Monday, September 21, 2009

Run(a)way Juror:)Reality Show of the Anand Jon Case.


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 fa├žade 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment