Appellant`s Opening Brief - Seeking Justice For The Innocent

IN TI-IECOURTOI AP}EAL O}'TI-IE STATEOI CALIFORNIA
TI-IIRDAPPEI.,LATEDiSTRICT
TI-iEPI]OPLEOT 1'H]] STATE O]TCALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff and RcsPondent,
)
)
)
)
)
)
AJAY KUMAR DI]V,
Corft ofAppeal
No. C062694
Couft
Superior
No.062444
)
)
Defendanlalld Appcllant
)
)
AP]]DLLANTSOP]II\INGI}RIEF
orDD^cl'DD
Cotrrtof Yolo Couuty
Appealli'orDthc Superior
'l'hc
LlonorablcTimotlty L: Irtll
Attoney at Law
Atfomeyfor Defendant/Appell
ant
AjayKunarDev
TABLE OF CONTDNTS
Page
STATIIMITNT OI AI1'F,AI.ABiLITY
""
...........,,.......
OFIAC:L'S
sTal'EMENT
......
II.
"
"
IHE CASB';........."
STATLIMEN'I''OF
1.
l
"
INTROJ)UCTION
3
4
"
..
Ajay ard Peggy Dcv Adopt Ajay's DistantNicce,
. ... ... .
SapnaDeo,ItroinNepal.......
6
6
A.
S0pnaAttives inthe UnilodStatcso[ January23, 1999
9
B.
In Novcmbcr 1999, SapnaCoDsontsto the Adoplion
by Ai.ryandPeggy. . ... ... ., . ,
10
C.
lior Sapnaln Jheit Wiil Ancl
Ajay and Peggy.Ploviclc
StalusItl nmefica
Obtainl:lor Petmanelil{esiclonoy
]L
At Age 18, Aftcr ll.eceivingllel GlccnCarcl,Sapnallmbraces
in Atrrr:ricaAs Ajay and
I-Ier:SocialauclSexualhrdcpendencc
'liaclitiolal NepaLiValues
'fo
MaiutairlI-Ier'
l'eggy l'ry
I3
A.
egcl8...,.....L6
S a p D(ai e t sP r e g l r a tl b
r tr t l t eL r i r s t ' l i u r eA
R.
SapnaGets I'regnarttfor tLtc Secondllimc in April
2 0 0 3a, tA g e 1 9 . . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . .. . ,. ,. . . .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . 1 7
C.
SapnaTravclsto Nepaland Asksto lletrrn With Ajay ..
D.
In Fall 2003, Sapua IJas Sex witLl A'raz, I'Ias A
.17
. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l,8. . . . . . . . . , . . ,
iil,
S a p niav l o v c (s) u t . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .
A.
. . ' . . . .. . . . . . . . 2 0
'lo
SapnaAcclrscsAjay and Peggyof PhysicalAbuse
. . . . . ....22
JustiSIIer Decisionlo MoveOnt
TAB],tr OF CONTENTS
SapnaAttemptsio RepairHer Relationshipwith Her
Host Parents After She Leams She May Be
. ... . ,...
Disinlerited.....
24
C.
SapnaVolurtarily GoesTo Motel 6 with Ajay Oo
.
Ianrary 12,2A04,AflerSheHasMovedOut.. . .
28
D.
Sapna Choosesto Spend the Night at AJay and
Peggy'sHomeTo Help Peggywith Her PostSurgery
.. ..... ........ 30
Recovery................
E.
SapnaBecomesEnragedw1]enAjay InterferesWidr
.
...
With Will. ........., ..
HerRelationship
30
F.
SapnaAccusesAjay of Rape On Februaxy2, 20041
OneDay After SapnaCut Off All Ties With Ajay For
With Will, ,............ .
I-IerBreak-Up
Causing
3I
B.
. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2
ry.
T h eP r e t e xCt a l l . . , . ,
V.
After The Police ExeculeA SearchWana.nlAt lhe Devs'
Home,SapnaAsks The PoliceTo Stop PursuingThe Case
............ 39
AgainslAjay
VI.
SapnaIs ArrestedIn Nepal PreventingHer Retum To The
Uniled Statesand JeopardizingHer Ability To Becone A
U n i t e dS t a t eCs i t i z e n... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . , . ......,4. .0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VII.
Sapna Reinstates The Charges Against Ajay Which,
FacilitatedBy Detectivel-Iennana,EnablesFIer Retum To
The United StatesAs A Legal ResidentAnd Continue Her
..,,,,,,,,. 41
PursuitOf Americal Citizenship
VIIL ATTdal SapnaTestifiedThatAjay RapedHer Two To Tluee
TimesA WeekForFiveStraight
YearsFromAges15to 20 ..,,.....45
. . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . 4 5
A.
AllegeR
d a p ens t h eD e vH o m e
B
AllegeO
d r r l C , , p u l a t i o r r.s. . . . . . . . . .
C,
...47
theDevHome.........
AllegedRapesandAssaults
Outside
TABLE OF CONTENTS
D.
in 2003
Thaiiand
AllegedRapein Bangkok,
E.
AllegedRapesAfter SapnaMoved Oul
F.
Her Threef imes . 53
SapnaAllegedThatAjay Impregnated
..
49
... . . .. 50
LEGAL ARGUMENT
1,
APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESSAND A
FAIR T.RIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILT'RE TO
54
ON CORPUSDEL E CT],,..,.,..,,,,.,,,,,
INSTRUCT,,9UI,SPO1IT',
... 54
A.
Inlroduction
B.
The Trial Court Failed To lnstruct The Jury, S&a
, ' p o z l eP, u $ u a ntto C A L C R I MN o . 3 5 9. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
C.
S t a n d a rodf R e v i e w
D.
The FailureTo InstructThe Jury On CALCRIM No.
3!i9 PrejudicedAppellant Requiring ReversalAs A
Law ..,..,. , ..56
MatterOf StateandFederalConstittttional
. ,. . . , . . . , , , . 5 6
l.
A Victim Of Serial Rape Would Not Develop
SincereFeelingsof Familial Love If Ilel Abusei
Staded Raping FIer Two Weeks Into Tileir
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5 8
R e l a l i o n s h. i.p. . . . . . . .
2.
Unlike Other Rape Cases, Numerous
Professionals Squtinized The Relationshrp
Belween The Devs and Sapna To Determine
WhetherThereWereAry Signsof Rape,Trauma
Or SexualMisconduclIn OrderTo SanctionThe
Adoption...
. 59
3
IIad SapnaMoved Out Of The Dev Home To
PreventAjay From RapingHer, RatherThan As
A[ Act of Independence,
She would Nol Have
Tried So Hard To Mailtain aud Repail Her
Relationship
With Ajay... .
.. ..
.....60
TABI,E OF CONTENTS
+.
llre Lnplarsibility of the Alleged J:langkok
Rapc SuggestsJ'he Rape Allegations WeIe
lalse Bc<;ause
A RapeVictim Would Not Seek
'fo
Out Ttie Opporlr.u.it), SleepIn a l-IotslRoonr
W i t hl - l e A
r : l l e g e ld{ a p i s t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2
5.
The Itrplausibilityoi' theAllegedMotel 6 Rape
Equally lluggestsTl.reRape AllegationsWerc
!-alsc BscauseA ltape Victim Woulcl Not
Voluntarily MeeL 'fheir Rapist At A l-Iotcl
RoomEspeciallyA11eIMoving Out fo Escape
S e x l r aAlb u s o , . . , . . . . ,
.....................63
6.
Tltc Covet-UpSruroundiuglhc Allegecll{ape
O[ thc Night OfPeggy's SurgofySuggcststhe
Wse r eI a l s c , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5
I t a p eA l l o g a t i o n
7.
Sapna'sOvelt l.,ies About O|al Copulalioll
Suggcsllihc Was Also l,yirlg About thc lLapo
Allcgntious..,,..,,...,,
,,.......,.,.,...,...66
u.
'l'cstiurory
'li)
Sapna's
lhat Aiury |.rorcedIlcr
WatohA PornographicVidco On l-(is l-apLrlr
ConputerElllitlcd "18 & Conlirsed"At 15
Ycals OI Age At The CollcordI'iouscWlts Not
, ...............,...69
Believablc...,...,...,,.
9.
'l\at 'lhe
IloundOo The
The lact
Pornography,
Dev Corrputers,Was Orly Vlewecl When
SapnaT-,ivecl
At Thc l)ev llome SuggcstsSnpna
'Ihe
and Pcr'haps A Boy0-ieud Viewecl
P o r n o g t a pR
ha
y t h e1r ' t r aA
nj a y . , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0
t0.
Sapna's.Failure
To DerlyA Boy.hnpregnated
'lhan
Ajay, Suggcsts Her
I-Ier, Rrthcr:
Wsc r cF a l s e . . ,...,..... . . , . . . . .,..........,, . , . , . ,. . ,. .7
|
Allegation
1i.
TN]LE OF CONTIINTS
I........
I2.,
II.
...........................'1
The Tirning Oli Sap|a's PregnauciesSuggest
She Was'I]yilrg to Covet-upl]cr Decisiol To
EngageId Pre-MadtalSex,Agairsl the Will of
IIer Papaand the Devs, By Falsely Acousiug
A j a yo f l i a p e . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _
. ._. ............._.. j.3
.I'].{E
TTUAL COURT ERRRD BY AI-I,OWING '.ITE
'TO
VICTIM
TRANSLATE TFIE PRETDXTCALL AS AN
EXPDRI' wlIICI] RESUI.,'I]EDIN A VIOLA'I]ON O]I'
APPIILLANT'S DUI:iITOCESS I{ICHTS AS ]l'lE vIC1lM
NTTIUI}I]TJ]D ADMISSIONS 1'O APPFI-LANT lN
'I]I-IE
])IRDqI' CONI'LICI' WT]'H
DETENSE EXPI'IIIIS
'fRANSI,ATION
..............77
A.
Intloductiorr,.,.,,,,,...
.....,..,,,...,..,..,........,.77
B,
S l i r n d a rodl ' l l ' e v i e w
. . . . ........, . . . .... . . . . . . 8
. .0. .
C.
D.
E.
'l'hc'l-r'iaL
Coult Abusedlts Discretiorlly Iraililg'l'o
Al)p0int A CertifiedInlerpretol'1i) Inler?r:eL'l'ho
g1
Por'liorls
of thePletcKtCall Spokenin Nepali.......,,..,......,....
'l'hc'friai
CourtAbusodI1sDiscrotionlly Pcr.rnitting
'l'o
Sapna,A Highly BiascdInlerpreLer,
lh.anslato'llhc
Portionsof UtoPrctextCall SpokcnIlr NepaIi,,..,,,,,.,,..,..,.....82
This Eror Wasl-IighlyPrcjudioialRequiringRevcrsal,...,...84
A.PPEI.LANT'S CONVICTION MUST BI] I],EVERS]JI)
B]]CAUS'J CAI,CRIM NO. 358 MISSTA'IES TI,IE LAW
I]Y ADV:TSING TI.IE ITIRY TO VIEW AMBIC}UOIJS
SlA'IEivIEN.fS MADE DY TITE DDITENDANT oN A
I{ECORDEDPRETDXTCALL WTI]OUT CAUTION,....,,,,.
,. ..8?
A.
Irtloduction.....
TABLD OF CONTENTS
C,
D,
CAlCRltl No. 358 PtovidesThat tuIy And All CutDo Not
Of-CoufiStatenentsMadeBy The DefendaLrt
HaveTo Be Viewed By The Jury With Cautiol If
They Ale Recorded
JuryInstuctionsMust CorrectlyStateThe Law ..
By Instuuctingfhe Jury PursuantTo CAI.CRIM No
358,The Trial Coud EnoneouslylnstructedThe Ju y
To View Appellant'sFlighly Anbiguous Slalements
RecordedOn A PretextCall WithoutCaution .. ...,
1
2.
The La$ ProvidesThat A Defendant'sOut of
CourtStatement
MustBe ViewedWith Cautiur
'l'he
UnlessA writirg or RecordingReproduces
WithoulAmbiguity... ,.
Defendallt'sStatements
88
. .89
90
.90
I'lave
A
Reasonable Juror Would
Misunderstood
and MisappliedThe Cautiorary
Language
of CAICRIM No. 358In Appeilanl's
CaseRenderingThe Trial Couft's InslrLrction
Error
92
F.
Instructing The Jury Wilh CALCRIM No. 358,
The
Effor BecaLLse
ConstituledFederalConstitutional
Unfait
Euor Rendered The Trial Fundamentally
Violating Appellanl's Fifth aad Fourleeuth
A m e n d m eR
n ti g h t tso F e d e r a
Dlu eP r o c e s s , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . ., . 9 3
G,
... ....94
Review.......,...,..
TheIssueIs Preserved
ForAppellate
H.
TheEnoneous.tnstruction
HarnedAppellantUnderA
StateAnd FederalStandardof PrejudiceRecluiring
Reversal
andA NewTrial ........
L
96
Sapna's Testinory and Translation of
Statements
Appellant'sRecordedOut-of-Coru1
MadeDLrringThe PretextCall ConflictedWith
OtherTlial EvidenceDenonstratingSufficienl
P r e j u d i cf o
e rR e v e r s .a. l. . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.
IV.
Sapna'sTtansiationof "Sex'' Was Ilighly
PrejudiciatBecauseIt Was Likely Relied On
By The Jury To Decipher The Meaning Of
Appellant'sUse Of The Wot'd "Fucked" Also
SpokenIn ThePretextCall....
.99
SHOULDI]E RE\'ERSED
APPELI,ANT'SCONVICTIONS
EXCLUSION OF
COLIRT'S
BECAUSE TI{E TRIAL
SAPNA'I] 2OO5NEPALI RECORD OF CONVICTION
PREJi'D].CED THE ENTIRE TzuAI AND \'IOLATED
A
zuGHT1'OPRESENT
APPELLANT'SCONSTITIONAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,,.......,.......10
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DEFENS8......,......
A.
Inlroduc[ion.............
B.
S t a n d a rodf R e v i e w
C.
'fhe
103
..............,,..,.,,.,,.,,.,,105
N e p a lC
i o u l tD o c t u r e n t s. . . . . . .,..., . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 5
D.
The Trial Court RejecledEveiy Effott The Defense
Nepall{ecordofConviction....lll
M.adeTo AdmitSapna's
E.
The Trial Court Ened By Refusirtgl'o Take Judicial
Notice of the Nepali Court Verdict and Appellate
D€rcision
E:x h i b i t5s 0 2a n d5 0 0 .. . .. . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 0
1.
The Trial Coult Abused Its Discretion By
DeterminingAppellanl Failed To Provide A
Proper "Chain of Ccfiificaticn"Pu$uanl to
EvidenceCode section1530 subdivision(a),
. . . . . . . . . . . . .............. . 1 2 2
s u b s e c t i(o3n) .
2.
The Trial Court Abused Its DiscretionBy
RefusingTo Take JudicralNoticeof Sapna's
...128
EntireRecordof Conviction
3.
The Tlial Court Abused Its DiscretionBy
Refusing To Extend Rei Judicetq Elfect To
S a p n a '2s0 0 5N e p a lC
i o n v i c t i o n..... . . . . . ........ . . . . . .t .3 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F.
The Nepali Conrt Docunents Were Also Ploperly
Evidence. . .. l3l
Authenticated
By OtherCircuurstantial
G.
All of the Nepali Cour-tDocuments,Exhibits 500
through 514, Should Have Been Admitted For the
Jury's ConsiderationPursuant to Evidenoe Code
. . . . . . . . .... .i.3 9
S e c t i o4n0 3
H.
The Trial Court'sFailwe To Admit the Nepali Cou:rt
Reversal
DocumantsPrejudicedAppellantVy'affanting
..140
a
State
and
Federal
Under
Standard
ofPrejudice....,...,....
TI-IE TRIAL COLTRT ERRED BY ADMI'|TING
EVIDENCE OF ADI]LT PORNOGRAPHYTO PROVE
A,PPELLANTWAS ATTRACTED TO MINORS wtIICF{,
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
EVIDENCI],
AS
INFLAMED AND CONFUSED TI-IE JURY CAUSINI:i
R E V E R S I B L E E R R O I I , , . , , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 9
A,
Introductior
.......,,,......,..,..,,..,,,,,..,....,,,I49
B.
The Trial Court Admitted A PlethoraOf Inelevant
Adult PornoglrrphyFound On The Dev I-Ion:Le
Conpulers........
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . ,...1
. ,5. ,1
C.
S t a n d ao
l df R e v i e w . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . , .
D.
The lrial Court Effed By A&nitting The Adult
Pornography
FoundOn The Dev HomeComputercTo
Prove Appellant Had An Attraction To Minorfs
Inpermissibly Allowing The Jury To Infel Ajay's
Guilt BasedOn lnelevantandInfl ammatoryEvidenci: ....154
.... ......154
1.
A NarrowNeKusMust Be Established
Between
The PornographyA,ndThe Crime Before TlLe
PomographyCan Be Admitled As Relevant
E v i d e n c e. .. . . . .
.154
2.
The Adult Poroography
Found On the Dev
Computers,EvenIf It CouldBe AttdbutedTo
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'lhe
Charges
Appellant,Had No BearingOn
And, Therefore,Should FlaveBeen Excluded
162
Evidence.......... .. .....
As Irrelevant
E.
VI,
3.
The ProbativeValue OfThe Adult PornograPhy
Was Not SubstantiallyOutwergl'ledBy lts
Prejudice.......,,....... .................,..........163
4.
The FailureTo Give A Limiting lnstructionOn
The Relevance of the Adult Pornography
Further PrejudicedAppallant aod Conslituted
.............................i66
I n d e p e n d eEnnl o r
The ErroneousInfoduction of Adult Porlography
For"urdOn lhe Dev Flome Compulels Plejudiced
....,..,...,,168
Reversal
APpellantRequiring
APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONSSI]OIILD I}E I{EVERSED
COURT IMPROPERLY
BECAUI]E TLIE TRIAI
LOG OI TITLES
A
COMI'UTER
ADMITTED
KAZAA
CLA]MING TO BE CI]ILD PORNOGRAPFIYBASED ON
THE PROSECUTION'SKNOWINGLY ITAI,SEOI'I.'EROI'
PROOF]]HAT TI-IE FORENSICSSHOWID APPELLAN'I
DELIBERATELY SEARCHEDFOR TI_IETITLES ON HIS
L A P T O PC O M P U T E R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , , . . . . 1 7 0
.........................170
A.
I[troduction........,
B.
S t a n d a |odf R e v i e w
C.
Ttre ProsecutionKnowingly Made A FalseOlfcr Of
.. .......I'72
ProofTo HaveExhibit44 Admitted
D.
The Trial Courl Should Have Excludcd The Kazaa
ValLre
Did Not
Log, Exhibit44,Because
It's Probativo
llffecl ...
SubstaDtially
. .. 176
OutweighIts Prejudicial
1
. . . . . . .... .. . . . .... 1 7 1
The Kazaa Log EvidenceLacked Substantial
. . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . .. 1 7 8
P r o b a t i vVea l u e . . . .
TABLEOFCONTENTS
2.
3
V .
-fhe
KazaaLog EvidsnceHad Some
Even If
ProbativeValue,It ShouldHaveBeenExcluded
Because It's Probative Value Did N'rt
OutweighIts PrejudicialF.ffect . 184
Substantially
The Adrnissionof the Kazaa Log EvideLlce,
Exhibit 44, Was Not IJarmless Requiring
. . . . . . .. . . .1 8 5
Reversal........,........
'l-I-IE
TRIAL COURT VIOLATED APPELLI-INT S
CONSTITUTIONAI ]IIGI.IT TO PRESENTA DEFENSE
BY EXCLIJDING AN E-MAIL WHICH SFIOWED
APPELLANTWAS AT WORK M.IILE SOMEONEEI,SIE
AT HIS HOME,..,...,,,,,,,..,,187
VIEWEDCHILDPORNOGRAPHY
.
,..... ., , ..,187
A.
Introduction...........
B.
ofReview
Standald
C.
The Trial Court Effed By Excluding Exhibit 813
, , , . . . . . , . . . , . , , , , ...,. .1. .9. 1
.,
AS F l e a r s a y , . . . .
D.
Exlibit 813 Should llave Been Admitled Into
EvidenceBecauseThe Record Sufficiently Shows
That The ComputerThat Time StampedExhibil 813
W a sO p e r a t i nPgr o p e r l y , . , . . . . . , , , . . . . . . . , . , . . . . . . ..... ,. . .1. .9. .2. . . . . . . .
E,
The Exclusion of Exhibit 813 PrejudicedAppellart
. . . . . .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 1 9 7
R e q u i r i nRge v e r s a l
..,
.. i91
VIII. APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS MUST BE RE\tsRSI'D
COIJRT SANCTIONI|D
BECAUSE THE TRIAI
PROSECUTORIAI MISCONDUCT DIJT{ING CLOSI\IG
ARGUMENT BY AI,LOWiNG THE PROSECUTION1'O
ATTR]BUTE AN ADMISSION OF RAPE I'O
,,, ,,,,,,,...,,200
APPELLANTTI-IAT])ID NOT EXIST
A.
The ProsecutionCommittedMisconductBy Telling
The Jury During ClosingArgumentThat AppellEnt
AdmittedRapingSapnaIn BangkokIn A Note Passed
TABLE OF CONTENTS
To IIis Lawyer During The Pr-.eliminaryHearing: A
By Any Facts
Nor Supportcd
FactNeitherIn Evidence
200
OutsideThe Recotd...... ..
B
IX.
The Prosecution'sMisconduct Wanarts Reversal
of Prejudice . ... .2Ii
Undera StateandFederalStandard
APPELL,ANT'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A
MEANII$GFLIL APPEAL WAS DENIED WHERE TI{E
TRIAI COURT REFUSEDTO HOLD AN ]]VIDENTIARY
HEARTNG TO RESOL\'E MATERIAL UNSETTLED
.
.2r4
PORTIONSOF THE RECORD
..... ..
.
.214
A.
Irtroduction...........
B
S l a n d a .or d
f R e v i e w . ..
C.
The Trial Court Erred By Denying ApPellantArl
Evidentiary I-IearingDuring SettlenrentProceedings
Implicating Appellant's ConstitulionalRigltt To A
Meaningful Appeal and A Sufhcient Recotd on
Appea1.....,...,
"" """ 215
D.
Vjewed in the Light Most Favotableto thc Defense,
the Record Omitted an Unanswer:d Jury Not€
Sr:Lbmitted
on June24,2009 RequestingGuidanceon
Whetherit Was Properto View Test:imonyfiom One
?20
of Sapna'sFriendsastheTruth
E.
Viewed in the Light Most Favorableto the Defense,
the Record Shov/s That The Juty Never Received
Exhibit 368, The Video-Taped I'olice Inter'"iew
BefiveenSapla and DelectiveHermann,In Response
, 222
T o I t sF i r s tJ u r yN o t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , .
1.
.......
...
215
Exhibit368 WasMissingFrom The Evidence
P r o v i d e dT o f h e J u r y . . . . . . .
222
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.
The Jury V/as Never Given Exhibit 368
To Its Request
Pursuant
In TheFirstJuryNote
S u b m i t l eTdo T h eT r i a lC o u l l . . . . . . . . . . . . .
X.
225
F.
The Record Was "Unsettleable"With RespectTo
Whether The JuIy Was Given Nev/ly Admiltcd
229
,,.....................
Started
Evidence
AfterJuIyDeliberations
G.
TheseErrorsPrejudiced
AppellantWarrartiug
30
. . . . . , . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 2
R e v e r s ,a.l. . . . . . . . . . , , . . ,
DTJE PROCESSDEMANDS THAT APPELLANT'S
CONVICTIONSBE ITE\IERSEDAND FIE BE GRANTED
A NEV/ TRIAL BASI]D ON TFIECIIMULATIVE EFFEC]T
o F A I L T H EE R R O RIS
N H I SC A S E. . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . ,. ,. . ,. ........ . . . . 2 3 1
...,,,...,......,...233
CONCLUSION......
WORDCOLnIT CERTIFICATE
xrl
TABLE OF AUTHORITI DS
Cases
i36,138
Ambrizv. Kelegian(20t)1)146Cal App 4,t}.l5I9
Ashcroftv Free,gpeechCoalnion(2002)535U 5 234
States(1935)295U.S.78.
Bergerv. (Jnitetl
:
"
""
" "212
"
" 215
.
Britt r. North Cqrotina(1974)4041J5 226
169
l30
Beroizt. Waht()'000)84 Cal.App4th485......
" " "" '14'7
(1984)467U S. 419
Califurniav. Tronnbetta
89
(1981)450U 5,288
Carterv. Kentu<:lgt
v. Mississippi(!973) 410U.S.284 ..
Chambers
v Cattfornia(1968)386U S. 8...
Chapman
" " " ""141'199,23)'
....... , .... .
CollegeHospital,Inc. v. SuperiorCourt
( 1 9 9 48) C a 1 , 4 7
10
h4 . . . . . . . . . . .
,passim
, . . , , , .. 8 6 , 1 6 8 , 1 8 5 , 1 9 7
(6thCiL 1988)83'7F.2d284.. '
Coopert. Sowdr:rs
"231
Correav. SuperiorCourt (2002)27 Cal{th 444 ,.
86'141,169,200
Cranev. Kentuclq(1986)476U.S.683.
Dardenv. IYainright(1986)477 U S L8l .
83
,
.
93,186'204,208,209
'2ll
) 1 5U . S .3 0 8 . . . . . . . . . .,
D a v i sv .A l a s k a( 1 9 7 4 4
....
. 147
. . ..
DePalmav llestland SoftwareIlouse(1990)225 Cal.App3d 1534.
Donnellyv. De(lhristoforo(1974)416U S. 63'/ .
D o w l i n gv U n i t e .S] t a t e (s1 9 9 04) 9 3U . S . 3 4 2 . . . .
Draperv. Ilashington(1963)372U.5.48'7
.....
- -
.
104
93,211
... .. .179
215
TABLIi, OF'AUTIIORITIES
E s t e l l e vM. c G u i r (e1 9 9 15) 0 2U . S .6 2 . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . .
. 93
......
123'125
ExPqrteSmith(1949)33cal,d797......
... 80,31,83
412
v. SmallClaimsCourr(1976)59 Cal.App.3d
Gardiana
(1,912)
405U.S.209.....................
Gigliot (JnitedStates
.
.114
) 9 1C a l . A p p . 44t 8
h 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 3 , 1 3 4
G r e e n s pva.nL A D T( 2 0 1 1 1
. ..203,204,208,209,211,212
Grtfinv. Catiftrnia(1965)380U.S.609.........
H a r t i n g vC. e b r i a(n1 9 3 51) 0C a l . A p p . 21d0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . ., ., , . . . 1 2 3
H e w i t t vH.e l m (s1 9 8 34)5 9 U , S , 4 6 0 . . . . .
(1980)447U.S.343,
Hiclsv. Oklahoma
... ,.,,......56
.. ...............56
H o l l e yv . Y a r b o r o u g( 9, t hC i r '2. 0 0 95) 6 8F . 3 d1 0 9 1. . . , . . . , . , , , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . , 1 6 0
562,,................ .,,...80
Hsuv.Mt. ZionHospital(1968)259Cal,App,2d
(1967)66 CaI.2d82....,,...........,...,.........,,
134,13
5
In re Estateof Chichernea
(1999)20 Cal4th2'13
ln re I'lamilton
................218,219
h 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 4 , 1 7 2
I n r eJ a n eD o eB 0 l 5( 2 0 0 ' 11)4 8C a l . A p p . 44t 8
Mao(2009)174Cal.App.4th
301
Jazayeriv.
........133,134
J a c o b s o nG
v .o u r t e(y2 0 0 08) 3 C a l . A p p . 41t h3 3 1. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 4
J a c o b s o nU
v .n i t e S
d t a t e(s1 9 9 25) 0 3U . S . 5 4 0. . . .1 5 6 - 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 , 1 9 8
9 ) 5t 4 U . S 4
. 19
K y l ev W i t l e y( 1 9 5
LandaleCameronCourt,Inc.v Ahonen
( 2 0 0 71) 5 5C a l . A p p . 4 1
t h4 0 1 . . . ..... ,
............174
. ..... . ......i33,134
Li.ncolnt'Sunn(9thCir.1987)807F.2d805 ........................231
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
. 216
(9thCir.1989)885F 2d 646 ...
Martlerav.Risely
.
Court(2002)21 CaIAIh116
Markst, Superior
..
. .211'219
" '
M a y e rv . C h i c a g(o1 9 7 14) 0 4U . S .1 8 9 . . . . . . . .. .
' '216
. i39'140
v. George(1977)73CalApp.3d258
McAlli.ster
M c D o w e l l vc. a t d e l . o(n9 t h c i r . 1 9 9 7I)3 0 F . 3 d8 3 3 . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . 89
v. Procunier(5thCir. 1984)743F.2d281- .-.. . .. . .. .. .231
Menzies
M i l l e rv . F e n t o n( 1 9 8 5 04 ? 4 U . S .1 0 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . , . . . . . . .. . 1 0 4
M i l l e rv P a t e( 1 9 6 7 ) 3 8 6 U . SL.. . . . , . . . . . . . . . ., . . , . . . - . . . . 1 ' 7 4 ' 2 0 8 ' 2 4 9
. ...... . . - .
Montanav. Egelhoff(1996)518U.S 37.....
14'7
'231
. . . .. .... .174,1T5
) 9 5U , S >1 0 3. . . . . . . . .
M o o n e yv . H o l o h a n( 1 9 3 5 2
...... -- - - l'74
) 6 0U . S .2 6 4.
N a u p ev l l l i n o i s( 1 9 5 9 3
.. . ...
579
(2000)85 Cal,App,4th
Peoplev. Andracle
Peoplev. Alvarcz(2002)2'7Cal. th It61.
.
...,., .
P e o p lve.A r c e o( 1 8 6 73) 2 C a L4 0 . . . . . .,. . ,. .
,,
.. . . . . 89
. . .,,..., ..
.,..
55,56
.
..81
P e o p lve.A n d e r s o( n2 0 0 12) 5 C a l . 4 t h 5 4 3 . .. . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 9 5
P e o p l e vA. n d e r s o(n2 0 0 6 )1 4 1C a l , A p p , 44t h3 0
P e o p l e vA. n z a l o n(e2 0 0 6 )l { l C a l . a p p . 4 t3h8 0 . .
- . - - -. - - . - - - - - - - 2 1 ' 7
......
..95
v .A u g u s t i (n2 0 0 3 )1 1 2 C a l . A p p . 4 t4h4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . , . , 8 0
People
3 )8 C a 1 . 4 t h 4 9 1 . .
v A v i l a1 . 2 0 0 6
People
P e o p l e vB a i n( 1 9 7 15) C a 1 . 38d3 9 . . .. . . . . . . . .
..........191
...... .........210
TABLE OFAUTIIORITIES
94
v Barraza(1919)23CaI.3d
615
PeopLe
(1988)
46cal.3d
919,.....
Bean
PeopLev.
..., .. .. I78
. .... . .210
..
Belton(2009)168Cal.App.4th
432.....................
Peoptev.
..90
v. Bemis(7949)33 Cal.2d395..
People
Peoplev. Bolton(1919)23Ca1.3d208.'.
. .. ..... ..
-209
t h3 l l , , . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .,. . . . ....,. . 2 0 5
P e o p l e vB.o r d e l o(n2 0 0 81) 6 2C a l . A p p 4 1
........... ..... ..... 122,\26
v. Brucker(1983)148Ca1.App.3d
230......
People
P e o p lve B u t l e (r 2 0 0 51) 2 7C a l . L p p , 44t h9 . . . . . . ,... .. . . . , , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .I 7 8
P e o p lte. B r a d y( 2 0 1 05) 0 C a l , 4 t5h4 7
. . , , . , . . . . . .. . , 1 9 1
638...,.........,...............206,20'7
Peoplev. Brophy(1954)122Cal.App.2d
,210
( 1r 9 9 21) 5C a I , 4 13h1 2 . . . . , . . , , . . . . . . . , , . , , . . , ,.....,9. .1. ,. 1. .".1. .'./
P e o p lve. C a r p e n t e
Peoplev.Carter(1975)46Cat.App.3d260..,,.......,,.....,......,....,,.,..,,,.,...1
P e o p lve C a s t e l L a n( io9s9 0 )2 1 9C a l . A p p , 31d1 6 3. . . . , . , . . , . , . . . . ...1. .3.0. .,.1 3 9
d3 . . . . .
P e p p lve. C o l l i e( 1 9 8 13) 0 C a l . 3 4
.................,,.16'7
h0..............................................94
P e o p l e vC. o l l i n (s1 9 9 2 l)0 C a l . A p p . 46t 9
P e o p lve C o o p e(r1 9 9 15) 3 C a l . 3 d 7 7
........,,...,.......,..94
P e o p lve. C o t t o n(e2 0 11 ) 1 2 3C a l , R p f f . 38 d9 2 . . , , . . . . . . , , , ,.,.......,......... . . . . . . . . . 1 7 6
v. Cromer(2000)24 Cal.4th889
PeopLe
............203,215
Peoplev.Cuervas(1967)250CaLApp.2d901.................................131
P e o p lveD a n i e l s ( 1 9 9 1 ) 5 23Cda8l1 5
..... ... .. ....178
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES;
9'7
PeopLev. Dickey(2005)35 Cal 4th 884
(1975)52 Cal.AppSd762 . . .
Peoplev. DonnelL
118'l'79
Peoplev.Duran(1996)50CalApp4th103.....
""219
159,160,163,166
Peoplev.Earle(2009)172Cal.l\pp4fr\372..
45
Peoplev. Ertine (2009)47 Cal.4th'l
...
94
..'
174.183
Peoplev. Ewotdt(1994)7 Cal.4th380.
.... .'.." '.. 122
Supp.15. .
(197'7)'7
4 Cal.ApP.3d
Peoplev. FLaxman
. ..
Peoplev Ford(1964)60 CaL2d774...
P e o p l e vF. r i e n d( 2 0 0 94) 7 C a l . a t hI , , . ,
89
.
Peoptev. Ftood(7998)18CaI.4th470
,
....
...... ,,.,
821 .
Peoplev. Gaines(7997)54 Cal.App.4th
...... ...
v. Garcia(2005)36 CaI.4th777... ..
PeopLe
.
829 ..
Peoplev. Gardner(1961)195Cal.App.2d
90,94,91
. 205,212
. 208,209,210
,
,
,2I8
.....,...... , ,.88,91
) 2 0C a l . A ' p p .6z ld' 7. . . . . .
P e o p l e vG
. a r r i s( 1 9 5 3 1
" '..225
....
' . .
Peoplev. Gibson(2001)90 Cal.App4th 3'71
59'7...,.
Peoplev Giovianinl(1968)260 Cal.App.2d
..
P e o p l e rG
. z i k o w s (k1i 9 8 23) 2 C a l3 d 5 8 0 , . . . . .
13I
...
....
Peoplev. Graham(1969)71 Ca1.2d2A3
Peoplev Guerrero(1988)44 Cal.3d343
l'76
.
Peoplev.Gerber(2011)196Cal.App4th368....
203'204
.. . .. .. . . 94
. .. 130'139
., ...
,
219
TABLE OF'AUTHORITIES
P e o p l eH
v .a l l( 2 0 0 08)2C a l . A p p . 48t1h3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,................
209
P e o p vL.eH a r d y( 1 9 8 9C) a IL. E X I S1 3 6 3 , , . . . , , . . . , . . ,.,.. . ,.,..,........... . 2 1 8
.....
P e o p lve.H a w k ( 7 9 6 15)6 C a 1 . 2 d 6 8 7 . . . . .
... s5
P e o p lte H n r k i n s( 2 0 0 29) 8 C a l . A p p . 41l h4 2 8. . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . .1 9 1 - 1 9 6
Peoplev.Hill(1998)17Cal.4th800.
.................205,24'7,210,212
P e o p l e vH. o r d ( 1 9 9 3 )l 5 C a l . A p p . a t7hl l . . . . . . . . .
219
P e o p lve.J a c l < . s( o2 n0 0 51) 2 8C a l . A p p . 41t h0 0 9. . . . , . , . . . . . .............. . . 1 5 4 , 1 7 2
d34
P e o p lve.J e n n i n g( s1 9 9 15) 3C a l , 3 3
. . . . , . . , , . .......... . ..,.,5 6
(1981)121Cal.App,3
v Johnson
d 94...,....205,206,20'l
People
,210,212,213
P e o p lve.J o n e (s1 9 8 11) 2 5C a l . A p p . 32 d9 8, , . . . . . . , , . , , , . . . ...,..,.,.,...,.,.,. . 2 1 7 , 2 2 0
P e o p lve.L a w l e r( 1 9 7 39) C a l . 3 dI 5 6 . . , , . , , , , . . , , . . . . . . . ,. . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 2 0 3 , 2 1 5
1 2. . . . . , . . . . . . , , . . . 1
. .7. .9. ., .1 8 0 , 1 8 4 , 1 8 5
P e o p lve.L e o n( 2 0 0 i )9 1 C a l . A p p , 48t h
P e o p lve.L o n g( 1 9 70 ) 7 C a l . A p p , 35d8 6
....,......181,182
Peoplev.Lopez(2005)129Cal.App.4th1058......................,.....................9'7
P e o p lve.L u g a s h( i1 9 8 82) 0 5C a l . A p pd. 36 3 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 4 , 1 9 5
P e o p lve. M a l a b a (g1 9 9 ?5) 1C a l . A p p . 41t h4 1 9 . . . ........ .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 ' /
v. Martinez(2010)4'/C^l.4th9Il
PeopLe
..............205,211
Peoplev.Mathews(1991)229CaIApp.3d930...........................129,139
P e o p lve.M e n d o zTae l l o( 1 9 9 11) 5C a i . 4 t2h6 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 9 6
Peoplev.Mojica(2006)139Cal.App.4th1197......................,..............89
vl
TABLD OF AUTHORITIES
" 1'7'7
Peoplev Nottinghqm(1985)172Cal App 3d 484
Peoptev. O'Dell (2007)153Cal.App4rhl56l
"
PeopLet.Olguin(1995)31 Cal.App4th 1355.....
..
"87
.
131
Peoplev. Page
( 2 0 0 84) 4 C a l . 4 t h
1 . . . . . . .1. .5 4 , 1 5 5 , 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 , 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 , 1 7 1 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 8
Peoplev Poses(2004)32 Cal.4th193.. .
.. . .......
... .
1380
Peoplev.Ponce(1996)44 Cal.App.4th
..........
..... . .
.. ... .87
. . ..93'96
.....
Peoplev. Pret\,man(199QA Cal.4th'248
.
"
119
.. . .
.
.56
. .....
54 ...
Peoplev. Pulin(1912)27 Ca|.App.3d
89
13 Cal.4th313...
People1).Ray (1.996)
...., . . ..... ... .198
1075.,
Peoplev. Robbie(2002)92 Ca|.App.4th
.. . ,
Peoplev. Rogers(2006)39 Cal.4th826
..
Peoplev. Roybal(1998)19Cal.4th481
. 167
.
.
57
(1950)35 Cal.2d522 ....... .. ... .. .. ., .....
Peoplev. Sanch<tz
---. -
Peoplev. Satchell(1971)6 Cal.3d28
80
Peoplev.Scott(1972)23 Cat'.App.3d
.. ,.
) l C a l 4 t h1 1 7 8. . .
P e o p l e vS. l c i l e(s2 0 1 1 5
.
. 89
----- 94
..
, ....
.. 131,132,133
.
(2002)27 Cai4th 1187
Peoplev Slaughter
216
. . . ..
94
(1995)3I CalApp 4lh 1534
Peoplev Teroganesian
243,215
.
Pointerv. Texas(1965)380U.S'100......
208,209
P e o p l ve . T h o m p s o( n1 9 8 02) 7 C a l . 3 d3 0 3
.
155,177,178,180,184,185
TABLE OI'AUTHORITIES
..
(2007)151Cal,App.4th
r Tillotson
517.....
People
94
......86,169,186
(1984)31cal.3d302....
v Turner
People
a 9 9 75) 5C a . I . A p p . 9
40
t h5 . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 8
P e o p lve V o m a s k( 1
P e o p lve W a r r e n ( 1 9 8485)C a l . 3 d 4 7 1
.,................90
Peoplev. Watson
( 1 9 5 64) 6 C a l , 3 d
818 ......,...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . , . . . . .p. .a.s. s i m
Peoplev.Wilson(2008)43Cal.4th1..........,,...........,.....................90,93,9
P e o p Lve. I I / o o d w a(r2d0 0 4I)1 6 C a l , A p p . 48t h2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 , 9 0
P e o p lve, Z a m b r a n(o2 0 0 74) l C a l . t h 1 0 8 2 . , , , , . . . . . . . . ..,.,................. . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 4
Prattv.Pratt(1919)43 Cal.App.261
P y l e vK
. a n s a(s1 9 4 23) 1 1U . S 2 l 3 , , , . . . .
,..,.,,............,.., I 35
. . . , . . . . . , . . . , . . , . . . . . . . .1 ' 7 4
S t n i tyh. P h i l i p s( 1 9 8 24) 5 5U . S ,2 0 9. . . . , , , . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . , .
(1983)432So.2d837
Statev.Armstead
(1984)466U.S688
StricklandvWashington
. . . .. . . . . . 1 ' 7 4
....192,196,197
..86,168,185,197
S u l l i v avn.L o u i s i a n(a1 9 9 35) 0 8U , S .2 ' 1 .5. . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . . ........ . . . . . . . . 5 ' 7
. . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .-....2. 3 1
T a y l ovr .K e n t u c l (q1 9 7 84) 3 6U , S .4 ' 7 8
TSMCNorthAruericav. Setniconductor
Mfg InternCorp
( 2 0 0 81) 6 1C a l . A p p . 45t8t r1
.....,....130
, i t .1 9 9 39) 9 1F . 2 d9 8 1. . . . . . . . . ,. ., ,. ., , . . . . .81,51 5 9
U n i t eS
d t a t evs. H a r v e y( 2 dC
(1983)461U.S.499.
v Hastings
UnitedStares
UnitedStatesv.Lovasco(1911)431U.S.783.
.....203,211
....86,169,186
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
.
ILnitedStatesv. Young(1985)470rJ.S 1
Verdinv.SuperiorCoun QA}$ 43 Cal.4th1096,.
?04
91
"
141
v Texas(1967)388U S 14
Washington
123'124
llickershamv Johnson(1894)104CaL407
'
Williqmsv. Oklahoma(1969)395U S 458 ........
.....
...
Yatesv. Evau Q991)500U,S.391
"
215
. . .... . . 5?
v. SuperiorCourt(2003)107Cal App 4lh 360. .. ... 154'1'71,1'12
Ziesmer
CONSTITUTIONS
UnitedSlatesConstitution
. . . . . ,. 2 1 I
B i l lo fR i g h t . . . . . . . . .
....,........169
F i r sA
t m e n d m e.n. t
F i f l hA m e n d m e n t , ,
.. 93,l04
, l 4 ' 7 , 1 6198, 6 , 2 0 2 - 2 0 4 ,
208,2t0,220,229,230
SixthAnendment.
95,104,14'7
,199202,208209,210
......56,93,10'1,141
............
'169'186,199,203,
Amendment
Fourteenth
208,220,229,230
RULES
CalifomiaRulesof Court
83
I u l e2 . 8 9 1 1
n'l-l!q/.
. . . 1r n
nrleI lll0{o)
....
...3r
. . . . . . . , .. ., ... . ... . . . . . .. .. 6 1
TABLE OT'AUTHORITIES
STATUTES
L s c $2 2 5 2 G ) ( 2. .X. .A. .) . . . . . ......... . . . . . .
CalifomiaCodeofCivil Procedure
156
xll
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
ThreeSlrikeslaw
132.
Evidence,
I Wigmore,
$ 194.....
l8i
xl
IN THE COURT OF APPEAI OF TF{ESTATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRDAPPELLATEDISTRICT
TI-IEPEOPLEOF THE STATEOF CALIFORMA,
CoultofAppeal
No. C062694
Plaintiff and Respondent,
SuperiorCoul
No.062444
AJAYKUMARDEV,
DefendantandAppellant.
)
INTRODUCTION
Ajay Dev and his, wife Peggy,adoptedSapn4Deo, Ajay's dislant
niecefrom Nepal, when shewas 16 yeals old. She lied abouther daleof
in theUnitedStates,a minor mustbe urlderthe
birth to be adoptedbecause,
age oi'16 to be legally adopted. To con.rplywitl.t fiis lequirenent,shc
alleredschoolrecordsin Nepal to createa dateof birth which woLrldmake
her nil')emonthsyounger, This falsedateof birlh, indicatingshewas 15 at
the time of the adoption,was usedon all of hel ilunigration ard zrdophon
paperwork. Without the De\/ adoption,Sapnawould not be eligiblefor
Amelicancitizenship.
The purposeof the adoptionwas to bring Sapnato the UnitedStates
so shecould supporther biologicalfamily in Nepal by gettirlgan cducatiotl
Nepali
andpursuinga careet. The Devs,as hostparents,prolnisedSapna's
t'amilythey would raise her with traditionalNepali valueswhich included
protectingher purity until shemarried. However,as an l8 yeatold college
sludentLivingat home, Sapna\,vartedlo dateand havesex. Knowingthis
was foftidden, Snpnaengagcdin sexual aotiyity bohinclthc Devs,
backs
aDd,whel1zlskedaboutit, vehemontlydeniedit Lothe Devsand her papa
in
,
Nepal. Sheknew exposLu€
of hd soxualactivitieswould, in the oyesof the
Ncpali oommrurity, bring shamc to hcr Ncpali faniily ancl thc Devs
'lherefore,
Sapnawcnt to greatlengthsto cover-uphcr scxualexploitsancl
Pleg0ancyscarcs,
yearpcr.iod,when Sapnawas l8 and 19 ycatsold, Sapla
Over a <>ne
had thlcc pragnanoyscaros:ons resultedin zrnaturaltniscarrjage;ono was
leruduatedby takilg an abortionpill; and one,rollcotodby a signilicaLrtly
latg petiod, either.was llot a pregLrancy
'fhe
Dovs exerte.ltrclncudousplossl..o orr
her [o maintaiu hei pulity. ln ftis lcgalcl,they ]:cpeatc(llycxl)rossodtl)cir
liustralionto Sapna's
Prpa in Nopalvia lcngt(ryc-mzrils
copiccL
to Sapna.In
thcsc c-mails, thcy ilt$iuratod,solnctimoijsubrly allcl solrctluos ovoltly,
th4l thoy Driglrt oLrtolf financitrlassistarlccto SapDa,s
biobgical thmily i(
$hc did not shtLpc-Lrpantl crnphasizcd thoif col.]ccl.nflrat Sapux,s
misbelr4viol,if cxposod,would trurisll tlleif tcl)utittioltill tlto Ncpilli
corlmunity.
