The people of the State of California versus Anand Jon Alexander.

Prosecutors withheld favorable evidence while knowingly asserting false statements, submitting false evidence, threatened witnesses, invoked xenophobia, and violated court rulings.

On the eve of his Los Angeles jury trial, the prosecution independently dismissed nearly three dozen counts against Anand Jon. Regardless, the due process violations in the trial were astonishing. Prosecutors used unadjudicated and pending out of state charges as “corroboration” for false and misleading evidence. Prosecutors inflamed the jury with racial bias leading to juror misconduct. The juror misconduct did not occur in a vacuum but was a direct result of prosecutorial misconduct. Juror #12 had been improperly misdirected and inflamed by the prosecutor’s spin of demonizing Anand Jon’s race, his Indian heritage, prejudicial “un-Americanness” because he was an immigrant/foreigner, and his yogic meditation and spiritual lifestyle.

1. Prosecution Lied to and Misguided the Jury:

The prosecution acknowledged to the jury that there was essentially no physical evidence or eyewitness to corroborate any criminal conduct. Moreover, since their case was already hinging on credibility, they injected an avalanche of “uncharged acts” in the case (California Penal Code Sec. 1108 & 1101) evidence as supposed corroboration, of which, virtually all were un-adjudicated, speculative, and far more inflammatory, confusing, and cumbersome than the actual California charges. New and previously withheld evidence that confirms that the prosecutor’s core theory and evidence was false and highly prejudicial including assertions that their complaining witnesses were naïve and inexperienced women who only had “strictly professional relationships” with Anand Jon. Furthermore credibility issues and did not know each other. This fraudulent, improper vouching for the prosecution witnesses’ credibility was extraordinary prejudicial in what came down to an admitted “credibility contest” with zero physical evidence or physically present percipient witnesses to support any alleged criminal conduct.

The prosecutors falsely asserted that their witnesses had “no reason to lie” about their allegations against Anand Jon because they had no prior connection to each other, no ulterior motives, no interest in publicity, and no interest in civil suits or monetary gain. They only came forward to tell the truth. Again, post-trial investigations and evidence proved that the prosecution witnessess colluded, actively entrapped Mr Alexander and had multiple motives, sought out group civil suits and nationwide media campaigns that were, upon advice of the BHPD, delayed until after the trial. Additionally, it was confirmed that several of these supposed victims had significant impeachment issues that were intentionally withheld by the prosecution, including virtually identical prior false allegations, criminal records for assaultive violence, crimes of moral turpitude, and court-ordered psychiatric rehabilitation. As a result of the above prosecutorial misconduct of withholding exculpatory evidence and injecting false evidence, the trial court denied Anand Jon’s Writ and concluded that the sheer number of “unrelated” witnesses making similar allegations and the time-lapse to file the Writ indicated guilt and “untimeliness.”

It has since been established by witness declarations, self-authenticating videos, photos, and online content that these women had intimate exchanges, as well as relationships, with Anand Jon before, during, and in several cases well after any alleged criminal incidents. Evidence shows that most, if not all, of the prosecution’s witnesses had several connections to each other and nefarious motives to collude against Anand Jon. In fact, new evidence shows that months prior to any criminal allegations, this collusion had been actively soliciting candidates on social media, via “chain emails Anand Jon].” Furthermore media, all while under the direction of law enforcement to conceal their motives and to spy on Anand Jon’s finances (Wall Street funding) and his romantic life (who “he was dating”). Also, they schemed to find more women and to manufacture victims to “trick and trap” [Anand Jon]to make the case against him. These motives, as outlined in their conversation, were to achieve fame & fortune and enact revenge on Anand Jon for their scorned feelings.

2. Prosecution Used False Evidence and Testimony:

In addition to the prosecution's demonizing the race, culture and religion of Anand Jon, they claimed there was “illegal child pornography” on his computer. This was used as the critical element of intent for the most serious convictions. However, the court-appointed computer forensic expert in Anand Jon’s New York case established there was NO child pornography on Anand Jon’s computers. Furthermore, the expert established that Anand Jon was NOT the “user” of the computers during any relevant period when the allegations of child pornography were made.

