In 2008, Anand Jon Alexander, a rising star in the fashion design world, was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault and received a life sentence in prison. He is widely believed to have been wrongfully convicted of these crimes.
As his petition for commutation filed by his attorneys notes, “Mr. Alexander’s tainted trial and unreliable verdict and subsequently disproportionate prison sentence has resulted in a travesty of justice.”
Jeffrey Deskovic, himself an exoneree and head of the Jeffrey Deskovic Foundation, told the Vanguard, “Anand Jon’s case is fraught with prosecutorial misconduct and bad lawyering. It is no wonder he was wrongfully convicted.”
In a letter, Mr. Deskovic, who will be the Vanguard’s keynote speaker in a few weeks, added, “I have never seen a wrongful conviction case as broad and complex as this one. It’s absolutely stunning!”
Similarly, having reviewed the evidence of factual innocence that was withheld by the police for over a decade, Exoneree Obie Anthony, founder of Exoneratednation.org, and former California Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, the author of Assembly Bill 1909, described the injustice against Anand Jon Alexander as “one of the worst cases of police misconduct…utterly shocking…poster boy victim of 1909 violations.”
Corey Parker, Counsel for American Justice Alliance, argues in his amicus curiae brief, “Unless this Court rectifies this wrongful conviction, minority groups and individuals in the State of California will live in fear of being subject to such similar state-sponsored discrimination and underhanded, unconstitutional tactics by the very law enforcement tasked with protecting them.”
Appellate Attorney Julia Anna Trant adds, “I am convinced that Mr. Alexander’s conviction is one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever encountered in my work as a legal professional. While working on Mr. Alexander’s case, I could not stop being astounded by the amount of violations of Mr. Alexander’s constitutional rights, the rules of criminal procedure, and the rules of evidence.”
While there are a number of complaints, including juror misconduct, Brady violations and police misconduct, a lesser-known but serious problem with his trial was the subtle but overt and egregious appeal to racial and religious prejudice.
In pretrial motions, the defense was able to get the judge to keep race and religion out of the case. However, they kept coming back in.
For instance, in a debate over whether a book would be admitted into evidence, the defense argued that “the court already said we’re keeping religion out of this case.”
During voir dire, Deputy DA Young noted, “I thought earlier when the court ruled we wouldn’t delve into religion, it wouldn’t touch on that area, so I didn’t object to it originally, but I thought it got into the moral, religious, spiritual areas we were trying to stay from.”
The judge noted, “I’m not going to permit it,” and later clarified, “No, it’s out, I’m not going to allow it.”
However, despite the court’s admonishment, Ms. Young on behalf of the state was able to get racial issues before the jury during her closing arguments.
Mr. Parker writes, “Mr. Alexander’s conviction has been tainted by myriad due process violations and inescapable prejudice. The role that race, religion, and national origin played in his conviction has shaken the belief of Amici that South Asians, Middle Easterners, and other minorities can receive equal protection under the laws of this state.”
We can see these appeals in the transcript of Deputy DA Frances Young’s rebuttal closing arguments. The alleged victims are 19 girls – who are white.
Ms. Young sets the scene, noting that all of the girls described the same scene – an assault on a “cruddy air mattress… with dirty sheets, dirty towels, smelly t-shirts.”
She argued, “You know that Ferrari T-shirt that the clerk has. I don’t know if you want to do that, take a whiff of it. It’s not pleasant. It corroborates exactly what they said. He smelled. His apartment was disgusting.”
Later she added, “They all told you he smelled.”
As Mr. Parker points out, this is not an accident. He writes, “Mr. Alexander was a filthy outsider to the community, a ‘dirty’ and ‘smelly’ ‘Hindu from India,’ who read foreign Hebrew symbols ‘from right to left’…”
Mr. Alexander, from India, also has a Jewish background.