I-Towever,
tlre mofo prcssr.rrc
thc Dcvs put ou Sapna, rc riibrc
rcbclliousshc becamarurtil,oneclay,shemovedout ofthe Dev ho,nc{nd
declaredhcl li eedornas an ',Amoficangitl.', SapnaLlndcfstood
that rru
"Nepaligirl,, lvoulclbc alloweclto n'Iovoout oli tho houseurlcssslic wil)
mar|icd. Although tlle Devs an(l Sapn^desperatcly
hicd to r.cpairtlrc
rolzrtionsllipaud hnd somo kincl of balanccdrniddlc grouDd,Sapna
Dltirnatelyclded tl]c r.clatjonsl.rip
on Foblual.yI, ?-004aft|.IAjay e,tnailed
her boyliiend,Wjll, to advischim that,if hc wasgoingto .latoSapna,
hc
hurdto respectSapDa,s
helitageandabideby Ncpaliculturalvirlues.Allo|
readiDg tlte e-urail, Will broke rrp witi Saprraalmost immedjatoly.
Sapdi
was oufaged a1x1blamcd Ajay. 1hc next day, she went
to thc police and
accused
Ajay of rapingher two to threetirnesa week for five years: fiom
agesi5 though20.
OnceSapnadecidedto endher relationshipwith the Devs,she,no
doubt,fearedshewould aisolosehei patht0 Americancitizonshipbecause
sheknew the Devs could revelseher adoptiononcethey discoveredthe
adoptionwas basedon a falsedateof birlh. In Sapna'srnind,Ajay lvas to
blamefor her breakup with Will andwhat shebelievedto be het pending
deporlationbackto Nepal. To Sapna,Ajay took away her fi-eedomand
andnow shervoulddo the sameby falseiyaccusinghim of
independenoe
rape.
At trial, neitherSapnanor the prosecutioo
were ableto explainhow
Sapnaonly got pregnantor hadpregnancyscareswithin a naltow wildow
of timewhiohperfecllycoircidedwith her datingandhavingsexwith oldet
boys behindAjay and Peggy'sback. Similarly, neither Sapnanol Lhe
prosecution
couldexplainwhy, givenSapna's
allegationthat Ajay rapedher:
approximalely300 to 450 times from ages 15 to 18, Sapnanever got
pregnantnor had any pregnancyscares.Thesefacts l ghly suggestlhat
allegalions
were false. I{ad Ajay beenglvena fair trial, thesefacts
Sapna's
would have ciearly come to light. Sincehe was not given a fair trial,
reversalanda new hial arerequired.
STATEMI}NT OF APPEALABILITY
This appeal follows a final judgment following a trial and is
authorized
by PenalCodesection1237.
STATEMENT OF THE CASD
a wiLness
Thejury convictedpetitionerol threecountsof dissuading
(oount92)l;
[Pen.Code$136.1(bX2)'(counts90 and 9i)' [$1361(a)(1)]
foudeencounts of lewd or lasciviousact upon child fourteenor flfteen
s ,4 , 9 , l l , 1 4 , 1 6 '1 9 ' 2 1 ' 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 93' 1 ,
y e a r so f a g eL $ 2 8 8 ( c X l()cl o u n t 1
34, 36); four countsof penetationof gelital or anal openingof a person
under sixteenyears of age by foreigl object by personover the age of
twqrty-ooe years l$289(i)l (counts 18, 23, 28, 33); nine counts of
petretrationof genital or anal openingof a personulder eighteeuyearsof
(counts38, 41, 44, 4'7,50' 53' 56, 59, 62):
ageby foreignobject [S289(h).1
twenty-threecounts of pelretratiollof genital or anal openingby foreign
o b j e c[t$ 2 8 9 ( a1) () ]( c o u n t s1 7 ,2 2 , 2 7, 3 2 , 3 7, 4 0 ,4 3 ,4 6 '4 9' 5 2 , 5 5 s, 8 ,6 i '
countsof rapeby
66, 68,70,72,74,76, 78, 80, 82,84);andnverly-three
forceor fhreat[$261(a\2) (counts20, 25,30,35,39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54,
5 7 ,6 0 ,6 3 ,6 ' 16, 9 ,7 l , ' 73 , 7 5 , ' / ' 17, 9 ,81 ,8 3 ,3 5 ) .
Thejury acquittedpetitionerofthe fbllowingronecountof lewdancl
lasciviousacts upon a child fourteenor fifteen yearsof age l$288(cxl)l
(count6); threecountsof penetrationof genitalor analopeningof a person
under sixteenyean of age by foreign object by personover the age of
of
tlventy-onayearsl$289(i)] (counts3, 8, I3); tlnee countsof penetration
genitalor anal opeling by foreign object l$289(a)(1):l(counts2, 7, 12);
(counts5, 10,15);one
th{eecountsof rapeby forceot thleat[$261(a)(2)]
count of distribulior or exhibilior of lewd materialto minor [$288.2(a)l
(count64); ore countexhibitingmatterdepictingninors engagedin sexual
conductto a minor [$311.2(d)](count 65); and oDe count of talse
with forceandviolence[$236;237(a)](count89). Thejury
imprisonment
t
Utrless otherwise indicatedall firrthor statutoly leferences
shallbe to thePenalCode.
found nol tuuean infliction of greatbodily injury dnring commissiol of sex
offense enhancelnent[$i2022.8] (Enhalcernent 75a) and, as a result,
necessariiy
foundnol trueerhancemenl
for sexualoffenders
[$667.61(b)
and(e)l(Enlancenent
a). (19RT5185-5206;12CT3217-3366)
Thejury hungon one countof mpe by force or tlueat t$26i(a)(2)l
(count86);onecoult ofthreatsto commitcrimeresultingin deathor great
bodilyharm [$422](count87); onecountof assaultwith intenl to oommit
mayhem,rape,sodomy,oral copulation,or aty violationof sections264.1,
288, or 289 [$220] (count 88); and an infliction of great bodily injury
durhg commission
of sex offenseenhancement
[$12022.8)](Enhancement
79a) and,as a result,necessarilyfound not true enlallcementfor sexual
offenders[$667.61(b)and (e)] (Enhancement
b). Therefore,the Coufi
declared
a mistrialasto thesecounts.(l9ItT5177-5183;12 C'l'32'15)
On August7, 2009,the tlial courtsentenced
petitionerto 378 years
and4 monlhs.Petitionerwasgiven85 daysofcredit.
The trial court detenniledCoult 4 (lewd arld lasciviousacxupon
child fourteenor fifteen yearsof age)to be the principal term with te
remainingcountsseryingas subordinate
terms. The tliai court imposeda
th.rgeyear sentenceon Count 4 and imposeda tluee year.consecutive
sentence
ol1Count1 pursuant
to section1170.15.Counts9, ll, 14,and 16
weresentencedconsecutively,
eightmonthseach,basedon one third the
mid-tem sentence.
Pursuantto section 667.6, the trial couft imposed consecutive
of eightyearsfor counts17,22,27,32,3'7,40,43,46, 49, 52,55,
sentences
58,61,66, 68,70,72,74, 76,78,80,82,and84 (pererration
of genitalor
analopeningby foreignobject).
Pursuattto section667.6,the hial coult imposeclconsecutiveeight
y€arsertences
for courts20, 25,30, 35,39, 42,45,48, 51, 54, 5'7,60, 63,
6 ' 7 , 6 9 , ' 7 1 , ' 7 3 , ' 7 5 , 18
' 71, ,7893,,a n d8 5( r a p eb y f o f c co l r h r e a t ) .
Pursuantlo section 1i70.15,the trial courl imposedtwo year'
a witless).
sentellces
for counts90 arLd92, (dissuading
consecutive
werestayedPursuanllo sectiou654
The following sentences
19,2I, 24,26,29,31,34,.nd i6
for counts
Threeyearsentences
(lewd or lasciviousact uponchild fourteenor fifteenyearsof age);
Tbree year sentences
for counts18, 23, 28, asd 33 (penetatiot of
genitalor ana.lopeningof a perso| undersixteenyearsofage by foreign
objectby personoverthe ageoftwenty-oneyearc).
Threeyearsenteqoes
for counts38, 41,44,4'7,50,53,56,59,and62
g-f 4 personundgr eighteenyearsof
(penetrationof genijal or atralo.p-ening
ageby foreignobject);and
A threeyear sentencefor court 91 (dissuadinga witness), (19 RT
1 ;4C T 3 8 3 6 - 3 8 4 2 )
5270-s274
A timelyNoticaofAppealwasfiledAugust7, 2009.(14CT 3829)
The initial record on appealwas frled on November 4, 2A09.
plocecdings
solllement
in therecordon appeal,
However,dueto omissiolrs
were colducted in the Llial courl resultingin the fili[g of a ccftifiedsettle
30,201L
iu this Couftonor aboutSeptember
statement
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
Aiay aud PeggyDev Adopt Ainv's DistantNiece,SapnaDeo.
Frolr Nepal
His fanily
immigratedto rhe United Statesin 1980when Ajay's father,GangaDeo,2
cameto pursuehis PhD at UC Davis. (14 RT 3894;14 CT 3920,3924)
Ajay was 13 yearsold andhis brolher,Sanjay,u,asL6 yearsold. (14 RT
3893-3894)Ajay becamea civil €ngineeraod wolkedfbr the Calil-o1r1a
Deparfmentof WaterResouroes.(4 RT 760-'761;15 RT 4108;14 CT
(14RT 3869-3870)
a professor
3924) Sanjaybecame
of mathemalics.
Thesumame'Deo' canaisobe spelled'Dev'
6
Ajay and MadBaret
Easley(Peggy)met in 1992and malTiedin July
1997. (15 PJ 4073-4074)In October1998,Ajay, Peggyand Ajay's
parertstmveledto Nepalfor six weeks.(15 RT 4162; 16RT 4399) Ajay's
parents
hadsp0nsored
four lo fiveNepalipeopleto comet0 theUnited
Statesand were consideringadoptingthe daughterof a relativefiom an
economically
strugglingfamily in Nepal. (14 RT 3885;15 RT 4162;16 RT
4399-4400)This inspied Ajay and Peggyto adopt and help a Nepali
family.(15RT 4162,16RT 4399-4400)
Whenin Nepal,Ajay andPeggy
becamecloseto tfueeofAjay's distantnieces,includingSapna. (15 RT
4t62-4163)
After meetingwith Sapoa'sparents,Ajay andPeggyinuoducedthe
I
ideaof adoptingSapnato Sapnaand her family (4 RT 7i4-715; 15 RT
4165-4166,4169)
As explainedby Sapna:
My papadid not havea goodjob lin Nepall and
my rnotherdoesnot work. So. rhey did nor
haveenoughmoney,Becauseofthat lheywere
ha-rdlysurviving.
Thereis a dowrysystemin Nepal. In my dowry
system,the bride's fatherhas to pay a lot of
money or give land prope[ty to the groom's
father.... Due to thaq he was dlowning ill the
loans.
One day my papa'scousin[Ajay] cameftom
the U.S.A..,. I{e alsorealizedthat our family
had a very bad financialcondition. And he
wantedto help us ... lHe and his wifel . . .
plamed to adoptme andlake me with them to
the U.S.A. TheythoughtI was very responsible
and I would take cate of my family when I
stoodon my own leet. They also talkedlvith
my parentsandlny parentsagreedwith them. I
rhoughtit wasa very goodoppofunirylo help
my family.
(9 CT 2608-2609)
with
lhe adoptron
Gratefulfor the opportunity,SaPna'slarents approved
that they would continueto be involvedin Sapna's
the understanding
'.|14-'.716,15
RT 4169;9 CT 2607-2609)ln tlits
life asher parents.(4KI
Ltr
would be her "guardians"
regard,Sapnaunderstootithat Ajay and?eggy
Americaandshewouldsimultaneouslyrrraintainher|elationshipwithhel
n o L r ladl l o w
T h ea d o p t i ow
f a n r i l yi n N e p a l ( 4 F . T 7 1 4 - 7 1 6 1 1 5 R T 4 1 1 3 )
and oblain United States
Sapna!o get a greencard ir the llnited States
4124'4166:1'/ R1'
citizenship(4 RT 715-716;7 RT 1650;15 RT 4010'
4350) Aiay and Peggv
4517;9 CT 2725i 15 CT 4314,4335,4343'
andcareer
promisedSapna'sparentsthey would financeSap[a'seducatiol
in the
goals and maintain her Hindu and Nepali cultural valueswhile
-2609)
UnitodStates.(15 RT 4 1I 3, 4 i 66,4169; 9 CT 260'/
Upor their retumfrom Nepal,Ajay andPeggyconsulledwilh NepaLi
adoptSapnaancl
and Americanattomeysto determinewhetherthey could
not adopt
bring her to tbe United States.UnderNepaiilaw, the Devscould
shewas over 10 yearsof age (15 RT 4167;16 RT 4400)
Sapnabecause
ttr
UnclerUnited States'law, adoptionwaspossibleif it couldbe cotnpletecl
l{'f
the UnitedStatesbeforeSapnaturned16 yealsold (li RT 2722;13
' si o L o g i c a l
6 T 4 4 0 0 ;1 4 C T 3 9 2 0 )B i l e n d r aS, a p n a b
3 4 5 6 ; 1 5 [ i T4 1 6 ' 7 : 1R
father (her "Papa"), told the Devs Sapnawas uldeL 16 so it was rlot a
problem. (15 RT 4168;16 RT 4403) BeforeAjay andPeggyleft Ncpal'
they explaited to SaPnathat moving lo Ameiica is a big transitiooaDdif
their
shewas nol happyin the United Slatesshecouldretumto Nepalwith
full suppolt.(15 RT 4169;16RT 4404)
Despile earlier support, Ajay's parenlssta(ed to explessstrong
overSapna'sadoptionin November1998 (15 R'I 4i70-4172)
disapproval
in theoxtcndcd
woltlclcausea divisLon
Theybeganto feal Sapna'sadoption
Nepaii family by showingfavotitism. (15 Rl 4170-4172)AJayand
Peggy'sdecisionto adoptSapra,in spiteof Ajay's parents'disapproval,
caused
a seriousriii in the immediate
famity. (15 RT 4t72_4113,4180_
4r84)
A. SapnaArrives in the United Stateson January 23, 1999
On January23, i999, Sapnacalne to the United Statesto live wrrl
Ajay and Peggy. (3 RT 720; 14 CT 3921) Accortling to her Nepali
passpofi,shewas 15 years old with a date of birth of January5, 1994.14 (5
RT 979-980;9 CT 2502) ln Februay 1999,Sapnaenrolleclin 9th gradeat
HolmesJuniorHigh School.(14 CT 3937,3939)Sapnaadaptedwcll to
school,grew comfortableliving with Ajay and peggy and made lots of
Aiends.(13 RT 3735-3738,
3744;15 RT 4190;t6 RT 4225,422,7;
B C.t
2094-209
6, 21l0-2r t2, 2t3 t -2136, 2t 44;g CT 2607-2609)
In May 1999,SapnagavePeggya Mother,sDay card which read,
"ForBeingLike A Motherto Me." In the card,Sapnawrote,,,I love you,,
andsignedit, "From your nieceas well asyour daugh1er..,,
(6 R.I 1472;9
CT 252'7-2528) In June 1999, Sapnagave Ajay a liather,s Day card
addressed
to "UncleAjay" whichread,,,ForSomeone
Who,sLike A Father
To Me." (6 RT 1470-1471;
9 CT 2525-2526)SnetrDahal,Sapna,sclose
ftiend,remembered
that SapnacalledAjay ',Uncle,'whenshefirst camero
this country,but as Sapnabecamecloserto Ajay she starteclto call hinl
"Dad."(14RT 3743,3979)
On September14, 1999,Sapnawrot€ a paperfor.her linglish class
entitled"My New Life." Shewrotethat shewas hitially scaredto leave
I
At trial, Sapnatestifiedthat January5, 19g4was her correctdateof
birth. (4 RT 701) In contrast,the defenseattemptedto intl.oduce
documents
tiorr Nepalto provethat Sapna's
dateof birthwas,in fact,Aprll
28, 1983. However,the trial courldenjedthesedefense
motions. 12RT
1 1 2 - 1 1 31,3 5 - 1 3 76 ;R T 1 3 6 4 - 1 3 6 1C
; 5T 1 i 6 2 .t 2 t 9 r 6 C T 1 5 3 2 ,1 5 4 9 ,
1665;9C'l 2333;seealsoArgumentIV)
'
Unlessotherwiseindicated,references
lo Sapna,sageand,/ot.clate
o[
bilth will bebasedon Sapna'spurporteddateof birth of JanLrary
5, 19g4.
'
her family in Nepai,but after"thefirst 15 to 16 days shesta ed10adaptto
wantedto be
Americanlife (9 CI2607-2609) Shecontinued,"1 felt like I
concludedwith'
herewith my uncle ard auntie,so they adoptedme " She
'
I like it herein Davis (9 CT
now
So,
me
auntie
iove
and
uncle
my
"And
2607-2609)
Friends ald relatives noticed that Sapna appearedhappy' lvelt
(7 RT
adjustedand was openlyaffeotionatetowardsboth Ajay andPeggy
' 058-4059)
75
' /P
i J 3 9 1 54
1?88-1781
94
; R T 3 6 0 1 - 3 6 03 6, 7 3 - 3 6 7 4 , 3 ' 1 1
that
Sneh,who frequentlystayedovernightwith Sapnaat the Devs,Lestified
Sapnahad lots of ftiendsandwas happyexcePtwhen shehad to do chores
828) Sapnahersclfsard
42,3763-3'764,3
or schoolwork. (4 RT 3'740-37
-2609:14 C'l 3914-3926)
shecameto love her life in America (9 CT 260'/
B. In November1999,SapnaConsentst0 the Adoptionby
Aj ay and Peggy
In April 1999, Ajay and Peggy startedthe California adoptiort
proceedings.(14 CT 3913-3926)In July 1999,inoidentto the adoption,
Sapnaunderwenta thoroughphysicalexamination (9 RT 2350-2353,14
c't 3913-3926)
Sapna
t0
consented
to the adoptionon November4, 1999and her adoplionbecane
frnalon December
6, 1999.(6RT 1332_1333;.1
RT 170.7;15
RT 4174;14
CT 3913-3926)iSased
on herpurporteddateof birth,Sapnawas onemorth
shyof tuming
16.(7RT1707)
AJay'sparerts ard his brother,Sanjay,were not happy about the
adoption. Family tensionsbecameso high that Aiay's parents and,
eveotuallySanjay,stoppedspeakingto Ajay andpeggy for approximately
threeyearsaftertheadoption.(14 RT 387g_3879;
15 RT 4183_4184)
In
November1999,ttre sbain causedAjay atd peggy to move fi.om their
ConcordSlreethome,locatedacrossthe sfeet tom Ajay,s pareots,to a
homelocatedon J Skeetmilesavr'ay.(4 RT 750_751;
15 RT 4183_4184)
Ajay andPeggy,but Ajay in particular,werecommittedLoproving Ajay,s
parents
wrongby ensuring
Sapnabecamea success,(15 IIT 3945,4tg3_
4184;16RT 4247-4249;tj RT 4s25,4526;
t5 CT 4345)
C. Ajay aud PeggyProvideFor SapuaIn Their Will Au(l
ObtainHcr PermauentResideucy
StatusIn Amer.ica
Sapnaquickly adaptedto and embracedAnerican cultr.u.e.She
playedsporlsand invited ftiendsover for big birthdaypany and holiday
celebrations. In Nepal, these simple American traditions would be
unaffordable
and,asa consequence,
gspeciallyfor a
seenas over-indulgent
girl. (14RT 3628-3629,3766;
15RT 4190-4193;
t6 RT 4225-422j;8 CT
2093-2096)Sapnaalsogrewcloseto peggy'sextendedfamily. 'fherefore,
Ajay andPeggyflew Sapnaout to Connecticut,
by herself,to visit peggy,s
sistersandher cousins:a fteedomSapnawould haveneverexperienced
in
Nepal.(14 RT 3628-3629,3766;
15 RT 4190-4193;
t6 RT 4225-4221;8
CT 2093-2096) Nevertheless,
like so many Americans,Sapnastroveto
maintainher ethric heritagewhiie assimilatinginto Amer-icanculture. In
this regard,Sapnawas activelyinvolvedwith the Nepali commulity ilr
culturalevenlsilcluding thsNt:palr
Davis ard participatedin manyNepali
and Diwali (14 RT 3628-i629'
New Year, Dashai[, the FLlmalayarFair'
4222'4229; 8 CT 2 I 43)
52,3793
; 15 RT 4 190-4lg3'42Oo'
3'750-37
Ajay a card with a pelsorral
On Father's Day 2000, Sapnagave
rnessagewhichread:..Tlranksforbeingmyspecialandr,vonderfulDaddy
' lO C1 2529-2530)ln 2000and
I iove you Sapnav " (6 kT 1473'1474
and Sapnaslayedwith fanily
2002, Nlay and Peggy traveledto Nepal
friends.(15RT4058)Beforethe2000trip'AjayandPeggycreatedatrusr
lravelingto Nepai in 2002'
narningSapnaas a beneftciary Then' before
makingher thehighesrbeneticiary
Ajay andPeggyinoreasedSapna'sshare
i n t h e i rw i l t ( 1 6 R T 4 2 9 5 ; 1 7 R T 4 5 1 3 )
applioationwith the
In December2001, Ajay and Peggy filed an
ImmigrationandNatulalizationSorvice(INS)toadjustSapna'sci|izenshlP
status.(16RT4411;FCT4O'71-4093)Asthelegallyadopteddaughterol
automaticallyqualifo for
Ajay and Peggy, Sapna,in a few years,would
UnitgdStatescitizenshipthrough|heINS'sder.ivativecitizenslrippt.ogram'
her adoplivestattrs'
(11 RT 2713,2722,2124;13RT 3456-3457)Absert
of obtainirg Urliled Stales
however, Sapna would have no guarantee
3460-346I)As
13 RT 3430'3456'345'1'
citizenship.(11 RT 2784-2785;
ailel leachingage
explainedby NS agentLuz Dunn,if Sapnawas adopted
and could
cilizenship
16,shewould not quali8' for automaticderivative
and unoartaio path of
only gain citizenship through the rigorous
13 RT 3430'3440-3441)On ApLil30'
naturalizatior'(11 RT 2784-2785;
alsokno\'vnas a green
2002,INS issuedSapnaa permanentresidetrlcard'
y e a r so l d
c a r d .( 1 1R T 2 7 4 0 ;1 6 R T 4 4 1 1 ; 9C T 2 4 5 0 )S h ew a sl 8
tl
II.
4t -4se 18, A_ftel- ReceivineHer Greetr Ca.rd, Sapua
E m p r a c eH
s e t .S o c i aal n d S e x u a Il t r d e p e n d e t ri cne- A , t n e i i c r
Aiav aud PeeeyTr@itionul
N"pali
4s
Values
Sapna
graduated
highschoolinJune2002.(4 RT 813;15 RT 4118)
To celebrate,
,{jay and Peggytook Sapnaand her friend, Cassandra,ro
Maui,Hawaii,in August2002. (4 RT 814_815;
t5 RT 4114) Alter
returnmghorne fiom Hawaii, SaptE star{.edcollege. She enrolied rn
Sacramento
City Collegoand co[tiRuedto liv€ at hone with increased
independence
asAjay a.rdPeggyprovidedher with a cell phoneand useof
t h ef a m i l yc a r .( 4 1 1 T 8 2 25;R T l i 9 4 - 1 1 9 56; R T l 2 3 9 ; 1 5 R T 4 1 1 5 , 4 2 0 0 ;
16RT420l) DuringSapna'sfirst semester,
shebecamesexuallyactive.
1+
RT 825,832-833;14RT 3154-31s9;15
RT 4199_4200;
16 RT 4201;9 CT
2358,2379) Pre-maritalsex for girls is prohibitedin Nepali cultu1.e.(13
RT 3545;14RT 3757-3758,
3875;l5 RT 406t) Consequelrly,
Sapnaliecl
to Ajay and Peggyalld her pareDtsin Nepalabouther sexualactivity. (9
R T 2 2 3 1 - 2 2 3 2 ; 1R3T 3 5 5 3 ;t 4 C T 3 9 0 1 3
, 9 0 33
, 9 1 r ;t 5 C T 4 3 3 5 )
Nevertheless,
Ajay andPeggystartedto suspectthatSapnamight be datr0g
and,/or
havingsexbehindtheir backsasSapnahadbecomemoreflirtatious
andbegarwearingrlrorerevealingclothes.(14 RT 3j 46_3j4j 3.75g-3759;
,
15 RT 4114-4115,4200;
16 RT 4209,4424) She also startedto sk4)
classes,
text variousboys,andstayout latewithoutcalling. (15 RT 4114_
4115,4118-4122;
16RT 4208-4209,
4234-4237:
t 5 CT 433s_4337)
Duringthistime, Sapna,age 18,rnetJanes,age25. Sapnaclaimed
he wanledto studywith her,but peggyand Ajay wonied it would leadro
sexandtbrbadeher from callinghim. (a RT g77; 16RT 420g_4209;l5 CT
4336) When Sapla ignoredthem,Aiay and peggyhad a th_ree
hour talk
with her (15 CT 4336) Despitethis talk, SapnacoDtinuedto secrerlyc_
mail James.After she movedout, she admittedshehad beenhiclingher:
1l
Ajay andPeggydid nol apploveof
with Jamesbecause
communications
hin. (la cT 3911)
25' 2002'Sapnadid not call or
In anotherincidonl,on Septembeicalled
nightcuLfew(15RT4l19) WhenPeggy
comehomeby herschool
apartment(15RT 4121)
herat 10:30p rn.,Sapnasaidshewasat a friencl's
ard admittedshe
After Peggyleft to pick her up, SapnaoalledPeggyback
When
(15RT 4120-4121)
wasin frontof Safewayin SouthDavisinstead
with a youngman Peggydid
Peggyarrived,she saw SapnaandCassandra
Sapna
confronted
not know. (15 RT 4121) On the drive home,Peggy
wits end'
aboullying to her. SaPnarepeatedlydelied that shelied At her
16 RT 4392;9
PeggystappedSapnaaclossthe face (I5 Kl 412l-4122;
to n"tnaway
CT 2550; 15 CT 4336) Sapnagot so angry that she slarled
her and
when lhey arrived home Ajay welt alter hel and calrrredboth
'Ihc
lext day'Sapnacalled
CT
2550)
4122-4123:9
(15
RT
down.
Peggy
livo
her fanily in Nepal for eightyninutes cosLingAjay ard Peggyalmosl
l5 CT 4353-4354)
l7 RT 4522-4523;
hundreddoilars (16 RT 4201-4202;
Out of outrageand concetl, Peggye-trailed SapnasPapain Nepal
and ilformed him thal she was losilg tNsl in Sapnaar(l was concemed
abouther intel:estin boys and sex She complaiuedto Bileldra' Sapna's
Papa,that ever sinceSapnatumed18,shehasbelievedshehasthefrccdorrl
to do asshelikes ln the e-mail,Peggywrote:
Ajay and I expectSapnato followour rulc of
not datingor havingsexbeforemarriageasI
know this will bring shamelo her, us arld
your family as wcll. I don't haveconfideuce
in her to live by thesercqucstsat this tirnc l
pray that you may give her anclme guidanceas
how to deal with this situation belbre it
becomesloo late.
(15CT 4336,bold in original)
in November2002,Ajay andpeggysuspeoted
thatSapnawas datlng
an Indiannale, SiCChartha
Jain (SlC),who had a baclreputationand was
five yeas older. (15 W 4199-4200;16
RT 4201; 14 C.l 3907,3g|)
Whenconfronted,Sapnainsistedthey werejust friends. After
Ajay and
Peggytold herto stopcallhg him, sheusedthe landline,ratherthanher cell
phole, to call him so there would be no evideuceof her clarrdestune
activiry.(15 RT 4200;14 cT 3911;15CT4336) Afler Sap|amovedour
of lhe houseshe admiftedher deceptiveness
to Ajay in an e-mail oy
boasting:
I did not tell you that i was still calling Sidcl
from the housephone. I bet you dicinoiknow
thateither. Jirstbecause
he is a collegeclropout,
it doesIrotmeanhe is a badperson.
( 1 4C T3 9 1 i )
Even during the trial, Sap[a continued to maintain that hor
relationship
with Sid waspurelyplatonicandthat sheneverbroughthim to
the Dev home. (7 RT lj3j)
Flowever,SnehDahal, Sapna,sftiencl,
testifiedthat SapnadatedSid for severalmonths,regularlyref.euedto hua
asher boyfriend,andwould go Lohis apaftmenttwo to threetimesa week.
(14RT 3757-3758)Shealsorestified
rhatshesawSid,sMercedes
paked
in fiont of the Devs'homeon at leastoneoccasion.(14 RT 3755_3756)
Similarly, the Devs' neighbortestifiadthat she saw a black Merceoes
parkedoutside
theDev homeseveral
occasions.
(l R1.1131;13RT 3552)
Irt addition,shewilnessedSapnaclosethe living room curtairswhen ,,an
Indianor Iranianman" enteredthe houseand thenre-openthemwhen he
left. (13RT 3552-3553)
Theneighbors
alsosawSapnabringother.young
mento the housewhenAjay andpeggywerenot home (13 RT 3551_
3ss2)
15
A. SapnaGetsPregnatrtfor the First
'lirne at Age 18
pregnant (10 Rf
On January2, 2003, Sapnafeareclshenighl be
office and explairedthe
2604,2612-2613:9CT 2358) Shewentto Ajay's
S i t u a t i o t - } t o h i m ' ( 4 R T 8 2 5 ) A j a y p r r r c h a s e d a h o m e p r : e g n a'fo
ncytesttbr
(4
RT
826)
pregnant
her. (4 RT 826) The test indicatedSapnawas
Center (4 RT
be cerlain,Ajay took Sapnato the PregnancyConsultation
had beenpregnant
826; 16 RT a380) Laboratorytestsindicatedthat Sapna
2002 when Sapnawas
for approximatelyfive weeks - sinceNoven.rber
2623;14 RT 3?57) Ajav paid
datingSid. (4 RT 827; 10 RT 2613-2615'
408?- 4088; 9 C'f 2358'
for the visit on thq family oredit card (15 R]l
lab testsconfiDnedSapna
2379; I ACT (8/10/2010)6) Subsequent
about
miscanied.(10 RT 2618,2621;9CT 2358,2379)Aiaytold Peggy
Peggy
clinicvisit in July 2003 He delayedtellingPeggybecause
Sapua's
May 2003 and
was undergoingferlility heatmentsftom Januarytluough
4134;l6 RT
fragileat thetime (15 RT 4078,4084-4086'
wasemotionally
4382-4383;1l CT 2990-2999;15 CT 4285)
One rnonthlater,in Febluary2003,SapnagavoAjay a birthdaycard
whichreadl
Hey, Dad-My tastein clothesand musicmay
not be the sameas youls I may not alwaysbe
aroundto help you with chores l oftenfail to
"ticly up" as often as should,and thele have
been times my attilude'srlot really beerlthat
good. I know I somelimessay thingslhal lnay
ittik" you as absurd..But whonI say "l Love
You, DAD," I mean it - EVERY WORD!
HappyBirthday
In her own handwritingsheadded,
I love you daddy. You area very specialpaft of
me Wilhout you I would not be ableto express
my emoti0ns and I wouLdnot be able to be
myself. With all my heafi & love[,] youlr]
daughter
Sapna.
( 1 4R T 4 1 9 7 ' 9C T 2 s 3 l - 2 s 3 2 )
Sapn4neveftheless,
continuedto sneakbehindAjay anclpeggy,s
backs.Onenight in Aprii 2003,Sapradid not comehomeafterwork and
did not call. Ajay andPeggywerevery wouied anclangry. At about2:00
a.m.,Sapnafinally calledhoureandinfonnedAjay andpeggyshehadbeen
at a ftiend'shouse. (16 RT 4210-42!2;t1 CT 30OO) This conrilua]
behayiormadeAjay and Peggyquestiontheir ability to parenta teendge
daughter
andcaused
themgreatconcem.(15RT 4053-4056;
16 RT 421l_
4212;11 CT 3000) As a result,Ajay suggested
rhatpeggyspendmore
timewith Sapnaandthat Sapnareturnto Nepalto re-immelseherselfiqto
Nepalitraditional
culture.(16 RT 42Il-4212;L5 CT 4312) Afier.lalking
with Sapna,Ajay and Peggyarrangedfor Sapnato sp€ndthe sunxnerin
Nepal,but assuedhe! Papathat if Sapuawanteclto return eallier they
woulddo theirbestto changeher ticketso shecouldreturnsooner (I5 CT
4312)
.
B. Sapla GetsPrcgn,rntfor the SecoudTirue in April 2003,
at Age 19
Beforeleavingfor Nepal,Sapnagot pregnanL
again. (5 RT I138; 9
CT 2350,2382) At trial, sheteslifiedthat shewas datingSid duringrhis
time period,but deniedhavingsexwith him. (7 RT 1678-1679)On May
8, 2003,sheren:rnedto the Pregnancy
Consultation
Centerandtermilated
thepregnancy
by takingan aborrion
pill. (5 RT 1138;l0 RT 2621-2623;
9
cT 23s0,2362)
C. Sapla Trayelsto Nepaland Asksto lleturD With Ajay
AjayandSapnaleft for NepalonMay 30,2003.(4 R1 857,384;l5
RT 4126;15 CT 4310) Theyhada layoverin Bangkok.(4 Itf 851,884;
15 CT 4310) While in Nepal,Ajay yisiredhis reiativesin bothNepai and
India while Sapnaspent the majority of her time with her iamily in
T1
a
Nepal. (4 RI 855-856:15 RT 4114' 4123-4124) Lessthan
Janakpur,
told her shewantedt0 retum
nonth into her stay,SapnacalledPeggyand
andwantedto go back
home. Sapnaexplainedthat shemissedhet fiiencLs
Peggyto moveher retun flight
to \{ork. (15 RT 4128) Sapnapersuaded
retur.ued
andSapna
up amol.th (15RT4128-4130)As a resuit'bothAjay
L5 CT 4309to the United Statestogetheron July t, 2003 (15 RT 4i27;
43i1)
D. In Fall 2003 SapnaHas Scx rvithAraz, Has A Pr
Scare,
When Sapnareturnedlo SacramentoCily Collogein the Fall of
an lranianmale,in her physjcsclass'
2003,she met AIaz Tait'ehesmatian,
(9 RT 2212; 14 CT 3944) At sotnepoint during the semester'Araz and
A.iayandPeggysuspected
Sapnastaltedclating (9 RT 2213-2215,2220)
deniediL and
Sapnamay be havingsexwith AIaz,but Sapnavehcmently
accusedthem of beingtoo controlliDgand ovetly suspicious(4 RT 870'7
10 C1'
4445:9 CT 2550-2551;
RT 1737;9 KT 2290;16 RT 4232-4233,
2725) Howevet, at trial, Araz testifiadthat during the Fall semcstelof
2003he andSapnahad sexat his mother'shouseoocea woek (9 RT 2220'
2252, 2324) Sneh Dahal colroboratedhis tostimonyand verilied that'
rluringthis time Period,Sapnarefeffedto AIaz as her boyfriend (14 ILT
3',76't
,3772)
Ajay and Peggywere not sinply concelnedwith protectingSapna's
reputation,especialiywithin the Nepali community,they \Yereequally
concemedr.vithSapna'sfuture and fcaled that her focuson boysand scx
would derailher education,carcer,and abiliry to providefor her faniiy in
Nepal. Theretbre,\,vhenPeggydiscoveledSapnahad beentextingAraz at
1:00a m the night boforezrnidterm, shetook Sap[a'scell phonearvayfor'
a day to in.rpressupon Sapnathat she neededlo tak€ l]er studiesmore
dutingexamweek.( i 6 RT 423I -42i2,42i4)
especially
seriously
I8
As Peggy feared, SapDa'sfocus on her sociai lile
over school
unpacted
her grades.In fact, aftefmidtermgradescameout, Sapna
had to
withdrawftom physics and pr.e-calculus
becauseshe was failing both
classes.(4 RT 875; 16 RT 4215,4451-4458)
Ajay andpeggywere so
concemed
aboutSapna'spoor perfomancein schoolthat Ajay petsoDaliy
wentto her campusto deteuninewhetherSapnawas attendingher classes_
(16RT 4234-4236)As suspected,
Sapnawasnot in class.WhenAjay later.
confrontedher, Sapnadeniedshe deliberatelycut classand
claimedshe
simplymissedthe bus. (16 RT 4234_423j) It \yasbecoming
increasingly
diffiaultto lrust Sapna.
Sapnawent to plannedpareuthoodon Noyember4, 2003. (4
Rl.
850-851;
13 RT 3309-3310;
9 CT 2385_238j)The olinicwaslocatedon
29thSteet, but was internallyrefeuedto asthe ,,8 Street,,Clinic. (13
RT
3309) It was the third time in a year Sapnafearedshe lvas pregrant,
Sapna's
medicalrecordsshowshehadunprotected
intercourseandthat her
f.
1t: nr r:tt;
coincided
) ThisclinicvisitDerfecrly
with lhetimeperiodAraz andSapna
werehavingsex. (9 R'I 2212-2213
2220,2252,2289,
2324-2325;
t4 CT 3944) Sapnarook a pregnaDcy
test,
but it camebacknegative.(13 RT 3 3 0 9 - 3 3 1 9
1 ;C T 2 3 8 5 )
I
The very next day, however,Sapnawent to a different planned
Parenthood
locatedon 10thStreetrefenedto as the Capitolplaza Clinrc
(13 RT 3310; 9 CT 2389-2395) At rrial, she testifiedshe \.ventto
the
CapitolPlazaClinic to get testedfor SexuallyTr.ansnifted
Diseases(STD)
because
she was articipalinghavingsex with eitherWill or Sid. (4 RT
849; 5 RT 1149-1i50,l155-1157;7 RT 1678) Fler.medical
recorcts
indicate
shehada',newpafiner.,'(9 CT 2393;13RT 3319) The medicat
l9
having sexual inte{cou$e'a aoupie
recordsalso indicale she tilst reporLed
9 CT
may have lailed (13 RT 3320;
condom
the
believed
and
weeks ago"
2393)TherrreoLcalreoolusz!l1v.^.icated,',Not,vrgpol|ssexwi|hcondo]ns
" (ll RT ll21l9 CT21191)
SrPnaMovesOut
job at Videos-To-Go
Sapnawas flred fiom hel
In Novembel2OO3'
-4243)Ajay ard I'eggy were at the end
4237
(16
RT
ce.
performan
poor
for
III.
of theirroPewith SaPna'
1' 2003'Sapna
on December
Lessthana monthalier tosrngherjob'
line This concemedPeggyas
calledPeggyfrom a phonewith a blocked
out witl't WhenPeggyquestroned
shehad no ideawho Sapnawas hanging
shewasandwho shewaswith (16
her,Sapuarefusedto tell Peggywhere
get an honest answcr' Peggy finaliy
YT 4242-4245) Determined to
]|{T4242.4245)Latelthatday'
convincedSapnatotellthetluth'(16
evasivebehaviorto Ajay (16
Peggyventedher flustration over Sapna's
shemustabideby lheirrulcsof
RT 4245) Within hours,Ajay told Sapna
9 C1-2552) Ajay andPeggy
moveout by 8:00 pm (7 RT 1625-1626;
hopedthisultimatumwoulclconpelsaptrarosirape-up,butSapnapacke
she wsnl into Ajay aod
hcr things and left. Before leaving' howevet'
greenoatd'storedill a brietc$e'
Peggy'sclosetand took her:passpodard
16RT 4246-42rt9'
1626-1628'
lvithouttheirpermission.(5 RT I198;7 RT
4453) Her dePartingnoteread:
l0
Hi, nom and dadl Tharksfor everythingthatyou havegive
[sic] rne, love, food, and house.I will keep in touch. dor't
wony! I loveyou very much. Alejandracameto pick me upl
I might come back to pick up my bike iater tonight. v
Sapl1a."
( 6R T i 4 8 0 1
- 4 8 19; C T 2 5 1 8 )
Wren Sapnaleft, Ajay and Peggywere shocked. (16 RT 42414248)EvenSapnaadmittedat trial that,,,in our cuiturekids don,t get out
of thehouse,especiallygtls, until they get maffied." (6 RT 1241;14 RT
3874) On December2,2003, Ajay e-mailedSapna'spapa and told him
Sapnamovedout "to do thingswe don'rapproveof," (10 CT 2125-2726)
Ajay explainedto Sapna'sPapathat he and peggy both expectedand
lvantedSapnalo move back to their homewith the original intentionof
oblainingan education,pursuinga career,and eventuallygettilg trrauied.
Feelinglike her prior trip to Nepal had no effect, Ajay tded to enlist
Sapna'sPapain convincingSapnato retumto Nepalagain- this time for
anentiresemester.(10 CT 2725-2726)
On December
4,2003, SapnatextcdAjay,,,dad,pleasccall mc, I
missu very muchl i love u." (10 RT 2576; L4 CT 3929) Despileher
conciliatorymessage,
Sapnar.efused
to movehome. A few dayslater, on
December9, 2003,when Ajay did not respondto Sapna,s
repeatedphone
calls,SapnatextedAjay again. "[H]i dadI am sorry but I really miss u, I
(6RT 1349-1350;
loveu.-yourdaughter,"
t0F.T257'7t14CT 3927)
On December10, 2003,{ay soughtrefugeat the Motel 6 located
nextto his commuterbus stop. (13 RT 3327-3328;16 RT 4252-4256)LIe
wasdistraught
andoveravhelmed
by the situation.He felt iike a failure and
dreadedthe social ramificalionsthat woul.l incvltably coDte tlom nls
parentsand the Nepali cormunity at large peggywas worried sick and
5
Sapnadatedher noteDecember1,2003,but testifiedthat shewrote
ii December
3,2003.
2l
Aj ay was Shecaliedhim repeatedly
ftanticbecauseshehaclno ideawhere
withoutananswer'(16kT4252)Finaily,AjaycalledPeggytolether
to bring him home (16 RT 4253know he was at Motel 6 Peggyrushed
42s4, 4487-4488)
I'apa and conveyedAjay's
The next day, Peggy e-mailedSapna's
heafibleakoverthesituationalongwi|hAjay'SalrxigtyovelfaciDgfhe
who he had little contactwith since
Nepali community and his parents
Sapnato come
Papato encourage
Sapna'sadoption PeggyaskedSapna's
Sapna'sPapathat theadophonmay
homeand straightenout Shealsotoid
to Sapnaas shewas copiedol'l
have beena mistakewhich was conveyed
5-4Z8OilO-ct zlza-zizol
the e-mail. (16R:T 42'.7
of PhysicalAbuseTo
A. Sapua AccusesAjay and Peggy
JuitifY Her Decisiouto Move ottt
dtrling the holidayseasou
Ajay and Peggydecidedto avoid family
24'
lefl Davison Decernber
by tal(inga cruiselo the Caribbcanalone They
theyiefl' Saplasleptat
2003. (16 RT 4287' lo cT 2'721)The night before
tlle Devs arldtakecareof therr
fte Devs'home Sheagreedto house-sitfor
I6 RT 4275) Sapnalexted
petsrvhiletheywereaway (15 RT 3969-3970;
morni love u andmissu Raja'
Ajay andPeggyon the daythey left: "Dad'
10RT 2577;l4 cT 3928)
kayaandsukhimissu too.'6 (6 RT 1349-13501
Sapna's
e-mailed
On December31, 2003,whilc on theirtrip' Ajay
to Sapnaand
assistance
Papa,with a copy to Sapna,cuttingoff all ltnanciaL
2721-2723)He explailed
her family in Nepal (i6 RT 4281-4289;lO CT
freedomto be with
that Sapnamoved out becauseshewantedulrlimited
sheworLld
inespoDsibility'
boysand socializeand predictedthat,dueto her
in Nepal (10 CT
neverbe ableto Providefinancialsupportto her l'amily
2121-2123)
Raja,Kaya and Sukhiwerethe Dev famiLypels
Faced with Ajay's scathingcriticism of her ine!.ponsibleand
disrespectfui
behavioi'and
the financiaifall-outof Uehgcut
llff,
Sapnafelt
compelled
to defendandjustify her r
thisdecisionnot only impactedher fir
dire economicconsequences
for her
Sapnae-mailedher Papathe next d
whereinshe insistedthat she feared
over-conhollingabusivehost parentsmaking it impossible for her to live
with them, Sapnaexplahed she slartedhavir]gproblemswith her host
parentsa{ier she began hanging out with Cassaudra. She describedthe
2002incident,when Peggyslappedher, as the spark thai ignited their
fioubles.Sapnaalsoallegedthat Ajay slappedher that nightl in 2002,alld
thathe "hasdonethis to me manytiuresin [sic] manyoccasions,,
andthat
"evenfor the smallestargumentswe have he hits rne bec
he can't
conlrolhis emotions."(9 CT 2550) Sheconcludedby tellindher paparirat
"l amreallyafraidof themanddon't want ro live with thera.'l (9 CT 2550;
seealso4 RT 861-862;15 RT 4I 14, 4118-4t22\ 9 C't 2549-2550)
In the same e-mail, Sapnaannouncedto her papl that, as an
Americangill, shebelievesin speakingher mind and
indd"I know the
way I act is not like a tipical [sic] Nepali girt. I figured that I live in
Anericanot in Nepalwheregirls aremisfeatedand theyarenevcrheald.,'
(9 CT 2550) Sapnainsistedthat her host l'amiiy'ssuspici{ls about her
romanticrelationshipswith boys were not tue and told her Papa she was
tiredofbeing questioned
by djay andPeggy. Shefurtheradr]isedher papa
thatshehad madeher decisionto moveout andplannedto 'istickwift it',
assudng
him shewasconfidentshecouldsuppofiherself. (9 0T 2554)
Ajay and Peggy,still in the Caribbean,were o
b1 Sapnr's
accusationsbecausethey never hit Sapna uncortuollably br physicaliy
abusedher
(16 RT 4291-4293;9 CT 2549-2554) Feelng hurt ard
23
Peggye-maileda familyfri
betuayed,
sister,TerryEasley,aboutrenovilg
3 9 2 3 , 3 9 9 5 ' 3 9 9 6 ;R1T6 4 2 9 5 ;1 5
Evamereadin relevantPalt:
Therehasbeena lot of
spoke with You And, we wil
Fot uow, in caseanYthingsho
fiip back, we wanted to chanl
I am not sure what Percalt
(sorrething Ilke 15Yaot 20Vo',
changedto zero Percent.