Similarly, the prosecution's statements about “drugging” the women involved in this case (in violation of court order) have also been conclusively established as false. Declarations have now revealed that it was the prosecutors themselves who first promoted this false testimony, the prosecution implanted the drugging idea, pushed the drugging issue, and claimed to have found “mind-numbing drugs” in Anand Jon’s apartment. All such claims were unsubstantiated or false.

3. Prosecution Threatened Witnesses:

Revealed in post-trial declarations, prosecutors threatened and coerced multiple witnesses, including their own alleged victims (Eve M., Holly G., Lori B.), intercepted & threatened a juror, and threatened one of Anand Jon’s own defense attorneys, Eric Chase, the primary attorney in charge of technology (a major factor in the Anand Jon’s case) submitted a declaration on October 26, 2016, stating that he was threatened with arrest by the Los Angeles District Attorney during the trial. Mr. Chase admitted to failure to investigate, ineffective assistance of counsel, and admitted Anand Jon’s case was prejudiced because he never saw or used the readily available online materials that supported Anand Jon’s defense and impeached the prosecution’s theory. Additionally, the lead trial attorney, Mr. Levine, committed a myriad of perjury and made significant inconsistent statements in a self-serving declaration submitted in May 2014 to insulate and excuse his disturbingly ineffective assistance of counsel . Affidavit of Lori B, ¶¶ 99-100, February 13, 2007; and Affidavit of Holly G. ¶¶ 58-60, February 13, 2007.

4. Prosecutor’s Xenophobic & Racial Inflammation Caused Unprecedented Prejudicial Misconduct:

It is no small matter how Anand Jon's Indian culture was demonized to inflame the jury as they declared he was un-American : “as an outsider to the American community…a Hindu from India” who “meditated cross legged” and “read foreign symbols [Hebrew]... right to left.” Yet another false assertion used to invoke racial xenophobic bias was that Anand Jon allegedly targeted “Caucasian... white women” by luring them under the guise of being in a “strictly professional relationship” with Anand Jon. However, the new evidence (including self-authenticating online emails & witness declarations) clearly show these women were aggressively pursuing sexual/romantic relationships with Anand Jon which is in direct contrast with their sworn testimony.

Despite being explicitly forbidden to expatiate into religion, morality, spiritual areas, or to imply drugging, the prosecution failed to abide by court rulings. Instead, Anand Jon’s spiritual beliefs, peaceful meditation practices, and his Indian heritage were repeatedly demonized. The Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection violations were rampant and even more egregious because the trial court had specifically forbidden such discussions. The American Justice Alliance filed an Amicus letter regarding this issue noting that the prosecutor inflamed the jury's vulnerabilities and predispositions to protect their community by stating: “on behalf of the people that live in this community, on behalf of the people that live in the State of California... and on behalf of the citizens of this community to find this man, guilty on all counts” (RP 10593-4).

Moreover, the prosecutors directly contradicted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Baldwin v. Adams where the court observed that “the amelioration of society’s woes is far too heavy a burden for the individual defendant to bear.” The trial court also put on record how troubled it was with the way the people (Los Angeles District Attorney's Office) handled this case (43RT 16556). Thus far, the prosecutors have faced no real consequences.

5. Juror Misconduct

Crucial evidence has recently surfaced regarding highly disturbing misconduct by Juror #12 in Anand Jon’s Los Angeles trial. At least three different witnesses have reported that the juror violated court instructions by seeking extrinsic information, including internet research, and expressing personal feelings of animosity towards Anand Jon. This juror solicited discussions regarding the case, Anand Jon’s race, religion, family, and culture with a spectator at the trial. He also expressed his intent to convict “if [Anand Jon] did not testify.”

A new trial is required based on the destructive uncertainties created by Juror #12. He lied repeatedly, starting in his jury questionnaire to secure his position as a member of the jury. Additionally, he broke his oath of juror, the law, and subsequently committed perjury on the stand. Eventually, after the Los Angeles District Attorney threatened him with criminal prosecution, Juror #12 plead the Fifth to not incriminate himself. Furthermore, Juror #12 wrongfully discussed the case with his tenant and told her he felt the girls on the stand seemed to have the same or similar stories and that he was under the impression they had all collaborated. During deliberations, several jurors complained to the judge that Juror #12 was refused to properly deliberate and requested that Juror #12 be removed for refusal to deliberate; however, it was denied by Judge Wesley. Unfortunately, the trial court denied Anand Jon’s motion for a new trial based on these transgressions by Juror #12 to believe his misconduct was “harmless…trifling.”

