In a significant development, a California appeals court has overturned the conviction of Dr. James Heaps, a former University of California, Los Angeles gynecologist, two years after his initial sentencing to 11 years for sex abuse. The decision comes after a jury foreperson’s note revealed concerns about an alternate juror’s language proficiency, which had not been disclosed to the defense or prosecution during the trial.
Jury Note Raises Concerns
The foreperson’s note, sent during deliberations after an alternate juror was brought in, stated that the juror’s limited English was hindering the deliberation process. This juror replaced another who had a medical issue just two days before the verdict. Leonard Levine, Heaps’ defense attorney, expressed his shock upon discovering that the note had never been shared with the defense, stating, “That note was never turned over to us ever.”
The appeals court ruled that this oversight violated Heaps’ Sixth Amendment rights and has ordered a retrial. Dmitry Gorin, a former prosecutor, emphasized the rarity of such incidents, stating, “In my 30 years of trial and appeals work, excluding the defense from a jury question is unheard of.”
Reactions from Former Patients’ Attorneys
Courtney Thom, representing over 200 of Heaps’ former patients, criticized the outcome, acknowledging that while the jury note should have been disclosed, the defense leveraged the error to overturn the conviction. Thom expressed concerns about the implications for sexual abuse survivors, questioning the justice system’s message to victims.
Her firm had previously secured over $240 million in settlements for Heaps’ accusers from the University of California system, amid allegations of inappropriate conduct by Heaps spanning several years.
Future Proceedings
The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office intends to retry Heaps promptly. Meanwhile, Levine plans to request that Heaps be released on bond during the retrial, as was the case before the first trial.
Concerns Over Juror Selection
During Heaps’ trial in 2022, a jury note highlighted a language barrier with alternate juror number 15, who reportedly struggled to comprehend the deliberation process. Despite the foreperson’s initial concern, the issue was later deemed resolved, and the jury continued deliberations.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Carter, who presided over the trial, later admitted in a written declaration that he didn’t notify the involved parties about the jury note, nor did he inquire further, after the note was reportedly withdrawn.
Legal Perspectives
Legal experts, like Robert Little, underscore that the undisclosed jury note deprived Heaps of his right to counsel at a critical trial stage, as defense attorneys could have challenged the juror’s qualification or requested a mistrial. Little remarked that while courtroom errors are common, the key question in appeals is determining the impact of such errors.
Attorney John Manly, representing numerous former patients, criticized the decision to overturn the conviction, arguing that it undermines the plight of victims, especially women and children. Manly highlighted the long ordeal endured by survivors, only to face the prospect of starting the legal process anew.