( 1 8 R T 4 8 8 4 ; 1 5 C T 4 1 9 6 ) O n J a n u a r y+ ' z u u a ' s a p u a' ' r r l c a ' J
Ajay
Evanne'svoice mossageon the Dev's alsweiing nachine divuighg
in theirwill (15RT
andPeggy'sdecisionto zeroher:out as a bonFficiary
in herAuntTeIry
17 RT 4513) Sapn{confided
392l-3922,3985-3986;
she
that she heard the messagealthoughTerry feignedignorancewhen
askedexactlywhatit meant,(15RT 3985-39f7)
At ftial, Sapna insisted sha did no house-sitfor the Devs at
Ctuistmastime in 2003 and iniiially teslified she did not recall the
heatilg
6 W I23I-l?32) Shealsodenied
tuip.(5 RT 913-914;
Caribbean
Evanne'sphone messageabout being disinferited and calling her AuDt
Teny to find out whatwas goingon (5 RT 1196-1I97;6 RT 1274;7 RT
r 683,1738-l'739)
1682B. Sapna Attempts to Repair
llost ParentsAfter SheLear
Peggy and Ajay returnedfrom llreir'
er Relationshiprvith Her
SheMay Be Disinberited.
ibbeantrip on January5,
2004,Sapna'sput?oded20'bifihdaY (10 :T 2541) Wlrentheyaruived
home, Ajay and Poggy gleeted Sapnac l v did not wish heLhappy
birthday,and demandedthat she feturn her eu phone lo thern befole she
16 RT 4299-4300)
left. (13RT 3s87-3590;
Sapnae-mailed
Ajay on January
8,2004.Shctold
ay sheulssed
him andPeggy"a lot," but was deeplyhurt andneededto
ol do-wl She
signedofl "Missyou andlove you. YourDaughterSapna."( 1 6R T 4 3 0 0 4301;15 CT 4347) Ajay immediatelyrepliedrhathe could
t [nderstand
howshecouldmissandlovehe andPeggysomuchwhen S
claimedto
be so aliaid of them due to allegedphysicalabuse. (l I C 3 0 1 91; 5C T
4348) Io response,Sapna e-mailed the next day, on J uary 9, 2004,
seeminglyconfusedas to why Ajay aod peggy would be s upset by hel
allegations.As expressedby Sapnar
Hi mom and Daddy! I neverusedthe word "abusi " s o i
don'tknow whereyou got that ftom! I meantto say
you
hlt me when you were angry. I meantto say that I arn olo
enoughfor any [sic] to hit me to makeme under
about
whereI wentwrongjust because
they areangryl! Th
IIow thall movedout I don't haveto dealwith any sh rl Isic]
ofargumenthopefully.
( 1 5c T 4 3 4 9 )
Although somewhat minimizing her plior. alleg ions, Sapna
rltimatelymaintainedher positionthatthe Devshit her ir ts of angerin
orderto justify her decisionto moveout.7In the samebreath however-,
she
pledwith Ajay andPeggyto recor.rcile,
Personaily,
I reallymissyou guysmorethananlthing ight now and
i reallywantto talk especiallyaftetyou r;anefrom yo triP. I don't
knowifyou wantto seeme or not. I think andhopeth t you wallt to
seeme. I wantto comeandvisit but i don,tknow h
comibrtable
you areto seeme nght now. If you aisowant to seeure
Preaselet
me knowthioughemail....lloveyou andmissyou v
much. Your
Daughter- Sapna
(rscr 4349)
In medicalrecordsSapnaillled out at ages18 and 19 yearsol age,
she indicatedthat she had never been hit, slapped,or phys cally hu|t by
anyone
norhadsheeverbeenitr a relationship
whereshewasthreatened
or
made
to feelafraid.(9 CT239t,241L1
25
my
entitled"where rs
Ajay respondedthar day with a hearlfeh e-mail
'Whereis your
Daughter?"(14 CT 390?-3910)Ajay askedSapna'
with her
her shewasuore concerned
hearL?"(14 CT 3909-3910)He toLcl
like James
greencard,being disinherited'alld spgndingtine with strangOrs
I-Ie continued'
anclSid than about her own farnily (14 CT 3907-3910)
you wantto shit on our face
"We helpedyou to get your gteenoard Now'
us " (14 CT
by wrongiy accusingus of being abusiveand disrespecting
in Sapnaleiling her "You are
his utterdisaPpointmenl
3909) He expressed
goinglbr you'
Path You had ever)'1hing
headingtowardsa very dangelous
is at
I meaneverything Now, the biggestthing you camefor ii[] America
risk --- your careerand your future" (14 1{T 3908) He reiteraledhis
strongbelief that it would be bostif Sapnareturnedlo Nepal to regainher
you todaywould
valuesald perspectiveandadvitiedhel "The bestthing for
have beento not go to schoolthis senesteral1dgo to Nepal for 5 months
yout
and come back to live with us after Madr'tri'smauiagesand resulne
schoolfor Fall of2004." (14Kl 3910) Feelingthiswashis laststrawwith
Sapna,Ajay signedthe e-mail"Onceyout daddy,Nowjust Ajay " (14 C'f
39 1 0 )
with a heart-felte-mai1,on January10, 2004'
Sapnaresponded
whereinshe agonizinglytold Ajay and Peggythal, while she understood
their position, she felt adamantabout living on her own and makinghet
own decisioDswithout their intert'erence (10 CT 2734-2735) She
unapologeticallyadnitted to livilg a liib behindtheir backsconsislingof
danceclubs,malcs,andothcrunknownfriends. In reaffiming her decision
to nove out, Sapnatold Ajay "thereis nothingthat i do behindyour back
Sapnaadlniltcd
causei don'tneedto " (10 CT 2734)In addition,
anynrore
"the only leasoni wrole
retaliatilgagainstAjay andPeggyandexplarned
yortwrotea Latter
thallatter[sic] to papais because
[sic]to my pal)aabout
Sapna'ssister.
2.6
me andhow ever)'thingwasbad aboutme.,, (10 CT 2'134) Sheexpressed
hersiacerehut anddisappointment
by confessing.,Ifelt like you werenot
trying to heal the family brLtyou were hyhg to desboyit. I guessthe
family is alreadydestroyed."(10 RT 2734) Nevertheless,
irr r.eminiscing
aboutthe family they tried to create,Sapnaexpressed
deepgratitudefor
everythingAjay and Peggyhad donefbr her; acknowledged
how deeply
everyonehad caredfor one another;andvowedto continueto hy to kcep
thefamilytogether.Specificaliy,shewrote:
The suppol'l that you ltav€ provided to me and the
unconditional
lovethatyou havegivenme.You provethat to
me by beingther€for mc befor.eand afteri movedout. .But
onethiug I cantell you, no matterwhat i will nevergive up
and i will still tly to be your.daughterlo matterhow much
you want to huft rne by asking the tough questioDsand
putlingnle ir thespot.
(10 CT 2735) Juxtaposed
with this sentinent,Sapnareileratedthat ,,i iike
to live my life my way rot someoneelse'swaJ,',and told Ajay and peggy
thatifthey don't wantto accoptthis thenthereis nothingshecan cloabout
it because
"[t]hisis the way i dealwith things." (10 CT 2735) Sapna
closedthe e-mailwith thehopethat,
we can still be a family and still talk. I do cale aboutthis
family and i don'tknow how elseto showit or expressit to
you. I know i am probablynot welcometherebut i wish to
comeandsceyouguyssonletime.
(10CT 2735) In contrastto Ajay who signedhis e-mail,,Onceyour daddy,
Now just Ajay," Sapnasignedher e-naii ,,contilueto be your DaughterSapna."(10 CT 2'/35i14CT 3910)
Latel thal day, SapuaweDrover to Ajay ard peggy'shouse. peggy
told Sapnashe was not welcomein their home until she apologizedfor
makingfalseaccusations
ofphysicalabuseagainsther arrdAjay andsetthe
recordstraight
with herPapa.(16RT 4303-4305)
As explarned
by peggy
athial,
27
I was laying on the couchin the living roon fwhen Sapna
cameover]. And' you know, I couldn't reaLlyget up due to
motion sickness,atld she camethele to comfofl me And I
told her, you knor'v,Saplta,yon jttst accrsedme of being
givirg
abusive,I can't takecomfofi fiom you right Lrow lt is
trre too much griel And she said I never used the word
abusive. And I told her,but Sapna,you saidthat we hit you
and you were afraidto live
many times on severalocoasions,
withus. That'sthe descriptior,the definitionofabnsive
She said that's not what I nleantlo say I said if that's not
whal you mgantto say,you needlo write your falherandtell
him thaf becauseright now he's believing somelhjng
different
(16RT 4304)
C. Sapnn Volurtarily Goes To Motel 6 rvith Ajay On
January12,2004,Altcl Shefl'ls MovedOut'
Two dayslater,oDJanuary12,2004,Liay and Sapnaagreedto talk
(4 RT 881) Since Sapnahad not yet aPologizedto Ajay and PeggyfoL
falselyaccusiugthem of physicalabuse,shewas not allowedin the Dcv
natureof lhe farnilymatters
home.(16 RT 4305-4307)Giventhepersonal
in public
requiringdiscussiotl,Ajay did llot wanLto havethis conversation
Megan (16 RT 4305-4307)Thercfore,
roommate,
nor in frontof Sapna's
brs stop wherehe had soLtghl
they werlt to the molcl by Ajay's comrr.ruter
refugea monthprior in December (16 RT 4252-4256)Ajay wantedto
EventuaLly,
find a way to work thingsout ard restorehonorto theil 1'a1]1ily.
lhey were abls to reachan agreement Sapnaletut[ed hel greencard to
Ajay; agreedto apologizeto Peggyand her Papa;and discusseda budget
andproposedcontlactto elsure Sapnawould acluallycompletecollegeas
sheoriginallyintendedbelblecominglo this country (16 RT 4306-4308;
11 CT 3025-3026)Later-thatday,AJaytokt I'cggyabouttheil ucctirlgaI
rn writing a contractretlecting
the trotel and askedfor Peggy'sassistance
2E
r s';r!!*?c:,
'
Sapna's
promiseto achievetheseenumerated
collegegoals. (16 RT 43064308;ll CT 3025-3025)
Two dayslater,Saplawent to theDev hone andexplainedto peggy
that,dueto a conversation
sheandAjay hadat Motel 6 a few daysearlier,
shenow understood
why Peggywas so angry and, theu, apologizeclfor:
falselyaccusing
PeggyandAjay of physicalabuse.(16 R'I'4306-4308)
BeforeSapnaieft, Ajay and Peggygaveher the contractthey prepared
whereinshepromisedto pursueher collegedegreein exchangefor tuition
assistance
fromAjay aadPeggy (16 RT 428,1,
4306-4308,
4554; 15 CT
4343-4344) Approxirnatelya week later, on Jamrary23, 2004, Sapna
letumedthecontract
to Ajay andPeggysigned.(16RT4284,4554;I5 CT
4343-4344)
Despitethis progress,
Ajay lblr he hadfailedas Sapna'shosrparent,
(16 RT 4248-4249,
4256,4310-4312)Not wanringto admithis failure,ire
originallytold his parentsthat Sapnamoved out with his aDd peggy's
consent. (16 RT 4440) On January20, 2004, afler sufferirlg bouts of
severedepression,
Ajay finally told his parontsthetruth; that Sapnamovecl
outwithoutconsent.(17 RT 4525-4526)To his surpriseantirelief,both
hisparentswereunderslandi:rg.
(11 RT 4525-4:;26,
4531-4532)
Ajay andPeggyaontinuedto havecontactwith Sapnain an effort to
salvagetheirrelationship,
but everyonehad thejrguardsup. In mid to lato
Januaryof 2004,Ajay and Peggysroppedby Sapna,sapartmantto give
Sapnaher greencardso shecouldapplyfor a job. (16 RT 4316,44524453;l7 RT 4507) Duringthis visir, Saplatokl Ajay andpeggy abouther
boyfriend,Will, and let them know how much it would mean to her ro
introducethen to Will.
29
D. Sapua Choosesto Spcnd the Night at Ajay and Peggy's
HorneTo Help Peggywith Her PostSurgeryRecovery'
surgery (16
had uterineexploratory
On January29,2OO4,Peggy
RT 4316-4318)Sapnarode her bike to the Dev home and accOmpanled
Ajay anclPeggyto the hospilal (5 Kl 923-924) As sheandA.1ayrvatled
for news about Peggy'sstatus,Sapoatold Ajay she really wanled to
introduceWill to Ajay and Peggy (16 RT 4363-4364)Ajay became
about
agitatedbscausehe did not want to engagein a hQatedconversation
Will while he was won.iedaboutPeggygettingout of surgerysalely This
wassimply too much. Instead,Ajay tried to showSapnapicturesof his trip
to the Caribbeanwith Peggyin orderto avoid any furlher turmoil and to
distracthimself fiom worrying Sapna,however,could rlot stop talking
aboutWitt. As a result,theygot into a seriousargumentin whichAiay lost
his temperaad bltrrledout that lle felt like gettilg a gur andkilling himself
4363-4364,15
andSapna.(5 RT 926,930; 16RT 4318-432t,4359-4360,
CT 4155, 4160, 4165-4166)Accordingto Araz, Sapnt claimcdAjay
to sendher backto Nepalthatnight (9 RT 2256-225'7)
threatened
After the surgery,Sapnarode backto the Dev homewith Ajay and
Peggy, Ajay and Sapnacontinuedto argueaboutWill and Sapna'slack of
got
priorities.(16 RT 4319-4321)AfteI theyanivedhome,the atgutnent
so heatedthat Peggy had to gel out of bed rwice to insist tLratthey stop
ont leavinghershoes
yelling.At approximately
11t00p.m , Sapnastormed
16P.T4321-4325)
anclbikebelrind.(6 RT 1417-1418;
When Ajay IntcrfelcsWith FIet
E. SapnaBecomesJ0nraged
Will
RelationshipWith
On January31,2004,Aiaye-mailedWill andtold hin thathe must
respectthe family's cultural valuesif he wantsto be i0volvedwith Sapna
romanficaliy. (16 RT 432'7-4329;lA Cl 2799) He aftacheda copy of a
letter Peggy's sister, Telly, wrotc to SapnachastisirlgSapnafor beinS
l0
disrespectful
ard for corfusingAnericanvalueswith promiscr.rity.(l7 Rl'
4520;lC CT 2199) Will brokeup with Sapnathe next day or Fcbruaryl,
2004. He reportedto Ajay in an e-mail: ,'AjayDey, I have doneas you
wish,andbrokenall romantic
relatiotls
(17RT 4518-4519;
with Sapna.,,
10
cT 2800)
Will told Sapnathathe brokeup with her becauseof Ajay s e-mail.
(5 RT 929; '7 RT l7l2-l'7l3) Sapnawas ourraged. (7 I{T l7l2; 8 RT'
1979;14 RT 3713-3774)On Februaryl, 2004,Sapnae-mailed
Ajay ard
told him shewantednothingto do with him anyrrroreand to ',Stayaway
Aom my life!|" (14 CT 3958) Shetold her fiiend Sneh, 'l movedout, I
movedon,I don'1knowwhy theykeepbother-ing
me.,,(t 4 RT 3j j 3- 3j 74)
F . S a p n aA c c u s eAs j a y o f R a p eO n F e b r u a r y2 , 2 0 0 4 :
One Day Aftel' Sapla Cut Off AII Ties With Ajay
For.CausingIIcr Brcak-UpWith Will.
On Fqbruary2,2004, Ihe day afterWill bloke up with her, Sapna,
togetherwith Megan,went to the policeto acouseAjay of r.ape.e1g RT
1969,l9'16,l9'18,1981-1982,1996,2065-2069,20
82) Snetrtesriliedthat
Sapnacallednumerousfliends ard told them Ajay had beel having sex
with her. (14 RT 3826,382t|-3829)
SnehsaktSapnaalsototd her not to
speakto anyinvestigators
andtharshewanredto sueAjay (14 KI 3833)
On February3, 2004,DetectiveHermarfrintcryiewedSapnaaboul
her (apeallegations.(8 RT 2097-2098) SapnareportedrharAjay rapcd
her approximately
two to threetimesa week startingtwo weeksafter she
cameto the UnitedStatesto live with theDevsuntil shemovedout of the
Irouse
in Decenber2003. (5 RT ll35; I0 CT 2744-2755)
Aller.Detective
I-Iermann
completed
his video-taped
hterwiew,he askedSapnawhethershe
e
Notably,Ajay and peggy had taken Sapnato the Davis police
Departmentin November2003,when she receiveda threateLrg text, to
teachherhowto file a complaint
rvithrhepolice (l6RT42j7_42t3)
getAjay to admitthe
waswiliing to do a "protext"phonecall in an efforl to
I0 C\2111-21'/9)
agreecl(9 RT 2103-2104;
SapLra
rapealLogations.
ry.
The Pretext Call
at Ajay'sparents'
On February4, 2004, AjayandPeggywerc dinng
9 Cl(16 RT 4350-4351'
housewhen Sapnacalied Peggyanswered
repeatedlytold her Ajay
2453) Sapnaaskedto speakto AJay,but Peggy
was unsuccessful
wasnot readyto speakto her' (9 CT 2453) When Sapna
instructions'she
at gettilrgAjay on the phone,per DetectiYeFIerma[n's
police if Ajay did not
threatorcdPeggy by claiming shewould go to the
strll did not
call her back in five minutes. (9 CT 2454-2455)WhenPeggy
put Ajay on thephone,Sapnahungup (9 C'l 245'7)
The phonerang againteo minuteslater' :l'histine Ajay answered
by Detective
(16 RT 4354; 15 CT 4154) Now, Sapna,supervised
a
Ile|mann, could initiate the ptetext upoll which lhey hopedto obtarl]
htid
recordeclaclmissionfionr Ajay corroboratingSapna'sclaim that Ajay
20
lapedher fwo to threetimesa weekfor ltve yearsfiom ages15 to
yeals
wasobtaiDed
ofage, No suchadmission
'lhe
I-lermann,involveda
Pretextfor the call, rievisedby Detective
lie that Sapnawert to her schoolcounsolorand admitledshe had thrce
aborlions,but refusedto tell lhe scltool counselorwho lhe ihthcr was'
SapnaintimatadthatAjay wasthe fatherandhesitantlytold Ajay, "l did not
should I tell her, aboutyou and tne
really tell her anythingaboutus
15CT 4154)
daddy?"(6 RT 1468-t469,1482;9RT 2103-2105;
Ajay did not know what to think of Sapna'snewestallegatiorls
sher'vas
From his perspective,Sapllawas atlcmPtingto tlame hirn because
shewould
so enragedaboutthe break-upwith Will and the consequences
suflel by severilg all ties wilh the Devs as she vowed to do threedays
, 11'7,4187-4188)
b e l b r e . ( 1 6 R T 4 3 5 9 - 4 3 6 41;5 C T 4 1 6 4 - 4 1 6 64,1 1 0 4
'Ajay believedSapnahad falselyacoused
hin and Peggyo1-physically
32
abusingher ir ordetto jusdry movingout of thehorneto pursuea lile as an
"Arneiicargiil" and'wasnow falselyaccusinghim of rapeottt of rage. He
did not know how Ib| Sapnawould go to retaliateagainsthim. In fact,
momentsprior, Peggyinfomed Ajay that Sapnathleatenedto go to the
policeif Ajay did rot call her back. (16 RT 4350-4351)Dumblbunded,
Ajay saidnothingin response
to Sapna'sinitial allegatioDs.Firlally,aftef a
very longpause,he told Sapna,ulterlyexasperaled,
Sapna,you know what, go to police,arest me. 'Ihat's llhat
you gonnahave a justice. Go to courselor,go to police.
GiveAjay Dev's nameandtell everything And, you would
comeand visit me in prison. It's ok, becausethat,sexactly
lvhatyou wantedin this life anyway.
( 1 sc T 4 1 5 4 )
As the conversation
progressed,
Sapna'saccusations
becamcmo|e
direct:"you hadsexwith me, evu sinceI was 15" (15 CT a155) Ajay
emphatically
andrepeatedlydeniedtheseaccusations.
After expressing
his
disbelielAjaytoldSapna,
"Sapru,it'swronglyaccused.',
(15CT 4155)
SD: (SapnaDev): I-Iow is that wrongly accused?Didn,t
youdo thatto mc,when...
AD: (AjayDev):I did not.
S D : . . , w h e n I w a s1 5 ?
AD: No, I didnot.
SDr Ale you lying?
AD: No, I am tellingthe truth.
SD: How areyou tellingthetruth?
AD: You are lying. This is the worstpossibleaccusatiotI
couldpossibly
have.
li
AD:
.. You aremakhg a lhreat
mademQPlegnantthrectimes
AD:
SD:
w11YareYoutelling me all this?
I amjust, I amjust askingyou,shouidI talk aboutthis'
or shouldI not?
AD:
This is the durnbestlhing I everheard lfyou wantto
make me wrong accusationand kill me, kill my Life'
tly to do whateveryou want. I havemy own voiceto
I
the police departnert l have my own voice,-aDd
'"
rny
life
in
havebeenwrollgly accusedmanytimes
SD: I'm reallyafraidot'You
AD:
I will not tolorarecerlain things tike this, This is
humiliatingandthis is alsowrongly accusedof [UI]
AD:
I am uol accttsittgyou of anything, but you are
accusingme.
SD: I am not accrtsing
You.
AD: You have alreadyaccusedrne of abuses,now you ate
accusingme of sexualabusetoo
SD:
llow am I abu [sic] how arnI doingtLlatdaddy?
AD:
You have alreadyaccusedme of physicalabuse,now
you are [UI]
Ajuy usedtJretcuu 'wronglyaccnsed"whcn tel'entugt0 SapLlas
againsthim andPeggyof physicalabrtseandr'vhenrefeninglo
accusations
his rnoLher'saccusationthat he put Sapnabefore his parentswhen he
CT 3909)
ariopted
hel withoultheircoment.(16RT a368-4369;
to
l4
SD: We1l,you havehul1me, haven,tyou? you have hit
me,haven'tyotr.?
AD: No, I havenot. I haveslapperlyou. I have not hurt
you.
SD: You havehit me,youhave.
AD:
Saptawhat do you wantfrom me babu? Whatdo you
wailt from me? Wlry ale you [UI]
SD: I just want your honesty,ok. I don't want you to say
anythingthat's not tuue. you, you did havesex wrth
me whenI was i5, up until l noved out.
AD: No, not true.
SD: It's Irotlrue?
AD:
It's a big lie and you are trying to frane me, in d.le
negative
way ...
SD: Oh,ok.
AD:
.,, with thepolicedepartmenl
SD: Airight.
AD:
You can go aheadSapna. I will tell you this much
only. I krow you are,you arerefuseto talk lo me td
seeme ln person. ., you arehying to ftameme and it
is not worth it.
SD: I am not tryilg to ftameanyone.
+
*
AD:
Sapna DoD't make a threatagainstme
SD:
I am not making any theats.
*
AD: Whatdoyouwantfromne? Tell merightnow.
l5
SD;
ulr, uh...
AD: What do you wart from me? What do Youwant f,om
me, tell m(- honeslly The holest, what do you want
ftom me?
SD; Uh uh...
AD:
Wltal do you warrlfiom me Sapna?You know what;
you trsat me like no onehaseverheatedme No one
I shouldn'thaved,lscrvetllls
SD:
You shouldn't have deservedthis?
AD:
No, I shor.rldn't. I saclificed everything fot yorLaud
your family. And this is what I gat [in] retLun
SD:
I guessI shouldjustgo to the poLicethendaddy
AD:
Sapna.
SD:
What?
AD:
Why don'twe bothgo to thePolicotogether'
(cT41ss-4159)
Tluoughoutthe call, Ajay imploredSapnanot to fiarnehirrl out ol
on
levengesimply becauseshe\'r'asangryaboutAiay's emotionaloutbursts
in
with Will whichresulted
thenightof Peggy'ssurgeryandher break-up
Sapna'sdecisionto completelyseverherselflion theDevscausingseriotls
to her Nepali farniiy and her ftttule as an Americal citizen
consequcrrces
( 1 6R T 4 3 5 9 - 4 3 6145;C T 4 1 5 8 , 4 1 6 4 - 4 1 6 6 , 4 1 1 0 , 4 1 7 7 , 4 1 4
71
98
, 481, 8 7 4195)
ApproKinately30 urinutesinto lhe call, Ajay s pafents,who could
Ajay's sideofthe cajL,toldAjay to speakNepal (16 RT 4355ovcrhear
435'7:15C'l 4173) They did rot lrustSapnaandfearedshewashyingto
, J a yt r i e dt o
f r a m eh i m . ( 1 6 R T 4 3 5 5 - 4 3 5 71;5 C ' l ' 4 1 7 1 ) l n N e p a l i A
l6
explainto Sapnahow humiliatingit would be Lohaveto explainher
faise
accusatlons
to his parentsvrho wer.eoverhearingthe conversation.Ajty
pleaded
with Sapna:
Listen very carefully, babu. My mommy/darldy is also
nory suspectingflrat there is somothing,
Listeu,
[{]
bccausc
theythiuk sonethingis goingon behveeuyou and
me. My mommy/daddyis suspectirglyhetherthere is a
sexualrelatioushipor not. [t Why, babu,why can,tyou
understandthe matter,tell me what woukl you get frorn
this, tell me, just tell me flrat much. I have teeir tetting
you froru the very bcginningflrat my life will be gonebui
how aboutyour 1ife,your.lifervill be,gone,horvcan ycu
saveyour lifc,just tcll me."
(Is cT 4r74)
In response,
Sapnaasked,,,Howis my life re . ruining daddy?,,(15
CT 4114) Ajay angrily explainedthat her lifrr coulcibe mined ,,Becausc
you havefuckedure aftcr 18 yeal.sof your rge." (15 CT 4174) Sapna
,,Ok,so?,,(15
repliedequallyindignant,
CT 4174) After a longpausein
theconvelsalion,4\jay
stated,,,Thatmeansyou havegivenmc conscnt,,
whichSapnadenied. (15 CT 4174) As discussed
at lengthjr Algr_unents
Il andI1I, infra, the prosecutionaud clefense
disputedthe meauijrgof rhis
highly ambiguousexchangeat trial. What was not in dispute,however,
was Sapna'scomnentrmadesecondslater: that she was angry at Ajay
because
he wouldnot admitthatanyofher allegations
weretrue.
AD: Talk softly,.ryhyare you talking so angrily?
SD: Because
I wantyou to talk to me. I \,vantyou to sayit.
(15CT 41',74)
Later in the conversation,
therewas anotheianbiguousexchange
behveen
Ajay and Sapnathat was hotly contestecl
at trial, The trial courr
permitl€d
Sapna
to translate
Ajay,sstatement
spokenin Nepali (5RT962;
As reflectedin Exhibit 799, the conversation
"
spoker it Nepali
duringtheprerextcallwill bedenoted
in bold.
37
said."But
Ajay purporledly
9 CT 2480,15Cl'4176) Accordinglo Sapna,
you had sex with me when you \Yerc18." (15 CT 4176) lhe defense
expertwho translaledthe pretextcall testifiedthai Ajay's statenlentwas
inaudible,but was able to decisi'relyrule out :iapna'stralslationbecalrsc,
althoughmostl)/ inaudible,the Expertcould unmlstakabiyheu lhe llrst
syllableof the word h dispute'rhich was inoompatibler'vithan,rNepair
wordcouuoting"sex" (14RT 3ti66-3867)
As before,what indisputablyfollowed this exchangewas repeated
frustation on Sapna'sparl due to Ajay's contiDuedrefusalto admrtany of
Ajay (15 CT
thealiegations."Why dou't yorradurit?,"Sapnachastised
Ajay,"l lLrst
4180) And, tolvardsthe ondof thecaLl,Sapnaagainscolded
wantcd to ask you about things, but you areu't. Defiuilely you alc not
tellingme alythingaboullhis. I ur gonnago " (15 CT 4184)
In an ei.|ott to convince Sapnathat har li'rLseallcgalionswoLlld
wouLdeverttLrally
be
backfireon her, Ajay suggestedthat hel alle€iatrons
exposethc rcalpofsorl
disprovedby nedical recoldswhichwould sLtrely
by Aiay, "You had abortionwherr
her. As proposed
who impregnated
you rvcrc 18 ycats old and the'yhavethe record. Wllctr they haYcthe
record,they lvill undcrstandrvith whiclt boy djid you go lvith to givc
Sapnadid nol dcnythatslrcliatibccrl
name" (15 CT 4180) In response,
shesimplystaledthat"llut thc boy's
by a boyfiiend.Inslead,
impregnaled
nrme is not there." (15 CT 4180) Sapnaimplicitlyadmitledshehadnol
beeninpregnatedby Ajay, but, rather,by a "bo)/" Shejust wantc.Lto
so easill'
convinceAjay that he couldnot disptovehet falseallegalioDs
This was oDeof the o[ly lilnesSapn.rspokeiu Ncpalir'vhiclicllcctivclv
hal conceln.
preveltedDeLectivcFlennamfrom understanding
Nevertheless,Ajay repeatecllywarned Sapua lhat hcl niedical
heL (15 CT 41i4, 4lll0
would showthat he did not impregnate
recorcls
4 1 8 1 ) " Y o u h a v e y o u r a b o r t i o nr c c o r t l ; y o u l t l v e p l o b l c n t . . .
33
(inaudible);
forgetaboutthingswhcu you were 15 and tbe matfer is oI.
alter 18 years 0f yctr age.,' (1j CT 4lgl) Il1 fact, Sapna,soredrcal
recordsdecisivelyshow that her pregnalciesperfectlycoiuciclewith the
time periodsAjay and Peggysuspectecl
sirc was datingolder boysbehrnrt
theirbacksandagainst
theirwill. (4 RT 825-826,
829-833,839-840,847_
8 4 8 ;7 R 1 1 6 ' 7 8 , 1 6 ' 1197,3 6 - t 7 3 1 ; R
9 T 2 1 1 6 ,2 2 t z - 2 2 t 3 2
. 2i2, 22882289,2324-2325
_4zA
; 10RT 240I ; 14pJ 3.7
54-3./59; I 5 RT 4085,4 199
|;
9 CT 2391,2411,2425;
15CI 4335-433j)
As the pretextcall aameto a close,.{ja;r askedSapnato toll, ',n1orl
whatyoujust told ine." (15 CT 4l9l) Whcjnpeggygot on the phorc,
Sapnainitially tried b preteud that peggy alreaclykncrv about thc
accusations
(15 CT 4191) Whenpeggyaskedwhatshcwastalkingabour.
Sapnatold Peggythat Ajay had beenhaving sex with her sinceshc was
fifteenup urtil shemovedour. (15 C'l-4191-4192) peggy haucled the
phoneback to Ajay and Ajay instr.ucted
Sapnato, ,,go rc) fthel police
department,
go to tlte counselol
andsayexacllythesalnething., (16 I{T
4a85-4486;
15 CT 4192) Then,Ajay expresse,l
borhhis andpeggy'suttcf
shockanddismayovot Sapna's
falseallegatious
andher.decision
to frarne
hirn. (15 CT 4i93, 4195) Ajay eDded
thc phorecallwith, ,,...wcbroughr
you to this countrywith a GreenCarcl,enjoy yoru lifc. ..May Goctbless
y o u l " ( 1 5C T 4 1 9 5 )
Alter The Police.Exccutc
A ScarchWarrant A.t'I'lrc Devs,
Home, Sapua Asks The Police To Stop pulsuirrg T.hc Casc
AgainstAiay
GivenSapna's
tbieatsto go to thepolic:, Ajay anclpcggyrcLained
counselto obtain advice aboutrespondingto the false allegatiotrsthcy
feared
night sooncomefroniSapna.(9 RT 2128-2829;
l6 R.|4512) No
doubt,Sapraput the Devs or noticethat tlreif lives worLldlikely be
scrutinized
for evidenceof neI'arious
conduct.Therelbl.e.
at thc (lrr€ctioDoI
l,
life in Nepal (5R'J
of Sapna's
theDevsinitiatedanirvestigation
counsel,
l 6; R T4 3 38 - 4 3 3 9 )
983-986
On Mach i6, 2004, approximalelya lnonlh and a half after thc
pretexlcall,the DavisPoliceex:cuteda searchwaffanton theDevlionlg
(g I.I' 2l2l)
The police conliscrltedthe Devs' computersalrd a plcthoraof
otherelectlorlicnredia (9 kT 212I-2122;2932-2933;1 C'l 226-221) ol
the 209 pieces of confiscatedelcctronic media, onr: zip disk had tbur adult
pornographicphotographs. (11 l{l 2932-2933) Forersioanalysisoi'lhe
computersshowcd pomographydownloadedon both Ajay's DeLl laptop
and tl.refamily Dell Lower.r2(11 RT 2887, 2918,2932-29:\3;4c'] 1119)
Peggyput the fanily Dell lowertin Sapna'sroom in June 2003. (15 RT
4111) the policc did lrot affesLr\jay atter cxecutinglho sealchwarraDl
On May 5, 2004, with ro founal chargesPendjrg againstAJay.
Sapra wrote a letlel to the Dislrict Attorney wherein she rcquestedlhat tho
police "withdraw t1')e
caseagainstAjay I( Dev " (9 CT 2501) Delective
I-Iermannhelpocl Sap[a clrali Lho]etter \'r'hichclarified she still bsLievcclirr
Ajay's guilt and, as a consequelce,had not ptovided i'alseillbr]nalLonl0
tho polico. (5 I{f 967-970;8 Rll 2140;9 CT 2501) SapnacallcdPcggl'on
Mother'sday to let her know lhe casehad beendropped (16 RT 4331)
VI.
Sapua Is Allcstcd In Ncpnl Prevclting Her I{oturD :fo The
United Strtes ard lfeopnrdizins Ilcr AbiliW To Ilccome A
United StatcsCitizer!.
In Jru.re2004, approximately one lllontll allor thc aaser'vasdropped
agairlstAjay, Sapra lravcLodto Nepal to celebrateher sister's r,vcddLng(5
It'I 964-965; l0 RT 2438, 241'+) l\s fearedby ,'\jay'spareDls,Ajay and
tt
Ajuy was chalgedwith showingSapnaporrographywhilc shq$'asa
minor. (4 CT 886-887) I-l.orvever,the -jury acqlitted Aiay of all
pornography relaled chalges, (19 CT 5200) Ther'ofote,evidencc
concerningthe poroographychargcswtll not be includedin the StaternerrL
ofFacts,bul will be discussedin lrore detail,1ry'4.at Ar8ulflentsV, Vl and
VII
4A
Peggy'sdecisionto adoptSapnaresultedin tre,merdous
fanily turmoil ancJ
division. (15 RT 4170-4173)Even Sapnaackoowledged,
at rrial, that
Ajay'scousin,MuraliNarayalDeo,andMurali,s1amilyprobablyheld a
selousgrudgeagainstSapnaandher familybecause,,their
childrencouro
not go to America." (5 RT 1030) In this re1;ard,Sapla understoodwhy
-lhereforc,
Muraliwouldpursuecriminalchargesagairrst
her. (5 RT 1030)
havilg lealredthat Sapualied abouther dateof bir r on her 199g passpolr,
Muraii went to the Nepali govemmelrton July 1, 2004 to briDg a case
against
Sapna.(5 RT 982-986,t025 t0Kl 2572-2574;9
C.f 2502.-250+)
On July 4, 2004,the NepaligovemmentaffesledSapna,cha]ged her with
passport
fraud,andconfiscated
her l99g passprrt.(5 RT 97./_9g0)Sapna
wasin jail for 19 daysand legalofficialsallolvedher nother Lostay with
herdruingtl'lisperiod, (5 RT 978-979)Withoutherpassport,Sapnaha(iIio
wayof re-entering
theUnitedSlatesand,asa t.]sult,tiskcdlosinghor iegal
residency
statusald herpalhto Americancitizenship.
VII.
q^pr^ Reinst,tt.r
Asflitrst Aiay Which.
, DrrablesI{er. Ilctur.rr1o
4rc ttate,tBy De
Tttc Urilcd Strtes
sidentAnrl CoutinrrcIler
PursuitOf AluericauCitizelshif)
Afler
Sapna's arest, Sapna contacled hcr
liicnct Araz
Taifehesmatian
andtold him shewas beingheld in Nepal agalnsther lvill
She askedhim to call DetectiveHer-mannto facilitateher l.otum to tl.te
,,t24j-2248)
UnitedStates.(9 RT 214l-2144,2244,2245,
Snplatesrificd
thatAjay calledher fiom Kathmanduandaskedher to eithcrstay iD Ncpal
01go to Canada (9 RT 970-97'7)Accordhgto Sapna,Ajay ol.fcrcdto pay
her expenses
andpromisedto bling her backtc,the United Slatcsin a l.e,"v
years.Sapnaclainedto refuse (5 RT 975-976)SapoagavcHelnanntne
callerID for Ajay'sallegedcali. (11F.T2952-2953)
However.,
rheID was
rot a KathrraDdu
phonenumber.(14RT3876)
In August 2004, after Sapna'salrest, Peggy's mother',Beverly
Stebley'lo inibml lhe Unlted
Taylor,retainedimmigrationatlorreyChatLes
StatesGovenment of Sapla'sfalsoallegationsagainstAjay and alefi the
govemmentto Sapna'sadoptionalld immigrationfiaud basedon Sapna's
13 R f
useof a falsedateof birth. (i0 RT 2438,2445,2450-2452,2456;
lr4r.Stebleywrole a seriesofletterslo
3455) At Ms. Taylor'sdirection,
differentimmigrationagenciesalettiogthem to SaPnas visa ftand andher'
rr
possibleaLtemptto illegally le.3nterthis country (lO I\T 2444'2447,
3985-3989)At trial,theProsecution
2456i13 RT 3467;14CT 3981-3983,
as the "poisonletters"in an
refe[ed to this collectivelegalcouespondence
effod to establishthal the Devswantedto preveutSapnafron] returningto
10 RI 240?,
thellnited Stateslo testifyagainstAj ay (9 I{T 2185-2186;
14 RT 3392-4400)The leltelswere
2529-2:136;
2420,2423,2513-2524,
oquallyconsistentwith the Devs' eamesldesireto exposeSapna'sliaud
becauseit was pailstaking for the Devs to walch Sapla reap the
immigrationbenefitstheyput in placefor Sapnaaftel shedecidedto fra e
Ajay for rape.
In late October 2004, Peggy,Sanjay,Ilevetly and Ajay's mother,
'1'b'e
coda, traveledto Nepal. 00 .K1-2429, 2502; 16 Rf 4332-4334)
pwpose of the trip was to contiont rumors in the Nepali communLly
Ajay, (10 RT 2430-2431;16 RT 4332-4334)Peggv,Sanjav
concerning
and Godaobserweda hearingat Sapna'sNepali cond proceedings.(7 RT
RT 2430-2431;t6 RT 4340) At trial,Sapuatestifiedthat
1602-1603;10
shenevertold the NepaLiCoufi or her threeNepaii defenseattoroeysthat
shebolievedAjay was trying to keepher in Nepal againsther will (5 llT
t 0 16 - 1 0 ' 1 '110, 8 1 - 1 0 8 2 )
13
Mr'. Stebley contacteclthe following federal agencics:Inunigration
and Customs Enforcement (hereinaftel "I.C E "); Homeland Seculity; U S
CitizeNhip and Immigration Selviges;and the U.S EDrbassyrn Nepal. (13
RT3467)
42
On June26, 2005,Sapnawas convictedof passportfraud in Nepal.
(14CT 4071-4093)TheNepalcourtdetermmed
that Sapna,saccur.ate
brfth
datewasApril 28, 1983,not January5, 1984.14(5 RT 985_986;t4 cT
407l-4093) Due to her convictionfor passportfraud, Sapnawas not
allowed to re-ente. the United States without a ,,waiver of police
cefiificare."
(1I RT 2756;t 3 RT 3437-343
9, 3 447_3448,3450_3452)
On October3,2005, at the behestof DebotiveFlelmarxt,the U S.
Embassyin Nepaiissueda waiver of police certihcateallowing Sapnato
rc-entef
the country.(9 RT 2157;1l RT 2.159,2,:'69-2.7j
1; 13 RT 34373439,3446-3447;
14 CT 4087) Imrnigrationspeciaiist,
Luz Durn, testilied
lhatthe embassywaivedSapna,s
policecertificatebecauseSapnaplaruted
to testifyiD a criminalcase.15111RJ 2j59; L.JRT 3439) Whenapplying
for a newpasspoft,DetectiveLlermannadvisedSapnato usethe birth dare
ofApril 28, 1983,consistenl
with theNepalicourtverdict.(5 RT 9g7-9gg,
I083-I084) Aftef obtaininga new passport,Ilapnare_entered
the United
States
on November
i6, 2005. (5 RT 1000;9 RT 2153;9 CT 2505) Upon
'"
The tdal courtruledthat Sapna,s
con./ictionftom Nepaland the
Nepalicourt'sfindingthather accurate
dateof birthwasA p r i l2 8 , 1 9 8 3
couldnotbeintroduced
fol.thetruthofthematterasserted.
(7 RT t72'7;14
CT 4071-40931see
also
15
-
ert IV,
entuy, I C.E. qonfiscatedSapna'sgreen caLclbecartsclhe birth date
conflicted with the birth clatecm her ncw 2005 passport.l6 Detecttve
Herrnamtestifltedthat Sapoaimrnediatelyappliedfol crtizenship,but was
(9 Kl 2lsl-2185) In coLrtrast,
denierlas were her numerousappeals.rT
hel lhatI C.E.r'vouldsend
Sapnatestif,iedthat inmigralion officialsadvisecl
her a new greencard (4 RT 897-898;5 RT l00l-1002) However,at the
tine of trial, almostfour yeals lilter, Sapnacoucededthat I C.E. had still
not sent her a new gLeencard. (4 RT 897-898;5 Rf 1001-1002)
Nevertheless,at lrial, Sapnabclieved she was still in the plocessot
bccominga UnitedStatesoitizen. (4 RT 897)
l,uz Dunn furlher-explained,at trial, that the United States
goverlllrentwas still investigatingSapna'sbilth date and, given the date
discrepancy,her adoplion and cletivativeimmigtatiou status coLrldbc
expcrt
revoked.(13 kT 3422,3440-34'+I)DurrltalsocouilrnredthlotLgh
lestinonythal a pelsonillegallyresidingin theUniledSlatescaubecornc
an AmeLicancitizenby provinghe ot sheis a vicliln of domesticviolencc.
(r3 RT 3433-3434,
3446-3447)
llve ulonthsaller Sapnaretuucd
On April 26, 2006, appro>,:irnateiy
to the United States,aud three days afler:her Visa cxpired, Ajay was
arested. (1 CT 1-3;9 CT 2505) On March27, 2009,onc uonth belble
testiryingagainstAjay and thLeeand a half years aflel le-enteringthe
country,Sapna submittedan applicationwitl1 the INS 10 have hel
greencardreplaced.(4 RT 894,897-898;5 RT 1086-1087:
conliscated
9
cT 24s1-2452)
t6
At trial, Sapna providecL t1.ie court with a photocopy of her
co[fiscated gleen cafd a11dtl'ris copy \.vasenlel-edi[to eviclence (5 R'l'
1 0 8 5 ; 9C T 2 4 5 0 ) .
r7
Detective Hermann testifiscl that hc r.ljr:l not urclude Sapna's
citizenshipapplicationsor appealrin hls reportto the dolelse as lie did not
thiuk they were relevanl10the ca:ie.(9 ItT2l85)
uII.
A!_IIljt_LS!-0!aIesrilrrri .tb r r Aia, RapedHer Trvo .l o Ttrr.ce
I rles A weck Fur FiveStr.aishr
VS!, fuq1i;9.s l5 ro ZO
A. AllegedRapesin the Dcv lloure
At trial, SapnatestifiedthatAjay first touchedher inappropriately
in
early Februaly1999,within the first coupleweeks
of her arival Sne
clairnedthatAjay iaid downbehinclher.while shewas on the
couch (4 Rf
754-755) Accotdingto Sapna,Ajay pressecl
his pelvis into her.backside
aDdtouchedher breastsover her clorhes.(4 llT 757_75g)r\iier
tlueero
five minutes,Sapnaclaimedshe got up ard walkedaway. (4
RT 759)
SapratestifiedthatAjay told her not to tell anyone.(4
RT 760)
Sapnatestifiedthat the secotclincidenloccurl€dwithil a ruonth
ol
the firct. (4 RT 763) Accor.dingto Sapta,Aja),cauiedher to
Lrisbodl.oorr
Andtriedto urdressheLas shetried to g€t awa.y.(4 RT 763_764)
Sapna
testifiedthat Ajay told her to keepquietanclunc{ressed
hcr while holdiug
hei down. I-Iethet insertedhis lingersinto her vagina,ther his penis.
(4
FT 764-166)Shesaid i1 lastodabouti0 rnjnures (4 l{T 766) Sapna
testifiedthatshedid not thinkAJay usecla condc,trr.
(4 RT 767)
Thereafler,
accordingto Saplu,Ajay rapedher, without fail, two to
threetrmesa week for Iive yeals, (4 RI 769. jj4_.1j5, gl3, g24; 5
RT
1135-1136,
1150;7 RT 1619)Sapnacoulclnot rcmernbei
clerails
aboutthe
subsequent
rapes.(4 RT 769;7 RT 1619_1620)
As tbr the secondrape,
Sapnatestified,"I thir* it was in my bedloom.. . yeah, I thinl<. I,ni lot
positive.I don'trenenber..,'(4 RT 769)
Sapnaalsotestifiedthat, in rhe begimring,
Ajay digita y penetrated
her "almostall the tine,, brrt clur.ingthe latte{ rapes,.,probablyhalf the
tine." (4 RT 813) Sapnaclajmedshelosther.\,.irginity
u,henA.jay put
h is
hngerin her vaginafor tl.refi1sttime. Shetestifiecithat it was so traunatic
shewouldnoverforgetit. (6 RT 1341-1342)
Siheclaimedit happenedat
theCoocordhouse,but couldnot renemberany otherdetails.
Sheinitially
45
thought she may have bled on her underweal, but subsequeltlysl,e
(6 RT
indicaledshe was not surewhethershe was wearinguDder-wear.