Juror #12 had reached out to Anand Jon’s sister, Sanjana, during trial with a request to meet her privately. Sanjana informed the court of Juror #12’s proposal and a meeting was scheduled. It was arranged for her to record the meeting with a wire. Prior to the meeting, Juror #12 was intercepted by Los Angeles District Attorney investigators informing him of the criminal investigation he was under, thus sabotaging the meeting.

During a hearing on his misconduct, Juror #12 testified he never spoke with Sanjana during the trial. However, he was impeached with a taped recording of their conversation. The trial judge allowed this juror to conveniently \plead the Fifth” and refused to consider or hold evidentiary hearings in these matters. (Decl. of Drew Lanzetta, June 13, 2014, ¶¶ 7- 11).

Two weeks after sentencing, the same trial court found the very same juror to be a liar and his misconduct was \criminal in nature warranting prison time.\ The Court fined him the maximum contempt of court. The court specifically articulated that if this misconduct had been known during the trial, the juror would have been removed. Anand Jon was still denied a new trial based on an unreliable and incomplete but deem to be perjured record.

6. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel,Failure to Investigate,and Conflicts of Interest:

Anand Jon’s trial attorneys fell far below the constitutional standard of representation as they utterly failed to investigate, much less support (with evidence that was readily available), the theory that they promised (see Strickland v. Washington) to the jury. The trial court repeatedly admonished the defense attorneys for their tardiness, failure-to-file expected briefs, and for not investigating obvious leads. Examples of such admonishments are as follows:

“[W]hy would you not interview every single person that's been contacted by the police?”; “why would you not use the name that appears in the report and investigate yourself? ”; “Don’t expect the prosecutor to do the defense’s job” (TA 12-22 RT t 975 -977); “you have constantly asked me to withhold rulings, you picked the trial date and now you keep telling me that “we’re not ready” … I don’t want to hear that you’re not ready;I’ve given you plenty of time…months and months to prepare your defense”

- (2424-2426: 8472)

When Anand Jon fired his attorneys (July 10, 2009) due to their astonishing ineffectiveness and conflicts of interest, he proceeded to represent himself. The trial court denied Anand Jon’s Motion for New Trial (August 31, 2009), specifically noting that Anand Jon’s trial attorneys argued conspiracy but failed to convince the jury. This indicates that the trial attorneys’ failure to present evidence that was readily available to support their own defense theory was articulated on record by the trial judge (see Wiggins v. Smith).

While the prosecution called half a dozen experts, Anand Jon’s attorneys failed to consult or call upon even one. In fact, his trial attorneys neglected to object to the Crawford (Right of Confrontation) violation as the prosecution, without calling the actual medical examiner (who was never deemed unavailable) called upon a surrogate (Dr. Schulman) who had zero first-hand knowledge regarding the case (as in the Crawford Violation under Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 2011). This surrogate injected false facts that were highly prejudicial and have since been rebutted by new experts in the Writ.

Anand Jon’s trial attorneys were plagued with multiple conflicts of interest throughout the trial. One attorney secretly applied for a job with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office and switched sides during the pendency of the case, effectively sabotaging the defense from within. Another attorney was threatened (as mentioned above) with an arrest by prosecutors during the trial and compromised. A third attorney was in a secret sexual relationship with a key witness who subsequently became unavailable and since, had a child with the same attorney. (See Tarango v. McDaniels 9th Cir (2017) and was remanded because of failure to fact-find. People v. Lavender, 339 d3d 318 (2014) noted that such a consideration was presumptuously prejudicial in the record and it was inadequate to simply rebut that presumption Wiggins v. Smith 539 US 510 (2003) 41 US 36 (2004) 10 557 U.S. 305 (2009), Bullcoming v. New Mexico 564 U.S. 647 (2011), People v. Sanchez 374 p3d 320 (2016)).