The defence team representing fashion designer Anand Jon, who was found guilty on 14 felony and two misdemeanour counts by the Los Angeles County Superior Court, have accused the prosecution of misbehaviour and asked for a new trial by the state attorney general's office.
The case has been adjourned till April 17 by Judge David Wesley of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
After Jon's trial, juror number 12 had sought a meeting with Jon's sister Sanjana Abraham. "You know we can help. We need to meet with you alone," the juror told her, according to the testimony.
A meeting was arranged on January 7 at a Starbucks. Jon's attorneys informed the judge and the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, which prosecuted the case, about the meeting and took permission from the judge to record the conversation secretly. But when the juror arrived at the Starbucks, the investigation officers from the DA's office met him and dissuaded him against meeting Sanjana.
Jon's attorneys said this undercover operation was designed to catch a juror in an act of misconduct, but the prosecution sabotaged it.
"Today was the first time I really saw hard evidence, Anand's family is a victim of a biased 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 can record why he contacted her during deliberations," Attorney Ronald Richards, who has rejoined the defence team, said.
"The explanations that the DA and the three investigators gave were incredulous, nonsensical, and trampled Anand Jon's due process of law," he said.
Leonard Levine, another attorney for Jon, has demanded to know why the District Attorney's office prevented the meeting. He suspects that the team deliberately sabotaged the meeting to prevent a recorded conversation, which might have resulted in a mistrial.
Deputy district attorneys McIlvain and Frances Young, who prosecuted the case, appeared in the court, this time as witnesses. They said they allowed the investigators at the DA's office a free hand in the matter to take their own decisions.
Lead investigator at the DA's office, Brian Bennett, who took the decision to intercept the juror, said letting civilians run an investigation involving a recording device was not the way his office operated.
"What was there to control? Was this a turf battle," retorted Levine.
If the defence had interfered with a planned prosecution sting, what would have been the response of the prosecution, the judge asked. Bennett said such people could be arrested.
"The questions Judge Wesley put to the DA'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," LA Weekly reported.
Juror number 12 is yet to be called into court and questioned under oath.