Mr. Parker argued, “The gratuitous remarks made in Mr. Alexander’s case served no purpose other than to ‘inflame and prejudice the minds of the jurors against the defendant because he happened to be a [South Asian immigrant].’”
But perhaps more egregious, Ms. Young played on racial stereotypes as well.
She noted in her rebuttal, “Being a minority, I noticed that they were all white.”
She was able to work in the reference subtly, despite official judicial admonishment not to bring race into the equation.
Here the DA uses that longtime racial dog whistle, the fear of the white jurors that innocent, young, white girls or women will become the victims of a predatory person of color.
Mr. Parker argues, “Insinuating that a minority defendant preys upon white women is a highly inflammatory tactic that has been consistently treated as prosecutorial misconduct warranting relief.”
He notes that Florida’s high court reversed a death sentence because the prosecutor’s inquiry into the race of past victims was a “deliberate attempt to insinuate that appellant had a habit of preying on white women.”
Previously, courts found this to be a prejudicial error in a case where the prosecution argued that the black defendant told the white victim “something about white people having been taking advantage of the colored people and, of course, he wanted to get even with the white people.”
Argues Mr. Parker, “Statistics have shown decisively that a victim’s race can powerfully sway a jury, even to the extent that the race of a victim can play a dispositive role in whether a defendant lives or dies.”
Mr. Parker adds, “After portraying Mr. Alexander as a mystical and smelly foreigner, the prosecution maximized the prejudicial impact by presenting a contrast with the whiteness of the alleged victims. Beyond merely insinuating that Mr. Alexander had a preference for white women, the prosecution directly told the jury that he preyed specifically and exclusively on white women. This tactic presents a clear case of misconduct, and its prejudicial impact cannot reasonably be questioned.”
In a recent Supreme Court case, the court ruled, in reviewing the history of the state of Mississippi’s peremptory strikes in the Flowers case, that evidence “strongly supports the conclusion that the State’s use of peremptory strikes in Flowers’ sixth trial was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.”
Indeed, the state attempted to strike all 36 black prospective jurors over the court of the first four trials – Curtis Flowers has been tried six separate times for his alleged role in the murder of four employees of a Mississippi furniture store.
Mr. Flowers is black; three of the four victims were white. The US Supreme Court ultimately found that the trial court “committed clear error in concluding that the State’s peremptory strike of black prospective juror Carolyn Wright was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.”
In this case, the prosecutor has improperly injected race into a trial, as Mr. Parker argues. This would tend to “undermine [the courts’] strong commitment to rooting out bias, no matter how subtle, indirect or veiled.”
As Patty Lopez, a former California Assemblymember noted in her letter to US Judge Dean Pregerson in January, in support of the writ of habeas corpus, the trial judge on the record stated he was “troubled” with this case and “not happy with the way the [prosecutors] handled this case.””
Obie Anthony, another exoneree, told the Vanguard, “In any case prosecutorial misconduct is egregious and in my opinion bad acting prosecutor should be held accountable, and where there are echoes of misconduct, one should want to take a look, such is the Anand Alexander case.”
There are a lot of problems with the case of Anand Jon Alexander, but appeals to racial and religious prejudice were clear and overt during his trial and need to be rectified during the post-conviction process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Locked-up fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander claims conspiracy put him behind bars for rape charges
Fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander had been sentenced to 59 years to life for sexual assault and rape charges in California, but is convinced he will get out of jail someday soon. (Jefferson Siegel/New York Daily News)
Alexander is convinced the women who accused him of rape and sexual assault conspired against him. (Jefferson Siegel/New York Daily News)
Judge Cassandra Mullen branded Anand Jon Alexander a level 3 offender, the highest-risk designation under the law in New York. (Jefferson Siegel)
An innocent man, Anand Jon Alexander, is suffering a 59 year to life sentence in California following a wrongful conviction in Los Angeles Superior Court in 2009 [cs#BA-327190]. He has been locked up for a decade under inhumane conditions.
