot be discussed at this time,” said Leonard Levine. “We trust that the court will do the right thing by granting these motions. We are enthusiastic for a new trial for Anand Jon, a trial that will send an innocent man back home to his family.”

While Judge Wesley indicated that Anand Jon may get a new trial, the staggering abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct practically demands not only a new trial but also the removal of the prosecution. There is substantial case law that has obviously been violated when the sanctity of the jury system itself has in any way, shape or form been influenced, contaminated or compromised – it automatically and immediately leads to a new trial.

“There is still a considerable amount of discovery that needs to be uncovered,” commented defense attorney Ronald Richards. On April 1, 2009 a full evidentiary hearing has been scheduled. What we do know for now is that at least one or more jurors were under surveillance and investigation with very suspicious activity during the trial. Despite a formal court order the prosecutor’s office intercepted a truth seeking process and intentionally sabotaged it.

"But for the District Attorneys blocking the door to justice…we would have found out why the juror contacted [the defendant’s sister]," Richards said at the news conference as reported in LAWeekly.

Defense attorneys Leonard Levine and (recently reinstated first attorney) Ronald Richards indicated the magnitude of the calculated move by the prosecution had essentially destroyed any chance of a fair trial and the truth coming out. Mara McIlvain, the prime character a majority of the misconduct seems to have repeatedly stemmed from indicated the decision came in from supervisors above. While this opens up a Pandora’s Box for the prosecution, even top-of-command can be subpoenaed. (This would be another unprecedented occurrence to have top district attorneys under oath, scrutinized for breaking the law.)

Ronald Richard stated “The D.A.'s office thwarted the defense's ability to get to the truth. We don't know how high up (in the prosecutor's office) it goes.” (as reported by MSNBC)

"At this point, nobody is immune from being called to the stand and explain what happened," said Judge Wesley [standing up for justice being equal for all / no one is above the law] as reported by MSNBC.

This would not be the first time Mara McIlvain has avoided any repercussions and shrugged off serious responsibilities upon others such as lead detective George Elwell of BHPD who was blamed entirely for the shamelessly tainted investigation that included witness coaxing, disappearing evidence, and destruction of exculpatory materials, personal bias and even racism. Elwell, in turn, under oath pointed fingers or at least tried to share the blame with the prosecution who he claimed he had given everything to and they in fact called the shots. In either case as the saying goes, the prosecutor and their investigators are “two cheeks of the same backside”.

The prosecution constantly and consistently lied to the courts, to the media, and to the world that these are naïve helpless, small-town girls, with no motives, and don’t know each other. This is the furthest thing from the truth. Even a preliminary overview of their disturbing lifestyle and pattern of behavior shows the following: a history of extortion, illegal drugs, work in the porn industry, past false allegations with other men, and criminal records including theft. Some continue to work as escorts and prostitutes to this day. Some of the girls got together tried to sell media stories. Some hired civil attorneys together. The prosecutors knew about all of this and kept it hidden. Prosecutors actually encouraged perjury on the stand. Many of these instances listed involved witness for the prosecution Holly Gavel. Many articles and blogs during the trial focused on Holly Gavel as the most severe and clear example of perjury that they had witnessed.

The prosecution and their press agents spent two years holding massive press conferences all the while courting each individual journalist. In light of these recent accusations of misconduct they have no comments. This shows hypocrisy and double standard.

During the February 27th proceeding it was also brought up that prosecution threatened one of the defense attorneys directly. Did they also threaten the juror? (Note: the Dept 102 case immediately following Anand Jon’s was thrown out due to prosecutor misconduct.) Is there a pattern emerging in the LA District Attorney’s office? Scare tactics. Intimidation. Manipulating defense attorneys and witnesses. And now jurors? Did these prosecutors deny an official court order? The court will be looking closer at the details of their actions.

Anand Jon has beaten 43 counts during this ordeal. The prosecution painted him in the media as a serial rapist, however, in the end they dropped over 50% of the charges against including all but one rape count. That sole rape count produced a negative rap kit result-there were no signs of trauma. Also important to note is that Anand Jon passed a lie detector test regarding the testimony from that same complaining witness.

Anand Jon’s uncle, Yesudas, the Frank Sinatra of India, recently discussed his nephew’s situation in the Times of India:

His songs have moved millions and lifted many a soul from gloom and despondency.But Padmashri K J Yesudas is a sad man today.

As his nephew, beleaguered fashion designer Anand Jon, awaits the sentence on cases of alleged rape and molestation, the singer fervently prays for truth to triumph in the end.

“Everyone realises that the charges against Jon are malicious, false and fabricated. Most of the charges have been dropped. Yet, he continues to languish in the prison. I am saddened that the Indian community in the US has chosen to remain silent despite knowing that he’s a victim of racism and professional jealousies. Anand is a good boy,” he says.

Why does he think Anand is being targeted? “We all know how quickly Jon shot to fame on the strength of sheer talent and creativity. Just three days before he was incarcerated, he had received a plum offer, which would have put him in the topmost league. Obviously, there were people who couldn’t stomach the kind of fame, adulation and money that was coming Anand’s way,” he offers.

“I can’t question the justice system but my only prayer is that the judgement is based on truth. I want nothing to shake my faith in the basic goodness of human beings. If there is a God, we’ll know it. I only hope we can have our politicians, ministers, and the sizeable Indian community in the States rallying behind Jon,” he pleads.

Finally, how does he feel about India’s show at the Oscars? “I’m right now in no frame of mind to talk about that. Let me just say it’s good that America is now recognising that there’s an immensely talented Bharat out there. Like everybody else, I too feel proud of our achievements.”