Endgame: Anand Jon's Lawyers Fight for New Trial
One never knows what to expect when entering the madhouse that is the Anand Jon courtroom - known more formally in Superior Court directories as Department 102. Jon, the Indian-born fashion designer, was convicted of 15 counts of sexual assault and one rape charge last November. He was to be sentenced January 13 and faced a minimum prison term of 67 years behind bars. Then news of a maverick juror's actions sent this case tumbling into more than four months of limbo - where it remains today. Jon's sister, Sanjana Alexander, claimed Juror No. 12, Alvin Dymally, had contacted her several times during and after the trial. The defense seized upon this contact to ask that Jon's convictions be set aside in favor of a new trial.
If matters were only this simple, a ruling on that motion could have been made months ago by Judge David Wesley, a fair man with apparently inexhaustible patience. Things became complicated from the outset because the defense didn't merely wish for a new trial - Jon's lawyers demanded one prosecuted by the state attorney general's office, in which the Los Angeles District Attorney's office would play no part. This was because, they claimed, the D.A.'s office had sabotaged their efforts, which had been condoned (though not encouraged) by Wesley, to secretly tape record a meeting between Dymally and Sanjana Alexander. (See "Anand Jon's Post-Verdict Twilight Zone") On April 27 the judge denied the defense's request to recuse the D.A.'s office; a new-trial hearing is scheduled to begin May 27, stretching out this process longer than the trial itself.
Matters have gotten baroquely weird because of questions about the veracity of Sanjana Alexander's statements regarding Juror No. 12. Prosecutors and D.A. investigators have made no secret that they thought there was a real possibility that Alexander's "sting" meeting with Alvin Dymally was a staged ruse -- or perhaps, that Dymally had never contacted her in the way she described. (The first contact was supposedly a note passed in the court cafeteria; the second, when Dymally allegedly broke away from fellow jurors to step into the same elevator Alexander was taking; the third was by phone after the verdict.)
If the ruse fears sounded like D.A. paranoia, the reason for the prosecution's doubts became clear during an April 17 hearing: Deputy District Attorney Frances Young believed that Alexander was in the process of shopping her brother's case to 20/20 producer Teri Whitcraft and that Alexander had told Whitcraft that Dymally hadn't actually contacted her in the manner she claimed. Young, who has spoken with Whitcraft, said the producer had, in exchange for an exclusive interview with Jon for 20/20, agreed to also profile the trial. Whitcraft anxiously followed the slow pace of several hearings because ABC Television wanted the show to appear during this month's sweeps period. Here's Young examining Alexander:
Young: And during that time that you have spoken to her, isn't it true that you admitted to Teri Whitcraft that you actually never had a conversation with Juror Number 12 prior to the verdict, there were hand gestures, but no conversations? Isn't that true?
Alexander: I don't think we had this conversation.
[and:]
Young: Don't you have regular conversations with her about the - this motion, this hearing, this recusal motion and this motion for a new trial, because aren't these motions holding up Teri Whitcraft's segment on 20/20?
Alexander: Yeah, but I don't discuss this with her.
Young: . . . you didn't tell Teri "I never actually, in fact, had conversations with Juror Number 12, they were just hand gestures"?
Alexander: I don't recall.
The idea that the defense's recusal and new-trial might be viewed as formalities "holding up" the airing of a TV show gives one pause. It must give Jon's lawyers a lot worse, as they have seen their motions delayed over questions not only about Alexander's trustworthiness but also over an Internet flyer, picaresquely titled, "Prostitutes for the Prosecution," issued by the Jon camp showing photos of his under-aged accusers in nude or semi-nude poses. In fact, the exasperation on the faces and in the voices of Leonard Levine and other attorneys is evident - along with occasional comments.
"Lookit," Levine said during one April 17 sidebar conversation, "this could end up being the biggest hoax or whatever. I don't think it is, but that's a separate issue."
In fact, there are two Anand Jon defenses. One is the legal battle fought in court, the other is the ad hoc effort by his sister and other supporters, through their Web site, to drum up local public support as well as media sympathy in India. One tactic of Jon's supporters has been to portray him as a victim of American racism and xenophobia. Their chief bill of accusations is a 35-page document of tightly spaced type called, "Is Brown the New Black?" It claims, among other things, that "[b]oth the government agents and the 'so-called victims' were exposed to have made vile racial jokes/comments like 'India Head' and 'curry smelling dick.'"
"Is Brown the New Black?" also charges, though in sometimes vague and repetitive phrases, that a conspiracy was engineered by one of Jon's former business partner, with connivance from angry former Jon models and assistants, to put him behind bars. "The New Black" describes Jon's situation as "a Hollywood horror movie based on absurd false allegations by a group of scorned women that an overzealous prosecutor hyped up with their blatant abuse of power."
The crux of this conspiracy theory involves one of Jon's business partners being removed from check-writing privileges in Jon's denim-design company, Jeanisis Fashion Inc. Out of revenge and greed, the theory goes, the partner tried to set Jon up for arrest for sexual assault on minors at the time when Jeanisis was just receiving capitalization from the Joseph Stevens & Co. Inc. investment firm in New York. A Securities and Exchange Commission filing signed by Jon on July 17, 2006, lists Stevens as Jeanisis' sole investor. Jon was arrested in March, 2007.
From this stems another charge made by Jon's supporters -- that many of his accusers were recruited by the disgruntled partner's mistress, who also, supposedly, is busy trying to generate interest in a reality show about models, and that the prosecution's case rests upon a quicksand pit of fabricated charges made by gold diggers. "The New Black" is not shy in assailing these gold diggers (many of whom testified as sexual assault victims in Jon's trial), claiming that "most [were] involved in extortion, theft, previous false allegations, illegal drug use and distribution, violence, mental instability and working in the porn industry and as escorts and prostitutes."
From a distance, when all of the trial's more inconsistent testimony against Jon is added in, the conspiracy theory looks somewhat compelling. The problem with the evil-business-partner theory, however, is that it was not part of the defense's strategy in Jon's trial - a trial that ended in November. It's hard to imagine that Leonard Levine and company, should they get their second chance to save Jon with a new trial, will want to push conspiracy scenarios on a new jury.
Write Comment
Email to Friend
Print Article