This was a closely contested , controversial high profile trial(2008-2009) that is now back in the California state courts on appeal-via writ of Habeas Corpus.
The facts and law now presented clearly show Mr Alexander was not only falsely accused and framed but that he did not receive anything remotely close to a fair trial by an impartial jury of 12.
This was not an evenhanded investigation but an inquisition and modern day witch hunt. The toxic combination of due process violations were irrevocably prejudicial. Therefore, relief must be granted.
The prosecution dropped 1 complaintants and over dozens charges on the eve of trial. By the end of these tainted trial proceedings, the jury was deadlocked for over 11 days, returned a mixed ( Not Guilty; Guilty and Hung) verdicts(Nov 13’2008). Jury misconduct was suspected. Subsequently, the trial court declared that there was in fact juror misconduct “no doubt about it”and the “Prejudice was presumed”(Jul 6’09). However, based on an incomplete, unreliable and perjured record a new trial was not granted. Due to the numerous outstanding issues & red flags of due process violations, the trial judge invited a writ and offered to bring mr. Alexander back if the above Due Process violations were later substantiated. It has. Relief is required.
An appellate writ was just filed (Oct 30’2016) with the California courts including evidence not previously seen by any jury which shows Mr. Alexander, was in fact targeted, conspired against and deprived on a fair trial.(Fn1).
Some of the Grounds compelling relief include:
A. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT: After admitting on record that they lacked sufficient physical- forensic evidence or corroboration witnesses, prosecution asserted that Mr. Alexander had “a very rich history of sexual violence in other states”. This was a lie. In this multi-jurisdictional case , after relying heavily on “evidence” of unadjudicated (anywhere) & uncharged ( in California)complainants from out of state claims as “corroboration” to convict in California, those allegations have turned out to be illusory; those charges were either resolved favorably( 2013 in New York) or dismissed in its entirety( 2013 & 2017 in Houston & Dallas, Texas).
——————-
Fn1) Since there are unresolved material factual discrepancies, under the law, an evidentiary hearing is required . However, the LA Trial Court miscalculated the deadlines and misapplied the law in denying the initial writ (Aug 30’2016) without such an evidentiary hearing.
———————-
Self authenticating online contents; photos; videos alongside corroborating witness declarations not only show that Mr. Alexander was framed by a colluding group out for money, notoriety & revenge, but that The Beverly Hills Police & Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office covered up the conspiracy , used false statements and suborned perjury see Napue V Illinois (1959)360 US 264; Pen C 1473 sub(b)(1) Re Hall (1981) 30 Cal3d 408; Wright (1978) 78 CalApp3d 788.
The LA prosecutors and the Beverly Hills Police Department employed underhanded racist & xenophobic tactics while also withholding & or destroying evidence favorable to Mr. Alexander see Brady V Maryland 373 US 83(1963);Kyle’s V Whitley 514 US 419 (1995). Witnesses were tampered with, coerced and intimidated. A juror was intercepted. Defense counsel was denigrated in open court and a trial attorney was secretly threatened. Despite being explicitly forbidden that prosecution should not go into any”religion, moral or spiritual areas” or imply any” drugging”, such Court rulings were violated with impunity as Mr. Alexander’s religion, his “meditation”; ” reading (Hebrew) right to left”; foreign”- Indian heritage were repeatedly demonized..
While the Trial Court put on record how” troubled” (43RT 16556) it was “not happy with the way the people( Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office) handled this case” fact is thus far the prosecutors have gotten away without any real consequences.
Post trial proceedings investigations and forensics have confirmed that several of the alleged victims in the instant case had significant impeachment including virtually identical prior false allegations, criminal records, probation and history of Acts of moral turpitude that were withheld. In fact the prosecution’s core theory that their Witnesses were naive inexperienced sheltered -had no62nd of the above impeachment; that none of these girls had any connection between each other had no motives no interest in any publicity, civil suits-money; “no reason to lie” and only came forward to tell the truth. All of the above has sense been exposed to be false.
Mr Alexander is the posterboy victim of such brazen abuse of power addressed by, California Assembly Bill 1909 (amending CA Penal Code sec. 141), that was passed recently (Nov2 2016) specifically to combat the epidemic proportions of prosecutorial misconduct that has corrupted our justice system costing many innocent lives; overcrowding prisons & exploiting tax payers dollars. (fn2)
——————
Fn 2) Nowadays the rampant prosecution & police misconduct, lies and abuse of power especially targeting minority male’s has come to light (via technology, body cams, the internet and cell phones). However, back at mr. Alexander’s 2008 trial there was no such public awareness and trial attorneys merely “argued”( without actually presenting evidence) such insidious tampering of evidence & withness. Several prosecution witnessess have testified ed and or declared under penalty of perjury how they were improperly inflamed and of intimidated into turning against Mr. Alexander not just by conspirators, nlny by the police and prosecutors themselves.
—————–
B. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: the 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 very theory they promised (see Strickland V Washington. 466 US 668(1984); Wiggins V Smith 539 US 510(2003)). Trial attorneys utterly failed to object to even the outright Crawford violation (541 US 36(2004) of prosecution using a key medical expert who had zero first-hand knowledge of the alleged Melendez Diaz 577 US 305 (2009). Bullcoming v New Mexico 564 us 647 (2011).
Investigations confirm that the trial attorneys work were plagued with multiple conflicts of interest including: one attorney having secretly applied for and switched sides ( to become an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office) during the active case-effectively sabotaging defense from withine; another was threatened by the prosecutors during trial with “arrest” & compromised ; yet another trial attorney was in a secret carnal relationship with a key witness who subsequently became “unavailable” and has since had a child with that attorney(Fn2)
——————-
Fn2) Mr Chase, the primary Attorney in charge of Technology (a major factor in instant case) has given a declaration October 26th 2016 exposing the fact that he was under threat of arrest by the Los Angeles District Attorney during the trial. Lead trial attorney Levine has been exposed of a myriad of perjury and significant prior inconsistent statements in the self severing May 2014 declaration submitted to insulate & excuse the disturbing ineffective assistance of counsel . His co counsel Anthony Brooklier committed suicide in November 2016.
—————–
C. JUROR MISCONDUCT Besides having lied in questionnaire to sneak in as a juror(#12), this individual broke his oath and the law, then committed additional perjury on the stand; then plead the fifth to “not further incriminate” himself. While the court declared “Juror misconduct” ( and presumed was prejudice,
Jul 6″2009) and fined the maximum contempt of court, a new trial was denied back then (because there was no clear or complete record what extrinsic information the juror actually got.) However, at least two additional witnesses have since exposed this Juror of violating court”s instructions & the law ( People v Nesler 16 Cal439th 561(1997) ; Remmer 350 US 37(1956))by soliciting extrinsic information from them; researching the media ; considering why the defendant”did not testify” and expressing outright bias against Mr. Alexander during trial.
This tainted trial was so full of due process violations that it is simply incongruent with the constitutionally assured fair trial by an impartial jury of 12 . whether individually or collectively analyzed these errors caused such prejudice that relief is mandated.
We urge you to get involved to FREE ANAND JON. This sort of miscarriage of justice that simply cannot be allowed to occur In 21st century United States of America, which is supposed to be the beacon of fairness and Justice for ALL
Thank you, we look forward to a FAVORABLE & productive outcome.
Sincerely
Anand Jon Alexander Legal Team
info@anandjon.org
6/14/2017
Last week, Bills Incorporations and All Indian Council of Human Rights Liberties & Justice organised a press conference to start a campaign to free celebrity fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander The Indian-origin fashion designer, who has been in custody for almost 12 years now, is serving a 59-year sentence in California for sexual assaults.