1341-1345)
Sapnatestifiedthat, for the first six months,Ajay rapedher only
whenPeggywas out ofthe hous,:.(4 RT 769,775-776)lhereaftcr,Sapna
testifiedthat Ajay startedrapilg her at night ir her bedroornwhile Peggy
wasasleep.(4kT 775-776)SapnaclaimedthatAjay climbedirto herbed
while shewas sleepingandtold her lrot to makeany noise. Shecouldnot
recalldetailsofthe aliegedrapes (4 RT 776)
foi herto loveAjn)
Sapnatestifiedthattherapesmadeit impossible
loveto him becalrse
he providedso much
asa father,but shehad to expresri
for her'. (4 RT 774) Sapnatestilledthe moreAjay rapedhef, the moreshe
haledhim and did not wantto be aroundhim. (6 R'f 1462-1463:
7 l{T
i 540-1541)Shetestiliedfiat shedidnot tell anyonebecause
hc toLdhcrLrc
would sendher baokto Nepal,her leputationand careelwoulclbe mined,
andhe andPeggywould get a di /orce (4 RT 760)
B. AllcgcdOrrl Copulrtions
SapnatestifiedthatAjay rnadehel put hispcnisin heLmouth.(4 RT
803; 5 RT 1158-1160) She explainedthal Ajay mads her watch a
pomographicvideo called "Ei€;hteenand ConfusecLand lbrccd heL to
orally copulatehim as depictedon ihe video. (5 RT I 159) Sapnaclaimed
shewas shown "Eighteenand Confused"on Ajay's laptop,in 1999,at age
15. (5 RT 1112,1159) Howevor,evidence
at t(ial cLearly
cstabLished
tLrar
the"18 andConflrsed"
videodid notexistin 1999,wheuSapnawas15.bur
wasproduced
in mid-January
2000.(12Rl'30i2-3034,l0 CT 2810-2812)
Moreover,Peggy testified and had a receipt to show thal the Laptop,
allegedlycontainingthe pom video,was not purchasecl
rrntilNovember
2 0 0 1 ( 1 5R T 4 1 0 9 - 4 1 1A
0 ,C ' f ( 8 / 1 0 / 2 0 1106) )
46
Sapraestimatedthat she was forcedto give
Ajay oral sex about
ihee tines a monthiotalirg apploximately
30 to 50 times over the corLrse
ofthreeyears.(5 liT t 162-1163)Whenaskec{
ibr cletails,
Sapnaexpressly
testified,"All I rememberis lesistinghim and feelingdisgusred.,,(5
RT
1161) Theserepeatedinstallcesof oral sex were so haumatic
for Sapla,
shetestifiedit was "somethingthatI rvill alwaysr.ernernbcr.
that was dorc
to me." (5 RT I 160) At trial, Sapuaconld not lemernber.
if Ajay ever.
e.laculated
duringoralsex. (5 RT 1162_1163)
Confary to l]er trial testimony,duringher vicleotaped
iDteryiewwith
DetectiveIlemann on Februrry3,2004,SapnaadamantlydeDied
that Ajay
everfbrcedherto per.for.m
oralsexonhim. Sheexplajllecl,,,[b]eaause
IJust
thoughtit was disgusling
to do - put his thingin I nover._I u]ean,it,s
disgusting
to put thatthing in my mouur.. .I wouldn,tclo it., (A
CT 2: 642765) Sinilariy, Olficer BriesenicktestificclthzLt,
whe/rSaprareportedthe
chargesagainstAjay on Fcbruary 2, 2A04, she never included
zuy
allegation
relatingto oral copulation,(8 l{T20g4)
C. AllegcdRapes ud AssnultsOutsidethc Dev Uome
At trial, Sapt'la
testifiedthat Ajay rapedhor ar peggy,sn]onr,shorLse
(Beverly),Peggy'ssister,sltouse(Ter.ry),Ajay,r;brothershouse(Sarjay),
their friend'shome(Evanne),at Morel 6 andin l3angkok,.fhailancL.(4
RT
808,812-813;7 Kl t569-1572,1596-1599)
Wren askedwherhelAjay
rapedher duringfamily vacationsto Las Vegas,WashingtonDC, GranLs
Pass,Oregonand/orKathrnanclu,
Nepal,Sapna$tatcdshecouldIIot rocall
( 7 R T 1 5 0 81-5 1 0 )
Withinher lLrstmonthin the Urited Shtes,SapnatestiileclthatAjay
rapedher while visiting her.AuntTery and her cousiusin Montercy. (7
RT 1593-1595)SapnacouldDot remember
the exactdale,but peggy
lestified
thatthc visitoccunedat rheendof February1999 (15RT 4192)
SapnaLestified
thatsheslepton thc livingroomfloor that nightwith Terry,s
41
soos,Bcojamin andNacho, and thatA.jayrapedher while Ben andNacho
were in the sameLoom. (7 ILT 1514,1593, 1595) Sapnacould not
rcmemberdetails,just that i1 occurred.(7 RT 1593,1595) lSel lestified
thathc, thenage 12,sleptnextt0 Sapnaon the living roornflool andNacho
sleptnextto Ajay (14 RT 3672,3617-3678)
Sapnaalso testifiedshewasrapedat Beverly'shot]e nearMonterey.
Accordingto Sapna,Ajay rapedher on thc llool asPeggysieptin the bed
T5 8 51, 5 8 7 - 1 5 9 3S)i r p ncao l r l (Dl o l
a d j a c e n t toh e m .( 4 R 1 8 0 9 - 8 1 1 ; 7 R 1
romemberotherdclailsofthe incideot (7 RT 1588,1592-1593)
At the preliminary hearing, Sap[a testified tl]al ro rapes aver
occnnedwhen shc was sleepingin the samebed as Peggy (7 Rf 15601562) Ar trial, however,Sapnatestifiedthat AJaywas ableto lapeller in
wakillgup Peggy oDcoat
withorLt
thcsamebedas Peggyorrtwo ooeasioDs
house (7 IIT I595-1598)
houseaudonceat Evanne's
Sanjay's
At trial, Sapna testified that she was raped at Sanjay'shouse
" p r o b a b loyn a e . " ( 4 R T 8 1 2 - 8 1 3 ; 7R T 1 5 1 9 ,1 5 9 5 - 1 5 9 7I )n c o n l f a s l ,
Tashas (Sanja,r''s
Sapnadid nottcstify10anyrapesoccuningat SanjayancL
r'vife)houseat the preliminaryhearingnor did sheteportany allcgedlapes
occuningat Sanjay's hometo OfficerBrieselick ol DotectiveI Iernlaul. (7
whenthis parliculaL
R] 1516-1519)At trial, Sapnacouldnot ten.rember
rapeat Sanjay'shome occurredand could not recall the occasionfor theif
odd becauseAlay andSartjayhadbarcL,v
visit to Sanjay'shomewhich weLs
adoption.(7 RT l5l9-1520)
to eachothersincaSapna's
spoken
Sapnatestifiedshe,Aja),,and Peggystayedovemightin Sanjay's
in thesamebecl.(7 RT 1521)Accordirgto
andall sleptlogether
basemcnt
Ajay andPeggy,
Sapna,
shewassleepingin themiddleof thebed,between
with her backtowardsAjay. (7 RT 1521,152'l) SapnaclaimedAjaytook
her underwearhalf way off and put his penisin hei vagina Shedid not
Peggyrvas
know if he wasweari[g a condon or if he ejaculated.AlthoLrgh
48
yery closeto her in the bed,
sheclidnot touchher or say anl4hingor try Lo
stop AJay. (7 RT 1521-1531)Sapna
testifiedshe slept in Sallay,s
basement
in the samebed as Ajay arrdpeggy ,,alot of tines, ,,probably
two or threetimes." Shecouldnot rememberifAjay r.aped
her ol tlie ouler
occasio's.(7 RT l53l-i532) Sa'jayanclhir;wife,
Tasha,borhtestiliecl
thatSapna
neverspentthenightat theirhouse.(14 RT 3877-3g78.
3s81.
3911)
Sapnaalso claimed to be tapeclat lgast two times
at Evaule
O'Douell'shome.(7 RT 1513,1595_1597)
l\ccorcting
to Sapra,sheand
Peggywere sleepingin Sairsha,s
room (Evanne,sdaughter)when Ajay
creptin duringthe night ard rapedSapnawhile peggy
lay asleepbeside
themin the samebed. (4 RT 812_813;
7 R'1.1597_1598)
In rLroorher
instancer
Sapnalestiliedshgwas sleepingon tlLecouchn the livillg
rclom
whenAjay lapedher. (4 RT gl2-gl3) Sapnac.lidnot rernentLrer
any detaiis
of therapeexceptthatmaybethedoggot up andleft. (7
RT 159g_1599)
Evanneteslifiedthat Sapnaalwayssleptwith peggyin Sairsha,s
roornaDd
neverin thelivingroorawilh A,jay.(15RT 39I(,-3917)
Sapnatestifiedthat during the family vacarionin Hawaii in 2002,
she walkedinto the hotel room to showerwhile Ajay was
ir the roolrr,
PeggyandCassandra
wereoo thebeach.(4 R-Tgl4_gl6) Accorcling
to
Sapna,Ajay grabbedher aroundthe waistlile irr a sexualrnarucr. WlLen
Cassandra
walkeclin the roomeveil.thing
stopped.(4 RT 816-g1/150S)
At the preliminaryhearing,Sapnatesafiedfiat Ajay lever tolrched
ller
sexuallyin Hawaii. (7 RT 1700)
D. AllegedRapein Bangkok,Thailandin 2003
.A1the preiimhary hearing,Sapnainitially testifiedthat Ajay
ncver
rapedher outsideof California.(7 RT 1511-1512)This testrnlony
was
consistent
with Sapna'svideo-taped
intelvie\.yu,ith DetectiveJlernann ro
2004where,when askedgenerallyaboutthe a[eged rapes,
Sapnanever
49
mentionedan]'thirgaboutThailandor Nepal. (7 RT 1601;9 RI 21772178; 11 RT 2970-2971)Hovrever,on crossexanination,
whenasked
whetherAjay rapedher when theytaveled togetherto Nepalandshareda
hotelroom in Thailandduring a layover,Sapnachangedher testimony,at
the prelininary hearing,andclaimedAjay had,in fact,rapedher outsideof
Califomia (4 RT 857-860,7 RI 1699-1702)At hia1,shegavethesame
festimony.(4 RT 857-860;
7 RT1699-l'702)
When askedaboutwhetherAjay had fapedSapnar.rpontheir return
to theUnitedStates,Sapnastatedshccouldnot recaLl (7 itT 15ll-1512)
Ilowever,shecould not dcnythal, althoughsheclairredAjay hadstiil beeD
forcingher to have sex with him two to threetines per weekioxnediatcly
beforethey left for Nepal,shebeggedAjay andPeggyto retumfromNepal
a monthearlyrequiringher Lotravclhomewith Ajay. (4 RT 853,856-857;
1 sR T 4 1 2 8 - 4 1 3 0 )
E. AllcgcdRapcsAlter SapraMovedOut
Sapnatestified at trial that shc lnoved out of the Dev home in
Decembel2003
to getawayfrourAjay because
hc hadbeenrapingher. (6
RT 1479-1480)Shelold DetcctiveIlermannthat the rapesstopped
onca
shemovedout: "Oh it lasLed
eversince,um, I movcdout- untilI moved
out; plobablyjust Decenber,the monthof December."(10 CT 2745)
However,after Sapnamovedoul shestayedin frequentcoltact with Ajry.
Phone records show Sapna called Ajay approxinately 50 times in
D e c e u r b2e0r 0 3 .( 7 R T 1 5 6 6 - 1 5 6174; C T 3 9 6 1 - 3 9 7 8 )
Dcspitewhat she initially told DelectiveI-lermannaboutthe rapes
endingonce she moved out, Sapnalaler chalged hcr story and,at trial,
testifiedthat A-jay rapedher al MoteL6 al'tel she movedout of thc IJev
home (7 RT 1569-1572)SpecihcalLy,
shetesrifiedthatAjay pickedher.
up at her apadmentand,aLthough
shethoughtthey weregoingto thepark,
he took her to the motel. Sapnalestifledthatshevolr.Lntarily
follorvedAlay
50
nto themotelroomasshebelieved
theywouldjusftalk, (4
R1.gg2;7 I{T
1536-1537,
1552-1556,1570)
Despite
havingbeenr.aped
500ro700rinrcs,
Sapna
statedshegaveAjay the,,belre1lt
of the doubt.,,(7 RT 1552_]553,
1556) Once in Lheroom, Sapnatestifiedthat when she relirsed
Ajay,s
advalcesand triecl to leave,he grabbecl
her arm and took l]et purs€ to
prevent
her liom leaving.(7 RT i569_1572)Sapnatestitred
shehit Ajay
with her armsto get arvay. (7 RI 1571) Acr:ordingto Sapla,
Ajay tnelr
pushedher on thebed,heidher handsclownwith onehaudand
took off her
clotheswith the orherwhile shesuuggledro geraway (7 RT 1574)
Then,
still holdingher la,ithonehand,he tookoffhis tiothes (7 RT 1576) Sapna
testifiedthatwhile Ajay heldher.haldsdownwith orc ltaltdho ilseftcd
ius
penis with the other. (7 lLT 1572, l57g)
Sapnatestiiled she had
mghtmares
abouttltis expericlceaud,it was so traunatic,shewou]dncver
forgetit. (7 Rl'1548-1549)
AithorLghthe alleged rape occurted January 12, 2004, Sapna
admittedshc did not iDitially tell the reportiD€,
oificer, Ol.hcerBreisnick,
abouttlris rape on February2, 2004or DetectiveFle nann Februar.y
3,
2004because
shedidn,trenemberit. (7 RT l:;49_1550,
i582_15g3;
9 l{1
2109-2124,
14 CT 3930-3933)Saplarold De:tcctive
I-Icmlann
aboutthc
allegedrapeotlly afterAjay mentioqedthemotelduringthepl.etextcall (7
l(T 1549-15s0,
1696-1697;8
RT 2079;9 I{.I.2107-2108,
2205) Megan,
her roommate,alld Alaz botlt testiheciSapnanever told thcm shc was
allegedly
rapedal Motel6. (7 RT 1549;8RT2079;9RT2205)
On Janualy29,2004, alsoafter Sapnanoved out, Sapnaclairned
thatAjay triedto rapeherthenightofpeggy,ssurgery.(6 RT l3g9_1j93)
Sapnaclaimed,while at the hospital,Ajay beggedher to move backhome
and threalenedto kill himsclf and het if she refused. (5 RT 926_927)
SapmtestifiedAjay was so desperate
he olfereclto pay her for sex (j RT
926-930;l0 CT 2753) Sapnaclaimcdshedi(l not recallalguing_
abourWill
JL
that night (7 RT i708-1709) DespiteAjay's allegedtlueatsand illicir
sexualinducements,Sapnatestifiedshe wantedto spendthe night at the
Dev home to help Peggy. (6 RT 1391, 1407;9 Cf 2618) Sapna's
rapethatnightva1y.ln herinlervrerv
descriptions
ofthe allegedattempted
with DeteativeHermallr1,SapnaclairnedAjay got on top of her,his pants
wele down and she felt him ejaculateinto a condon oursideher body
1423-1426;9CT 2818-2621)
beforehe climbedoff. (6 RT 1420-1421,
Sapnadidn't scream bocausePeggy was sick. (9 CT 2619) At tLre
prelimhary hear.ing,
Sapuatestiliedthat Ajay lried to get on top of her,but
\,vasunsuccesslillbecauseshegc,taway. (6 ItT 1412-1414)At trial, Sapna
tostifiedlhey were both clothed Ajay laicLon top of irei and hurped hcr'.
(6 RT 1389-1395,
1404-1407)Shedid not feelor seehirncjacLrlate.
(6 RT
1395) Sapnalestifiedthatthe e\'entwas so tratunatrcshcscreamed
andrarl
outof lhehouse.(5 RT 934-935;
6 Rf I394-1395)Peggytcstified
thatshe
witnessedAjay and Sapuasittirrgon the iirtol il Sapnas room,arguing,
befoleSapnaabmptlyleft, (16 triT4321-4325)
At the preliminaryhearingand triz!1,Sapnalcstillcdshewasterrificd
afterthis attackand immediatelywentto thc policcthc samenrghLto faporl
i t : J a n u a r2
y 9 , 2 0 0 4 . ( 6 R T 1 3 8 6 - 1 3 8 91;3 9 4 - 1 3 9 1
54
, 0 0 - 1 4 071 ;R - l '
policerepo s srhow
thatSapnadid lot go lo thepoliceou
1717)Hov/ever,
Iatuary 29, 2004 and that the initial police repolt madeno mentionof an
attempted
rapeon January29,2004 (8 RT 1969,1976,1978,l98l-1982,
1996,2065-2071,2082)In fact, OlTicerDricsnicktestifiedthat Sapna
nevorreportedbeiugsaxuallyattaoked
on Jaluary29, 2004. (8 RT 206s2071) Ilather, Briesnick lestifled that Sapnirrepofied her last sexual
ercountcr with Ajay to be befbre she moved out of the Dev hornein
-2078,2080-208
Decenrber
2003. (8 I\T 2075, 2A7'7
I)
In an effort to clarif' conflichngrntbrrrationabolrtthc exactdate
Sapnafirst went to the police to relort thesecrimesagainstA.1ay,Sapra
52
hied to explainthatsheandMeganwent to
thepolice departnenlthe rugltt
ofPeggy's
sulgery,
but ihedool.was
lockedso theywenthome.(5RT942944;6 RT 1382-138
6, 1396"1397;7
RT 1717)Then,thencxtright (which
wouldhavebeenJanuary30,2004_ 161!.sSru y
2, 2004)theywentagarn
andgot in. (5 RT 942-944)Megan,however,testrfiedthat
slie and Sapna
u/entto the policedepartne[t only once Sheteslified
tt was at riight atd
thedeparlment
vr'aslocked,so theyrangthe ,,afterhoursbell,,ar]dwere
let
in. (8 RT 1996) Officer Breiseuickconlinned Lhatthe
clepartment
is
alwaysaccessible
by the "afler_hours',
bell and tiat Sapnausedthe,,after_
hoursbeil" to get into the slationon February2, ZAO4_
rlot January29,
2004 (8 RT 2O6s_2067,2082)
The February2, 2004policereportby Oflicer Briesnickwas taken
onedayafterWiil br.okeup with Sapna_ the salneclateSapna
ernphaticalty
toidAjay to "srayawayfron ny lifc., (7 RT 1713;8 RT 2065-2067j
10
C T2 8 0 01; 4C T 3 9 s 8 )
The prosecutioDatLenlptcd
to explain Sapna,sclelayil1 reportilg
theseallegedrapesand her.inconsistencies
by irLtroducing
expq.ttestimony
from Dr. AnthonyUrquiza (8 RT lg63_1865)Accolctrng
to Urqurza,
childrenwho sufferfiorn the Child SexAblrse.Accommodation
Syldlomc
(CSAAS)may exper-ience
elrtrapment,accomtnodation
anclclelayedancl
uncorvincirg
disclosure.
(8 RT l880-1900)However,
Dr. O,Donohue,
rne
def-ense
expert,testifiedthat no psychological,:r psychiatlicassociatiorrs,
includingthe AMA, have embracedCSAAS ard i1slegitinacy has beel
$eatiyundelninedby scientihcrcsearcli.(g R.I 1904-190g;
l2 RT 3231_
3237,3240-3241)
F. SaplaAltcgcd'Ihat Ajay Inpr.cgnated
Her ThreeTimes.
At trial, Sapnatestifiedthat Ajay impreelatedl]ef tlu.eetimes as a
resultof rapingher 500 to 700tines overa fiy: ycarper.iocl(4 Rl. 76S,
7 7 4 - 7 7 5 , 8 1 3 , 8 2 4 - 882350, ,5 R T 1 1 3 5 _3 6 , 1 1 5 0 7
; R T 1 6 1 9 ;9 R T
5l
2116; 10 RT 2401; 11 RT 29111,9CT 2389,2404,2446,2123,2425)
Thesepregnanciesoccurredwithin an eievenmonth \.yindow: between
November2002 arLdOctober2003 when Sapuau,as between18 and 19
Sapnainsisted
y0arsold. (4 RT 825;9 CT 2389,24A4,2406.2423,2425)
shcwas
that the pregnanciesaouldonly havebeencausedby Ajay because
not havingsexwith anyoneelsewhenshegot Pregnant.(l I RT 2981;i0
contradioted
Sapna'stestimooyby
CT 2770-2771)I{ou,ever,Araz diLrectly
exposingthe fact that they weri: having sex at his mother'shouseoncea
16 R'l
weekduringthe Fall of 2003. (4 RT 870;9 l{f 2220,2252,2324;
that Sapnawas datingSid
alsoshowecL
4445;9 CT 2551) The evideni:e
durilg her'first two pregnarcies,ftom November2002 throughMay 2003,
anddatingAraz duringthe third pregnancyscarein November2003. (4 R'f
'7
, 1 4 9 - 1 1 5 0 ;R T \ 6 ' 7 8 - 1 6 ' 7 9P; 9J 2 2 1 ? - - 2 2 \ 3 ,
826-82'8
/ ,4 9 ; 5 R T 1 1 3 8 1
2 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 2 , 2 2 8 9 , 2 3 2 4 - 2 3l 02 5RiT 2 6 1 3 - 2 6 1256, 2 3 ;l 3 R I 3 3 0 9 - 3 3 1 i ,
R6T 4 3 8 09; C ' l B 5 A ,
, 199-4201;1
3 3 1 9 ;I 4 R T 3 7 5 4 - 3 7 5 91 ;5R T 4 0 8 5 4
2358,2382-2383,2393,2404,2406,2423,2.425;14 CT 3944) Sapna
of'fereclno explanationas 10why shc only got pregnantduling thc tirnasin
which she was dating older malesAjay and Peggyfolbadcher to scc or'
why shenevergot pregmnt ftoD:rages15 to 17 eventhoughsher.vas
leltiLe
and claimedthat Ajay rarelywcre condomsdurirg lheseallegcdrapes.(4
RT 830;9 CT 2391,2411,2425)
LEGAL ARGUMENT
I.
API'ELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A
FAIR TRIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO
INSTIIUCT, ,SU,4SPONTE,ON CORPUSDELECTI.
A. lntroductiol
To proveits case,the prosecution
introduced
the tbllowingeviclcrce
to convlct AJay of the crirneschalgedin this case: (l) evideuoeof a
rccordedpletext oall; (2) testimonyft01nthe victim allegillga valicty of
sex-related
crimesand dissuadingchalges;arLd(3) pornography
evidence
fouadon the Dev computers
whichwasusedto supporL
the inteuteleneurs
of thesex-related
crimesand hvo separatoly
ohalgedpourographychar.ges
Thepretextcall inyolveda onehoLuconversation
betweenSapnaaud A]ay
spokenin both EnglishandNepali. While Ajay explicitly
deniedhavrng
sex and./orraping Sapnaon this recordedcall, there wer.e
two higury
dlsputedstatements
in the cail, spokenin Nepali, which the prosecution
a.gued
wereadmissiots
ofsex aftertheageof lg ancl,iu closing,r.elied
on
thesestatements
in an atLempt
to persuadethe.jurythat these,,adnissiorrs
somehow
retoactivelyappliedto ages15 tluough lg as well. In contrasr,
lhe defensetranslatorgaveexperttestimonythal the statenonts
were nor
necessarily
admissions
ofsex. Ajay'soLlt_of-cou1t
statements
uradeduL.ing
thepretextcall w€re admittedas lton-hearsay
pursuanlto llvidence Code
sectiorL
1220. l'he trial court,however.,
failed to instructthe illry p lsuanr
to CATCRIM No. 359. As a consequence,
the jLuy was iu.tproperly
permittedto rely solely on the pretextclaim t) cor]victAjay.
1.hiser.r.or
requires
reversal.
B. The TIi:rl Cnrrrf Eqil^/1 r'^ r-"+-,.^+
@cr
rursuant to CALCRIM No. 359.
The Jrrrv. SrrrrSzorrlc.
A courthasa sua sponteduty to instructthejuly on corptrscleltcti
wheneversuchslalements
form part of the pr.osecutiot,s
casc. (people ,
Hawk(1961)56 Cal2d 68't,'|Aj; pen.Cocteg 1259.)In rhisregarcl,
rhe
Califomia SupremeCourt has explained: "In every crininal trial, the
prosecution
nust provethe coryusclelecti,or the body of the crinle itself _
i.e.,lhe fact ofinjur.y,loss,or harm,and fhe existenceofa crirniDalage[cy
as its cause. In Caiifomia,it hastraditionallybeenheld, tlte prosocutior
calxlotsatis8/this burdenby relying exclusivelyupon thc extrajudicial
statements,
coufessions,or admissionsof the defendant.,, (people v
Alvarez(2002)2'1CaL4th1161,[68_1169.) The taw a]sorequiresrhar
CALCRIM No. 359 be given whenever CALCRIM No. 358 and./or:
CALCRIM No. 357 is given since t]|.ecarpu.t1€llcli iNtruction concerns
sfatemcntsof allegedguilt by lhe defendant.(Peoplev. Ray (1996)13 Cal
4th 313, 342: PeopLev. Jennings(1991)53 Cal.3d334, 364. fdiscussing
corpusdelicti rule in the cascoI an alfimative admtssion;by analogythe
rule alsoshouldapplyto adoptiveadnissions.l)
Here, Ajay's out-of-couflstalementsmade during the pretextcall,
alore, requiredthe tuial cour[ to instmct the jury pursuantto CAI-CRIM
No. 359. The lact liratCALCRIMNo. 357 anciCAICtuM No. Ii8 wcrc
given only soliditresthis indepcndentduty (12 CT 3247;PeopLer L|ay,
supra,13 Cal. 4lh at p. 342; Peoplev Jennings,supra,53 CaI3d.at p. 364 )
C. Standardoflleview
Review of a coLut'ser.tol in failing to give a sua sponte.juty
inslNctioninvolvesaI under'lyingquestionof law and,therefore,is elltitlecl
ro de novo rev\ew. (Peoplev. A lvarez(1996) I 4 Cal. 4lh 155, 211)
D. The lailurc To Instmct Thc Jurv Ol CALCRIM No. 359
PreiudiceclAppellant Ilequiline llcyersal As A Mrttel Of
StatoaDdFeder^l Co4glitutionalLlrv.
State law instruclional :rror requires reveLsalwherc there is a
reasolableprobabilitythat, but lof the eror, thejury would haverelufneda
(1956)46 CaL2d818,836)
more favorableverdicl. (Peoplev. lVatson
Moroovef,while the corpru delicti rule itself is uot cornpelledby federal
law, the arbitlary depriyationof a purely staiela\.venlitlelnenrmay also
violate the Due ProcessClauseof lhe FourtoenthArnendnellt. (Fllclrs v
Oklahoma(1980)447 U.5 343,Hewittv Helms(1983)459U.S.460,46b
llibelty interestsprotected by the Duc PlocessClausearise fron two
sources,the Due PlocessClauscitself and tlie laws of the Statesl.)
Therefore,reversalls alsorequied whererespondent
cannotprovgbeyolid
a reasonable
doubt tirat the eror was harniess. (Iates v Evatt (1991)5AA
56
U.S.391,407;Chapman
v_California(1963)386 rJ,S. 18,24;peoptev
Roybal(1'998)19 Cal4th 481,520;Suttivanv Louisiana(1993)
508 LJS
2 1 s , 2 1. )9
In thecaseat bal,thereis no wayto ruleoutthepossibilrtytharthe
jury reliedsolelyon thepretextcallin reachin5;
its verdicts.Iu thisregard,
the plosecutionrepeatedlyimplored the jur./ 1() find thal Ajay
ma.le
admissions
and adoptiveadmissions
to the cl.imesduring tlte pretcxt call
requiring
thejury to convictAjay ofthe crimeschar-ged(18RT5009;19
RT 5139,5143,5145) In fact,the prosecution
foundthe protextcall so
significantit devotedmost of its closingargumentto Ajay,s out of
coLrrt
statements
madedurirgthepfetextcall,rs1tgtrlt +g6o_sot8;
19 i{T 51205145)At theveryendof its ciosingrernarks,
thepr.osecuLion
tol(lthejury
that, in order to preveDtgettinglost while gc,ingtlx ough the 92
counrs
duringdeliberations,
it neededto startwilh thepretextcall: ,,yousrartwith
whathe adnits to, you staxtlvith the tlneatsarLd*re dissuasion.,,(19
It:I.
5143)
It is also reasonablypr.obabletllat the jury solely relied on rhc
pretext call evidencebecausethe othot evidence,priurarily Saplla,s
testimonyand the pornographyevidence,u,ere cxtrernely weak and
rrought with inconsistencies.
The evidence preseuted against Ajay was nowheLe near
overwhehning. Rather,taken as a whole, lhe evidetrcc\!as equaly
consistent
with his innocence.At the lour daypreliminaryheari|rgwhelern
the prosecutioninlroducedSapna,sloslimonyaccLrsing
Ajay of rape and
molestation;
the pretextcall; most of re pomographyevidelce;ancl
elaboratedissuadingevidence,the presidingjuclge chafacterizedthc
prosecutiou's
evidenceas "sparse.,,(2 C1.493) h the end, whiie t[e
rI]c reponers transcrrirtreflectsthat out of a 7j page closing
argument,50 pageswere spcntexclusiyely
on the pretoxtcall (18 RT
4 9 6 0 - 5 0 1189;R T 5 1 2 0 - 5 1 4 5 )
51
preliminaryhearingjudge held lljay over lor trial findilg "probablecause"
with respectto nost of thecounts,it conceded,"theiearenany areasrvhere
someonemay doubt." (3 CT 839) Thereibrc,given the aLnouot
of
eviderce that was consideredat lhe preliminary heaung, this jLrdicral
assessment
signifiesthiswas a vory closecase.
1. A Victim Of Serial Rape Would Not DcvelopSincerc
Feelingsof FarnilialLove If Her Abuser Startedllaping
IIer.Two WeeksIintoTheir Ilcl^tionship.
Absent Sapna'sallegations,Lheevidenceat trial clearlyshowsthat
Sapnawas very happylivilg with theDevs and thatwithin six monthsto a
yeardevelopeda Sincerelove for them as hostparents.(6 ItT 1470-1474;
14 RT 3'143,9C'l 2525-2530;
14 CT 3914) Photographs,
homcvidoos,
lett€rs,e-mails,textsandphonelogsall show this r"lndeniable
andhcart,f0it
(6 RT 1349-1350,
connecfion.
| 410-1474, 1481; 10RT 2576;14R1:3'/43,
9 C T 2 5 2 5 - 2 5 3 0 ; 1C0T 2 7 3 4 - 2 1 3 5 ; 1C4T 3 9 2 . 7 - 3 9 2l 59 ;C T 4 3 4 9 )E v e n
the proseculionconcedecL
in its closingthat Sapnaioved Ayayand Pcggy
Dev as parents, (18 RT 4966) I-Iowever,lvhile a loving latlrer/daughter
bondwould naLurallydevelopwherea father/daughter
rolationshipstadsat
bi h or early childhood (even1I rape or moieslationlater developed),it
seelnsahnostimpossibleto developwhere,as licre,the fatlteranddaughter
rclationshipdid not staftuntil the daughtelrvas15 yearsolcland,hvorvceks
into thc relationship,the fatherallegedlystanednolesting and rapinghis
daughferhi/o to thee timosa weekfor fir,e years (4 RT 768; l0 C'12':,432745) That's a rape allnostevgry other day. In thesecircumstarrces,
it
seemshighly unlikcly that such a decp and loving bold could occur.
Therefore, since the evidence indisputably shows hor.v rluch Sapna
sincereiyloved AJay and Peggy,it seemsless likcly that lier allegations
couldbe truc.
5S
2. Urrlike Other Rape Cases, Nunterous professiouals
Scrutilized The Relationship Bcftveeu The Devs and
Saplla To Dctermine V/hether There Were Any Signs of
Rape,Trauma Or Sexualn{isconducttn Ora"r .t,o
SancfionThe Adoption.
ln 1999,the Adoption SuppofiUnit of the Depaltrnentof Social
Services instituted a home-study of the Dev home aod
requiretl
psychological and medical exauriaationsof Sapna to deternile
whelhcr
Sapnasuffered abuseor l]eglect. Based on these thorough oxarninations,
completedprior to the adoplrioo,the Departmentdetelmincd there
was ro
evidence
ofabuseand the Dovsweresuitableparerts.re(9 R],2350, 2354,
23s9,2361-2363,2365-236'7,2368- 23.t0, 23-/
9, 2383_2429
; l 4 C.l 3gt 4,
392s)
Unlike otherrapocases,the relationshipbetweenAiay anclSapna,
the ailegodperpetralor
andvictim ir.rthis case,wasscr.[tinizedlbr.potcDtlal
sexualabuscby professionals
spociflcailytrainedto icleltify this very type
of misconduct. ln fact, both the defenseand prosecutionexpefis,
Dr,
O'DonohueandDr. Urquizarespectively,
testifiedat trial that petsonswho
haveexpericnced
traurna,suchasbeingrapeclt-rvoto threelinresa weekfot.
five yeals,wouldmostlikelyexhibittrealable
symptonrs,(g RT i950, L2
RT 3233,3238-3239)Specilically,Dt. Urquizatestifiedthar victins may
havesleepdisturbances
or othertraumasymptons and clinicianswould
treatthen fo{ thefumentalhealrhproblems. (ti RT 1950) Similarly, Dr
O'Donohuetestifiedthat personswho are su:[feringfiom severeabuse
would sufferpost traun1alicsfuesssymptomsear.lyin the abusescenarro.
(12 NT 3249-3250)Thereforethe lack of evidenceindicatilg any
typeof
1
9
yearsalrer the cdoption,Vivian Walker,Sapnas healthcar.e
. .Even
praclttLonerand mandatedreporter,continuedto beat sapna anclper.foruted
approximatelyrline n]edical exams of Sapnabeginning in 199'9
through
2002. Similar.to the I999 adoptiol exan results,Walkei,s
repolts rndicate
tbat Sapna'sexams were normal and she did not exhibit
any signs or
evidence
0l physicalor sexnalabrLse
(9 RT 236 L,2363, 2365_236.
,"23j0)
59
abuse (sexual or otherwise) supports the defense theoty of the case thaL
Saptra'sallegationswere false.
3. Had Sapua Movcd Out Of The Dcv Horne To Preveut
Ajay Froru Raping Her, Rathct Thau As An Act of
Iudependence,She Would Not ll:rve Tried So IInlcl To
Maiutain and Repair Her Rclatiorship With Ajay
SapnaDrovedout of lhe Dev home on Decernbel l' 2003 at age l9
Shetold the police and adanantly testified at hial that she moved out of lhe
Dev home to finally escapethe sexual abusePcrpehatedby Alay Dev over
a five yeaLperiod. (6 Rf 1462,1479-1480;8l{T 2077-2073:10 CT 27442'.'45; 14 C'l 3847) After she moved oul, howover, shc made no eflbrt to
separatefiom the Devs and, lo the oontrary, rna(19gxtraordilary efforts to
maintail and repair her relationsl'lipto thern as chilished thrnily rlarllbers
For exan.rple,her deparling note read:
IIi, mom and dadl Thanl<sfot everytLringthat yoLrltavc givc
[sic] me, love, foocl,and housc l will lteep in touch dorl't
wony. I love you very mucll! Alelandracat'nelo pick tne ttp.
I might coma back to pick up my bikc latcr toniglll v Sapna.
, a p n ar O c h c c l
g t L tS
( 6 R T 1 4 8 0 - 1 4 8 1 i 9C T 2 5 i 8 ) W i l h i Dd a y so 1 ' n l o v i u o
out LoAjay again. Specifically, she sel]l Ajay a text messagco1lDeceurbcr
4,2003 stating,"dad, pleasecall ne, I niss u vety uuchl i love u " (10 R1'
2576; 14 CT 3929) Five days Laler,when Ajal' did not respond.Sapntr
textedagaili "hi dad i am soffy but i tcally miss u, i love u yoLrrdaughter"
(6 Rl 1349-1350;10 RT 2577; 14 CT 3927) A few weeks latcr,whcn
Ajay and Peggy left on their Caribbeanuip, SapnalcxtedAja)' a]ld I)eggy
again,conplerely u[prompted,to expfesshet sirtcerefeelingsol lore til'
rrtissLr
themstating,"dad, mom i love u and tniss rL.raja, kaya and sLLlihi
t o o " ( 6 R 1 1 3 4 9 - 1 3 5 l00; I t T 2 5 7 7 ;1 4 C f 1 9 2 8 )
In fact, in the month after Sapnamovedout, Sapnacailed Ajay
appioxrirately50 tines from her cell phone. (7 RT 1566-i567; 14 CT
3961-3978)Shealsosentl.[ur rumerouse-mails.(10 CT 2134-2735;15
CT 4347,4349)In onee-mailshewrote,,,youforgotto mentiol.ithe good
timesthaLwe sharewith eachother." (10 CT 2j34) SapnaalsowroteAl ay
tlul his "suppor1"
and"unconditional
love,'woreevident,,...by beingthere
for me beforeandafleri noved out. [tl]...onethingi cantell yor\ no matter
r^,hati will nevergive up and i will still hy to be your daughterno maLler
how muchyou wantto hurt me by askingme loughquestionsand putting
me ir the spot." (i0 CT 2735) Of all the exhaustivee-rrail exchanges
between
Ajay andSapna,Sapnaneverexplicitlynor.implicitly everaccused
Ajay of anysexualimpropriety.
Dr. O'Donohue,the defensecxpert on sex-abuse,testified that
victimsofrapeandmolestationexperience
ffaumaandonenlanifestation
of
this traumais "avoidance"i[ which victims go out of their way to avoid
placeswherethey have experienced
dre traumaor situationsthat provide
reminders
01'thetrauraa.(12 RT 3233) Therefore,
Sapna,s
overwhelming
effortsto stayconnected
to the Devs,especiallyAjay, ma(leshortly after
Sapnamovedoul andjustweeksbeforegoingto thepolice,areinconsistent
with a rapevictim finally breakingfiee liom yearsof unyieldingsexual
abuse.In contfast,however,her behaviorwasmuchmoreconsistcntwith a
19 yearold youngwomaltJangrywith he| overlyrestrictivepare[ts,who
was trying to asserther independence
without losing the love of her
srfiogalapargnts.
6l
4. The Implausibility oI the Alleged Bangkok Rapc Suggests
The Rape AllegationsWele Falsc BecauscA Rape Victilt
Woutcl ilot SeekOut The OPportunify To SleepIn a Hotcl
Rooln With Her AllegedRaPist'
good iclealo have
In early 2003, the Devs thoughtiL would be a
hor rcconneclu'lth hcl
Sapnaspend the srunmer in Nepal in ordel to have
origtnalplaLrwas
culb.rlalhoritage. (16 RT 42Il'4212; 15 CT 4312) The
have Ajal' tcturn
to have Sapna and Ajay travei to Nepal together' tllell
(7 I{T 857' 884: 15 li-f
July 1,2003 and have SapnareturnAugust6,2003
in Bangkok
4126:15 C-l 4309-4310)The trip to Nepal includeda layovel
requirir-rgAj ay and SapnaLosharea hotel roolll
At trial, Sapoatestifled thal Ajay rapeil her in Bangkok on theif wa)
Ihis
to Nepal tioD the UDitedStates (4 Rl' 857-860;7 it-I 1699-1702)
pfclilnrutrf)'
testimonyoontradrcledreportsshe gavc to tLlepolice and hef
rtr
hearing tostimony wherein shc indicated she hacLouly becu tapccl
26
, 0 1 ; 9R T 2 r ' 7 7 ' 2 1 1 81'l R T 2 9 7 0 - 2 9 7 1 )
C a l i f o r n i a(.7 R T 1 5 1 1 - 1 5 1 1
'li)rs()t'
at trial, Sapnatestillcdshc
Whenaskeclabontthis disolepancy
rapewhen shewas inlcrvicwedin dcpthb)' Detcati\c
aboutthis allegecl
dcLnils
Tlermann.(4 RT 857-S59)While it rright be irardto distingtrisli
pedaini[g 1o serialrapesthat allegedlylook placein lhe Dev i]ornelwo to
thee tirnesa wcek,theBangkoktapervasuniqueand\volrldstattdoltt ionr
ancl
thoothersin a rapevictim'smcmory (12 RT 3295) BothDl lJlqrriza
r'
in a plnccout of tlreorrlirliLt
Dr'.O'Donohueteslifiodthata rapeoccl-lrfillg
is a "market" or core detailthat the victim is likely to rcmclnber (3 ll'f
or report
not oDlyfaileclto retnember
1932;12RT 3286) Sapna,however,
the Bangkokrapeduringher initialinterviowswith the police she{r1l\
ho\\ Lllll!rlistic
in BangkokoncesheLealizeli
lhat a rapeoccurr-ed
claimecl
it rvouldsoundto haveshareda holelroon with Aiay andnol beenfaped
in lhe De! hornc
of serialrapeoccurrirtg
giYenher aLlegatiom
espccially
Io Lhri
two Lotlueetimesa week (7 RT 15I I ) Thatis, sheonly LEslillcd
62
lact in responseto prompting ftom the defenseon cross-examinatron
rvhereinthe defensoattenpted to expose the implausibilif of ner
(7 RT 15tt)
allegations.
Sapna'stestimonyregardingthe circumstances
of her return trip
ftom Nepalbackto the UnitedStateswas equallyiurplausible.In colltrast
to Ajay ard Peggy'seffofis to reimmerseSapnainto Nepali cuitur.efor the
sumrner,
SapnabeggedtheDevsto relumftom Nepalearlywith Ajay. (15
RI 412'7-4130,
15 CT 4309-4311) civen rhe choice,however,a rape
victim would not voluntar.ilyput herselfin a positionto be rapedby her
rapist. Dr. Urquiza and Dr. O,Donohueconcurreclthat otre who had
er{perieoced
thetraumaof serialrapewouldt1yto avoidputliDgheLselfit a
situationvr'here
sheis likely to be altackedagain. (8 RT lg97; 12 R.l 3233;
13 RT 3362) Nevertheless,
PeggytestifiedSapnaclecisivelyirlsistedrhar
shereturnto the Unitcd Stateswith Ajay wirh Lheunderstanding
that,Iike
before,shewouldhavcto shife a hotelroomwilh Ajay 1llBangkok. (4 ltT
8:j7;7 RT 1701,15RT 4128) In addition,
Dr, O,Donohue
resrified
that a
rapevictim would takethe opportunityto live apar.tflorn her.r.apistiu oroer
to be ftee frornsuchbrutalsexualexploitation.(8 RT lg97; 12 RT 3233;
13RT 3362) Yet, Sapnatestifledtltatshewaslooklngforwardto leturnirg
to the United States (4 RT 85?) Therefore,Sapna,sclecisionto retum
hone with Ajay to the UnitedStateshighly suggosts
shecliclrot fcar beirLg
rapedby him which, iIt tum suggests,
he was not seriallyrapingher at tne
Dev home,
5. 'fhe Implausibilityof tlc AllegedMotel 6 ltape Equally
Suggests
The Rape AtlegntionsWere Falsc BecausoA
RapeYictim lvould Not Voluntar.ily
Mect Their RapistAt
A Hotel Room EspeciallyAfter Moving Out To Escape
SexualAbuse.
The Bangkokincidentwasnot the only time Sapra$,illirgly chose
to be ir a holel room r.vithAjay alone. On January12, 2004,af1er.
Sapna
63
no longerbearthe airnost
moved out of the Dev hone becauseshe could
volunlarily follorved Alav
daily rapes aLlegedlyperpetratedby Aja)" she
io the famiiy and trl, lo
into a Motel 6 to talk \Yith him about the schisDls
3847) l)t
r e s o l vteh e m ( 7 R T 1 5 3 6 - 1 5 3175, 5 3 - 1 5 5165, 7 0 1; 4 C T
vigilalt ttr
o'Donohuetestified that a serial rapevictim would be hyper
aspectsol
avoid such a sinration (12 RT 3233, 3262) Like so many
makesno senseand is completelyinconsistent
Sapna'sstory,this nar-rative
with a rapevictin's behavior
heL'
Equallytelling was the factthat Sapnafailed lo tell the police'in
beenrapedat Motel6 (7 RT 1549'1550'
thatsheha<1
initialinterview(s),
1 5 8 3 ; 1 0 C T 2 7 3 7 - 2 ? 8 1 ; 1 4 C T 3 8 4 7 - 3R8a4d8r)e sr ,h e1 o 1tdh eP o l i c lch a t
(10 CT 27451
shehadbeonrapedup until sheDlovedout olthe Dev home
14 C1- 3847) Dr' O'DoDohueand Dr" Urquizaboth testiflcda tapc
occurringin a rnolel, sepalateand apart tiou ailegedweekLytapcs in 'r
hone,wouldbe a coredetailor "narker'"andwouidiikelybe rernetttbercd
Dr'
by the victim. (8 RT I932-i933;12 RT 3286-3287)ln addrtron,
O'Donohuecoufirmeclthat arl allegedrape occttrringin sucll close
rnorereadill" (12
wouldbe rcncmbeteci
proximiryto tllo policeinLerview
rt
testilnon)',
andDr' Urquiza's
RT 3280) In lighl of boh Dr. O'Donohue's
is hardto imaginea 20 yeal old rapevictim simply lotgcttingabo]-(a fapc
threeweeksbelbreshewenlto thc
thattook placeat a Motel approxirnalely
pollce.
Io facq the evidenceat trial suggeststhal her rccolurtingol' thc
allegedMotel 6 rape was nore calculateclThal is, Sapnadid not clairnto
be faped at Motel 6 until after Ajay nenlioned their meeting at lvlotel 6 oo
the pretextcali. (15 CT 4177) In fact, Sapnachangedher or:iginalstor'1'
in]mecliatelyafter tlle prelext caLl ancl told DglecliveIlerniann shc \!ns
8 ItT
rapedat Motel 6 after she noved out (7 RT I5'19-1550,1696-1697;
how LLrpLaLrsiblc
iL
2019;9 Fl1'2107-2108,2205) Sapnanust haverealizecl
wouldsoundto be in a motelroomwith her allegedrapislal]dnot be laped
and,therefore,changedher storytc betterconformwith ber aLlegations
just asshedid with the allegedBangkokrape. (7 RT 1539,1551,1571,
1512,1578)Theseinconsistencies
in Sapna,s
storysuggestthatshedid not
move out of the Dev home to avoid being rapedby Ajay and, fluther,
suppoftthe defensetheoryofthe casewhichshowsshemovedoLLtto assen
ler independenco
and need for sexual fieedom in light tl1'\.vhatshe
perceived
to be over-restdctive
pareotingby the Devs, Again, it is hardto
irnaginea mpe victim simply forgettingaboul a rape thaLtook place at
N4otel6approximately
lhreeweeksbeforeshewentto the police. Both the
ilconsistercyand implausibilily in her testin]onyfurther supportsthe
positionthather allegations
defense
againstAjay warefalso.
6. The Cover-Up Sur.r.ouuding
thc Alleged llape OD tlre
Night Of Peggy'sSurger.y
The RapeAllegatious
Suggests
Wcre False.
From tire outset Sapnacould not l(eepher slory s{.raigltt. She
claimedthat sheand her Loommate,
Megan,went to tlte polico togetherto
rcportthe allegedrapeson January29, 2004,thr:night of peggy'ssutger.y,
but could l-lol report the allegedcrimes becausethe police slation was
closed.(5 RT 942-943;6Rf 1382-1385;
7 RT 11t7) However,Megan,s
teslimonysquarelycortLradjcted
Sapna'sstorv as did testimoly from
OfficerBriesenick.
As a startirg point, Officer Briesenicktestifled thar rhe police
dopaflmentdoes not close making Sapna's accouDtof tlie events
(8 RT 2082) Similarly,Megantestifiedthat sheand Sapna
cluestionable.
ollly wentto thepolicestatiorron oneoccasionand,on that ocoasion,
Sapna
wasableto reportthe allegedoffenses
because
an officer',,buzzed,,
then i1r_
(6 RT 1996-1997) This L.eportwas made on liebluary 2, 20A4 at
a^oproximately
10:00 p.m., not January29, 2004, and it excludedarry
allegation
0f rapeor attempted
rapeon January29,2004. (8 RI 2064)
65
alleged rapcs after atl
Whether Sapna was pronpled to lePort the
of Peggy's surgcf'\)'rs shc
allegedly terrifing atlemptedrape on thc [igLrl
the allegedrapes in
claimed al trial, or \trdlelhershe was prompted to tepod
2004'duel0 A]a)''5
revenge,al1erWilLbrokeup with her 0n February1'
meddling is extremely significa[l
A |lue Iape victirll wouLd nol get
aolfusgdaboutthesct.actsatrdwoultlllotforgetto|epor|Lhenlost]:cccllt
atlcmPledrape In facl'
and upsetting rape to the police, cven if il was ail
evc[t is to the
Dr'. O'Donohue leslified that the closel the traumatio
polroc
the betterthe victim's tnemory (12 R'f 3280) Ilele' the
inter-view
at most' four days
report was made eithcr houls afler an alleged lape or'
event to
after an allegedrape, yet Sap[a neglectadto report 1L'ilslnost recgnt
the poLlcc.
veracityol'
Dr. O'Donohuealso testifiedtlial when investigatlngtlic
rs consrsl0lll'
sexual abuse allegations,he looks aL whcthor tho story
victim llas an
whether the details aro falrtaslical and whethel the aLleged
hc
agendawith the Perpelralor (12 R'I 3299) All of thesq l'aalofs'
lestified,can be "r'eclflags,' (1:2RT 3299) Thelelbre,Sapua'seffort ttr
was t|ying lo
concealthe timing of the police repon highLystrggcstsshe
with hef
fabricatea believablemotive for going lo the police (consistent
allegationsof rape) and cover-rlPthe t'actthat she actedout of spiteand
hcr U'S cilizenship
revengeover oscalatingfamily tensiontht]l tlucateDecl
ald bcr (sexual)freedomwhich culminatcdwith Ajay's e-rraiLto Will
7. Sapna's Overt Lies About Oral Copulatiou SuggestShc
Wns Also Lyilg About the R'rpe Allegrtious'
On Febluary 3 2004, Sapna adamantlye\lllaincd to Detecli\'c
-fhis
HermaDr that she never had oraLsex with Ajay (10 CT 2765)
conversatioDwas video-tapedand lranscr-ibed Ar:corclirlglo the iLltel-view,
Sapna clarifiecl that il she had olal sex \\'ith Ajr)' shc rvould ltrrc
lememberedbecauseil was such a disgustingact. Specifically,
srrc
explained
asfollows:
l)etective: -- real personalquestions,okay? Um, at
ary point did he put his penisaaywhereelseinsicleof
you, otherthanin yourpdvatospol?
S.Dev: Um, _.
Detective: And whel1I,n referringto any otherspot,
that wouid include,urn your anus, okay? It also
includesyour mouth. Um, __
S.Dev: No.
Detective:Okay.
S. Dev: BecauseI just thoughtit was disgustingto do
- put his dringin. I never- I mean,it,s
disgustingto
put thatthing in my nouth.
Detective:Okay.
S.Dev: I woukln,tdo il
Detective:Okay. Sothat,sno for both?
S Dev: Yeah.
(ro cT 276120
Howc\,er,at thc preliminaryhearingand at trial, Sapna,sslory
radicallychanged. She testifiedthat Ajay madeher otally copulatehim
severaltimesoftenwhile watchingpornography
depictiogoral sex. (4 RT
'799;2
CT 3'73-3'75)At trial, SapnatestifiedrharAjay madeher put his
penisin her mouth. (4 RT 803, 1158,1160) Sheexplained
that Ajay
would make her orally copulatehim while he forced hel to watch
pomography.(4 RT 799) "He wartedme to do it the exactsameway thaL
2
0
^
Japna also nevertold OfficerBriesenick
thatAjay forced
orallycopulate
him. ( 1 4C T3 8 4 7 - 3 8 4 8 )
61
herto
shewas doing ....to put his thing ir rny nouth " (4 Rl 799) At tfial'
Sapnaestimatedthat shewas forcedto give Ajay oral sex aboutthteetiucs
a month lotaiing ;rpproximately.10to 50 tilnes ovel the coulseof tlxoc
y e a r s ( 5 R T 1 1 6 2 -116 3 )
Sapnastated, Yeah l
rvhathappcnecl,
When askedto clescribe
think he put my handson his thing [peris], and l.rclold mc to moveit, arlrl
he told me to put it in his moutb" (4 R] 801-802)Shecontinucd,lle
lorccd me to put my mouthon his thing, in his penis" (4 RT 802) Sapna
of olirLscx wcrc so tralllnaticshc
iDstances
clained that these repezrted
wor d "always remembetthat was done to me" (5 Rf 1160) Sapna
'
expresslytestif,red,"Ail I remembetis Iesistillg him aDdfeelitig disgusto'l
(5 RT 1161;see aiso 4 RT 799-801) Sapnaproclaiued she would never
forgettheseepisodesas long asslLelived. (5 l{T I 166)
do nol sil.ulllyshow lhaL
These glaringly inconsistootstaLouleots
Seq:na'smernory was urueliable;thay strorlglysLrggesltllal SapnarvrLs
blatantLy Iying about her accusations agailst Aiay
Rcasonably, she
explained that she couid nevgr iblget sttch tt hzrumaticcvont, bLlt
inexplicablyshe could not "remembel"this tlaulllatlccvolltwLlclip0lntcdly
askedabout it by Detectivelletnarn
DI, O'Donohlretcslili0(ithcrc arc
hdicalors to look at when veriryingsex abusecLaitnssucltas \'vhstlletthc
of thc victim. (12 R'f 3233
slory is consistentand lhe overalltruthf'ulness
3299) Sapna'sclain that she was forcedto oraLlycopulateAja)' is wiLclly
i[consislentand, like so many instancesin this case,Sapnastrnclefl\ing
ftuther supporting lhe delbnselheof)
tluthfuLnesswas highly qr.restionable
that her allegationswere, in fact, laLse
68
8. Sapua'sTestiuronyThat Ajay lror.cedller To Watch A
PornographicVideo Ou His Laptop Conputcr.Eutitled
'ld & Uonl[ried',
"18
Confused"At 15 years Of Age
Aee At The Concord
HouseWas Nof Believable.
Sapnatestilied that Ajay first showedher a pomographicvideo
entitled"18 & Confrsed" in 1999on his laptopwhile they lived at the
CorcordStreethome. (4 RT 792-j95,819;5 RT 1| 12,I I59; 6 RT 1322)
Shealsptestifiedthat it was palticularlytraumaticbecause
bc lbrceclher ro
performorai sex ou him wl le watchingthe video which she had never
donebeforeandfoundincrediblydisgusting.(5 I{T II59; IO C.I2:'65)
However,the evidenceshowedthat "lg & Confused,,was not
produced
until2000. (10 CT 23t0-2820)'l'hcrefore,
it wasimpossible
for
Sapna's
testimonyto be true, In addition,accordingto Dr. O'Donoltuealtd
Dt, Urciuiza,a rapeviotim wouid remember',coredetails,,01.ir ,'lnarkcr,,
evenl,suchas thefirst time an abuserforcedher to watchpomographyancl
re detailsof sucheventscensistently
i288) IIowover,conoreteevidenco
established
dlatSapna's
nenory of Lhecoredetailsof this h.auolatic
cvcnt
werebofhincorlectand./orinconsistent.
'l'he
Devsrnovedfrom the Concordhouseto their J Sheethonrern
November1999. (l0CT 2810-2820)Thereforc,
to be true,the alleged
ev,rnt
havehad to havehappeuedaLthe .t Streethouse. However,
iouid
Sapnatestifiedit occurredat the ConcordStreethouse. (4 F]1..792-,795,
819;5 RT 1112,1159;6RT1322) Sinceitwas rLnlikely
thara rapevicrirr,
Iike Sapla,would faii to accurately
remerrrber
a coredetailofthis ,'marker
ev0nt,this implausibilityin her testimory suggestsshe nay have been
giling false testimony Sir larly, with respectto this evett, Sapna,s
testimonywas inconsistent
because
shetestifiedfiat Aiay showodhel ,,1g
& Confused"at age 15 on a laptop,bui the Devs dicllot purchirseAjay,s
laptopuhtilNovember
2001whenSapna
was l7 )/ears
olcl. (4 R1.792,795,
69
819; 5RT 1112,1159; 6 RT 1322) ln addition, lhe forensicevidence
the
showedtl.ratl8 & Confusedand lhe olhet pom vidcos dicl not appeafon
Devs'computersbefoLe2003 untiLafler Sapnawas an aduit (11 R1 291-;1
in Sapna'sstory cast seriousdoubts 0n The
Tbesebasic inconsisLencies
veracity of her claims.
9. The F:rct That The I'oruography,Found Ou The llev
Computcrs,Was Only Viewed When SapnaLivcd At The
Dev Hotnc SuggestsSapnaard I'erLaps A Boyfi'iend
VicrvedTlte PomogrraphyRather Than Ajay
Sapnaclain]cd lhat Ajay was showing her poroographyfroln agc l5
through age 19.
I-lowevol, thrl fbrensic evidence showed that the
pornography haci beetl dow[loaded onlo the Dev cou-lplitersand \'vas
viewed botweenApril 2003 and Novcmber 2003
(11 I{T 2926' 2932'
0 ;C T 2 8 6 4 - 2 8 62?B, 8 l 2 9 8 3 ' 2 9 8 7 : 1RsT 4 1 0 2 - 4 1 1 1 ;7 R T 4 ' 7 2 8 ' 4 1 4l 6
'Ihis
stLoltwindowof time was cor'nnrensuratc
2882;l5 CT 4333-4334)
Sapnawas havingsexrrrl
with the time periodAjay andPeggysuspeclecl
rclations behind theif backs which resulted iu tnultiplc unwantcd
starteddatingandbcconing
scares Sapnat
and/otptegnancy
plegnzrncies
acljvcin late2002. (4 RT 832; 14 RT 3757) ltt 2002,shervas
sexLraily
andgetLirtg
datirga youlg mau five yearsolderthanher,tn his mid-2Os,
p r e g n a n (t .4 R T 8 2 6 - 8 2 ?8,4 9 ;5 l l T I 1 3 8 ,I 1 4 9 - l 1 5 07; R T 1 6 7 8 - 1 6 799 :
R T 2 2 1 2 - 2 2 1 3 , 2 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 2 , 2 2 8 9 , 2 3 2 4 l-02 3I {2l 52; 6 1 3 - 2 6 1256, 2 3 ;l 3
, 199-42016
1l { 1
3 ,3 1 9 ;1 4R T 3 ' 7 5 4 ' 3 1 5195 R T 4 0 8 5 4
RT 3309-3311
, 3 9 32, 4 0 4 , 2 4 2 3l ;4 C 1 3 9 4 4 )S h e
, 3 5 8 ,2 3 8 22, 3 8 3 2
4 3 8 09
; CT 23502
workcd at a video rcntal storc in Januar] 2003 that fentedadult
pornography
in coqunctionwith regularmovies.(6 RI l4lj-l4i9l 9 ltl
2170) By Fall of 2003,shewas havingsex wrth A.razTail'ehesnatirn,
scarein
lying to Ajay and Peggyaboutit, and dealingwith a pfegrlancy
N o v e m b e2r0 0 3 . ( 4 l { T 8 7 0 ;9 R T 2 2 2 0 , 2 2 5 2 , 2 3 2 14 6; R T 4 4 1 59; C T
in December
2003,Sapnamovedout of theDevhone
2551) Thereafter,
'7t)
Clnceshe moved out, no pornographywas accessedor.viewed at the Dev
home,(11RT 2882-2883)
The fact that the pomographywas o y viewed at the Dev hone
when SapnaIived there and was sexuallyactivewith other young men
srLggests
that she,and perhapsa boyfriend,ratherthanAjay was vtewiug
tbepomography.2r
10. Sapna'sFailureTo DcnyA Boy Jlmpregnate(l
Her-,Rather
Than Ajay, Suggests
Hcr AllegatjionsWcrc lralse
Ajay ffiedto explainto Sapna,drdng the pretextcall,that sheworuo
face unanticipatedconsequences
if she falseiy accusedhim of r.ape.
Fjguringthat Sapnawas preglant in January2003,22Ajay assLrrned
that
Sapra's medical records rvould be able to prove his inuoceuceby
identifyingthe boy who got her pregnant As explainedby Ajay on the
pretextcall; "You hadabortionwhenyou were 18yearsold anclthey have
the record. Whe[ they havetl]e record,they will understardwith which
boydid you go with to givenane." (15 CT 4180)A.jayexplained
thather
l'alseallegalions
wouldruin bothof theirrcputationsandtha1,ilt thc cnd,hc
w,luldbe exonerated
dueto proof in re rnedicalfile which rvoulclidentify
the boyliiendwho actuallyimpregnated
her. As Ajay cleafly indicated,
"n:y nameis not thereon record"becausehe krrewhe dicltlot inpregnare
her, However,he assumed,erroneously,
that the medlcalrecordsrvouLo
conlainthe Dameof the boy who had actuallyimpregnated
her. Notabi/,
dlrdngthis exchangeon the pretextcall, Sapnadid not dcny that shehad
't
After she movecl out, for.onsicevidence showed that no porn had
beenviewedor accessed
at theDev home. (11 RI2882-2883)
'2
At th" beginning of the pretext call, Sapnatold Ajay that she had
three abortions Ajay feared Sapnawas framing hirn bccarrsein January
2003, after Sapnaconfided in Ajay that she might bc pregranr, Aiay took
her to the pregnancy center At lhat time, he rlid not know whethcl a
pr,;gnancy
hadbeellconflrmed
byrheclinic.(4 ItT 826;l5 RT 40g?-40gg;
1 5C T4 1 5 4a, 3 8 0A; C T( 8 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 0 ) 6 )
beenimpregnatedby anotherboy. Rather,she simply staledthat the "llie
boy's name is not there fin the record]" in Nepali to preventDeteclile
thal
her. (15 CT4180) This tacitadmission,
Hermannfrom understanding
a boy impregnated her, firrther exposes Sapna's agcnda.
lt.
AftershetoidAlay
about&e first pregnancyseare,hc and Peggyreactedby serdinghcr back
culture.
her in Nepal'straditional
to Nepalfor the sunmerto re-immelse
( 1 6R T 4 2 l l - 4 2 1 2 ,1 5 C T 4 3 1 2 ) W h e ns h ew e u tt o l h eB S t r e ePt i a D n e d
on November4, 2003,to resolveher tlird pregnancyscafe,she
Parenthood
a few weeksearlier
toldtheclinicshelasthadintercoursc
However, ralher than wait one to two weeks,Sapnawent to a
differentPlanuedParenthood,
the Capilol PlazaPlannedParenthood,
lhe
rext day,on Novembcr5, 2003,
72
'Ihat
is, she
dcsperately
fearedexposureof her sexualactivity becauseshe knew this
would greatlyLrpset
Ajay andPeggyby disholoringthe family reputation
and likely resultin their decisionto retumher to Nepal eitller tempor.aury
ol permaneny.
As explainedpreviously,falseallegations
ofrape are a coml1ondefenseto
deflectagainstsexualactivity where,in traditionalcultures,a lvomau.s
sexualindependence
is morallyandsociallyforbidden.(4 RT 761-762;15
Rf 4061-4062,4067-4068) In sum, this evidenceshows Sapna,s
willingnessto lie at anycostto cover-upher sexualactivity.
72.
Thc Timing Of S^pua'sPregnancies
SuggestSbeWas
TryiDg to Covcr-upHer DecisionTo Engage In preMarital Sex,AgainsttheWill 0f IIer papaand the Devs,
By FalselyAccusingAjay of Rape.
At tual, Sapnaattemlltedto pofiray herselfas an innocentvirgiu
who neyerhadsexwith a boy while living with theDevsdespitethe Devs,
strongsuspicion
to the contrary.(7 RT 173?;1l RT 2981;13 RT 3552_
CT
15RT 4200;16Rf 4209,4423-4424;2
3553;14RT 3755-3'/59,383'l
l0 CT 27'7A,2112:15 CT 4335-4331)
382-383,385; 9 CT 2549-2554:
lvith Deteotive
Prior to trial, during hei'videotapedpolioe intervier'v
Flermanlrin February2004,Sapnaexplainedthat sheliad gottenplegnant
tbreetimeswhile living at the Devs She insistedlhat Ajay was the only
shc
her duringthistimeperiodbcoause
who couldhaveimpregnated
person
did not have sex with anyoneclse (4 RT 831) However,Sapnas
boyfriend,Araz, exposedher lies when he testified,at lrial, that lle and
Sapnahad sexualintercourseat his nother's ltouseoncea weekwhile they
16R'l'4445:9
dated (4 RT 870;9]RT2220,2252,2288-2289,2324'2325,
showcdthatSaprawastryingto
unequivocally
CT 2551)Araz'steslimony
hide her sexualactivily fion1thc Devs,her PaPa.trrldthe police lhis, in
her ability to lie about the rape aliegatioNand being
tum, demonstrated
by AjaY.
impregnaled
rvithAraz,shcalso
abouthersexualreLurtionshrp
Sapnanot only liecL
with will
lied abouther sexualrelatioDship
Shctlicd lo clainrthatWill
sex with. (2 CI 385) .Llowever,
was rhefirsl personshellad consensual
this lie at trial. (9IlJ 2252,2289)Shealsotestified
Arazflatlydebunked
on Novembel5, 2003to gct testedlbr
thatshewent to PlannedParenthood
in anticipatiouoI havingsexwith Wil] (4 RT
sexuallytransmitleddiseases
849;5 RT 1149;7 RT 16'79,1145'l'/49 9 CT 2393) However,as she
admiftsdon the standat trial duringcrossexaninalion,shadid not know
Will in November 2003 and, therefole,liecl abolrt who sha was
contemplating
havingsex \.vithat that line. (5 ILI l155-1157)When
alld statedshc \\'asactlrall),
caughtin her ]ie, she changcdher lestinrorly
havingsexwith Sid (atherthanWill (7 R'f 1679)Sapna's
eontemplating
with mulhplepaftnets
reveals
hcr
continual
cover-upofher sexualrelahons
shameover the situation,her fear that her sexualacttvity may become
publicand,thus,showsher inareasilrg
motiveto lalselyaccLrse
Ajay ofrape
consist€nt
with thedefensctheoryofthe case.
Sapna'scoverup alsoprovidesan explanationas to why shemight
lie aboutthe allegations.Wherewomenarepunishedfor exercisingsexual
ildependence,
especiallyin traditionalcultures,oftentheir only defenseis
rrLpe (4 RT 761-762;15 RT 4061-4062,
4067-4068)CoNccluently,
rr
SapnafearedthatAjay was goingto exposehor sexualexploitsto her papa
she may have falsely acour;edhim of rape as a preemptivemeasure_
especiallyif shebelievedthat Ajay andpeggywere intent on sendingher
back to Nepal where "tainted wornen,,are socially ostracizedand
eoonomically
condemned.
(4 RT'76t-762 15 I{T 4061-4062,
4067_4068)
This evidenaestrongly supported the defense th€ory that Sapna,s
allegations
againstAjay for rapelverepatentlyfalse.
Moreover,as a gcneral[]atler, Sapnatokl the police and repeatedly
testifiedthat Ajay rapedher 1woto threetimesa week lor frve yearsfrom
ages15 to 20, (4 RT 7611,
7'74-7'75,
8t3, 824;7 ItT t6l9)
This is
approximately
500 to 750 rapes, Mysteriously,however,Sapla only gol
pregnaDtor had pregnanciesscarcsLhreetimes within a oue ycar period
eventl'loughshe claimedAjay rarely wore a condom,she was not ushg
birth control,anduredicalr.ecotds
showshegot herperiodat age 14 or 15,
boforecomingto this country,and, thus,was fe iie. (4 l{T 830; 9 CT
24i91,241]L,2425)
Evenlnoresuspicious
is the fact thatSapnaonly got pregDantdurirg
the time period in which the Devs suspecledshe was having sexual
relationswith oldernlalesandcondemlingit. No explaDation
was givenat
trjal as10why Sapuauevergot pregnantbetweenagesl5 and i8 nor wLy
sbeonly got pregnantor hadseriousptegnal-Icy
scalesthreetines, \.vithina
fi./emonthwindow,afterthe ageof 18 despitethe facl that shewas equally
at risk for pregnancyduringtheentirefive yearperiod. The fact thatSapna
7>
only got proglant duringthe periodsshe\'r'asdatiugSid,Araz and/orWill.
andnevergot pregnantduringthe threeyear periodproceedingher sexual
when Ajay was allegedlyraping her two to three times a
independence
werepatently
supportstho factthai Sapna'sallegations
week,demonstrably
false.
In sum, given the overwhelmingweaknesscsin the proseculion's
in Sapna's
and rmplaLrsibilitics
case, specificallythe inconsistencies
testimony,which were consistentwith false accusation,along with lhe
problemsof the pornographyevidence(seealsoAlgur.ientsV, VI andVII,
infq), the dial courl's failure to instructlhe ju|y on CAICIUM N0 359
probable
lhat,duelo
it wasreasonably
appellant
becausc
highlyprejudiced
of
this error,thejwy solelyreliedoDthepletextcall in coDviclilrgaPPellant
the clrargedcrimes. (Peoplev. Watson,supra,46 Cal 2d at p 837) No
doubtthe prosecutionfell it was themostimPortanlPieceol ovidencein the
in ils closirlg
almoslexclusively
trial as it reliodon the prelextevjdence
argumenls. Fot these sa[Ie reasotrs,the instrtLctionalerlof fendcled
appellant'strial fundamenlallyunfhil and could rot havc bectrhartnlcss
doubtjustifyingrQvelsalorl lbderalconstitutional
beyonda reasonable
'fherel'ore,
grornds. (Chapmanv. Cal{ornia, supra,386 U S. at p. 24 )
!o CALC]{IM No 359
sincethe failure to instructthc jury pursLriint
violatedappellant'sslateaDdfederalconstitutionalrights,this Courlshould
reyersehis conyictionsandgranthim a new trial.
16
IL
THE TRIAL COUIIT ERRID BY ALLOWING THE VICTI1\4
TO TR{NSLATtr THE PRITEXT CALL AS AN EXPERI,
WHICH RESULTED IN A YIOLATION OF APPELLANT'S
DUE PROCESS RTGHTS AS THE VICTIM ATTRIBUTED
ADMISSIONS TO APPELLANT IN DIRDCT CONFLICT
WITH THE DEFENSEEXPERT'STRANSLATION.
A. Introduction
After DetectiveHermannrecordedthe protextcall betweenSapna
aDdAjay on February4,2004, the p.osecutionsentthe tapeto the United
StatesDepartment
of Justice,FederalBureauof Investigations
(hereinafter
"FBI"), to translatethe call as the conversation
was held in both English
ar)dNepali.(5 RT 947,953-954:4CT 9j9-982) The FBI translation
was
completedon Juiy 12, 2006, (4 CT 984) It is unclearexactlywhen rhe
prosecution
turnedover the translation
10the defonse,but i1 was disclosgd
duringdiscovery.(4 CT 979-982)On March20, 2009,the defcnsefrled a
motion opposingthe translationarguingthat it was inaccurate,basedon
opinionsand speculation,
and was not a lilelal translationof the recorded
call. (4 CT 979-982) To demonstratethe inaccuracicsin the FIll
hiinslation,the defensealtachedan ilidependellttranslationfrom Shakti
Aryal an expeflwho translatedfor the FederalCoults and Departmentof
s 1 a t e(.4 c T 9 7 9 ,1 0 s 8 - 1 1 0 4 ) .
At a pre-trialhearingheld on April 20, 2009,the padies,attorneys
aclvisedlhe court they may be close to a stipulation regardingthe
discrepancies
in tho translations.(2 RT ll5-117) Flowever,at the startof
td al, the pattiesattomey'sadvisedthe courtthat,while they had cometo
with lnostofthe hanslation,
a€jreement
thereremainedonedisputedphrase.
In lhis regard,the defenseand prosecutionreqllestodthat tlle trial coun
appoinfa courtcerfitiedNepaleseinterprcLet.(4F.T j26-'72?) ID response,
the trial court advisedcounsel,"We may be able to get somebodyin. I
don'tknow." (4 RT 127) The followingday,the trial colrd indicatedir had
spokenwith the interpretercoordinatorwho statedshe was conta0ting
said"he is reluctant
Nepalesetranslatorsin the Bay A,rea,but onetranslaLor
to be calledinto a coufiroomin orderto lranslatea documentasopposedto
interpretingtestimonyfiom one languageback" (4 RT 834) The hial
aourl coucludcd,"I don't l(now that it looks good to try lo get onc of the
coul interpreters10coverthis for us. [f] Now, whelhereitherof you can
find a professionalinterpretingse ice thal would sendsomebodyin that
has the credentials,I do['t know. It doesn'tlook like that'sgoingto work
'l'he
for the way I was lalking about." (4 RT 834)
defenseobjectedaucl
advisedthe tdal court that "They'remistaken. It is not iDter?ret1rlg
a
document,It is actuallylisteninglo a voicejustlike lhcywouldin court
(4 RT 834) The prosecutionagreed,"lt is an audiotape."(4 R'f 834) Tlrc
trial courtthenfound"At thispoint,I'm slrlmled,and1 don'twantto t[y to
figLrre
out how to gettheevidence
on sinceil is not rny 0vrdenccIf either
of you would like to talk lo Chris Vanderlord,rvho is our interpfctef
coordinator,
that'sfine." (4 RT 834)
Without concreteresolutionof the translatio[issue,the lria]
continued.In an effort to lay a lbundafio[lo in1loduccthc reoorcled
pLctexl
call andtheprosecution
translation
of thecall,ExhibitsI0, 1l A, B, C ancl
l1D, the prosecution
elicitedtestimonyflom Sapnaconfirmingthat sho
madcthe pretextcall on February4, 2004 listenedto tho rocordiLlg
of the
call; and verified that the recordingwas accurate.(5 ItT 945-949) Sapna
alsoteslitiedthat, beforethe preliminaryhearing,shelistenedto theprele)iL
call andlbllowedalongwith an FBI kaDslation.Sher.vas
never.explicitll,
askedif shebelievedthe FBI translatior]
was accuratc.(-i Rl 947.960)
Shealsolisteledto thepretextcallagainbelbretlial. (5 R.1947-943)'lhis
time, she followed along with a translationpreparedby defenseexper'l
ShaktiAryal's tramlatior. (5 RT 948-950) Sapnaresrifiedrhar,after
readingAryal's transLation,she f0und that some of the translationrvas
inaccurateso she had to "nake conectionfs]"23
(5 RT 948-950)
of Sapna's
translationof thepretextca--.
Exhibit I lD consisted
Prosecution
(5 RT 954-955;9 CT 2458-2499)
Outsidethe presenceof the jury, the trial courl then askedboth
counselwhether"the transcriptissueis staightenedout enolrghto whele
we cango forwardwith this part of it?" (5 RT 950) In response,defense
counselobjectedto the use of the Aryal translalioncontaiuingSapna's
"cofieclions"becauseit was inaccurate. (5 RT 950) The trial court
ovenuledthe objectionhnding:
I've neverhad a completelyaccurate
kanscripteveron -- any
time I've had a trafticript used. I wiLl adnouish the july
appropriately
as I ahvaysdo . . but Iln going to lel [the
go aheadandusethetraffcript.
prosecutionl
(5 RT 950)
in the prosecutiouarrddefensetranslations,
Giventhe discrepancies
durilig
the [ial courtheldthat thejury wouldgeta copyof both translations
(5 ItT 950-951)Ilowever,wher thepretcxloallwasplayecl
deliberations.
for thejury duringthe lr:ial,the july rvasonly given plosecrrtionExhibits
rvith Sapna'sinterprctations.
irnbedded
1lC and 1lD: the Aryal trarrslation
the trial cou admonished
disagreed
Nevertheless,
thejury that the clefense
with one signihcaotphraseappearingon page23 of Exhibit 1lD. (5 RT
952-958,959-961:9 CT 2453-2499) This disputedphraseconcerned
"
In total, Sapna nade changesto 17 senLencesin the transcript
originally trarslated by defenseexpert Shakti Aryal. Ten of those rvere
ftom Nepali to English. (15 CT 4174, 4116,4182,4184-4186,
translations
4189,4),92) At trial, testimony concefltiogthe intelpretatio[ of the Nepali
porlion of dle pretext call was locused on aleas of disagleenent olily.
DelenseexpertAryal's testimoly focusedon four specific drscrepalciesin
the translationsand Sapnas teslinony focused on three discrepancies. (5
R T9 4 7 - 9 4996, 0 - 9 6 1
44
; R T3 8 4 13, 8 4 7 - 3 8 4 8 , 3 8 5 8 )
whetherAjay admittedhaviugsexwith Sapnawhen shewas i 8 or whether.
wasmade2o(5 RT 958)
no suchadmission
At rl.reclose of lrial, the trial courl adnitted the proseculionand
into evidence (7 RT 1761;9 CT 2458-2499)The
defensetranslatious
transiation,
Exhibit 11D, consistedof Sapuastranslation.
prosecution's
The defenseexhibit, Exhibit 799, consistedof Aryals transiationwith
providedby Sapna Missing fron lhe eviderce
handwritte[ "con-ections"
was a clean copy of Aryal's translationwithoul Sapna'shandwritten
t5
962-964;14RT3847'3848;9 CT 2458-2499:
changes.(5 RT 954-955,
CT 4154-4195) During deliberations,lhe jury lequesteda copy of the
Bxhlblt 11D and
tmnscriptof thepretcxlcall. The cortrtsentin prosecution
defenseExhibit 799. (12 C'l' 3261,3264-3265)
B. Standald of Rcvicrv
A trial coult's relitsal to zrppointa certilled interpreterpursuaDtto
docision
to allowa biased
LrnEvidence
Codesectiott'752
andits allemative
certified interpretertestlry, resulting in tlle adnlissionof a transcriPI
(Exhibit llD), rs
submittedto the jury during tlial and delibelations
reviewed for abuse of discrelion. (People v. Augttstin (2003) 112
Cal.App.4th444, 451; Garclianav. Small L'laimsCourl (1976)59
562,
Cal.App.3d
412,418 Hsu v. Mt. ZionHospital(1968)259Cal.App.2d
s82.)
couoselprofferedthat
Du|ing lhis colloquywith the court, det'ense
""
the defensetranslationwas "kissed"ratherthan sex -- spokenin Euglish
ratherthanNepali. (5 RT 958) Ilowever,defensecounselappeared
to
misundcrstandAryal's translationas Aryal specificallytestifiod that, if
it rvasimpossible
spokenin Nepali (like the rest of the sentence),
to
translate
theword al issueas "sex' because
thervordat lssueslarted
with a
"Ka"soundandno word for "sex' in Nepalistarted
with a hard"K" or 'Ca'
sound. (14 RT 3861, 3864-3867).Furthemore,Aryal conceded
thar
posslblythe wor-dconld be 'kissed"if spokenin English,btrt nevef
independently
translated
the word as "kissed."(14 RT 3849-3851,
38or3862,3865-3867)Rather.Aryal testiiiedthatthervordivasinaudible.1r+
R T 3 8 4 9 - 3 8 5318, 6l - 3 8 6 23, 8 6 5 - 3 8 6 7 )
C . T h eT r i a l C o u r tA b u s e dl t sD i s c r c t i o B
n v F a i l i n s ' f oA n D o i n t
A Certified Interpretel To Interplet The Portions of thc
Pretext Call Spoken in Nepali.
EvidenceCode section752 providesin relevantpart:
When a wihess is incapable of understandillg the
English languageor is incapableof expressinghiurself or
herselfin English languageso as to be understooddirectly
by counsel, court, and jul'y, an interpleter whorn he or she
can understandand rvho can undelslandhiur or her shall be
swom to interprel for him or her.
(enphasisadded.)
Here,whileAjay did notrequireaninLeryretcr
to undcrstancl
thetrial
or to communicate
with ltis counsel,
the coult or the july, his recorded
rnadein Nepali aod inlroducedagainsthim by the prosecution
statements
were incapableof being understoodby counsel,court, and .jury rvithorLl
exlert interpretation.For this reason,an interpreterwas rcquircd. (See
generally,Peoplev. Arceo (1867)32 Cal. 40,42,44 facknowledging
court
proccedingsmust be conductedin Englishl; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
3.1110(g)
mustbe accornpaniecl
by an
lexhibitswrittenin foreignlanguzrge
Englishtmnslation,certifiedunderoathby a qualifiedintcr?rater]) In fact,
Califomialaw clearlyprovidesthat"wheretherais uncontradicted
eviclence
thatthewilnessdoesnot speirkor undcrstand
English,it would bc an abuse
of discretionto fail to appointan interpreter."(Gardianay. ,9nall Clains
Coufi,supra,59 Cal.App.3d
at pp. 418-419.)Similatly,it ltrllowsthat
wherea recordedstatementspokenin a languageolher thalr English is
introducedat trial, the failue to appointan intetpretelis an abnseof
discr€tionbecause,by its nature,that particular statenett canlot be
in English.
conveyed
Whilc the trial courtaltempted
to appoirt a celtifiedL[teryretcr.tl]is
attemptwas inadequateand constilutedan abuseof discletiol for tu,o
reasons.First, lhe tial courtenone0usadvisedthe interpretercoordinalor
3l
@
:
a written documentrathel
that a Nepalesetranslatorwas neededto lr'ar1slate
result' one interprotel
than velbal communicalion. (4 RT 834) As a
he was unqualifiedto perfonn this lask (4 l{T 834) Second'
suggested
therewas morethao oneNepalesetranslatorto choosefiotn andadditional
(4 IIT 834)
effort was requiredto securean iDleryreterfor the pretextcall
Contraryto the trial court'sasse ion, it had a duty to appointa cerhfied
to abdicate
intelpreterfor the pletext call makingit an abuseof discretion
gel the
this role by concluding"I don'l want to try to figure out how to
evidenceon sinceit is not my eviderce." (4 R] 834) At a minirnun' the
that
trial courtshouldhaveoorrgctlycolrveyedlo d]einterpretercoordinator
an audiotaperequired intelpreting, not documents,and should llave
in tlte Bay Areaas
locatecl
interpreters
the handfulof Nepalese
contacted
who
opposedto relying on the lesponseliom one Nepalcse-intetpfeter
suggesledho may nol be qualified 10 interpretin thesecirctulistances'
Therefore, the trial court erred and abused its discrotion since no
meaningfuleffort was madeto seourea certitiedNepalescinlerpfeterfor
thepretexlcall.
D.
Tri:rl Court AbtlsedI
iscretiouBy PermittingSaDnn
IaIrslateThe Portious of
terDl etel
Biase
A [Ii
the PretextCrlt SpokenIn Ncnali.
Sapna
errol,thetrial courtpermitted
As a relatedandindependeDt
to interpretthe portionsof the pr9textcaii spokenrn Nepaliby Ajay ln
playedthe audiotapeof thepretextcall lbr
fact,just beforetheProsecution
in
the jury, it admonishedthe jury that, wilh respectto the conversation
Nepali,it would have to rely on the wlitlerl ttansct\rtprepa|cdby thc
thehial
Specifically
interpretalioDs
Sapna's
which contained
prosecution
courltold thejury:
sincenoneof you told tls
As you're goingthroughlistening,
thatyou canspeakNePali,l'm goinglo
duringjury selection
assumethat all of you are just going [o not be able to
understand
thatparl asyou listento it in Nepali,anclyou,ll be
relyingon the transcribed
transratron.
(5 RT 955-956)Thejury q,asther givenSapua's
translatiou,
Exhibir11D,
lo readas the pretextcall r.vas
playedin court, (5 RT 959,96i) While
Exhibit llD was beinghandcdout to the jury, the trial couLradvisedthe
jury thatSapnaqualifiedasur experthanslator.
She[Ms Dev] spoaksEnglishandNepaii. Shesaysthat - alld cantell you whatwas on there,and apparentlyshe
reviewedit, andthis is pad of her testlnonynow that fiis
is what she heard, and i!'s aocurate under her
understanding01' the hvo languagesas far as the
translationgoes,so that'sthe stateofthe evidencewhere
we are[ow.
(5 RT 957; seealsoGardianav. StnallClaimsCourt,supra,59Cal App.3d
at p. 420 l"interyretersare treatedas cxpeftwilnossesaDdsubjcotto the
samerulesof compeLency
andexamination
as arecxpertsgener.ally]
) Tlie
trial courtalso told thc jury thal Exhibit l lD rvouldgo into the jury rooDr
duringdeliberations.
(5 RT 959,961)
Even lhoughthe trial cour'lcan appointan Lurcertified
intcrpretorat
its discretionwhen a certiL'red
inter?reter.
cannotbe localed,il cannot
appointa biasedirterpretcr (Cal. Rulesof Court,rules,2.890(c)& (1),
2.893;sce alsoCotea v SuperiorCourt(2002)2'1Cal/th 444, 453, 458,
466 ffinding neighbor'sinterpretation
of Spanishspeakingvictiir at crirne
scenewas not hearsaybecauseneighbor acled as unbiasedlanguage
conduit].)Accordingto the CalifomiaRulesofCoult, "An iDterprcterotust
be impartialandunbiasedandmustrefrainfrornconductthzLtmay give an
appearance
ofbias."" iCnl.I{uI", ofCourt,rule2.890(c).)
25
In addition to being biased,it tvas unclear rvhetherSapna had the
languageskills necessaryto qualify as an expertto tlanslatelhe pretext call.
At trial, Sapnatestified her first languagewas not Nepali, but Maithali,
rvhich she spoke at homa with her parerts, (4 RT 702-703) Sapua also
testil'red
thatshedidnotreadNepaliwell. (5 RT 1015,1017,l07l; 7 RT
8l
In ihe case at bar, there can be no doubt that Sapna\vas a biased
thc
illierpreter Not only was she the victim in the caseatld' tltus, alleged
call
charges against A.jay, she was actually asked to lnleq)ret the pretext
which was n.radewith re specific intention of trying to solicit an admissiorl
from Ajay. Therefore, given these circumstances,it is hard to imagine a
personwho cottlcl have had a greaterbias than SaPnain this situation By
making Sapna an uncedified intet?reter and allowing her to translatefie
pretext call, the trial court essentially gave Sapna lhe opportunity lo
fabrioate what Ajay said during the call and cloak this testimony and
Exhibit 1lD with the authorityof an expert This decisionwas a clenr
abuseof discrelion.
E, This Error Was Highlv Pt eiudicialllequirirg Rever'sal'
While there were many areas of disagreemenlin the translations
provided by clefenseexpel! Aryal and Sapntr, the rnost srgnillcant
disagreemenlconccrlcd $'hetherAJay adruil.tedhaving scx with Sapna
whcn she was 18 years old. Dcfense expert Aryal r'vascertaill that, wlth
raspecl to this particular sentenoe, Sapna's tlansLation \'vas palenlly
i n c o r r e c t(.1 4 R T 3 8 5 1 )
Therefore,where Sapnainterpretedlhe (lisptrtcdselltencsas But
'sex with
you had sex lvith me lvhcu you tvere 18," Aryal tcstiliedthat
was an impossibletranslation.(5 IiT 962; l4 RT 3850-3851;9 C1 2480)
Aryal testified thal he listenedto thc tape nlorc than 60 times, for over'70
hours,and was cefiainAjay did not say "sex with." (14 RT 1850-l8ii,
3865-3866) He testifiedthal the soundof dre word or phrascin dispute
'Ca" sound AryaL
"startslvith'K'." (14 RT 3850) That is, a harcl"K" or
confinned that the word for "sex" in Nepali starts u'ith a "Ch" or "Cha"
conceded
SapnahadpoorEnglisii
1728) And, in closing,theprosecution
natly nnanccs
in llnglish (19
skills and tl.ratshewas unableto understand
RT5127)
soundmakingit impossiblefor Ajay ro havesaid' sex' in eitherNepali or
English.(14RT 3850,3861-3854,
3866,3867)Giventhehard"K sound,
Aryal suggested
thatit waspossibleAjay couldhav,rsaidthe rvord"kissed"
in EnglishratherdranNepali: "l think it is kiss or unintelligible' later
explaining"thereis no sourrdexcoptthestartingsound'K " (14 Rf 38493850,3867) Aryal did rot hearthe word "kissed" He hearda word rhat
clearlystartedwith a hard "K" soundand specuiated
it could be "kissed"
spokenin English. Howeve,r,
sincethe rcStof the selltencewas spokenin
Nepali,not Eflglish, this b'anslalionwould be strainedat best Arya1
conceded
it wasvery difficult to hearthis portionof the audiotapebecause
thereir'r'as
a gap in the tape. (14 RT 3850) 'fherefore,for all intentsand
puryoscs
lile wordwasuuinr:lligiblc.
On cross examination,the plosecutionasked Aryal if he had
consideredallemativewotds olten used to convcy "sex" in Nepali or
Sanskitsuchas"fucked'or"slcprwith.', (14 RT 3861-3864)Aryal ruled
thesepossibilitiesout by explainingeventlteservordsdo nor start witl] a
hard"K" sound. (14 RT 3850,3861,3864-3867)Specifically,
Ar.yal
testified
"fucked"in Nepaliis "Chickmr"or."Chickna;"
rhepolitewordlbr
"sexualintercourse"in Sanskit is "Sarnbhog;"the Nepali word for "to
sleep"is "Sutnu;"and the Nepali word for "haveslept" is "SrLtekochha."
( 1 4R T 3 8 5 03, 8 6 1 , 3 8 6 4 - 3 8 ( i 7 )
Therefore,allowing Slapnato inter?retthe pret€x1call was highly
prejudicialbecauseshelvas permittedto give exrrefttestinony regarding
the exislenceof a guilty adnrissionand,as verifiedby the delenseexperr,
likely exploitedlhe opportunityto fabricatean adDrission
froDrAjay wherc
the tapewas otherwiseinaudible. The prejudioestemning lrom Sapnas
impermissible
experttestimcnywas fudher exacerbated
by the adrnission
of prosecution's
Exhibit llD and defenseExhibit 799 both of which
containedSapna's
translations.Not only did thejury requesttheseexhibrrs
85
1lD while the pretext call
rluring deliberations,it relied solely on Exhibit
CT 2458-24991
was playedduring the trial. (5 RT 959'961;1RT 176i;9
12 CI 3261,3264-3265)
-fhetefore'the elevahonof Sapnato an cxPen
in r'vritingto thc
and re distributionofher traoslationof the pretcxt call
jury severely prejudiced Ajay Reversal is required under state la\'v\Yhere
that' bu fof the
the recortl demorsttales there was a reasouableprobability
verdicl (Peaple
error, the de{endantwould llave obtaineda more favorable
probabrlity"tmder
r. l4/atson(1956) 46 Cal.2d818, 836 ) A "reasonablc
of prejudice only requiresa sltowing of a "rcasonable
the WatsonstandarcL
(See Col/egc
chance" something "mole than an abstlact possibility "
'714'
ctrit:.gPeople')
704'
4th
Cal
(1994)
8
Court
v
Sulterior
Inc
HospitaL,
(1984)
ll/atson,suprct,46 Cal 2cL818, 837, and Stticklclcl v Washington
0 E d 2 d 6 7 4)] S t a t e
4 6 6U . S . 6 8 86, 9 3 - 6 9 4 , 6 9 7 , 6[ 19084s c t 2 0 5 2 , 8 L
errorswherctheyare
constilutional
cvidcntiarye ors canrise to I'ederal
corlocptionso1'
"grossiy unfair" aDd offended lhe mosl "l'undamerltal
tighl 1o a Ii\if
juslice,"thus, violating a dcfeldant's1'edcfalconstiLutional
triai and due Process, as guaranleedby the liifLh and |ouflocntli
(United Stotcs t'
Anerrrln]etrt rights to thc ljlriteci States Constitution
Lavasco(1971) 431 U S 783, 790, 97 S Ct 20tt1,2048;Peoplev I-tnner
( 1 9 8 43) 7 C a l3 d 3 0 2 , 3 i 3 . )
In this rcgard,reversalis requiredsirtoethc oaseagainslAjay \\'as
extretnelyweak, as discussedslpra in Argunent I, and an admissronfionl
the <lefendantundeniably goes to ths hcart ofthe case Therefofe, thele i\ a
the outcomein the trial would
probabilitythat,but for this er-ror,
r:easonabie
cL'46 Cal2(l atp 8i6'J
lravebeenmote favolablc. (People\) I'/atson'sLtPt
Alcl, tbr th,] sar.ncroasons, the Statc cannot show the euof did nol
coDllibuteto the verdict beyond a reasonabledoubt requiring tevetsaluniler
federalconslitutionalgtotnds. (Chapmanv California (1967) i86 lJ S
I8, 8? S.Ct. 824 [l? L Ed 2d 70 5l; Crane't Kentuclg'(1986)476 tJ S 63i,
691|06 5.Ct.21421.)Giventhis undeniablypr.ejudicial
impactunderstate
andfederallaw, Leversal
ofall clappellant'sconvictionsis lequired
III.
APPELLANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE IIEVERSED
BECAUSE CALCR]M NO. 358 MISSTATES TIII] LAW BY
ADVISING TIIE
JURY TO VIEW
AMBIGUOUS
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT ON A
RECORDEDPRETEXT CALL WITHOUT CANJTION.
A. Introductiolr
The trial court erroneouslyinstrLrctcdtlte jury with CAI,CRIM No
358 which incorrectly pr-oviriesthat any ard all tecorded statemeotsof the
defendant,regardlessof their ambiguity, be viewed wilhout caution. Thrs
is an incorrect statement01'the law. Only unarnbiguousor undisputcd
recordcd statemenls should be viewed without caution.
I{ere, the
prosecutionintroduced a re,:ording of a telepho[e convorsation between
Ajay and Sapna, the "pretext call," which, because rnLrcl'r o1' rne
conversationwas held in Nepali, was highly dispuled at trial, Ther:e.lbr.e,
since the recordedstatementswere both highly arnbiguousaud dispuled,
they should have beenviewed with caution cootrary to lhe CALCRIM No.
358 instluctionactuallygiven ro Ute jury.
Sillce one ol thc dtsputed
statemcnlscoDtainedin the lecorded pretext call concernedwbethel Alay
may have admittedhaving sr:x with Sapnaafter she was 18 years old, the
failule to instruct the jury 10 view this disputed statemelt with caution
'fhis
highly prejudicedAjay at trizrl,
prejudicial effect alld the facr rhat rhe
proseculion'scasewas extremelyweak wafiants reversa].
B. StandardofReyiely
An appellatecoul1 reviews the wording of a jlry
instruction alrd
assesseswhether the instruction accuratelystatesthe law tlrder de novo
review. (Peoplev O'Dell Q\Ai) t53 Cal.App.4th1569, 1574: ciring
Peoplev Poses(2a0Q 32 Cal. th 193,218,)
C. CALCRIM No. 358 ProvidesThat Any Antl All Out-OfMade Bv Thc DefendautDo Not flavc To
Court Statcntents
Be ViervedBv The JuIy With CautionIf ThevAre Recordcd.
in lvhichajurorlnust
CALCRIMNo. 358codifiesthecircuirstances
view a defendatlt's statementwith caution Il statesin Ielevant part: "YorL
oral stalemeotunlessLt\'vaswrltten
mustconsidetevidenceof a defendatlt's
or otherwiserecoldecl."(CALCzuM No. 358 (Fall ed 2006)) Consistent
wilh CAI-CRIM No 358,the trial courtirstrtrctedtheiury as lbllows:
You have heard the evidence lhal the defendantmade
oral oL wrilten slalementsbefore the trial Yotl l'nr.rstdeeide
whether the defendantnade any of thesestatements,in wllole
of in palt. If you decicLethat Ure dolendalrt tnade such
considerthe slatenents,along will] all the otller
slaterlrenls,
evidence,in teachingyour verdict It is I'lpxo you 10 decide
how nuch intportanceto give to tlle statelncl]ts
Consider with cauLion any statementsmade by the
defendalt terlding !o show his guilt unLessll'tc statelnentlvas
rccor(lccl.
wrilten ol oLherwisc
(t2 c'f 324'7)
This is an overbloadstatsrrentof thc lalY Tlle cxetnptionlbt
in
is nota blanketexenplion.RatheI,asexpLainecl
witings andrecordings
Peoplev Gardner(1961) 195 Cal.App.2d829. 832-833writingsand
r'vhich44y not haveto be vi$v0d
recordingsale cxamplesof statemeDts
of a
with caution if thcy are unequivocalor undisplLtcdreproducttons
of a
IIowever,ifa writrngis sl'nudged
out of couttstatenentsdefendant's
oI a defendant's
statement
is inaudible,a witness'interprelation
recording
is equally problematicand, thus, deservingof caution. ln such
lhe samerisks of imprecisionand/orfabricationa1epresenl
circumstances,
writingsand recordings
can only.iustiiythe eLirrination
of the
Therefole,
ol a
cautionaryrequirementwhelc they embodylailhlirl rcpfoductious
dcfcndan
s t o u l o l c o u r ts t a t e m e n tI l h o * e v e r 't.h e r ei s r l e g i t i m a t c
disputeas to what a defendantwrote or saidin a lvriling or recordiuganda
s8
witnessis permittedto interprettheseothenviseambiguousstatements,
then
the identicalconcernsfor imprecisionand/orfabricationexist justifying
caution. Therefbre,tho caulionarylaugLrage
of CALCIUM No. 358
the law by allowingjurorsto abandoncautionin any andall cases
misstates
where a defendant'sstatementis written or recorded. The instluctioD
shouldprovide that cautionneed not be exercisedwhere a defendant's
written or recorded admission is al undisputcd or unambiguous
ofa prior out ol'couftstatement.
reproduction
Notably, most writings and recordingsintuoducedat trial ale
unmistakable
reproductions
of a defendanl'sstatementa[d, therofore,the
conlainedin CALCRIM No. 358 have bcen lalgely
legal inaccuracies
'ihis
inconsequential. case,however,presenlsan issueof ftrsl inlplession
Ajay's
since the jury was permiltedto abandoncautionin eYalLratLng
recordedstatcmenls
madedr.rriugthc prctaxtcalLdespilethe thct that tlic
at issuewere the subjactof greatdisputeanclthe victiru was
staternents
permittedto lranslateAjay's statements,
made in Nepali, bascdon hcr
of theirorigillaloonversation.
recoilection
D. Jury hrstluctiorsMust CorrcctlyStateThe Lnlv.
'fherelbtc,
to functioD
Jurorsate not experlriin legal principles.
effectivelyand jLrstly, lhey must be accuratelyinstruclodill the larv.
( C a r t evr K e n r u c l(E1 9 8 14) 5 0U . S .2 8 8 ,3 0 2 .u 0 l S . C r , I I 1 2 ,6 7 L . E d .
2d 241,1)For tlis reason,triill courtsareendowedwith thesra spoal€duty
to instructon ali applicableprhciplesofthe law. (Peoplev. Flood (1998)
18 Cal. th 4'70,492-504;Peoplev. Woodward(2004)I 16 Cal.App.4th82L,
form of instructionis rcquircdas Longas the
834.) No parLicular
instructionsar'ecompletear']dcorectly statethe law. (Peoplev Andrade
(2000) 85 Cal.App.4th579, 585, citilg People v Ponce (.1996)44
Cal.App.4th1380,1386) Allhoughpatternjury instructionsare prepared
by distinguished
legalscholarsandprovidevaluablcserviceto the courts,
39
of the law (Peoplel
they arenot lhe law and arenot bindingslatemenLs
lhelackof
1191,l2O4'n 4 ) Consequently,
Mojica(2006)139 Cal.App.4rh
jury liorn
adequaleinstruction, even a patlerr instruction,preventsa
perforrringits function in conformilywith the applicablelavt (Peoplet'
(gth
Sanchez(1950) 35 Cal2d 522, 528; see alsoMcDowellv Calderon
C i r . 1 9 9 71) 3 0F . 3 d8 3 3 ,8 3 6 . )
'llhe Jurv PursuantTo CALCRIM No J58'
E. By Instructins
The Trial Coul't ErroneouslyInstructedThc Jtrv To Vierv
Arrrrcllant's I{ighlv Arnbiguous StzrtemeltsRecordcd Ott A
Pretcxt Call Without Caution.
In decidingwhetheran ilstruction is cnoneous,an aPpellatecoLLtt
nust first ascertain,as a threshold natter, whal lllc Ialevalt law plovidcs
supra, \16 Cal.ApP.4that p' 83:l)
(People v. Vy'oodward,
Then, thc
appellatecourl must dgtorminowhether the illstrt)ctioll.so Llndefstood'
stateslhe applicablelaw couectly which is deler|tliDedby asking "how
would a reasonablcjurorundelstaldlhc insl]uclio " (lbid' ci't\ngPeoplet
ll/aten (.1988)45 Cal.3d471,487.)
1. The Larv Provirles That A Del'cudaDt'sOut of Coul t
Statcrnent Must Bc Viewcd With Caution Ulless A
Writing or Recording ReDloduces Thc Dcfcndanl's
StatementsWitbout AmbiguitY.
A trial court has a sua sponte drlty lo instfuct the Jury to view a
defendant'soral admissiouswith caution if tho cvidencewalranls it
(Peoplev. I/t/ilson(2008)43 Cal.4th1, l9 ) 1'hiscautionaryinslructionis
or coufessiorr
designedto aid the jury ir determilinglvllel]icfan aclrnission
'l'hat
is,
rvasactuallymade. (Peoplev Bemis(1949)13 Cal 2d 395, 400 )
whether lhe defendant, in fact, "spoke thc q'ords" attlibtlted to Lrim b)
ariother. (Ibid.)
California courts have long reoogDizedthe iDhcfcnt
dangelsof introducing out of colrrl stalonlcntsaLtfibutcdLo lhe dcfendaDt.
(Peoplev. Ford (1964) 60 Ca1.2d?72, 800.) Spccifically,courts have
recognizedthat:
90
It is a lbmiliar rule lhat verbaladmissionshouldbe receivcd
with cautionand subjectedto carefulscrutiny,as no classof
evidenceis moresul2iect
to effor or abuse Wilnesseshaving
the best motives ale generallyunableto state the exact
languageof an admission,andare liable,by the omissionor'
the changingof words,to conveya falseimpressionof the
languageused. No other classof lestimony affords such
temglallio!!L oppqltunities for unscruzulq!!,_tIi!19!!_ql1e
tortule the facts or commit ooen periury, as it is often
impossibleto contracLict
thcil testinonyat ail, or at leastby
anyotherwittess thal theparLyhimself.
(1Dld.emphasisadded.) Given this seriouspotentiaifor inprecisionand
fabricatior,the cautionaryinstruclionis applied broadly. (People v
Carpenter(1997)15 Cal.4th312, 393 snperscded
by statutoon other
grounds
in Verdinv.SuperiorCourt(2008)43 Cal.4'r'1096,
1106)
However,where "there could be no mistake as to \,vhatlthc]
defendant
said,"therc is no necdto havethe jury view the evidencewrth
cavlio:i'.(People v. Gardner, supra, 195 Cal.App.2d at p. 832.)
Consequenlly,
h Peoplev Gardner,the Corul of Appeal held that the
cautionaryinstructionwas llct llecessary
whele therewas no disputeas to
what the defendanlsaid becausethe defe0dant'sstatementhad been
recorded.(1d.at pp. 832-833.)In reachingthis decision,the Coufi of
that lhe Lcgislaturenever intandadthc.jur:ylo view
Appeaiemphasized
statemeltstecordedby a mechanicaldevice \.vith caulion whe|e "no
contentionis made.
. that the sould recordingdid not truly recordthe
conversation
with detbndant,
or lhat a properfoundationwasnot laid for its
(1d atp. 833.) Iherefore,
admission."
a moreprecisereadingofthe lau,rs
that recoded staternents
that clearlyduplicatea defendanl'sout-of-coult
statementsshould not be vielved with caution. However, lecorded
stalementsthat fail to clearly duplicate a defendalt's out-ot-colrrt
statemcnts
or arehighly disputedat tlial mustbe vio\.yed
with caution
9l
2. A ReasonableJur0r Would Ha\'e Misunderstoodand
MisappliedThe CautionaryLangufleeof CALCRIM No.
358
Annellant'sCflseRendQtlitsThe Trial Qourt's
Instruction Error.
Whilc the clearly recordedEnglish pofiions of thc pretextcall did
not requirethe jury to use caution,the portionsof |he audiotapcthat werc
either inaudible and/or spoken in Nepali did require the.iuty to excrcLsc
caution before relying on these statementsas svidenee. ln large parl, thc
defenseand prosecutionagreedon the majority of the interyretationarld/or
hanslation of the recorded pretext cal1. I-Iowevel, thcrc lvere numeroLrs
disputcdwhelherthe recolding
whele thc defenseandpLoscoution
instances
was iraudible;disputedwhat Englishwords u'ere being spoken;disprLted
whetherEnglish or Nepali lvas being spoken; and disputedwhat was being
disputedin tl]c rvfittcrl
saidi[ Nepali. Specifically,tlrerewere 17 seLtl.ences
d r e t e x ct a l i . ( 1 5 C ' l 4 1 7 4 , 4 1 7 6 , 4 1 8 2 . 4 1 8 4 t r a n s l a t i oonf t h e r e o o r d e p
4186,4189, 4192) At triaL,defenseexpertAryal and Sapualbcuscclon
llrreeLofour ofthese disputcdsenlencesduring lheir testirnony. (5 RT 9473 ,8 5 8 )
9 a 9 ,9 6 0 - 9 6 41: 4 R T 3 8 4 1 ,3 8 4 7 - 3 8 4 8
All ofthese disputedstatenleltsshouldhavebeenvieweclby the.juLy
with caulionand, due to CALCRllvtNo 358, $,e|e rlot becausethcYwcr.c
recorded. In this contexl, these dispuled rocorde(lstatementsafe no
is asked to
different lhan out of court oral admissionswhelein ll'ie .iLtL1,
dcterminewhat a defendanrltassaid.
As argnedsupra, the most significantdisputedstatement
concenlcd
whether Ajay actually admittcd having sex with SapnawheD she rvas l8
yearsold or lvhether this portio[ ofthe tape lvas inauclible (SeeAfgurrent
I, sapra.) Becausc lhis disputed slaternent$,as recordsd, the trial colLrt
erroreouslyinstrucledthe .jury pursuantto CALCRIM No 358 rvhioh
pennittedlhejury ro abandoncautionwhere,in thct.it wasreqLrilcd
bv law.
9l
ln sum, a reasonablejulor would have misunderstoodand
misapplisdthe cautionarylanguageof CALCIIiM f.lo. 358 becausethese
disputedstatements
were r:corded.The blanketlanguagein CALCRIM
whioh clearly
No.358 fails to distinguishbehveenrccordedstaLcrrents
a defendant's
reproduce
out ofcoufi stateucnt,rvhichshouldnot be viewed
wilh cautionby a jury, and thosewhich f'ail to do so Wherea recording
fails to clearlyreproducea defendal'rt's
out of coufi statclnent,the same
cautionarylanguagethat applies to oral admissionsshould apply to
'fherefore,
recordedstatements.
since a reasonablcjuror would have
undemtood
CALCRIM No. ij58 in a naurer inconsistcntwith the law, the
cautionary
language
of theinstruclionconstitutcderror'
F. InstluctingThe .lury With CALCRIM No. 358.Coustituted
FederalConstitutionalError BecauseThe llrror Rendercd
TheTrialFunda@
andFouttecuthA.rnctrdrneut
.Riqhtsto FccleralDuc Process.
A defendant'sfederalconstilutionalrighl is irnplicatccl\'vhcrcthcre
is a reasonable
likelihood
thatthc.iuryhasappliedan ambiguoLrs
instruction
in a way that violatcsthe constitution.(Peoplev. ]'rettynan(1996)14
(1991)502U.S.62,72,112S.Ct 475,
Estellev. lv'[cGuire
Ca1.4th248,272;
482, 116 L.Ed.2d385.) A defendantis deniedlbderallyguaranteed
due
process,as protectedby the llifth and FoudoenthAmeDdmentsto thc
UnitedSlalesConslitution,u'hena[ efiol infcctstl]e trial with uufailressor
rendcrsthe trial lu[dameDtallyufiair. (Peoplev Prettyman,supta, r+
Cal.4that pp. 272-213aitlrLgEstellev. llcGuire, supta, 502U.S. at p. 72,
(1986)477U.S
112S.Ct.475,482,1I6LEd.2d385 Dardenv l;{/ainright
781;Donnellyv. DeChristoforo(1974) 416U.S. 637, 643.)
Here,as discnssedin1'rarn t\e prejudicesectionof this clain, thc
failureto properlyinstructthejury to exer.cise
cautionwhen deterl]rinitg
whetherAjay madethe allegedout-of-coufistatements
on the pretextcall
regard'
infectedthe enlire trial renderingit fundamen|allyunfair' Ir this
Sapnawas permitted to attributeadmissionsto Ajay ln an olhelt{lse
extremelyweaK prosecutloncasc Thus, Sapna'stestimon)'and her
Exhibit l lD and defenseExhrbit799
fanslationsconlainedin prosecution
made during the pretoxt call endcdup
about Ajay's allegcd staternents
the
casewhich ultimateLypersuaded
beingthe lynchpil ofthe proseouiion's
july to lmd Ajay guilty, For tllis reason,this instructionalerror'fisesLothc
levelof federalconstitutionalerror'
G. The lssueIs PrcservcdFor AppellateRevierv
"A trial courl has a sza \Ponte duf! to instluct tLleiury to view a
defendant'soral adllrissionswith aaution if the evidencewalrarts it "
(Peoplet,. llilson, supra, 43 Cai4th l' 19) Where an irstrlrotion
ircorrectlyslatosthe law, the issuecannolbe forfeitedon appealdueto trial
coulisel'sfailureto objector requesta clarifyingirlstruction (Peu Code$
1259;Peoplev. TiLlotson(2001)151Cal App.4th5l7 , 538;Peopla\' ]tard
on olhergloundsin Peoplev Satchell
supra,60Cal.2dat p, ?99 overruled
(lg'7l) 6 CaI.3d28, 98 Cai,Rptr'33 ("whencalledlbl by theevidence
lthc
cautionaryinslruction] must be given without a lequest"); People v.
(2002)21 Cal.4th118?,1199(tilding that"aithoughdefendant
Slaughter
the propfiotyof thc
did llot objectin the trial coult to this instruclion,
instructionnonethelessis reviewableon appealto the extentit affectshis
subslanlialrights" evenwheredefendantneverquestionedapplicabilityof
745.
Peoplev. Ervine(20A9)47 Cal.4th
to rccordedstatements);
inshuction
whcrclrial oourt
objeclion,
781 (issuereviewedon appeai,absontdefense
recordc(l
relatlngto detendant's
iostruotlon
to giveiuly oautlonary
declined
sLatementsmade to officcrs even though the recording \\'as never
introducedat trial).
Moreover,where,as here,nothingir the recordsholvsthat hial
or tactical"decisionto instfllctthc
counselmadea "conscious,
deliberate
94
july not to use caution)the instructionalerror cannotbe deemedinvired,
necessitating
revrevt. (Peoplev. Collins 119a2)1u Cal.,+pp.4'h
t'90, b94768 citingPeople.,,.
695,12 Cal.Rptr.2d
Cooper(1991)53 Cal.3d7'11,
830-831(there was no irvited euor or forfeiture of instructionalerror
wheredefendant'strial counselalrd distdct attomeyrespo[ded"yes" to
court'sstatement
that instruotions
andjury verdictlblm had beenreviewed
by bothcounselandwereacoeptabie
to bothsides;no colsoious,delibera.",
or tacticalreasonwas statid for coucruringin instruclions),People ,
Barraza(1919)23 Ca,1.3d,675,
683 citingPeoplev. Gralum (1969)71
Ca1.2d
203,319 ("in absence
purpose,the coultsand
of a clearLactioal
commenlators
eschewa fiodiug of invitedenor' that excuscsa trial judge
froln rendelirlgfull and con:ectifftluotions on natoliai qucsliors of law.
Accordingly,if defensecounselsuggestsor accedcsto llte er'toneous
instructionbecauseof neglector mistakewe do Dot lind 'invitcd crror,'
only if counselexpressesa d€libelatetactical purpose il suggesting,
resistingor accedingto an instruclior,do we deerni1 to nullif) thc trial
court's obligation."). Flere,there was no lactical reasonexpressedby
counselfor failingto requestan instruclionroquiringthojury 10usecaution
in assessing
the veracityof Sapna'steslimonyand lranslationconceuring
Ajay's allegedincriurinatingr,
out-of-coultstatements,
made rl Ncpali, on
the recordedpretextcall. In fact,the recordshowsthat thcrecould be no
tacticalreasonto supportthis omissionastrial couIlSelvigorouslyobjected
to SapAatcsliliing aboutAjay's anbiguousout-of-couftstatcmentsmadc
in Nepaliduringthe prelexlcall, in particular,her translationlegardingan
allegedadmission
of "sex." (5 RT 950-953)And, in acldition,
del'ense
counselargued against thc veracity of her testirnonydutirlg closing
argument
by askingthejuly to considerthe following:
You havehryosetsof transcriptson this. You have the oDe
authenticated
by Sapla,andwe know abouther cr:edibrlity.
and we havethe one authenticated
Aryal rvho
by ProfessoL
who cameheleto teslilythat
worksfol'thc StateDeparlrnent
he createcland he disagreedwith her on four poillts,but the
restof it washis. Shejust madechalges
(18 R'I 5073)TherefoLe,any failureto recluestall illstruclior requuingthe
and lranslationon lhis
.jury lo use cautionin evaluatillgSapna'stestimony
leqttircs
poinl could not haYebeentacticalnor invitedancl,therefore,
justif] ing
ofany taclicalreason
giventhe impossibility
review. Simila;:ly,
counsel'sfailure to requestthe propercautionalyilrstruation,this Coud
omissiorlviolaledAjay's Slxth
coLrnss]'s
shouldreachthe issuea[d 1-rnd
Arnendmentright to cll'cotlve assistanceof counsel (See People v
of
assistance
395(lindinginefl'eclive
(2006)141Cal.App.4Lr'330,
Anzatone
s
counselon directappealwherecounsolfailedto oblcctto ploseculion
(2001)25 Cal4"' 543, 569 ("tha
of lart);Peoplev. Anderson
misstalenent
aclionsof
recorddoes ltot show 1hc reasonfor counsol'sohalicnged
olnissions,the co[victiou turtstbe aflirmedL]nlesstherecould be no
Tctkt (199'7)l5 Cal 4'r'266,
satislirctolyexplan0tion");Peoplev Mendozct
to objecl a1 lrial excusesivaivcr'
266-261(tu:i|'tg ineffectiveassistance
all(gcd
tactiqalpurposetbr collnsei's
whercthelecouldbe no conceivable
incolnpetenoe).
II. Thc trrroueousInstructiollHarrnedADDellantUndcrA Statc
{g{
Fedelal St ndard of Plciudice Requiring ReYersaland
A-lLer-!-I!41.
Thc trial court'sfailure to properlyinstruclthe july on the caltrorr
recluiredto view the r-ecordedstatementsin the Pretcxt call lvhich wcrc
ambiguousand/or disputed violaLedAjay s stale aDd lederal constitulional
rights. Therelbre,reversalis recluiredltndet statglaw if iL can bc sho\\n
that,absenttlle erroneouscautiollatylanguagecontainedin CALCRIM No
plobabilitythe.iurywould havereacheda nlore
358,therewas a reasonable
favorableoutcome. (Peoplev. Watson(1956)46 CaI2d 818, 837;People
reversal
rs
4th 1508,1529) Similarl.v,
v Lopez(2A05)129 Cal.App
96
requiredwhere the inshrLctionalenor teached federal colstitutional
proporlionsif it can be shownthat the eiror was not harmlessbeyonda
doubt.(Chapman
v. California(1967)386U.S.18,24,87,S.Ct
reasonable
seealsoPeoplev Pretb)m.1n,
supra,14 Cal4th
824,828,l'7 L.F.d2d'705:
a tp . 2 ' 7 2 . )
1. Sapna's Testimouy and Translation of Appellant's
RecorcledOut-of-CourtStateulcntsMflde Durring The
Pretext Call Couflicted With Othcr Trial Evidence
Demolstrating SufficientPrciudicefor Reve|sal.
Californiatourts have consistentlyhcld that "aoruls cxarnining
prejudiceil1 failing to give thc laautionary]instruclionexaurinethe record
to seeif therewas any conflictin the evidenceaboutthe oxactwolds uscd,
their meaning,or whelher tha adnlissionswere rcpeatedaoourately
"
(Peoplev Llrilson(2009)43 Cai.4th1, aitingPeoplev Drcke1(2005)35
Cal.4th884,905;Peoplev. Lopez(2a05)129 CalApp.4thi508, 152!,
I-lere,asdiscussed
supra,thc,rewerea lumbc| of out of cor.ll:t
stalelnelltsi]t
the pretextcall which wele highly clisputed
a1lrial and,one in palticLrk^,
which Sapna,a hostilewitnesswith a moLiveto falselyaccuseAjay.
as an admission
interpreted
of sexualconduct.(14 RT 3847-3855)Thc
disputeoverthis statemcDl
aloneis sufficientto warrartIeversalas it could
have been the decisiyefactor that pushedthe jury to find Aiay guilty
makingthe failure to properlyinstructthejury orl how to view {his out of
cxceptionally
prejudicial.
coufistatement
In Ford, the CaliforrriaSupremeCoult revcrseda cll:feltdant's
convictioDbecausethe defendalrt'sallegedout of couft statement"bore
directly"on rvhetherthe det'endant
was guilty of the cliatgeclcrine The
defendant
in Ford was convicledof murderinga Deputy Sheriff duling a
confrontation
rclatedto a long and embitteredmarilal dispute. (Peoplev.
Ford, supra, 60 Ca1.2dat p. 780) At trial, his estrangecl
wife anclar
acquainlance
he allegedlyrobbeddaysearliertestifiedthat,beforeshootirrg
97
the Sheriff, the defendantmade several statemenLssuppofting the
prosecution'stheory with respectto prelneditation (1d at pp 799-800)
capacitl
boredirectlyon the issueof detendant's
Finding"theseslatements
to deliberaleand premeditalesufficientlyto commit hrst degreetrurder,"
the Iligh Court reversedthe defendant'sconvictionemphasizingthat the
because
itstructionwas padicularlyprejudicial
of the oautionary
absence
"eachstatemg[twasreportedby hostilewitnessesu4losetcstitnotlysho\\'cd
inconslslcllcies."(1Drd)
a numberof obviousconflictsandaPparent
Like the witnessesin Ford, Sapnawas a very hostilewilnessand a
amountof the evidenceptesentedat uial conflicledwith her
considerable
madc by Sapnawithin the pletext
allegations.Notably, eYenstatements
call provideconfliclingevidenceundemilringhel testinlouy For examp]e,
evenafter this alleged"sexlyith" admissionwas lnadeon lhe pretextcall,
according
to her,he had
Ajay, in theprelextcalL,because,
Sapnachastised
Ajay."l just wantcdto
SapnatolcL
refusedto admltanything,Specilically,
ask you aboutthings,bul you a!en'l. DefinLtclyyou are nol tellng rllc
anythingaboutthis. I arn gonnago" (15 CT 4184) GiYeDthis lattcf
whichwas neverdisputcdat tlial, jt secrnshighlyunlikelyLhat
statament,
Ajay had,minulesprior, admitledhavingsexwilh Sapnaduing lhe pretext
call and/orthat SapnaeverbelievedthatAjay evefmadcsuchan admission
that Sapna'shanslation attributingan
That is, it is incompreheusible
admissionof sex to Ajay could be lrue when,accordingto her own woLds
shcclaimedAjay relusedto
spokenat the time ofthe lelevantconvcrsation,
admit"arything" with respectlo het allegatiors
lhc prcrcxlcall
slalelnents,
In additionto Sapna'sown incoosistent
depicbAjay repeatedlydenyingSapna'sallegationsof rapcin Englishand
, 191,
' / 1, 6 9 ,4 1 7 2 ,4 1 7 6 ,4 1 8 3 4
N e p a l i . ( 1 5 C T 4 1 5 5 - 4 1 5 94,1 6 2 - 4 1 6 4
4193-4195)This conflictingeviderceis alsosufficienlto showprejudice
reversal.
andwarrants
98
Finally,ShaktiAryal, the defenseirteryreterand./orfanslator
of the
pretextcall, ernphaticallytestitiedthat Sapna'stranslationr.r,as
incorrect
and that it was irnpossibleto kanslateAjay,s staternent
as ,,sexryith,, as
s u g g e s t ebdy S a p n a . ( 1 4 R T 3 8 5 0 _ 3 8 5 1
3 ,8 6 1 _ 3 8 6 23,8 6 6 _ 3 8 6 7 )
Therefore,
sincean allegedadmissionof guilt goesto the heartof the case,
theeflor resultedil enoflnousprejudicewarralitilgreversal
2. S^p[a,s TralslatioD of ,,Sex,,Was Highly prcjudicial
Because
It Was Likely Relied On By itre fury To
DecipherTIe Mcaning Of Appellaut,i ltse Of ,Ihe
Word ,,Fucl<ed,,
AlsoSpokenIn The pretcxtCall.
At one poirlt during the pretextcall, Ajay was intcrruptcdby
his
parents
who couldoverhear
his conversation
with Saplra.(16 Rl. 43554351;15CT 4173)Thoytoldhim to haogup thephoneor speakin Nepalr
because
theydidn'ttrustSapnaatrdfoaledthatshewastrying to ltane
hrm
(14RT 4355-4356)Thus,Ajay respondeci
to Sapnain Nepalinud rrieclro
explainto Sapnahow humiliatingit would be to ltaveto explainher false
aocusatlons
to his palents and how hcr thrcatsto go plrblic rvith hcr
accusations
wouldruill notjlrsthislife,bLrtherliib too, In thisregtrr.d
Alay
pleaded
with Sapna:
ListcDvcry cal.efull:y,
babu, My momrny/dnddyis also
rolv suspcctingthat there is sometbiug.
[!l] ListeD,
because
theythink something
going
is
on betrveerr
you and
nle. My rnommy/daddy
is suspccting
whetherlhere is,r
sexualrelationshipol.[ot. [t Why, babu,rvhy cau,tyou
understandthe mrtler, tell mc what lyould you gct fiorn
this, tell [re, just tell me that Duch. I hay; be; tellilg
you from fhe ycry bcginningttratury life.willbe gonebui
how aboutyour life, your lifc rvill be gonc,horvcan you
saveyour life,jtst telLl
rne.
(ts cT 4174)
,,How
In response,
Sapuaasl;ed,
is my life re .. ruiningdaddy?,,(15
CT 4174)FoLSapna,
theder:ision
to live independently
andengagcin pre_
maritalsex did not threatelto,.ruin,,herlile oLher reputatiorbecalrse
snc
99
was ready to be an "American girl" ard wholeheadedlyreject Nepatl
values.26(9 CT 2550) For Ajay, however,Sapna'sclecision
to embrace
to himselfand his lami1y
sexualfreedomat the ageof 18 was a disgrace
which,if knownby theNepalicommunity,
couldluin bothof thcirliveslr
( 1 3 R T 3 5 4 5 ; 1 4 R T 3 7 5 7 - 3 7 5 83,8 7 5 ; 1 5 R f 4 0 6 1 : l 5 C 1 4 3 3 6 )
Consaquently,
Ajay angrilyexplai[edin Nepalithalhe| lifc couldberuined
"Becauseyou
hrve fucl<cdme after 18 yearsofyour age." (i5 C1 4174)
In other words,it appearsAjay is telling Sapnathat hc| unapologetiu
'o
Afl"r Sapnarnoveclout of the Dev hornc, shewrotc an c-nrail to hel
Papaon January1, 2004,explainingandjustifying hel dccisiorrto nrove
out, which werLtagai[st Nepali culture and oould be seenas sharneful. ln
r l r ee - m a i ls h er r d r r n a n t ldyc c l r l e r l :
I lslow the way I act is not like a tipical fsic] Nepali girl. i
figured that I live in America oot iu Ncpal rvheregrrLsarc
rDistreated
alld they areneverheard Amolica allorvsiL'slsio]
people to havc a "freedon ofspeech." I chooselo livc thts
livestyle [sic]. And therefbrcI like to cxpressnyself and
speak my mind, I never really tought isic] o1'mysell'asa
tipical lsicl Nepali gill even when I u,asin Ncpal. I toLrrrhr
[sic] of rnyselfas a "Bel Ta." f"son' in linglishl [fJ] Rirlht
Dow I am very happywhere i alll and do 't warlt to go back
wherc I was. . . . I l(r1owit will be haLrL
fol you to undcrstancl
ne and r.vhere
I aur cominglil om [sLc]. llut I.just wantcdto
sharemy side of the story so thal you could try to understand
me. I zrmvcry disappointcd
that \.vecouLdnot u1k in Nepal
want
I
don't
lo
loose
[fl]
[sic] LhefarnilythatI havehelc I]ut
ifthey don'l want this relationshipI r:eallyoan't do anything
about il exccptto 1ry and work thingsoLLt!\rithdiem. I have
mademy decisionand I expcctto stick with it
(.9CT 2549-2554;seealso 14 RT 3 885, 15RT 4061-4062,4067-4068)
tt
Lr urr e-llail, datedOctober 1,2002, Pegily rvlotc to Sapna'slirpiL
expressinghcr concernsabout Sapna'smisbehavioras tblLori'sr"Ajay
alrd I expect Saplr to follory oul rulc of uot dtting or h,rvitg sc\
beforc rnarriage ls I knoly this rvill briug shaurcon her, us aud your
fatnily as tvcll. I dou't have conlidencein her to live by theser.equests
at this time. I pray that you may givc hcr alci ure glLidaoce
as lio\.\,to
dealwith this situatiol beforeit beconesroo Late" (Lj CT 4]16. bolo rn
original)
ro!
decisionto start datingand have sex at age 1g againstNepali valucs
alld
tmditionsand agaiNt the wishesof the Devs anclher papa threatened
to
"ruil" both their reputationsil the Nepaticommrutily,thus, fucking
him
over. This interpretation
is liuther suppoftedby Ajay,se_mailto Sapnasent
onemonthearlierin whichhe told her, ,'lw]e helpedyou to ger yo r green
ca{dlat age18]. Now, youwantto sllit otrour faceby wrongLyaccusing
us
ofbeingabusive
anddisrespecting
us." (14CT 3907_3910)
Irnplied as subLextto this parr of the conversationwas the
underctaoding
{:hatAjay knew Sapnahaclpre_maritalsex, becauservhen
Sapnawas 18, he bok her to the pregnancyclinic. Therefore,given
Sapna'saccusations
of rape, Ajay lcgitinately fearedthat Sapnawouro
attemplto usehis presenceat the pregnancyclinic to framehim. In
thrs
regard,it appearsAjay was telling Sapnashe was screwinghim over
b€cause
theybothknewhe t()okher to theclinic to helpher soeka solLrtion
' whel
to herpregnancy
with her ',corrsent
shewaslg. (15 C.ll4174,4180)
,,Ok,so?,,in r.esponse
Therefore,
when Sapnadefiantlydeclar.ed,
to Ajay,s
point that her falsealiegatio[swould luin both of their lives not just l]is,
After a long pausc(approximately
4 seoonds),
Ajay indignantlyretorted,
"That mcansyou havegiveame conscnt."(15 CT 4174) Meaning,that
ner attemptto usethe fact that he accompanied
her to the pregnancyclinrc
as proof of rape would be defeatedbecausehis presenceat the clinic
cou)otes"consent"ratherthanrape. AlthoughSapnasubsequel1tly
dcnled
giving Ajay consent,Ajay continuedto persuacleSapnathat her false
allegationswould be disprovedbecauseit was likely that Sapnaalready
told her friendsabouther prcgnancies
and abortionsand,thoreforo,othe$
wouldknow that her boyfriend(s),ratl.rerthan Ajay, had inpregnatedher.
In this regard,he remindedSi:lprta
thatthe respousible
boy,snamer,vouldbe
in hermedical
records.(15 CT4l74,4lS0)
l0l
This ilterpretationwas supportedby Ajay's Lepeated
deniaisof the
rapeallegationsduring the pretextcall and Sapna'sown statet.nents
made
30 secondsafter Ajay made this ambiguotLsstatementwlterein shc
expresslyexplainedshewasangrywith Ajay "BecauseI wantyou to talk to
me. I wantyou lo sayit." (15CT 4174) Clearly,ifSapnabelievcd
Ajar s
useof the word "fucked"was an admission
of sex,shewouldhavenever
excoriated
hiln for rofusingto admittheallegations.
Not surprisingly,whatAjay meantwhenhe usedthe wo.d "fucl(ed"
duringtheprolexlcallwashighlydisputed
at trial. (5 RT 950;18R1 50765078;19 CT 5139) In isolation,
it wasvery likely thatthejurywouldhave
determinedthat Aiay used the word "fucked" to expless profanrty
consistertwith the defelsetheoryof lhe caseespeciallygiven Sapna'sown
admission
that Ajay would not adtnitthe allegalrons,flowover.u'rthc
contextof Sapna'slatertranslation
in whichsheclaimedAjay said,"but
you had scx \yith rne ryhen you \yere 18," (cont|aryto the expefls
translalion),il is likciy that thejury may haverelieclon tlte laler rraoslation
of "sex" to cletcnnine
whetherAjay'sprior useof lhe word "fucl<ed"rvas
aD admissionof guilt ol rvhetherhe simplyusedit as an expression
o1'
prolhnity. (15 CT 4I'76) In fact, this is exactlywhat the proseoutiol
arguedto thejury: "Whatis goingon here?Thecortextofthis partofrhe
convelsatiolr
is talkingaboutyou hadsexwith Ine,'But you hrd sexwith
mc wheu you lverc 18,' it is a mirrorlmageof lvhathc saidca|lier,'You
ftckcd mc when you rycre18.'" (18RT 4987)
Therelbre,the failureto usecautionwith |espectto AJay'salleged
use of the word "sex" as translated
by Sapnaalso inlpactodthe.jlrrys
delermiration
of AJay'suseof the word "fucked" duringtheprerextcall
ln this regard,the failureto givo a cautronaty
instllrotion
as it felatedto
Sapna's
tsslimonyand translation
of thewotd "scx" spilledovcr to other
I02
highly signifrcantaspectsof the pretextcall severelyprejudrcing
Ajay and
wafiantingrevelsal.
IV.
APPELLANT'S CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED
BECAUSETI{E TRJAL COURT'S EXCLUSION OF SAPNA,S
2OO5NEPALI RDCORD OF CONVICTION PIIEJUDICI,D
THE ENTIRE TIUAL AND VIOLATED APPIILLANT,S
CONSTITIONAL RIGHT TO PRESITNTA DEFEI,ISI.
A, Introduction
In an effort to presenta defenseto the ohargesallege<lagainst
Alay
and explainwhy Sapnawould falsely accusehirn of rape, trial
cotursel
attempted,
on Dumerous
occasions,
to admitevidenceo1.a 2005colvictron
againstSapnafrom Nepalfor usinga faisedateofbilth to obtair her
l99g
passport.This Nepali convictionwas critical to Ajay,s defense
not only
becauseit showedSapna,spropelsity to lie, but becauseit expressly
showedthat Sapnaknew the Devs could reverseher adoplionlvhich,
ill
turn,wouldresultin Sapna,sdeportation
to Nepal.
To qualifyfor adoptionin thc UnitedStates,Sapra'sacloptioD
had to
becompleted
beforeshetumed16. (11RT 2722;13R.t.3430_3431,
3456;
15RT 4167;16 RT 4400;l4 CT 3920) Sapna,s
adoptionwascompleted
on December
6, 1999.(7 Rf 1707;15RT 4174;14 CT 3918) IJnrlerher
falsedateof bifih (January5, 1984),as evidencedby the Nepali r.ccordof
conviction,shewas approxiroately
15 yearsand I I mouthsat the time she
waslegallyadopted.Underher realdateof birth(April 2g, 1983),tbund
trueby theNepalicoud,shewasapproximately
16 ycarsanclsevennlonths
at the time of her adoption. Therefore,the Nepali reoorclo I conviction
shows that Sapna'sadoptionwas premisedon a fiaud and could be
reversed.Ifrevemed,shewouldnot qualifyfor derivativecitizenship
ulcler
UnitedStatesimmigrationla.wsandwould be deportedbackto Nepal. (13
RT 3440-3441)
103
A month before SapnaacousedAjay of r.ape,she leamedthat the
Devs were planning on disinleritingher Wbat never canreout at tnat,
however,was the fact that disinheritance
signaleda legitimatelear in Sapla
thattheDevs could and likely wouldreverseheladoption,whichwasbasco
on a ftaud, and sendher backto Nepal. This fear cameto a headthe day
beforeSapnawent to the police after Sapnaseveredall ties with the Devs
oyer a heatedargunent she had with Ajfly abouther break-upwith her
boyfriend. Sapnainsistedshe wanted to be an ,.Americallgirl,' wrth
American freedorls. However,Ajay and peggy insistedon inshllilrg
traditionalvaluesof purity onto Sapnain an effort to honorNepalicuhule
and the promise tltey lnade lo Sapna'sPapaback in Nepal. 1'herefi;rc,
whenSapnadecidedto severall tieswith theDeys,shealsounderstoocl
that
the Devs would feel dcepty betmyed and would have no interestin
contrl]ulngto sponsor her road to citizenship as originally planned
Essentially,she understoodthat rhe Devs would biarneher fbr f'ailjngro
keepup her endof the bargainand,in turn,would not wantto kccpup rheif
end of the bargain. As a conseqltenceJ
when Sapnawas tinally drivenro
severall ties with the Devs,shemusl havealso believedthat the Dovs
wouldrespondby sendingher backto Nepal. (9 RT 225?) In addition,
Sapnawas alsoawarelllat her adoptionwasbasedon a fraLrdulent
dateof
birth and must have fearedthat, once discovered,the Devs could rovefso
the adoption,thus eliminating any mealingful opportunrtyfor her to
becomean Americancitizen. All Sapla wantedwas lo be an ,,t\melican
girl" and shenow blamedthe Devslbr takingit awayfrom her'.This,in
tum, gaveher an overwhelmingmotiveto falsel),accuseAjay. llowevcr,
withoutthe Nepali recordof co[viction,whichwas the linchpinto sho\.vrng
the Devs had the power to LerninateSapna'sAmericancitizenship,
the
detense
couldnot exposeSapna'sfearsor her motiveto fetaliate
agailst
104
A3ay. Strippedof this ability, Ajay was denied
his Fifth, Sixth, and
FourteelthAmendtnentconstitutional
right to presenta del.ense
B. Strndard ofRcvicw
Thetrial courl'sexchrsionof theNepalidocumentsand1hedecision
whetherto takejudiciai noticeof saiddocumetrts
is reviewedby an abuse
of discretionsLandard,.
(Depalmav. I;t/estlantl
SohpareHou.se(I9gO) 225
Cal.App.3d
1534,1538.) Ctonstitutronar
questuons
are rcvjewed
de nova
(Peoplev. Cromer(2000)2.4 Cal. th 889, 896.)
Independentreviervis
necessary
fo clariff and uniiy guidingcorlstitutionalprtncipl<:,s(lulilter
t.
Fenton(1985)4'l4rJ.S.104,114[106S.Ct.445,
88L.Ed.2d405].)
C. The NepnliCou11.
Docuruents2s
'l'he
Nepalirecor.dof convictiotrand oLherrclatedcourt <locuurcnts
wereathchedto two motionsf,rledby thedel.ense
(5 C.l 1162_12lg,
l2lg_
1374)andrveleseparately
narked for purposesof identilicatiol asDel.euse
Exlibits500tfuorrgh
514.2e(7 CT lg38_19g7)Iior convenicuce
purposos,
""
Whilethe govelnrentin Nepalprosecuted
Sapnaanclher paparor
passport1raud.counselhasonJysurnmarized
theNepali docur.neuts
ai tLrcy
19.Sol:ro
papa,BilendraDeo, rvasaccluirrcd
Sapna's
ar
l"fr,ujn
.J{o]eover,
theNepalittial. (7 CT 1886)
"
Exhibit 500corcsponristo ExhibitA attachecl
to the JudicialNotrce
Motion and Exiibit A attaDhedLo the Morion for Foundariolal facLs;
Exhibit 501 colrespondsto Exhibit B attaclied to the Morion tbr
Foundational
Facls;Exhibit 502 conesponds
to Exhibit B attachedto the
Motion for JudicialNotice and Exlibit C attachedto tha Motior tbr
Foundational
Facts;Exhibit 503 conesponds
to Exhibit D atlachedro the
Motion for FoundationalFacts; Exhibit 504 correspondsto L:lxhibitlr
attachedto the Motion for Foundational
Facts;Exhibit 505 couespondsro
Exhibit F attachedto the Motion for FoundationalFrcts; Exliibit 506
corresponds
to Exhibit G aflachedto the Motion for F.oundatiollal
Facrs;
Exl bit 507 coffespondsto Exhibit H attachedto the Morion tbr
FoundatiolalFacts;Exhibit 508 couespondsto Exhibit I atttchedto the
Motion_for FoundationalFacts; Exiibit 509 con.csponds
to Exhibit J
attached
to the Motion for Foundational
Facts;Exhibii 510 coruesponds
ro
Exhibit K afiachedto the N{otion {br FoundationalFacts; Exltibit 5ll
cofiesponds
to Exhibit L altachedto the Motion for. FoundationalFacn:
105
the Nepali documentsin the appeaiwill be referredto by Exhibirnumbers
500 through514. The Nepali corrt documentsconsistof the follorvins
documerts;
Exhibit 500 (7 CT 1838-1858\: 1he appeliateopinion issuedon
August12,2007ftom theNepal(Rajbiraj)
Appeltare
CourtatfirmsSapna,s
convictionfor obtaininga passportwith a falseclateof birth anddeniesthe
proseoulion's appeal.30The opinion further stulrriarrzes Sapnas
unde$tandingasto why Murali Deowould initiatecriminalchargesagainst
her asfollows: "Becauseofthe factthat the sakl Ajay l(umar Dev did nor
adoptany family [rember of th€ informerbut adoptedher, the inforruer
became angry. Because of such anger, the informer nadc: a false
informalionreport stating that her date of birtir is 2040,1.15B.S
(1983.4.28
A,D.)" (7 CT 1842)Sapnadid not appealthejudgmcnr.(7 CT
1849-1852)
Exhibit 501 (7 CT 1859-L8't4\:The appealfiled by theprosccution
on October26, 2005 whereinthe prosecution
arguedSapnashouldhave
raceiveda $eater fino; increased
punishment/illoal.cet.ation;
and shourcr
have had her passpol.tconfisaated. fhe prosecutionalso afliueclthat
Sapna'sPapa,BirendraDeo,shouldhaveboenconvicted,
Exhibit 502 ('1CT I875-L900.):The verdictissuedon June26, 2005
from the Nepali benahtrial whereSapnawas accusedandcolvictedundel
Section5 of the Passport
Act for obtai|inga passltort
on Deccmber15.
1998from the Diskict Administration
Office Saptariby pr.eparing
a farsc
descriplion
whereinshewroteher dateof birthasJanuary5, 19g4,though
sheknewthather realdateof birthu,asApriL28, 1983 (7 CT 1fi78).fhc
Exhibit 512 conespondsto Exhibit M attacheclto thc Motton 1or
Foundatio[al
Facts;Exhibit513 oorresponds
to Exiibrt N attached
ro the
Motion for Foundational
Facts,Exhrbit514 correspo|dsto ExhibitO
attached
to theMolion for Foundational
Facts.(CT95-96)
30
prosecution
InNepal, the
hastheright to appealin a cr.irniralcase
(5Cr 1166)
r06
verdiotincludesa summaryof the evidence;
reasoningin supportof the
verdiit againstSapna;ard the sentenceimposedagainst
Sapna (7 CT
1877-1902)The trial court relied on testimonyfrom
Sapnawhereinshe
explaihedthat sheobtainedthe passpoftat issueso that,,Aiay
Kumar
Dev
andMargaxet
Mary Dev, uncleandunti from the distancerelative,desired
to take me to America as an adoptecldaughterwith the
consentof llry
parentsandasI wasminor at thattime,I have
obtainedthe passpot ...,, (7
t?r ro /y, r nq ulal cor{t atso noted that Murali
Deo initiated the criminal
caseagainsrher our of jeirlousybecrusethe Devs
did nor bring their
to America: "As the said Ajay Kumar did not adopted
any
Lerand adoptedme, the Infomer lias
'e me ftorn going
lo America due to
the urat
me
trial court
courtspecltlcally
specificallytound
found thar
thar
8, 1983aud thatsheknowinglyput a
rt usedto travelto the ljnited States.
In so finding, the trial corut concluded: ,,lt has been found that
the
respondent
SapnaDev hasaccepted
the saiddateof birth fApril 28, l9g3]
made sayiugthat there is ordinary
ere appearsno conditiol to consiocr
) passport
was hue." (7 CT 1886)
ho trial courtsentenced
fiapnaDev lo
timeserved,
19days,and100rupees.(7 CT 1S87)
Exhibit 503 ('7 C't 7903-1915)r The examination
andslatemeotof
SapnaDev on July 20, 2004which thetrial courtrelied on ro find Sapna
Dev g+lty of using a false date of birth on her passportapplicationin
violatiohofSection5 ofthe passporlAct.ir I| her statenent,ljapla deniecl
31
explainedin lr4r.RudraprasadSharma,sexpefi declamtion,the
trial
in Nepal takes a statemelltfroln the accusedard from the
witnes or delegates
this taskto a..benchassistant.,,
(6 CT i 5 5 3 ) I n t h i s
regard, e court or the bench assislantasks the accusedoI wrtnesses
IA7
fhe allegations;testifiedher dateof bifih was January5, 1984;resrifiedshc
was born in Janakpur(not Boriya);deniedthe accuracyof a schoolrecord
(Exhibit 512) from the centralgovemment,Salothimi Bhaktal]ur,whrch
showedher dateof birth as April 28, 1983;deniedthat schoolrecoros
obtained
directlyfrom her school(Exhibits510 and511)hadbeenaltercd
to show a falsedate of birth of either April 27, 19g4or January5, l9g4;
andclaimedthe accuser/informant,
Murali Deo,was ,,notevena membelol.
,,hehasgiven falsereportwitlt
[her] family" and suggested
an intentionro
trapme." (7 CT 1903) Sapnaaffirmedher earlierstatement
givenon July
8,2004. (7 CT 1904) Shealsoexplainedto the courtthather grandmother.
and great uncle, both of who[r provided staternentsto the h.iai cour.r
indicating
SapnaDev wasbom on April 28, 1983,gavej'aLse
evicLence
and
suggested
that "the opponentmight havepressedtlten in delLLsion
to wnrc
thatfalsestatement."
(7 CT 1904)
Dxhibit 504 (7 CT 1916-7933\:The statenentof Jitendr.a
Narayan
Dev,SapnaDev's greatuncle,whichtheIial courtreiiedon to iind Sapna
Dev guilty of using a false date of birth on her passpor.t
appljcationjn
violation of Section5 of the PasspoftAct. JitendlaNarayanDev is the
brotherof Sapna'sbiologicalfather,BirendraDeo, (7 C1 l9l8) In nrs
statement,JitendraNarayanDev attestedhe was celtain SapDaDev, hrs
niece,was bom on April 28, 1983at her farnilyhomeil BonyaVillage,
SaptariDistrict. (7 CT 1919) JitenrhaNaayan Dev staredrharSapla
falsifiedher dateof bifih "to be adopteddaughter,shewas iu neeclof her
ageto be lessthan she was,so shelnentionedher age-lessthanasshelvas
at fhattime." (7 CT 1920)
quostrons ancl records $e questionsand answets in rvr.iLingwliich l s
respectivelysigned by the accusedor witness. (6 CT 1553) At a rrial llt
Opencou1l,the accusedor wilness nay be oalled to testify, be cross
examined,andmay be askedaboutthisstatement.(6 CT 1551)
108
I
Exhibit 505 (7 cT 1.914:ll4o: The statement
of Bilendra Narayan
Deo,SapnaDev's father,rvhichthe trial court
reliedon to find SapnaDev
guilryof usinga falsedateof birth on her passpon
applicationin violariol
of Sebtion5 of the PassporiAct. In BirendaNarayanDeo,s
staternent,
he
declaredthat his daughter,SapnaDev, was born on Januaty
5, 19g4 ui
s family had beenliving in Janakpur
aughters
werebom - SapnaandNiku;
r 1998 lo go ro Arnerica'explaining
"At thattime her agowas not sufficlentto get a citizenship
eertificate.So,
basedon the evidenceof her dateof blth issuedfrom the school
and ne
recommendation
ietteraboutthe verificationofrelationshipof theOffice
of
the BoriaVillage DevelopmentCommittee,shegot the passport
from the
DislrictAdministrationOffice, Saprarion
iDecember15, 199g1.,,(7 CT
1937)
Exhibil 506/507(7 ,QTl%?:195e: Sapna,spassportapplication
signedon September12,2005 whereinshe falselyindicate<J
that shehad
neverpreviouslyobtaineda passport
(7 CT i 950)and identifiedher
dateol.
birth as April 28, 1983and her placeof birtJras Saptari/BoLiya.(7
CT
1949) Accordingto the A)pellate GovernnentAttorney Ofhce (Exhibit
512),the fraud on this passportapplicationprovidedgroundsfbr further
prosecrjtion,
but the agencyDouldnot prosecute
the casebecauseit was our
of theirjurisdiction,(? CT 1985-1986)
'P1&t!
508 (7 CT 1954-f9ii\: NepaleseCitizenshipCertificate
issued
bn August31,2005andusedby Sapnaro obtainher 2005passporr.
Th€citizenshipcefiificateidentifiesSapnaDev,sdareof birth asApril 28,
1983andherbirth placeasWald4 ofBoriya ir themunicipalityof Saptari.
Exhibih 509 (7 C't 1958-1961):A lerterliom the MonasticHigher
Secondary
EnglishBoardingSchoolwritten in responseto requestsfrom
theDistrictPoliceOffice of Dhanusha
for schoolrecordsrelevanlto pr.ove
109
I
Sapna's date of birth.
Th€ letter indicates that it provicle.l the
poiice/proseclrtion
two certifiedschoolrecords: (i) Sapna,s
registrarion
form (Exhibit 510);and (2) Sapna'sschooladrnissionform (Exhibir5l l)
Exhibit 510 (7 CT 1962-1960: Sapna'sschoolrcgistrationforu,
No. 5620050010,
providedto the police/prosecution
cLirectly
from rhe
MonasticHigherSecondary
EnglishBoardiugSchool.(7 CT 1842,1960,
1964,) The school registrationform identified Sapna'sdate of birth as
('7CT 1964-1965)
"2041/01/15"
rvhichtranslates
intoAprit 2?, 1984(7 CT
1881).However,the last digit of the year"2041',had white-outor tipcx
undemeatiit indicatirg a possiblealterationof SapDa'sdateof bi.rh (6
C T 1 5 4 5 ; 7C T I 8 4 4 ,1 8 5 11, 8 8 1 - 1 8 8120; C T 2 6 5 5 )U l t i m a t e l b
y ,a s e od n
the otherevidenceintroducedat theNepali benchtrial (especiallyExhibrt
512),the Nepali trial courtfbundthe dateof birrh placedon this school
registratiorl
forin to be alteredard, thus,false. (7 CT 1841,1851,1881,
1 88 5 )
Dxhibit 511 ('7 CT 1967-19'7i: Sapna'sschooladmissionfornr
provided to the police/prosecutiondirectly ftom the Monastic I-ligher
Secondary
EnglishBoardingSchoolidentifyingSapna'sdateot, birth as
January
5, 1984andher birthplaceasBoriya,Saptari (7 CT 1960,1842)
Sapna'sfather, Birendra Deo, testihedthat Sapnarelied on this school
admissionform to obtainher 1998passportbeforegoingto Amoricawith
theintentionofgetting adopLed.(1 CT 1931)
Exhibit 512 ('l CT 7973-197O:Sapna'sdateofbirrh providedby
the Cental Govemrnent(Sanothirni,
Bhaktapur),Milistly ofEducarionancl
Sports,basedon their duplicatecopyof Sapna'sschoolregistration
fonn,
No.5620050010Gxnibil 510)whereinit statesSapna'sdateof bn1has
A p r i l2 8 , 1 9 8 3( 2 0 4 0 / 0 t / 1 5a)so p p o s et d
o A p r i \ 2 1 , 1 9 8 (42 0 4 1 / 0 1 / 1 5( 7)
c T 1 8 4 41, 8 5 11, 8 7 91- 8 8 0 )
I l0
Exhibil 513 (7 CT 1977-7982):Record
obtainedfrom District
'Sapna
Kumari Dev" as having a clate
l o n S r p n as t e 5 t i r n o l rdyr a rh e r l t a m c
not "SapnaKumariDev,,,lhe Nepaltrial cour.tdid
not r:elyon this
aseviderceof Saplafaisilyingher dateofbirth.
Exhibit 514 (7 C't .U-E!:Ig!?: Leter daredDecember
2,2005
theAppellateGoveruntent
Attorileyin Rajbiraj,Saptari,respoDding
to
M
in
i Deo's secondaccusalionthat Sapnaliaudulently
obtaineda passport
5 after the verdict was rencleredin the Nepai proceedings.
The letter
indi ates that Sapnalied crn her 2005 passport
applicationby lalsely
indi ing that she did not have a prior passport.
(Scc also Exlibits
5 0 07). I-{owever,althou!+,,her.newpassportwas
found illegal at the
fust glance,"theAppellateGovenmentA or.neyadviscd
Murali their
offi
could not pr.oseculebecause.,thesaid subject cloes
not fall Lutderthe
Jurr iction of this Office, now" and must be ha[dled by thc office in
Dh
District.(7 CT 1985-1986)
DmseMadeTo
On March 20, 2009,beforetrial, the detensellled twe r.rotioru
io
havetheNepalidocumentsa.dmitted
as evidence.In the first DrolioD,the
deferiseaskedthe trial coufi to ttke judioial notice of two docuncrlts:
(l)
the J
26,2005 Nepal benchyerdictagainstSapnaDev for obtaining
a
p
with a false date of biflh (Exhibit 502); anii (2) the Nepal appellate
decisionaffimling the convir:tionand futdingshehaclcornrni(edperjury;
dgnyingthe prosecution'sappealto impose increasedilcarceratiol
alrd a
ary to confiscate Sapna's fraudnlent
ltlonr becausethe Ptopet authorjties
nn\
?( ^r
trvz- ztn)
Il.e,CLOLd
u L r o u n o a o n a t h a . t s .r c q L e s t etdh e
I
tdal coull admit all of fhe Nepali documents(Exhibits 5 0 0 - 5 1 4aJs
evidence
for thejury'sconsideratiou.
(5 CT 1219-1374)
EachNepal court docurnentsubmittedby the def'ense
containedthe
following certificatiortattestatior:
(1)
A seal ftor.r the "Law ShreeBooksManagement
Board" signed by either the TechnicalOfficer
(Exhibits500,503,504,505,506,513),theChie1.
of Protocol(Exhibits501 ard 502),the Section
Olficer(Exhibits508,509,510,511,514,or the
Account Officer (Exhibit 512); and an attestatior
signedand datedby the Chief of Prorocolfor the
Shee Law Books Malagement Board stating,
"Attested Lhe seal of Law Books Management
Board and signalure of its Production/Sectron
O1ficer."
(2)
With respectto Exhibit 500, a certificationftom
Bishau PrasadGautam,ConsularOfflcer o1'the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Goyerrmcnt of
Nepal,slating,"L., certily that fie followjng
Nepali Document has been translatedby the
authorizedbody and also certii/ the seal ancl
signatule10bc hue andthc official positionofthe
/AccounVAdministratiou
SectionlProduction
Officerthereof."
with r.espect
to Exhibirs501,502,503,504,505,
506, 507,508,509 and 514,a certification
from
Jiban P. Shrestha,Deputy Chief of Protocol,
Ministry of ForeignAffaits, Govemmentof Nepai
stati[g, "L.. cefli8/that the aulhorized
tanslation
of following OriginalNepaliDocumentto be true
and the olficial position,sealand signatureof fie
Section@roduction/AccountAdministrati
on
Ofhcer thsreof."
W i t h r e s p e ct o
t E x h i b i l5 1 0 ,5 1 1 ,5 1 2a n d5 1 3 ,a
certificationftonl Tiltha Ar-.ayal,
CoDsular
Officer,
Minishy of Foleign Alfairs, GovemmelrtoL
Nepal,stating,"L.. certily that the following
Nepali Documeuthas becn traDslatod
by the
authority body and also ceftiry the seal ancl
112
srgnatueto be truearldthe official positionofthe
Sectioll/ ProductioD/Accountan/Administration
O{ficelthereoi,,
(3)
With respectto Exlibit 500, a cerrif,ication
from
Nepal. and Signature of Mr. Tiltha Ar.ayal,
ConsularOflicer of the attacheddocumentwith
the followingparticulars
to bo true.',
April 3, 2009, the defensefiled supplementalpoir:rtsand
es to the Motion for JudicialNotice and flrrther.noved the court to
Sapna's2005 conviction frotr Nepal under the cloctrineof re.r
(6 CT 1532-1548)In suppot of this supprementar
motron-the
attacheda declaratio[ftom RudraprasadSharnaphual,ar expelt
jurisprudence.
N4r.Shaf,ma
practiced
law in Nepalandreceivecl
degree
in commercial
lawatTribhuvan
Universityin Kathmandu,
113
Nepal, in 2007, and an LL.M de$ee h transactioralbusinesspractices
from McGeorgeSchoolof Law, in 2008. Mr'. Sharmastarleclpracticing
law in Nepal in 2003 and had appearedat all levels of the Nepalcourt
system, includilg the Supreme Courl Among nany professional
accomplishmeuts,
Mr Sharma\i'as on a mediationpanelfacilitatedby the
SuplemeCourt in Nepal and has servedas a consultantto the Supreme
CourtofNepal with rega{dto the Mid-TermRevie\,vof Strategicpla[nrng
(6CT 1s49,1560-1s62)
In his declaralion,ir4r. Sharmaexplainedthat "independence
of rhe
judiciary in Nepal is guaranteedby a modem oorutitutionwhich is itself
basedupon centuliesof traditionaljudicial practice" and that ,,thereare
thlee xien of couds in Nepal" which operate,"freo from political
interferenco,"
muchlike theAmericanjudicialsystcm.(6 C.I l55l) i\4r.
Sharmaalso explainedthe meaningof the sealor stampof the ,,SluccLaw
BooksManagementBoald" which appeatsou all of the NepalidocumeDrs
markedfor identifioation
asExhibits500-514,(6 CT 1552)Aocording
io
Ir4r.$harma,the ShreeLarv Books Malagc[]ent lJoardis ',au affiliateof
the Ministry of Law, Justioeand ParliameltaryAifairs in Nepal" and ,,is
the official translatorof all oflicial documontsfrom Nepaliro English.,'(6
cT 1552)
The prosecutionneverhled a formalnotion opposirrgthe admission
of the Nepali documents.(2 RT 87) Nevertheless,
at the pre-trialhearing
heldon April 20,2009,theprosecution
verballyobjected
to theadmissron
of the Ncpali documentsby arguing the defense failed to properly
aulhenticatethe documentspursuantto Evidence Code sectioli 1530,
subdivision(a), subsection(3), thereby making them inadnissiblefor
puposesofjudiciaLnotice(Evid.Codeg 452.5,subd (b))andfoundational
facts(Evid.code $ 403). (? RT 91-92,98-107)
1t4
The p|osecution argued that
the defense failed to properly
authenticatethe Nepali dccuments
becausethere was no attestationIlom
the ShreeLaw Books Managementl3oard
statingthat the documentswere a
"trueandconect"copyofthe original
Nepalicourtdocuments.(2
103) The prosecutionalsoarguedthat
RT 102_
he final statementftom the Nepal
Embassyin WashingtonD.C. was
nsufficienl because,,Harishchandra
Ghimte, he doesn,tclearly statewhat
his positionis.,, (2 R,I 91,101)
Whenthe hial courl clarifie(lthatthe final
stalementclearlyidentifiedMr
,,First
Ghimire'sposition as
Secretaryof the Embassyof Nepal,,,the
prosecutlonquestionedwhethera,,First
Secretary,,
meetsthe statutory
pefnition of "consularofficial,,arguingthat Evidence
Codesection1530,
bubdivision(a), subsection(3), required
a nanow interpreratio'. .l.he
prosecuronalso arguedthat I\4r. Ghimile
failed to certjg/ the officlat
positionofthe Bislurucautarnwith respect
to Exhibit500. (2 RT 101)
Finally, the prosecutic,n
arguedthat, evenifproperly autheilticated,
thetrial courtshouldnot take
!er\! judicial
noticeor
Juurvr4r rruuoe
of the
lne unoellylng
underlyinglacts
factsol
of th€
the
documents,
in particuLar
SapnaDev,s couectdatoof bir1h,because
llepali
doingso would exceedthescopeof thestatute.(2
RT l04_l05)
Despitethe defense,srebuttalalgument,poirting
out the express
'lattestation"
fiom the SlueeLaw BooksManagem€nt
Boarcl(2 ltT l0g),
the hial coun denied the motions hnding the
defensefailed to property
a\r*renticatethe documentsbecauseno declaralion,stamp
or seal rendeled
the word "correct,' copy aspart of its certijjcation. (2
RT 1 12) As rulcd by
the tial court:
determinationof foundationalfact, the Couft
caruot tind that foundatio[allacl has beenrnet.
The motionis denied
( 2R T 1 1 2 -113 )
The trial court also deniedthe defense'smotion for judicial notice
finding it inappropriateto allow the defenseto usethe fact LhatSaplalred
about her date of bi-rthto supportits case-in-chiefas opposedto simply
impeachingher with a crimeofmoral twpitude. (2 RT I 13) Specifica[y,
the tlial coufi ruled:
The Court would not allow these in under
judicial noticeprovisionsbecauseit is the truth
ofthe mafterasserted
within the documents
tltat
the defenseis trying to use. And so evenif they
- or older
met 1530,theideathatshe'syounger
lhan she says she is or once lied on her
documentation about her age, those are
inseparable
from merelyhavinga convictionfor
lying or having, essentially,what lve would
probably call a false cLocrulentconvictiotrof
some sort, 'fhere's no way to take iudicial
noticeof thatLx1der
452 or 452.5.
(2 RT 113) Given this ruling, the lrial coud found the issueof resjudicata
moot. (2 RT I 14)
During the aftemoonsessionof April 20, 2009,the dot'ense
asked
the ldal courl to reconsider.
its earlierruling becauseunlike Exhibrt500,
which the prosecutionandh ial courtreliedon in determiningtheattestation
was irisufficient,
Exhibits501,502,503,504,505,506,507,508,509and
514 (oertified by Jiban P. Shestha)have a slightly differe|t (leclaration
cerlifyingthe authenticityof the docunentswhich moreprecisclyindicates
thatthbtranslation
of the"origiral"document
is "tme,' (2 RT l3 5-l j6) In
aDel'fdrt!o clarify the defense'sposition,the trial courl askedthe det'ense,
"[]s it your positionthatthephrase'thetranslation
is true,is equalto ,the
nent'?" (2 RT 137) After rhedelense
I courtheld,"The Corrr1cloesrof find
e, audthe eilrlieiruling is conhnned.,,
telensefiled a fomal rliotion tor.
iental declalationlrom Mr. Sharrna
t "thered seaifrom 'ShreeLaw Books
,vanantyttraLthe docufrelts in LIle
languageare in fact an ofticial recordof the Nepali
court and that
f'{epali
fhe EnglishtraDslationis both conductodby the olhcial branch of the
Ministry of Law, Justice and paLiiamentaryaffairs
in Nepal and is
are." (8 cT 2328; 9 cT 233S) Specifically,
Mr. shama,s
pplemental
declaration,
signedrurderpenalfyofperjury, stated:
wherewithNepali attornoyswho havepLacticed
at leastsevenyearsand cetlain employeesof
judicial sewiceoanappearal an examination
to
qualiS themselvesas an ftarslatorof the any
documentftom English to Nepaii and vice
versa. Over 30 attomeyshaveobtainedlicelse
assuchtanslatoraflerpassingthe examination.
Flowevel SLBMB still remains as the
preemrnente[tity to tlanslateany docunent
liom English to Nepali ancl vici versa. I
frequentlycame,aorossthe soal of SLBMB
rt7
seal and I continuedto comeacrossthe sealin
lny law practicein Nepal.
Wlren the seal of the SLBITS appeus upoa a
page of a-oy document that signiflies the
following;
(r)
The SLBMIT received an authentic official
docrunent.
(D
They translated it acouratelyinLo the said
language(English).
Therefore,the SLBMB is an authenticbody
having authority to translateany documenlfrom
Nepali to Englishal.rdvice-versaand the sealof
the SLBMB verifiesthe same. The sealof the
SLBMB appearsto be authenticto me,
(9 CT 2333-2334)
On April 29, 2009, the defense frled arother suppiemental
declarationto support its rnotion for reconsidcration,(6 CT 1665_1667)
This declarationcalne ftom Harishchandra
Ghimiie,the First Secretary
of
the Embassyof Nepal in WashingtonD.C. and statedunder penaltyof
This is to certiS/ that the ShreeLaw Books
Management.Boardis a part of the Ministry of
Law, Justiceand ConstituentAssembly(before
it was called Ministry of Law, Justice and
ParliamentaryAffairs), Govemmentof Nepal.
Wlen their red coloredsealappearson a page
that significstwo things:
1. They reaeivedan official documentissuedby a
gover[nent office of Nepal or an agency
constitutedunder the rules alrd regulationsof
the governmentof Nepal with an application
andrequiredcharges.
I l8
2. They accuratelytranslated
it into English or
requested
language.
6 CT 166s-1667)
On May 5,2009,the trial courtheardthe motion
for r.econsider.ation
d thedefense
broughtMr, Shalmato courtto
testiry.(6 RT I356_1367)
prosecution
objectedto i\{r. Sha-rma,s
testimonyarguing.,thedel.ense
aftempungto cilcumventltle strict requirements
of 1530(a)by opinion
timony,aodthat'snot what theslatuterequir.es.
The statuteallowsuncler
narrowcircumstatces
to havecertaindocumentsauthenticated
for use
tdals." (6 RT 1358) The prosecutioncontinued,,,In
this case(a)(3)
utes thatthe attestation
be madethatthe documentis a
true and collecl
py. [tjU] We wouldprobablyneedsomebodyto do
ar altestalionthat the
epaleseoriginal translationof the document_ the original
Nepa.lese
ion of this documentis.lxueand con.ect,then get auother
attestatiol
ying that rhetranslation.was
col:rect.',((i RT 135g_1359)Agr.eeingwith
prosecution,the trial court reasonedas follows:
We still havel,t met the requirementsin Section
1530. [llll] W€ havestatutoryexceptions,not
common law oxceptions,and the statutory
exceptions
needto be met,so the ideaherethat
the SfueoLaw JlooksManagement
Board seal
canbe tnteryreledby someoneelseastelling us
when they put the seal on this is what tley
mean,well, I agr.ee
with the people,sargumeni.
119
say is theseareaccuratecoPlgs
bring it into a California courl we'd have to
have that, so since this is a motlon to
which has anywhe[eliom one lo
reconsider,
Lwosteps,I will go aheadand go lluough it in
order'
the aPProplrate
The motion for the Court lo reconsiderthe
ruling is granted UPon reconsideralion'tllc
ruling is confirned, and tho documontsare still
excluded.
(6 RT 1364-1367)
E. The Trial Court Elred BY Relusiu To Takc Judicial Notice
o - tt h e N e D r l i C o u r t V c r d i c t a n d A
ellateDecisiou: llxhibi
502 and 500
EvidenceCode sectior 452.5,subdivisiou(b), statesin
rglevantPart:
An ofhcial rccord of convicliott certifled irt
with subdivisioD(a) ofSection i530
accordance
pulsuarlto Sectior1280to ptove
is admissible
t2a
the commission,attemptedcommissiol1,or
soiicitatiou of a criminal of'fense, prior.
conviction,servioeof a prison term, or other
act,condition,or eventrecordedby the record.
EvidenceCode section 1530, subdivision(a), subsection(3),
addresses
an officiaiwritilrgftorna foreigncountry.It provides,in relevant
parl,asfollows:
(a) A puryortedcopy of a writing in the
custodyof a publicentity,or ofall entryin such
a writing, is prima facie evidence of the
existence
andcontentofsuchwiting if:
(3) The office in which the writing is kept is
not within the UnitedStatesor any otherplace
describedir paragraph(2) and the copy is
attested
as a colTeclcopyof thewriling or eutry
by a person having ar"Lthorityto make
attestalion.
The atteslatiou must be
accornpanied
by a final statement
certifyingthe
genuineness
of the signatue and the official
positionof (i) the pefsonwho attestedthe copy
asa correctcopyor (ii) anylbreignofficial who
has certified either the genuinenessof the
signatureand official position of the person
atlestrngthe copy ol the geruinenessof the
signature and official position of arother
foteign official who has executeda sinilar
cedificate in a chain of such cerlificates
beginning
with a cenificrreof Lhegenuineness
of the signatureand official position of the
personatrestingthe copy, Exceptas provided
in the next sentence,
the final statement
nlay be
made only by a secretaryof au embassyor
legation,consulgenelal,consul,vice consul,or
oonsularagent of the United States, or a
diplomaticor consularofhcial of the foreign
counhy assignedor accreditedto the United
States.. . . If reasonable
oppofiu,lityhas been
g i v e n t o a l l p l n i c s r o i n v c s r i g a t er h e
authenticityandaccuracyof the docunents,the
courtmay, tbr goodcauseshown,(i) adrnit an
t2t
(ii)
attestedcopy rvithoutthe final slatementor
permitthe writing or eotryin tbreigll'lustodyto
te e.,idencedby al attestedsumnlatywith or
withoul a ilnal statement.
'l .
Bv Dtrlcrrnilriuq
Tbc Trisl Court 4buscd lts.Discrctiorr
i;ilI""t
I
F"ll",iJo Pro"j'ts.r' Ploo"r'-'+ru=;;|
(3)'
iubdivision(a)' sutrsectiou
and the appollate
ln the caseat bar, the Nepaliverdict (llxhibit 502)
oftheir originaL
decision(Exhibit 500)were both attestedas co :ect copies
with a seal from tho "Govemnent ol Nepal Ministry of Law'
counterparts
Board"anda
Jusliceand ParliamentaryAfl'airs Law Books Managemenl
iloard a d
stampstating: "ALlestedthe sealof Law Books Manageurcnt
Officer'" (7 C'l l 840' i 877)
sigratureof its Production/Section
EvidenceCodesectioD1452,subdivisiou(c) statosthat a "scalis
ot
presumedto be genuineandits useaulhorizcdif it PufPoltslo be tlic scal
power of the UnitedSlatesor a
by the exocutive
... a nalionrecognized
dopadmelt,agency,or officel of such naliort" A scal is also a fbtm ol
sign, madeto ottcst,in the mostfornal
attestation."A seal is a pa-rticular
manner,the executionof an instiument"
(Codc of Civ Pro .s 1930)
the
by the Uritcd S1ates,i2
sinceNepal is a na[ionreoognizetl
Therefors,
decisioushallbepresumed
sealplacedon the NepalivordictandaPpcllalc
to be gcnuine and authorized And, as an atlestation,the seal equally
coDveysthat the verdict and appellatedecisionare colToctcopiasof lheir
section1930
per Codeof Civil Procedure
originalcountetparts
thatlhe
thcleis lro requirenQnt
Contraryto lhe lrial courl'sanalysis,
attestationcontain the word "conect" in otdel to conply \'vithEvidence
Codesection1530,subdivision(a), subsectior(l), which requires"thc
as a coraectcopyofthe writing" EvidenceCodesection
copyis attested
ll
govh/lffi
Seelrttp://Ytl.rv.state.
t22
whenevera copyof
providesthat"for puryoses
153I expressly
of evidence,
-a ,Y,! ." (."i, ,6 i - ^ :r J" " H - " , - . 1 ^ " ^ - d i f i o , r r h a e : t c s l a L j o nc t c e d l f i r t t e m . t " r s r . 1 t ei n
substancethat the copy is a colrect copy of the original, or of a specified
pafithereofasthecasemaybe." (emphasta(lded.)In Pe1plev Br cker
I.reldthat a
(1983)148Ca1.App
3d. 230, 241, fie Court of Appeal clear:I1'
certificationstating the documentsat issue to be "true copies" was
sufficientto meet the requirementsof Evidence Code section 1530.
Similarly,in Peoplev. Flaxman(1977)74 Cal.App.3dSupp. 16, 18-19a
traffic suwey "atlestedlo by one J.J. Wleu, haffic elgineer" was
of Evidencr:Codesection1530despite
sufficientto meetlhe requiremenls
the factthatthetraffic engheer'satlestation
neverusedthe exactingphrase
"conectcopy"aspafl of thecerlification
IL ExparteSmith(1949)33 CaL2d797,801,fie CaliforniaSuplerne
Court expresslyheld ftat the word "attest" is equivalentto the word
"couect" or "verity." Thc documentat issue in Srxil,4concerneda
handwrittencertilicationwhich lead, "A!test: Sept, 29, 1948. E.A.
Burkart"witir a rubberstampirnpressioureadilg, "ExecutiveSecrctary,
Adult Authority,Depafimentof Couections." (lbid.) The high Cotut
found tire documentproperly authenticated
and emphasizedthat "No
cerlainwordsarenecessary
to cleatea valid celtificateattestinga purported
copy as a certilled copy." (Ibid., citing Harting v Cebrian (1935) l0
Cal.App.2d10,i7.) In this regard,theCalifomiaSupremeCout noted:
Generally recognizedraeaningsof "attest"
include"to certiS to the verity of a copy of a
publicdocumentforlnallyby signanue* * *; to
alIjrm to be lrLlgor genuine* + *. lt has been
saidthat the word is appropriately
usedfor the
affirmatiorof personsin their ofhcial capacity
to testthe fiuth of a w|iting, and that it is the
technicalwork by which, in the practice of
manyslates,a cerlifyingofficergivesassulalce
t o r e v e r i r yo f a c o p y . ( 7 C . JS . . n t r e s rp, .
123
of tbe
69I ) Therefore, it appean that the copy
minutes is aaoePtablycertified
v Johnson(1894) 104 Cal 407' the
(1blrl.) Similarly, in l4/ickersham
California SupremeCourt explainedthat
In section 1906 "attestation" is evidenlly used
-- lhe
in its secondary or technical serlse'
cerLification by the keeper of a record of re
verity ofa copy. In Anderson'sLa"v Diotionary
a deiinition ofl'attest" is as follows: "To certifl
to the Yerity of a copy of a ptrblic dooument"
In Abbott's Law Dictionary it is saidr "Attest is
also the technicalword by which, in tl')ePracticc
of many of the slates,a cet1ilying officer gtves
assurarce to the verity of a copy " See also
Black's Law Dictionary under "A11sst"
(Ilickersham v Johnson, supta, 104 Cal At p 414 ) l heletbtc' tliere can
the iDscribed
be no doubt lhat the seal, itself, and the soal along with
attestation collvey that the Nepali verdict and aPPellate decisioD a(e
"co[ect copies" of their original corLntelPalls California lias long
recognizedthal "atlest" means "coriect" ol "tlue" and lllat "trLle" and
jl
"correct" are essentially intcrchangeableattcstations In this rcgxrd, thc
satisfyEvidelce CodesectionI53t)
sealand the inscribedatlestation
Neveftheless,to obtain the benefit of the plesuDrptioD,a seal nlnst
alsobe sigrecl. (Jacobsonv. Gourley(2000) 83 CalApp4"' 1331,1335)
In Jacobsonv. Gourley, the Departmclt of Motor Vehicles(heleinaiicr
"DMV") introduced a blood alcohol report a1an administrativohearingto
plove the driver's license should be suspendeddue to intoxication (1/ at
p. 1333) 1hc blood alcoholreportcontained"a rubbelstanp at thc crd of
13
i1n'l
Evidelce Codeseclion751 requiresinteryrelers
Intelestingiy,
inteqllelation"
tanslatorsto |ake an oath that "he or she will nake a tr'r-re
werenot
ratherthan a "correct" interpLetationI-Iere,the Nepalidocum€xlts
copiesof the originalNepalicourtdoclrmentslllstcad,
simplycluplicate
theywere translatodcopiesor the originals Therefbte,it may havcbaen
to atLesl
to tlsm as"|Iue"copiesrathortllan"cotrect"copie"
moreaccurate
124
thefourertriesfwith] theernblemofthe SanBernardinoCounty'sSheriffs
togetherwith the name and addressof the ,lepa!llnent's
DepartmeJ..t
scientiflcirvestigationdivision." (1bld) Finding"thcrecaabe no sealofo
documentthat has not been subscribed,"i.e. signed by an aulhorized
person,the Coutt of Appeal held that the DMV failed to properly
thereport.(1d atp. 1335.)
authenticate
In contast to Jacobson,the seal of the "Govemmontof Nepal
Ministry of Law, Justice and ParliamentaryAffairs - Law Books
'fhe
Board" was subscribed.
seal placed or tlle verdict
Maoagement
(Exhibit502)was subscribed
by the ProductionOfhcer (7 CT 1877)and
the sealplacedon the appellatedecision(Exhjbit 500) was subsctibedby
theTealuicalOfficer,Bhum[ard Khanal(7 CT 1840).Thereforo,asvalid
seals,the verdict (Exhibit 502) and the appellatedecisiorl(Exllibit 500)
a
shouldhavebeenpresumedto be genuineoffrcialdoormentscontzrining
properaltestation
ofcorreclness
or velity,
As for the next tier of certificalionin the necessary"chain of
thereappears
to be two separate
cer'lillcaLrons
both of which
certifications,"
attestto the ve ty of the MiDistryof ForcignAl'fair's seal.
independenlly
In the first instance,there is an attestationfroln the Dcpuly Chief of
Protocolfor the Law BooksManagement
Boardwhich,for boththe veldict
(Exhibit502)andthe appellatedecisior(Exhibit500),roadsr"Altestedthe
seal of the Law Books maragementBoard and signalure of ils
ProductioSectionOfficer." (7 CT i840, 1877) Again,contraryto the
thereis no requirement
thal the plxase"correot
tdal coud'sdetermination,
copy" appearotr the attesiatiortcertification
for it to properlyconveylhat
the documentis, iII fact, a correctcopy. Using the word "attest" rs
sufficienf. (Smith, supra, 33 Ca1.3dat p 801.)
Therefore, this
"attestatiol,"wiihouL more, is sulhcient to meet the "correct copy"
requiremcnt
ofEvidcnceCodeseclion1530
125
Theattgstationtblthevefdlc|(Exhibi|502)aLsoincludesaspeciiic
Officer" who actuallysigDedor
referenceto the Yerity of the "Production
SubsclibedtheMinistryofForeignAffail'sseaL'(7cT1877)Inoolrttast'
clecision(Exhibit i00) is
lhe expressattestationplacedon the appellate
of Lhe"Ploductiot/Sectton
slightlydifTere[t. While it alsoatleststo veiity
signecLor subscribedby the
Officer's signatute,the Mlnisty's seal is
Ofltcer or SeclionOfhcer (7
TechnicalOlficer ratherthan a Production
st'rnpedon
attestation
CT 1840) Ilowever, theDeputyChiefofProtocol
decision(Exhibit 500) is
both the verdiot (Exhibit 502) and the appellate
Botll thesedocurnents
not the only valid attestalionofthe Ministly's seal
areindependenllyatlested10by otherforeignofli';ials
Jiban
lo the verdict(Exhibit502)'DeputyChiefof Protocol'
With resPec!
P. Shrestha, provided an oqtraj and independenl
as to the velity of the Mjnistry's seal ln this
zlttestation/coftiflcation
verdict (Exhibit 502)
regard,a sePalataclocur]lenlwas atlachedto tlte
MinistryofJroreign
DepulyChiefof J?rotocol'
"I, JibanP Shrestha,
stating,
ol
Affairs, Goverrrment01'Nepal,Certify that tlle authorizedlranslation
position'
followingOriginalNePaliDocunentto be tlue and lhe official
/ Account/ Administlation
sealand signatuleo[ the Section/ Productiort
Olficer thereof." (7 CT 1876) Thereforc,oven abscnttha starlrPc(l
attestationfrom the Chief of Protocol(Sharma),the atlestatiol/cenilication
from the Deputy Chief of Protocol(Sluestha)also irdepertdeltlyvcrilicd
rhe subscriptionof tha Ministry's seal atteslingto the documerll's
'[he
trial courl found this cortificationto be inadcquate
authenlicity.
is 'tlue"'is not equalir substarlce
it founclthe phrase"lranslation
because
suPrq'cat\tary to
to "coffect copy." (2 RT 137) I-Iowever,as discnssed
the Coufi of Appeillhas fottrtdtheseexaat
the trial coufi's conclusion,
supta,148CalApp 3d at p
phasesfo be oqlrivalent(Peoplev Brtrcket,
t26
241 l"defendart'slack of cedificationargumentis witholl uerit lasl
tc be truecopies"].)
theattacheC
dccuments
ExhibitLJc.lrepresented
Similarly,with respectto the appellatedecision(Exhibit 500),the
the
alsoceftifies
Gautam
Offrcer
BishuPrasad
cefiification
fromConsular
andofhcialpositionofthe personwho signedthe Ministry's seaL
signature
(7 CT 1839-1840)In this regard,the cedrficationstates,"I, BisluruPrasad
Gautam,ConsularOfficer, Ministly of ForeignAffairs, Govemmeotof
Nepal,Certi$ rhatthe lbllowingNepaiiDocumenthasbeenhanslatedby
bodyandalsocertiff thesealandsignatureto be tlue andthe
theauthorized
official position of the Section/ Production/ Account/ Administration
Officerthereof." (7 CT 1839)
Finally,asrequiredby Evidenc€Codesection1530,subdivision(a),
(3), both the vordict(Exhibit 502) arld the appcllaledecision
subsection
(Exhibit 500) have a "final stalemenl"attachedlo theln lioni tlie |irsl
Secretatyof the Embassyof Nepal locatedin WashingtonD.C
(7 CT
mustbe made
by seclion1530,thefinalstatemettt
1838,1875)As required
by a "secretaryof an embassyo[ legation,consulgeneral,oortstli,vice
consul,or consularagenlof the UnitedStatos,or a diplomaticot cousulat
to the Uritcd Statos."
off,icialof the foreignoountryassigledor accredited
Ghimire
(Evid.Code$ 1530,subd.(a)(3).)Therefore,
sinceHarishchancha
is the"First Secretary"ofthe EmbassyofNepal,he is qualifiedlo nake the
underthe statule. In acldition,with respcct1()the vel(licl
final staten')enl
andotllcial
(Exhibit502),Fladshchandra
Ghimirecertifiedthegenrineness
positionof Jiban P. Shreshtha(7 CT 1875) ard, with rospectto thc
appellatedeoision(Exnibit 500), IlarishchandraGhiniLe oettified the
genuineness
andofticialpositionofthe BishnuPrasadGautam
Giventhis "chain of certification,"it is clearthat aplcllalrtmet the
stalutoryrequtements
of EvideDce
Codeseclion1530,subdivision(a),
(3) and that the Nepaliverdict(Exhibit 502) and the appellate
subsection
127
ol
been corsrderedptimafacle evidence
have
shouid
500)
(Exhibif
decision
trial
courl documcnts Therefole' thc
the existeuce and content of those
coultabuseditsdiscletionbyexcLudingtheNepalicoufldocuments
enor'
reversible
constituting
To
Ef - Rgf-u-silg
d lts-Discrctiq-!
2. The Trial courl Abuse
or
T;k;-Judiciat
Conviction
Notic" ot s'rpn"'s Entire r{ecor'o
Codeseclion1530'the
With propcr aulhenticationundei Eyiclence
trialcourlshouldhavetakenjudicialnoticooftheveldict(Exhibit502)and
EviclenceCode section452 5
the apPellatedecision(Exhibit 500) uoder
Howevet,inadditiontooefiificaliouissues,|hetlialcour|alsolcfused|o
of corviotior becauscit found
takejudicial notice of |he Nepali lecord
juclgrnentrcsulledfrom a criminalversus
lherewas no evidencethe Nepali
140)
RT 3395;ARl (5/11/2009)
civil proceedirg.(1 llT 112'7:13
-fhe Nepah coult docunle[ls,howcvet'make it very clear thal the
verdic|car:Ilefromacriminalpt.occedirrg'TlreaPpellatedecision(Bxhib
the firstpageas it clearly
500)explicitlyidentifiesthc caseasclininal on
year2062 Decisionnunbot'
slates"Criurinalappeallumbct 63/14?of thc
also expresslv
1." (7 CT 1840) Sirnilarly,lhe verdict(Exhlbit 502)
rvhetein it denotes'
ide[tihes the case as criminal on |he first page
CriruirtalCaseNo 57 of thcyear2061BS Vcrdid No 402"
"Govemment
(? CT 1877) [n adclitionto thcseapparcnlruarkcfs'therervercalsotrlany
First'
otherevidentlaclo$ clearlyestablishirgthc proceedingas crin]inal
I atherthansuedby an individual
by lhe GovenlmeDt
Sapnawas prosecuted
In this regard, the GovemlDentinitiatedprooeedilgsby filing a "Filst
(7 CT 1843'
Irfornation Report"which is cquivalentto an indiotnent
fbr l9
andplacedin policecustody
Sapnahadbeenarresled
1885)Secorcl,
to lime
daysbetbre she postedbail and, upot convicliorl,was sentenced
servedplus a hnc of 100 Rupees (7 CT 1841,1846,1878,1887) l'he
of a
porverof the Govennneltto anesl andjail Sapnais representativc
r23
criminal proceeding. Third, Section5 of the PassportAc1, which is the
stah,te Sapna was picseculed ''nder, provitles fcl
a punishnent of
imprisonmenlfof a term not to exceedone year-orwith a fine Dot to exceed
500 rupees. Again, this type of liabiiity, loss of libelty, is uniqueto
crimi[al proceedings.(7 CT 1850-1851)Fourfi, aocordingto Mr'
Sharma'sexpertopinion the proceedingwas criminal in nature (6 C1'
1552) And, finally, when Luzz Dunn ftom the l.N.S. testifiedirboutthe
whichjustify issuinga policece.lificatewalver.aswas donc
circumstances
for Sapnain this case,the trial coulLitself askedclarifoingquestionsof
Dunnto which sheexplainedshehad only seenpolice certificatgwaivers
issuedin the contextof "criminalconviclions"ftom foreigncountties (13
RT 3451-3152)Therefore,sincethetewas absolutelyno leasonto doubt
that the Ncpali judgraentwas the productof a cr:itninalproceedingand,
thus,was a criminalconvicliondesewingofjr.rdiciainotice,the trial colut
abusedits discretionby finding otherwise.Altonatively, thQ Llial court
shouldhaveheLda hearingon the matterif it haddoublsas to thc criminal
an abuseofdiscrctiorl..
natureofthe judgment.Failingto do so constihlted
ploperlyprescntedcettifiedoopiesof
Therefore,sincethe clefense
Sapna's2005 crirninalconvictionAom Nepal,the trial cou : shouldhave
takenjudicial noticeof the convictionpursuantto EvidenceCode seclion
452.5. Beforea coult oantakejudicial noticeof a writing, howevet,the
proponentof the evidencemust establishthat thc writing is admissiblc
underEvidenceCode section1280wbich recluires(1) The rvriting was
madeby and within the scopeof a duty of a publio employee;(2) The
writingwasmadeat or nearthe time ofthe act,condition,or evcDt;ard (3)
The sourcesof infon.nationandmethodandtime of proparatioflweresuoh
lnet ulder
asto indicateits trustworthiness,
Thc certificationrequiremgllLs
sectioni530equallysatis! rhecriteriaofsection1280.First,thejudgnent
was madewithin lhe scopeof the Nepalijudicial systen ard certif-red
by
129
second'the judgrnert was written
the Nepali Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
ancl' third' lhe judgmonf is
coltenporaneorLs lo the coufi's decision;
it trustwofihy
plesumedto be ao.reot arld acouratenaking
0f lhe entile
EvidenceCodesection4525 allowsfor adrnission
record of conviction "to prove the colnmission
of a crimitlal offeuse
orothsract,col:rdition,oreventrecordedbytherccord"(Seealso/'eople
936 l"[oiur high courthasdeclared
v. Mathews(lggl) 22g Cal App 3d 930'
'look to the elltire record of the co[vlatlon to
that the trigr of fact may
determinethesubstanceofapriorforeignconviotion,',citllgPeopLev
Ibid citing Peaple I Castellanos
Guerrero (1988) 44 Cai 3d 343, 355;
record of convictiol
(1990) 219 Cal App 3d 1163, lI12 ["[t]he entrre
file ol'the prior oonviction"l )
includes all relevant docutrrenlsin the court
takcn iucliciaLDolice of the entifc
Therefore, tlle trial cou$ should have
Sapna's convLctlonlor
Nepali record of conviction which included
Detzrils'lo wit' that Strpnallov
ObtainingA PassporlBy Furrishinglirakc
Inlsely slatingher clatcol
obtaineda Passpolton Deoember15, 1998 by
as found by the Nepali
birth as January5, lg84 when her realclateol'bilth'
APdl 28, 1983
courl,wasactuallY
B RehrsinsTo
3. lthe Trial Cou[ Abuscd Its Discr-etion
,1 R"s "/r,,/ic414-P1ft911qSanu"' 2 0 0 5 N c p a l i
CorrYiction.
res
also provrdcd
Given this final juilglrrent, the llial oourt shoLrklhave
jury
judicatct eflect to tl.le Nepali cotrviction and iustructeclthe
noot
decisiorl'the issuewas1101
accordingly.Coltrary to the LriaicoLLIl's
courl
(2 RT 114) "A foreignjudgmer,t\Nt.lberesiutlrcala ir an Anerical
if il has lhat effect iu its coutltly of rcnditionanclif il Deetsthc Anerrcan
julLsdiction" (15MC
stanclardof a fait tlial before a court of competurt
(2003) l6l
North America v Semiconductot MfS lnLctn Cory
Cal.App.4th58L,602 citing Beroiz v llahl (2000) 84 CalApp4th 485'
tlledlengthy
condiliolthedefense
494.) In an effot to salisrythisLegal
Li0
fiom Nepali iegal expertRudla PrasadSharmaPhuai aud
declarations
5 CT l54rbroughthiin to courtto testiryor thematter.(6 F-T1354-1'15'/t
1558:9CT 2333-2336)I-lowever,thetrial coufi refusedto heartestimory
despitealLthe evidencelo the contrary,that the
on theissueandconcluded,
onthepaltolthe trialcourt
moot. (2 RT 114) Thisconclusion
issuewas
and ils refusalto hold a hearingon the matter constilutedon abuseot
discretion.
F. The NeDali Court Docuureuts Were Alsq -Propcllv
AuthenticatcdBy Other Circumstalltirl Evidence.
The Lrial court enoneouslyfound thal thc legislalLlreresticted
the Nepali documentsby exclusively
appellant'sability to authenticate
requiringcomplrancewith EviclenceCode section1530,subclivision(a),
(3). (6 RT i364-1367)Conlraryto thetrial couft'sassessment,
subsection
however,appellaotwtrs not Limitedto authenticatingthe Nepali couft
documentsthrough the preciserequirementsof Eviderce Code sectiol
provides
lhal"Nolhingin this
Codesectiol1410expressly
1530.Evidence
articleshall be conshuedlo limit the meansby which tr writin55rnay be
autherticafedor proved." (See also People r. Gibson (2.001)90
hotel roorl
Cal.App.4th3'71,382-383[manuscriptsfound in dei:endaut's
conceminga prostitutionring andwriltonin the fir'stpelsonwer-esufficicut
defelrdantas author and were, therefore,si!]nit-lcantto
to authenticate
proving"pimping and pandering"chuges]; )'eoplev. Olguin (1995)3l
Cal.App.4th1355, 13'72-13'13
frap lyrics found in defendar]t'sroom
suffrciently authelrlic to
prove gang affiliation for
sentenciug
enhancenentl;Peopler. Cuevas(1961)250 Cal.App.2d901, 908-909
renderevideDce
of prior
[ack of sealin certificationdid not automatically
conviclionirauthenticl.) Therefore,the tlial coufi's lefusalto cousider
the informationcortainedirr N4l Sharmaand il4r'.Ghimite's deciaratious
constitutedan abuse of discletion especiailysince bolh declarations
]]l
fror]
explicitly provide that the Ministry's seal
the ManabemelrlBoardreceivcd
ManagcmentBoard is a cefiificati'onthat
govsl'Ilmentand that the official
an official documelrt issued by the
1 35 8 ,1 3 6 4 - 1 i 6 7 ; 6
was accuratelyor correctlytralslated (6 r
clocument
9 CT 2333'2334)
CT 1665-1661t
I 1 8 2 .I I 8 6 - 1 1 8t7h.e
In Peoplev. Skites(2011)51 Cal4th 117 ,
California Supreme Court unanimouslyreconfi
Lhat lhere ar'e Do
a wri iug !an be properlY
limitations on the methods by which
eviden supporliuga {inding
authenticatedas long as there is sufficient
thi regard,rhe High Cottti
thal the documentis what it purpofs to be ln
requiremelltsof
specificallyheld that a pafiy is not lilnited to the stricter
enticate and tlltrodtlcc
EvidenceCodesection1530whenattemptingto a
the prosecutiorl
a prior convictionfrom a foreign sare (Ibid) | Skiles,
pleviot"tslybeen
attemptedto introduceevidencethat the defen t had
for increased
convictedof a seriousfelony in Alabana quali ilg hiuL
punishmentunderthe ThreeStrikeslaw (Id tttpp 1 1 8 2I-1 8 3) W h i l ct h e
prosecutionhad successfullyobtainedseveral ified couft dooLtments
Codc
from Alabama which were properly authentlca undel Evidcnce
thal
section1530,thesecerlified documentswere Ins fficientto establish
'seriousfelony"under
the vehicular manslaughterconviction was a
Californialaw becausenothingin the cortifiedd
tha!
mentsestabiished
the "defendanthad personally inflicted greatbodil injury on a personothel
thalr an acaomplice;' (Id. at p 1183) To m et this requiremont,tho
prosecutiouintroduceda missingpagefron.rthe i ictmentwhichhadbcen
thatthis
faxeclover by the Alabamacourt clerk (1bld.) cknowledging
faxedcopy did not meetthe st cterrequilemenls fEvidenceCodescction
held thatthe pfoseculiorl
1530,the CaliforniaSupteureCour'|,nevertheless,
the nisst g pageof the ir)diclment
was not foreclosedftom authenticating
t3z
with othercircumstantialevidence.(1d at pp. 1186-1187
) SpgcificaLly,
theHigh Coudreasoned:
Sincea certifiedcopy of an ofhcial writing "is
prima facie evidenceof the existenceand
contentof suchwritilg or enty" undersection
1530,we may infer that a noncertifiedcopy,by
itself, is not reliableenoughto corNlitutesuch
prima facie evidence However, nothing in
scction1530forbidsauther'Itication
by arolher
method. Other evidencemay establishthat a
faxed copy of a certifiedcopy of an ofhcial
writing is authentic and reliable. When
considered
together,the evidencemay srffice to
provea prior fclonyconviction.
(rbid.)
In S&i/es,
the Court foundthe faxedcopy to be authentic$ecauseit
was consistenlwith the other certifiedcopies;refefiedto the san-tecou ,
county,ard clerk asthe olhercartifieddocuments;
identifiedthe dbteof the
crimeas the sameas the othercertifieddocunents;and had a lumber on
the bottom Ieft comer which was sequentialto the certilied dpcuments
conoboralingthat it was a missing page of lhe certified dqcuments.
(Peoplev. Skiles,supra,5l Cal.4that p. i187,) While appelkLnt
contends
he met the stricter requirementsof EvidenceCode seotio 1530, the
declarations
he submittedf'rom\4r'. Sharmaand Mr. Ghimire alsbprovide
evidenceunderEvidenceCodesections1400-1410
sufficientcircumstantial
thattheNepalicourldocuments
wereauthentic.That is, that the Ministry's
sealsignihesthat the documentis an official documentlrom t1e Nepali
andits translationis correct
soverrunent
In fact, it is not uncommonto simply rely on relevaotdeblarations
a documentFor example,tn Grelgnspan
and/ortesfimonyto auth€nticate
v.
LADT(2011)191Cal.App.4th
486,523,rhe
CourtofAppealfourd thetrial
court abusedits discretioDwhen it precludedcounselfiom r<i'iyingon
various declarationsto authenticalenanv of the ulaintiffs exhibits.
t33
Similarly, tl
Lqndqle-CameronCourl Inc
Ahanen (2001) $5
1409the coufl o f ppsal found a lettcr,
cal.App.4lh1401, 1404-1405,
I S S e, had been proPerlY
critical lo resolving a stalute of limitatrons
basedon a declaralionprovided1
authenticated
statedhe receivedthe ietterfrom prior counsel
cornsel
unselbecause
couldveriry
therefo|e,
it wastlue and correct (Id a'tp 1409)
t h eC o u r lo f
ht Jazayeri t. Mao (2009) 174 Cai App 4th 3 0 1 , 3 0 6 ,
und counselfailedto
Appeal reversed a judgment where the trial courl
authenticatedocumentsfrom the USDA simply
record couid not attest to the doculnentsbei
auselhe custodianot
a "true and correct"
duplicate of the originals due to some unloo
handwriling on lhe
documenls.(lct. at p.314,320.) Jazayeriir'volv
a contractdispnteand
to
USDAreports
ftaud wherein Mao Foods Inc. was allegedto have tered
reduceits costsby falsifying the numbcr ol'chicke
it receivedas"deadon
D istrict,Divisiol fbund
theSeoond
arival" or "DOA" (1btd) UftimateLy
plethoraot
the USDA documents had been authelticatd by a
evidenceincluding,but not limi to, teslinory from the
circumstantial
ol'
thc ptocess
ohickeusupplierand an employeefron the USDA legarditrg
obtaining copies from the USDA thlough a
ln of InfonnationAct
("FOIA") request.
that
Greens /? all demonstrale
Jazayeri,Landale-Camerson,ard
0f
the trial aoufi had the authorityto rely on the decl ationsandtestinrony
Mr. Sharma and Mr. Ghimire to authenticatethe Nepali documents
and to
declarations
Therefore,it was an abuseof discretionto ignore
to
refuseto hear testimony from Mr' Sharmalvh was madeavailable
testifyon thematlerol May 5, 2009.(6 RT 1354-361)
Califorflia courts also have a lol1ghrstory f relyingor declaratrons
ot
anclteslimonyfrom leamedexpefisto deternlioet e law or legalpractice
a foreigl country \.vhete there is any questior or ambiguityaboutLhe
t34
authenlicityor legaleffectof a documeotfrom a foreignjurisdiction. For
-----r-
i. r^ -- ri"t-t- ^f.L;-L-"-eQ
y Cqlifornia (!,061) 66 Qal 2d 8-1,
85 the deceased,
a United Stalescitizenwho residedin Caliltrmiir,named
selectfamily membersas beneficiaries
underher will. The benfficiarres
wereRomanianandliving in Romania.UnderCalifornialaw, irovievet,1he
werenol entitledto inheritthe Californiaestdteunless
namedbeneficiaries
it could bo shownthat Romanianlaw was reciprocal,i.e. that Ronania
wouldhonorits citizens'testamentary
rights in the eaentthey left propedy
to a Califomian,(1bld.)Absentsucha showing,the deceased
estitewould
to Califonia. (Ibid.) Thetr\al cout hcardevidencefrom "eminent
escheat
autho ties on Runaoianlaw andhadbeforeit the reporleddecisignsofthe
highestRumaniancourts." (Id at p. 87.) While the lrial court dltelmined
that theletlerof Romanianlaw wasnot reoiprocal,the Calilbl0ia Supreme
CourtTeversed
finding that the "massivearray of scholars,juiists, and
practitionels"all agreedRomanianlaw in letter and practice provided
reciprocity.(Id. at p. 92.) Like Chichernea,the trial court. hclp, should
havereliedon the expertiseof \4r. Sharmaand Mr, Chimire l.oielify Lhe
law andlegalpracticein Nepal. Specifrcally,for deteminingwlietlterthe
Nepali coull documentswere cofiect copies ancLfanslations of their
and whetherthe Nepalijustice systemcomponswith
originalcounterparts
anAmerioanslandardof a fair trial.
it waLs
Ir\ Prattv. Pratt(1919)43 Cal.App.261,2'76-279,
neccssary
whethera powerof attomeyexecutedin Englandwhs legally
to delermirle
enforceable
underEnglishlaw in orderto resolvea probatedisprrrte
which
arosein Califomia. While the Court of Appeal acknowled€ted
thal the
cedificationfrom the notary public in England may not ineet thc
requirementsof the Califolrria Evidence Code for "prinla facie"
authentication,
othercircumstancas
surroundinglhe e)(ocutiotr
of the power
of atlorneyclearlyrenderedit authentic.(1brd)
135
the lrial court abusedits
Chichernea alld Pratt make it clear that
ol lvlf
and/orteslin]oLry
discretionby refusingto considertl.Iedeclaratiols
Had the trial aoufi
Sharmaand Mr. Ghimire. (6 RT 1358' 1364-1361)
to no doubtai Lo
the declarations,lherewouid have beenlittle
considerecl
cluesiionthat the Ministly's
the accuracyof the Nepali documentsor any
coltect copies and correct
seal signified that the documenlswele
lo lebut theacculacyof
translations.In fact, the proseculionnot only failed
a plethora ol evidence
the Nepali documents,il acttLalLyirltrocluced
the
that Sapna,the INS, andDetectiveI'Iemannall.l(newabout
establishiug
with lhe outcomo'reliedon it as
Nepalijudgmentancl,while theyclisagreed
judgment also conslitutesan
authoritative. This reliancaon tho Nepali
of aulhgnticationwith
independentbasis for satisfyinglhe :re(luiremerlt
otheroircumstantialevidel]ce
Iror example,tn Ambrizt' Kelegian(2007)146CalApp 4lh 1519'
raped
1524,a woman sue(lhef aPa ment buildir.rgbecauseshehad been
Sheblarnedthe ownersfor failing to proPerlysecurethe buildingdespitu
'l'he
lrial coun granted the
several cornplainls flom olher tcllanls
apartmentowrers' motion for summaryjudgmentfinding the victiDlcould
not establishcausatiou. Tire trial cour!, however,tefttsedto consider
ofltcerwho testitiedthelcwas
teslimonyfrom thc investigating
deposition
no evidenceof lbrced entry at the apallmellt complex The tliaL colr
erroneouslyfound that the victim,/Plaintifffailed to authenticatcthe
depositiontranscriptbecausethe lrarLscriptJackedceftificationfrom the
andheldthc
courfreporter.(Id.atp 1526) fhe ClourtofAPpealreversed
deposilion testimony lo be autllentic despito the lack of certil-rcation
reliedor lhe depositiontestinonyas
the defendantsindependently
because
accuratewhen they had attaohedexcer?ts frorn the same deposition
testimooyto their summaryjudgmentnotion. (1d at p. 1527.)
ll6
wituessesr-eliedon
Similarly,in the caseat bar,severalprosecution
therebycoaceding
the|IepaLij Lrdgment
its aulhenlicity Specificaliy,Sapua
her dateof
testifiedthat at the end of the NepaliLrialthe coufi dertermined
birth was Aprii 28, 1983. (5 RT 986) Shealsotold DetectiveI-lelmann
thatsheaccepted
the verdict. (i0 RT 2570) And, sherepeatedlyclaimed
that shedid not appealthe Nepalijudgnent becauscDetcctiYeHelmann
told her to "take the birthdal,that the Cout is tellirg you to take and go
aheadandgetyourpassport."(5 Rf 987-988)Laterin the Lrial,Sapna
againtestified,"I mealt DetectiveHermanlhad toid me thatjust accepl
just takethe dateof bilth lhatjudgeis saying,just makeyour passportand
go to theUS embassy."(5 RT 1083)And, uponclarllying Lhislestimony,
Sapnastated,"I-Ietold me to take the dateof bilth tl.Iatlhc judge had said
and make my passpor'L.So that's exactly whal I did." (5 RT 103*/
DetecliveHermanncorroboriltedSapna'stestimonyby explaining,"I lold
Sapnathatsheshouldabideby theCourL's
rulingand Lakehi:r'newissued
dateofbirlh aDdoblaiD
a newpasspolL
to assist
herto llo backin tlieUrrlled
(9 RT 2I51)
States."
AlthoughSapnapublicallyrnaintainecl
that her '1eal" dale of birth
wasJanuary5, 1984afrerLheNepaLitrial, sheidentifierd
her drto ofbirth as
April 28, 1983 on all official documents
she flll:d out thereafterill
with he Nepalijudgment. (5 RT 994, 996) Tholefore,wheu
compliance
sheappiiedfor a new passporllo returr to the United Slatesilr 2005,she
identifiedher dateof birth as April 28, 1983consistertwith thc Nepah
judgrnent.
(5 RT 988,990-991;
9 CT 2503(Exhibit14),2504(Extrbit I5))
To obtainthat2005passport,
Sapnahadto fill out a c;dificateofNepalese
citizenship.(9 CT 2513(Exhitit 19) Whenhlling out this dooument,she
aisoidentiliedher dateof birth as April 28, 1983because"that's the bifih
date .. theCoufi"toldherto pul dor.vn.
(5 RT 992-994;13 RT 3412;9CT
2504(Exhibitl5), 2513(Exhibit19)) linally, Sapnaalsousedthedarcof
t31
bidhofApril23,lg83duetotheNepaiijudgmeotonhor2005lls
forms (5 RT 994; 9 Cf 2505
immigrationvisa and2005immigration
(Exhibit16),2506,2508(Exiribit17))
shehad
Luz Dunn'tiom theI N S alsotestified
witness,
Prosecution
had beenconvictedof falsely
seentheNepaljudgmenland l<rlewlhat Sapna
While' withoutfoundation'DLrnLr
obtaininga passpoft' (ll RT 2'782-2'784)
was January5' 1984'lashe
assertedshe believed Sapna'sbirthday
birth as April 28' 1983aftetthe
explainedthat Sapnaidentiliedher dateof
birth that her county lold her to
Nepali tuial becauseit was "the date of
whether"the April 28'
put." (11 TL'l 2'182-2'183)When directly asked
- Durul afllrurativeiyanswered'
1983,is the one the Nepal coufls said'?"
evidenceunecluivocally
,,Comect.,'r5
(11 RT 2783) This prosecutofial
ShowsthattheleWasnorealdisputeaStotheauthenticityoltheNlcpa
decision
verdictand aPPellate
reliedon tLrodisputed
Notably,in Anbriz,'trl\ereopposiugcouDscl
Appeal concludedthat the
documentsas aulhorilalive,the Courl o[
aulllentrcity wefe
defendants' objeclions regarding llie doculnents
p'
" (Ambrizv Kelegian'st'tpra'146CaiApp 4th at 152?)
"disingenuous
Nepali docuures had
Similarly,here,the pfosecution'sobjectionsto lhe
authenticity Rathof'the
nothi[g to do with its doubtsaboutlhe docune[ts'
affort to have thc
prosecution'sobjectionswere simply a disLngenuolLs
in orderto disnantlcthe hea of thc dr:fenso
exclucled
Nepalidocuments
on a falsedale
theoryof the case: thal Sapnaknewherradoptionwas based
theadoption
of birth and,therefore,undefstoodthat fie DevscouLdrevefse
Notably,however,DltnnaLsotestifiedthatLlnlledStatcshadllot vet
of clr''rtrg
dateol birthand u'asitt Llieprocess
accurate
delerninedSapna's
so (i3 RT 3421-3422)
r5
After this testimony,the trial courl expressiyinstruclcdthejury that
it could not conclude an1'thingabout tho Nepali proceedingcsp':cially
whether it was crirninal or civil iu natur-e (1 RT I'727' 3395; ART
(5/11/2001
94
) 0)
1j8
'"
and haveher deportedto Nepai
all of which motivatedher to falsely
accuseAiay of iape oncesheCecideC
tc severa1ltieriftorD the De'rsand
knewtheDevshadalreadyplannedto takeher out oftlLeirwilL.
evenif thereis a questionasto whetheltheNepaliveldict
Therefore,
andappellatedecisionwereproperlycertilicdpulsuanLlo EvidenceCode
section 1530, the docunents should have been admitted putsuallt to
EviderceCodeseotion1400thlough1410allowilg for othercitcumstantial
szrpra,as properly
evidenceto properlyauthcnticate.Again, as arguecL
the verdicl (Exhibit 502) and appellaledecision
authenlicated
documerlts,
(Exhibit500) shouldhave beenjucLiciallynoticedunder EviclcnceCode
section452.5andbeengivenres.ludicataeffact
G. All of theNepNliCourtDocunents,Exhibits 500ttlroueh514,
Shoukl Ilavc Beeu Adrnitted For the Jury's CqMd_9_I4!!q!l
Pursuantto EvidenceCorleScction403,
ln additionto takingjrrdioiallotice of the verd:iot(Exlritrrt502) aud
the appeilatedccisior (Exhibit500),thc defelsealsoaskedthat all of the
Exhibits 500 through514, be adrnittedIbt the jury's
Nepali documonts,
pursuarltto EvidenceCodc section403, slLbdivision
(a),
consideration
(3). (5 CT I2l9-1314)Because
!ve1c
subsection
all theNepalidocLunents
pursuantto Evidcnce Codc soclion 153,,
properly authenticated
subdivision(a), subsectiol(3) and weLeequally authenticalcdby other
cifcumstantial
evidencepursuantto Flvidenco
Codesection1410as argued,
suprc, lhey should have, at a lninimum, bcen admitted for the jury's
evenif they did not mcetthesfiatel rcquireme[tsofjudicral
oonsideration
notice.36As notedby the Cout of Appealit McAllisterv George(L911)
'u
At trial, the defeDsearg.redthat the tbunclationalfacts of all the
(Exhibits 500-514)shouldbe actnittedibr rtrejury s
Nepali docuureDts
considerationHowever,sinccall ofthe Ncpalidocuments
werepalt of the
"recordof conviction,"lheyrverea1lsubjectto judicial notice. (SeePeople
(1991)229Cal.App.3d
v. Mathews
930,936["[o]urhighcourthasdeclared
'look
that the tier 0f fact may
to the entirerecordof the convictionto
t39
a
lo sustarn
thereis sufficientevldenoe
is whal the proponentclaims'the autheolicrtyoi lhc
73 CalApp.3d 258,262,'1f
findingthat the writing
of fact " Tliercfbre'lrke
documenlbecomesa questionof fact i'or the tr:ier
case"c0tltilscdthc
fhetrial coud in Mcl l]ister,tl'e tral couft in appellal]t's
it" (1brd) Ircrthis
v,'iththe weight10be accotded
issueof acin.rissibilit)'
|efusing lo admtt the
reason,the trjal oourt abusedifs discrelion by
foul}da|ioDalfactsoftheNepaiidocul,nontsioltL]e.july,soonside|alio|]
(J)
(a)'subsection
to llvidenceCodesectior403,subdivision
pursuant
H. Thc Trial
;ffi.ilt
rt's lrailur.c To A3!!il_l!!L
Pt"i",
N epali -llourt
\oDcllarrt \\ urrirrlirre Rqr(r'srl
C o t r l r l 2s 3 , 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 8 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3 3 , 3 4 , 3 6 , 5 65' 9 ' a u d6 2 w o u l dh a v e
rlotice-'
automalicallybeen dis issed had the trial court takerl.itLclicial
aLlol lhcso
Sapna's2005 Nepali recorclof convictionin Ncpal bccattsc
thc time the
counts required a sltowiltg that SaPnawas a ccr-tainagc at
july lccognizc:cl
that
allegedcrimeswere conmitted Therclbre,had thc
rathOrthan Jantraly5' 1984'thete
Sapna'sdateoi birth was April 28, 19133,
woulcl bo insuffroientovidonceto suslainguilly vordictson thcsuoollllls
jtrf)'
Even without ju<licial noticc, thefe is a leasonableprobability thc
would have foun<lappellantltot guilty ofthe:reooulltshacleviderlceol Lhe
Nepali lecordof convictioDbeenadmittedlbr thojury's consiclcfalior)
Ill addition to these select counts,ali o1' appellant'scorlvicllol)s
shoulclbe revcrsedrequidng a ncw trial becauscrhe PlejudiccresuLtiull
fiom the exclusiottof the Nepali doculllentsper'"tldcdtlic clrtircrrial lir''t,
the lratul'cand details ofthe Nepali corlviction sho\4'LhatSaPriawas c:apablc
oflying and,specifically,that shewas capableof lying in of(lcrto rcaplhc
cletellllina lLro substaDceof a pLiol lbreign convtction " citing Pc.)r/r r
44 Cal.3d343, 3ji; sec also 1r,.1 r:itrng People v
Guerrero(1988';1
C a s t e l l a n o( 1s 9 9 0 )2 1 9 C a l . A p p 3 d1 1 6 3 ,L L 7 2l " l t l h c entirc feciordol'
convicliol incluclesall relevantdocunelrtsiLl tlre cotrfl l i l e o t t h e p ri o r
conviction"].)
l4u
benefitsof UnitedStatescitiz:enship.
In this regard,theNepali corviction
not only showedlhat Sapnavraswilling ta lie to get irlo r.heUniLedStates,
but alsothat shewould be willing to lie or falselyaccuseAjay Dev Lostay
in the UnitedStates.The defenseshouldhavebeenallo\.vedto impeach
credibilityon this point. As arguedat lergth ir Algun.ientI, rzpr-,
Sapna's
this was a very closecaseandSapla'scredibilitywas a focal point of the
trial.
Moreover,the Nepali documontswer,] integLalto s pporting dre
theoryofthe case.As explainedby the defenseat the prclinioary
defense
hearing,"I think her concommight very 1ve1lbe that if hcr adoptioois a
aaud,her continuodpresencr:
in the U S. also rnight be a Ii-aud,and she
madea similar
may be in big, sweettrouble." (3 CT 822) The clel'ense
dulingits openingslatement:
argurnent
'l-hen
lhcrcs this interestirgsubplorabout wlrais yotu'
birthdayand what happenedin Nepal,but I tlrink lhat lvhat
we'll ltnd what happenedin Nepal camc to lighl becaLrse
wor-kingfol Ml. Dev's pleviousiawycr,
someinvestigatoi-s
around.Who is SapnaDev? Who is
notme,statedslloopirLg
thisyoungwonan?A-ndtheycheckedaroundandthey found,
wait a minute,wait a minute,herwholepr,upose
in beinghere
is a fraud becausewhen she was adoptcd,JtLdgeWaniner
signedthat adoptionpaperyou sawin thepictufes Sheis 16
folks. Shewasn't 15. So her whoie - hlrgeconsequcnccs
flow from that,hugefor her andher farnily
(aJrT(04/27
tzo}g)lv)17
Howover,without the Nepali documents,the defensewas unable to
presentthis defenseat trial as exemplifiedby the fact that ro suohargumcnt
was madeduring closing ar8ument. The only evideucesuppottlng the fact
that Sapnalied about her date ol'bifh in order to be adoptedby the Devs
camefrom PeggyDev's testirnonywho explainedthal Ajay's parentsheard
that Sapna'sfamily may havo liod abolrther age to facilitate the adoption
3?
"ARl" sl.rallreferto theAugnentedRepoder'sTranscripts.
t4l
coult permittedthe prosecutron
(i7 RT 4532; 14 CT 4087) While thc trial
prove the ciissuadingcounh (counts90'
to refolencothe Nepali judgmenl lo
lhe jury it couid not rely o[ the NepaLt
91, and 92), it expressly instrucled
ol birlh allcvor lo detefrrir\t
judgment to detetmine Sapna's real date
(7
Devs anclgain U'S citizenship
whethershe iie(l to get irdoptedDy the
lh0
was given a very one-side(lview of
RT 1'72'7) The'refbre, the.jury
essentially psodfled to re-pleselrLhef
Nepali trial wtLerein Sapna was
jury without any Ieflrlat;orr
Nepali defense lo the Yolo Courty
abou[ Sapnas date
the hearsaytesumonyfiom Peggy Dev
Consequently,
continuai insislencethat the NepaLL
of bifih was overshadowedby Sapna's
olbilth was Jauuary5' i984 falhcr
Courl got it wrong and that her realdalq
thanApriL28, 1983
Sapna was
In fact, wit.llout any founclation oI subsLanliatiou'
and
juclgnlcrltwas "liarLdtrlqrlt"
to give an opiDionthatthcNgpali
permitlecl
'
had beenpaid oLl 1'"
that lhe "NepaLCouL was corruptallcltho Juclge
compellilrg evidc'nccit'iLtoclttoocl
RT 2568) She was also Pennitledto refute
llef datcofbirrh to be April 23'
againsther at the Nepali lrial which shc)wcd
1040) Fol inslalce' lvhcn
1983 (5 RT i024-I026, 1028-1030'1038'
10 dismisstestilll0rl)'llorll
askeclzrboutthe Nepali lr:ial,Sapnawas allowi:ci
tcstifiedthat hc| daLcof
her grandmotllerir d greatuncle' both of whom
ultimalel)'lorrnd
birthwas April 28, 1983,eventhoughtheNepaliCourl
I040)
theirtestimon)rlo be creclible.(5 RT 1028-1029,
Saptlawas Pefmlttetlto colnmeDlon a schoolrcgisttlLtttln
Sin-rilarLy,
had beenfiled u ith
form, iDuoducedagainsther at the N€:Palitrial' rvhich
hor datcoI hiflh
the ContlalGovernmentofNepal aDd'joncllrsivelyshorved
, R1'3414) Speciticalh'
t o b e A p r i l 2 S , 1 9 8 3 ( 5 R T 9 8 5 , 1 0 3 8 - 1 0 4 0l 3
"the lonr I filed ot Lrtt
Sapnateslifierlto thc followirg at Ajay's trial:
not eveti
school,rather filed 1bl me lo take the IO'hglade exam' which is
releva[l becaLlseI didn't even take the exam, anc]tl-Igreevel,vorler'vholakcs
142
that examhas lo crossage 16; andschooldoeswhate\/erthey can to - they
decrease
or increaseycur age,so this paperworkis rot relevantpntil you
take the exam-" (5 RT 1038) The Nepali Court, however,wlich had
Sapna'steslimonyin the contextof otherhardevidenge,found
considered
Sapna'sself-seruingexplanationto be unbelievable.(7 C'f 1838-1858,
1875-1900)At Ajay's trial, however,the tuial court allowed Sapnato
provide the sameexplanation,but witlout competitg evidencetP expose
her incredibility. In this regard,Sapnawas giytrr carte blhnche to
demonizethe NepalijudgmentleavingAjay powerlessto defent himself.
(5 RT 98s,1038-1040;
13RT 3414)
Had theNepalidocuments
beenadmitted,Sapla'stestimonywould
have been impeachedand the jury would have had a very different
impressionof the Nepali proceedings, The Nepali documbntsand
judgment would have clarified that there were hvo duplicatb school
forms,Exhibits510 and512. Exhibit 510was kept af Sapna's
registuation
schoolin her village,a smalLinsularcomrnunity.In oortrast,Exhibit 512
was a carboncopy of the oliginal schoolregistrationform filed with the
Cental Government(Sanothimi,Bhaktapur),Ministry of Educationand
Sports.The dateofbirth on Exhibit510hadclearlybeenalleredby wliiteout andshowedthal someone
inserted
the dateof birthof2041/01/15BS
(Aprii 27, 1984). In the Nepatitrial, Sapnaadmitredshe filled-out the
form.3817 CT 1847,1881-1882,fgo4-t905) In contrast,Exhibi! 512, the
38
Thisprejudicewasfl[ther exacerbated
at trial because
the tiial coLtrr
pemittedlimitedintroduotionof the MonasricSchoolfom (Exhibit 510).
Wlen askedwhethershefilled out the form and alteredthe dateof birth
with white-out,Sapnatestifiedthat she did not fiI1 out the fom] and,
therefore,
was not the personwho alteredthe dateof bidh. (5 RT 10381039) Had the trial coufi admittedthe Nepali documents.the defense
would have beenable to impeachSapnawith extrinsicevidenceof her
slatements
madeat the Nepalitrial whereinsheadmittedshedid, il1 fact,
filI out the form. (7 CT 1847,1881-1882,
1904-1905)prohibiredfrom
using the Nepali documenlsto impeach Sapna, the defehse and
143
showeda date
uotouchedcarboncopy filed with the CentralGovdmtnent'
BS (April 28, 1983) (6 CT I545;1 C'l 1913'1916
ofbath of2040/01/15
1 0C f 2 6 j 5 )
1 8 4 1 - 1 8 4128, 4 41, 8 5 11, 8 7 9 - i 8 8 12 8, 8 51, 9 6 01' ! 6 2 - 1 9 6 5 ;
t0 considel
antlbeinpermitted
hadthejury heardthisevidence
Therefore,
it is highly likely thoy {'ould havc
it for thl3truth of lhe matter asserted,
concludedthat Sapnalied abouther datr:of bilth
May
to her
Similarly,Exhibit509 showsthirtSalnaatlied a pholograph
(7CT
4, 1993aclmissionfonn for her MonastioSchdol(Exlibit 511)
whenapplling
thenusedthisidenticalI993phptograph
1960,1971)SaPna
years
for her i998 passpofiand her 1999U S visa in oriderto appearltve
likcly thatwould
it is
young"rte Had thejury head this evideLrce
lrighly
her real age from the
to
hide
lried
Sapna
deliberately
have concluded
derivativc
authoritiesi[ orderto allow for acloptionand,as a consequence,
AmericancitizenshiP
s
The Nepaii clocumenlswotLlclhavc al$o disoreditedSaptrrL
as lo how aFdwhy theNepalicotlrt
testimonyregardingher nnderstaucling
were initiated againsther' At hial, Sapla testifiedthat sl]c
proceeclings
believedthat Ajay had instigatedtheNepali chargdsagainsther in ordefto
preventher from relurnirg lo the United Statcstq testiryagainsthim lv
-2248) fhis teEtinonyand tho "poi\on
224'7
RT 214l-2144,2244-2245,
letlers" were used to suppott the dissLtadingchargesagainstAjay.
,o ha
tng C X ertsw h o g a v e
andrrnun
c e from
l )Dr [r ,,o
uced evidence
pro
)onl introdr
u
I O S E Cuti,
'e
ruI w
vhetn
onn sabo
a ou[
h e rS a p r a
r ll1lc
0pl
rnclu
rlusive0p
n0()
rry and rS Omewha!
I
! inQ(
oorl
ontradlcclory
'ed
ht
l
er date of
h
n
g
f
allr
allere
r
u
s
,
,
k
r
lo, !1rLl!
,cuI
rl1 rschool f,
form and,
rt the
tLy
JO
U
he Nepa
fill,
illed
i,11ua
pr0 1 ( nati \.vasthe
F. al1
: 9))0 )F.q
1 2R.
R . T 3 1513; ; 1 7 R T \ 9--445
DITI
i h L. . (i (12
1
i1YP J D l C M
-r's
S )na. The
testr
Ilmoon
n y IIc
l o)r1m )ap
a ] ttestlr
)ls1{
o n t o elrcr
eIlrCcl t.r llalse
trol
Ll0n
:10n's decr
pro
rosec
ecut
IIra]
tIratl ano
r Krew
ulneen1
fol-e tr
epali docur
docu
d
rts bbefole
cop
lpl(es of all the Nep
rosec
ecut
ecu
tior
lioIrr had co
Pro
href dalc 0f
an
lnd., !thus,
aIte
hcc fot.lr
fm aI
o L lIl t h
) flTt
1itILEq
- d to
t fllling ol,l
i s . rlteun
Si )na admitle
sap
tha
rat sat
pr IrO I DPrro0e
bt1
l f nraa t a D
I O 0ee
C
to
photoaDdU,s. vLSaPnptomusl be takcnu'ithin
Notably,a passport
; 3RT3458)
s i xn r o n t hosf I h e i rr c s p e c t i vaep p l i c r l i o n (55 l t T 11 8 01
andteslimonymadeat the Nepalitli
However,Sapna'sstatements
crearry
contadictthis. That is, Sapnatold the Nepalitrial corutthat "As the said
Ajay Kumar did not adoptedany memberof the family of the
former
mr:,theInformerhasgivenfalseinll
fMuraliDeo]andadopted
tionas
to depriveme from goingto Americadue to jealous." (7 CT 18 a l
Qhe
as lo wh Murali
reiteratedthis positionby explainingher underslanding
Deo would idtiate criminalchargesagainsther: "Beoauseol the fact that
the saidAjay KumarDev did not adoptanyfamily memberof the
but adoptedher, the ilformer becameangry. Becauseof such
informermadea false infornationrepoftstatirg that her date o birth is
B.S.(1983.4.28
2040.1.15
A.D.)" Q CT 1842)Thisr:vidence
equally
with defenseevidenceexplainingwhy Ajay's parenls ded up
consistent
not supportingthe adoptionand fearedt.hatperceivedfavoliti
would
creaXe
seriousfamily divisions,(l5F.T 4170-41'/2)
AII of this prejudicewas fr[ther exacerbated
by testim y from
DetectiveHermafll and Luz Dunn both of whom impermissiblvvouched
of'theNepalijudgmentarcLfor hel d
for Sapna'sdenormcement
of bilth
asJanuary5, 1984. For example,whetrthe defensec.ross-examid Sapna
aboutwhy she did not appealthe Nepali vordict if she believ
iL was
vvrong,
Sapnasimplystatedthat DetectiveHermannadvisedh
not to
appealexplaining"I knew it waswrong. I did exacrlywhat
elective
Hermao-ntoLdme to do. [!l] Ile told me to take the date of b
that the
judgehadsaidandmakemy passport.Sothat'sexactlywhatI di ' ( 5 R T
Likewise,Luz Duq fromtheLN.S.,impermissibly
1083-1084)
vouched
posiliouby opining:
for Sapna's
After reviewing the form and seeingthat it was - that
was a contradiction,there was a - she contradicted
because, yes, she's showing documents that she
colvictedin a courtof law in her country,yet whenI look
atthe document,shegoesbackandputsher,whatI beiieve
herrealdateof birth. Withtharcornbined
wirhrheuai
that slle lvas giveo at the embassY,I
that she's iying.
have do
ts that sheis -
as
shc Iied, becatLse
couDlrytoid Der
d thenshepLrt
b o t e an Americatt
ver of a police
was glven z
consul or official, and,she
'"
repoft so she can travel
oLlt
cont Ltuedlo ullderLrlne thc
(ll kT 2782-2783) This vouchingtestimony
prejLrdici Ajay who couLdnot
validity of the Nepali .iudgfrentf,rrlherr
relying oD e acnralNepalirecord
aountertheseunfoundedclaimswithoul
of conviclion."'
irrcversiblc
i judgrnenl.
Finally, thesedistorledallusionslo the Nep
ctcd the jurY lhat rt
i
prejudicedAjay becausethe lrial courtexprcssly
ine i.vhethc|SaPDalled
de
couldnot rely on the Nepaiijudgnlerltto
tfLalc (
abouther date of birth As instluctodbv thc
of
tho tuaLJucLliment
But, one thing, latlies and gentLen1co'
it would be
Jecision ttre NepJl Courl ruade, $he
is rot belbre
characlerizedas finding one thrng o[ allo er,
as-Locxaoty whal tlle Nepal
you, and you're nol lo speoulato
oI wi]etncri1 was a cr:irninal
Court did. Thele's no evidencei
'fhere's evrdeD of rvhcther
therr:
no
actionor a civil action.
was a fincling ol ftaud ot mistakc
a0
'fhorc
Althou.ghLuz DuDntestifiedthat sapna
wote 1/5/84,whenaskedon crossexamlnalLof
andwrote1/5/84Sapnatestiliedthatshedid Lr(
ar
In addition to lhe vouchiDg,lhe pfo
dlttitlg
exclusionof the Nepali docutnenb
'''fhe pro
thal
regud, the prosecutionargucd
Embassyclidn'tbeiievethey had any basis"
true. ConsularFarquar,from the U S Embi
objeclion.(13 RT 3427)
146
s lio cvidcncc ol'
an)4hinglike that except there was a result from the N
Coul that apparentlyidentifiedone bifth dateover anoth
That'sall youknow,all you'reallowed.I don'tevenknow
you know that. That'swhattheevidencehasbeenput on
It's up to you to decidewhether aalthing has actually b
provedor not, but the evidenceis not to be receivedlbr
thatIjust laid out.
ofdroseotherpurposes
(7 RT 1727) Therefore, even though the jury heard repealed stimory
aboutthe fact that fie NepalCourtfoundSapna'sdateof birth to be April
28, 1983, it was instuuctedto disregardthis fact for purposeso actually
determhingher date of birlh. As a result, the exclusionof
Nepali
judgmentand Nepali documentshighly prejudicedAjay despi the fact
thatthejury learnedabouttheNepaliverdict.
Consequently,
had the Nepali documentsbeenproperly
they would have dispelledthe notionthal the judgrnentwas a
mibted,
am and
exposedthe lengthsto which Sapnawent to changeher dateo birth in
orderto qualifufor an Americaaadoptionand,thus,Americanci
elrship.
This evidencewas critical to showins SaDna'smotive lo
accuse
appollant,That is, once sho learnedthe Devs plarutedon rem
ng her
ftom their will, shelegilimatelyfearedthat the Devswould also
to reveNethe adoptionand havehcr depofiedbackto Nepal. W
stePs
out the
the defensewas essentiallybarredfrorn pres hng lts
Nepali documents,
primarydefenseto the jury becausethe Nepali documents
showedthat Sapnaknew the Devs could reversethe adopti
stably
as they
explicitlyestablishthat Sapralied abouther dateofbirth to go to
In dris regard,it is no coincidencethat Sapnadecidedto accus Ajay of
rapeapproximatelyone month after sheleamed that lhe Devs w
going to
takeher out of their will. Therefore,the trial court'srefusalto dmit the
Nepalidocumertsnot only resultedin a prejudicialstateevidenti
elToI,
but alsoviolaLedappellant'sFifth, SixthandFoufieenthAmeodm 1 rights
to due proocssard to presenta meaningfuldefenseas protectd by the
t41
) 6 8I J S l + . l s :
v Texcts( 9 6 1 1
United Statcsconstitution (l(ashington
i : v A l a s k a( l 9 T4 )
S 284'302;
U
410
(1913)
v
Mississippi
Chambers
461 S 4 7 9 , 4 8 5 ( 1 9 8 4 ) :
415 U.S. 308, 318; Catiforniav Ttombetta'
690;lv'to'rna tt Egethoff(1996)
Cranev. Kentuclcl(1986)476 U S 683'
5 1 8U . S 3 7 ,6 2 )
Nepal doctu-nenLs
Preiudtccd
In sum, the improperexclusionof the
s 3,2.4,26,
reasons;( 1 ) c o u n t 2
Ajay requiringreversaifor the following
all age
28,29,31',33, 34,36,56,59,and62 wore
d e n tr n d , t h ( l e f u r e .
of the Nep 1i fecord of con!ictiorl
had the lrial court taken judicial notice
would havcbccn
daieof bifth as April 28, 1983those ults
anclSapna's
S lla Llgd aDd, therclofc.
dismissecl;(2) the Nopali documents sbowed
(3) thc NePali
overall credibilily in a very clo e casc,
impeachedher
did ot dissuadeSaPuafrotn
docurnentswould haveshowedthal tho Dovs
s tlle NepaLptosccllU0n
testifyingagairstA,jay,per counls90,9l' and92'
Detcclive 9r'lna[nand I-uz Dullti,
by Sapna,
wasnot a shamas described
trial basedon a teal frauclp petratcdby Saptra;turcl
but ralhera le1;itimaLe
Sapnahad a motrvolo
(4) the defonsowould havebeenabieto Provet
aS IClCvant IO ShO\vtjltrt
falselyaccuseAjay becausethe falsedateof bir|h
sctrd Salttrii bilcli ttr
the Devs had the power to revelsethe adoption lcL
l\jay o[ lapc
a accusgcl
Nepal. Therefore, it was no coilciderlce that S
lier ancl the falriilY
once she learoed the Dcvs had decided Lo disin erit
relationsl.riphad itreversibiy deledoratrlcL'
Given this clepthof prejudice,appellant'; coovictionsslioulcibc
docttmcnts,
reversedbecause,but tbr the improperexclusiorr I t h e N u p a l i
have feachccla lnore
there is a reasonableprobability drr: jury rvo
favorable oufoome. (Peoptev llatson (1956) 46 r L2 d EL l J8, l b , s l 6 - 3 1 7 :
And, fbt thissamereasor , a p P e L l a Dct o' sl r v i c L i o n s
art VI
Cal.Const.,
$13.)
rnagnituclcby
shoLrldbe reversedbecarsethis errol reachetlccr stitLLlioLral
denyingappellanthis right to due processaod I hl to pfese|lta delcnsc
148
Therefore,
reversaiis requiredsinceit carnotbc shownthat the
r ls l'lot
da\\bt. (Chapmqnv Caltforxiq(1'
harrnless
beyonda reasonable
ppellant
U.S.18,24, 87,S.Ct.824,82.8,1'7L.Ed.zd705.) Coosequentiy,
requests
this Courtlo granthim a newtrial on all coun
respectfully
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ADMI]ITING EV ENCE
OF ADULT PORNOGRAPIIY TO PI1OVE APPEL,LA WAS
ATTRACTED TO MINORS WHICH, A.S CO]\{P ETELY
IRRDLDVANT EYIDDNCE, INFLAMICD AND CO FUSED
TIIE JURY CAUSING IIEVDRSIBLD ERROR.
A. Introduction
Sapnatestified that, fiom age 15 to 19, Ajay showed hcr vo to stx
shortpornographicvideos (one lo six minutescach) eilhel on his Dell
(3 I{1 403; 4 I{T 795-796,
laptopconputeror the Dell lower computer.a2
798,819-821,824) Sapnahstified shesaw the videosa couple f tines.
(4 RT 819-821)She explalnedrat all o1'thevideosAjay sh
d her
depicted"extremelyyoung lookirg girls" in them. (.4RT 798) A.t rrial,
Sapnaidenlihed three short polnographicvicLeosshc clai:ned jay had
shownherbeforeshewas 18 yearsold. (4 llT 820;5 l{T 915-96 , 1 1 1
r1112) Thesewere shown to the.iury alrd adnittcd as ovidence ( R T 9 1 8 ;
Exhibit 10 & 10A) Two videoswere idcntifiedby an expert as child
pornography
and the third film, "18 & Confused,"was identifi
as adult
pomography.(8 RT 2046) All threevideoswerefound on the
ll tower
no pom videoswele l'oLrnd
computer.
or the Itftop. 1l I RT 2822)
In addition to the thJee videos Sapna cLaime'dAjay s
forensic experts found a plethola of polnograplty on the
home
computers. At a pre-trial hearing, the prosecution argued, ove delense
that "all" the pornography,
objection,
includingtheadultpomo
a2
Bothcomputers
areDoll compnters
therefore
theywill bei
asthelaptopor tower.
t49
phy, was
gerInalleto coualsb+
a rninor"which
relevantto prove "htent to touch
1 6 ,1 9 , 2 1 , 2 4 , 2 6 '
andcounts1' 4' 6' 9' i 1' i 4 ,
and65 (the pom charges)ar
a
of lewd and I ivious acts againsl
29, 31, 34, and 36 (commission
also guedlhal "all" of the
prosecution
The
391-394)
(3
RT
minor).aa
to gi S a p n ac r e d i b i l i t ) ' b Y
pornographywas rclevantbecauseit tended
the pomo aphy AjaY allegocll)'
showing she could distinguishbeLween
pomography i.e. that she was
showed her and lire remainilg
Lheprosecu on argued thal all the
discrimi[ating (3 RT 392) Finaily'
judge her credibilitY'
juryl
they
Ithe
pomographyshould comein "so
ot
she would be resPo ible for the tlPe
whether they believe
395-396)
" (3 RT 3
pornographythat's on thoseoomputers
videos llapna claL[]ed
The court admittedthe threePoroographic
rul d thal the renlallllllg
Ajay showed hel as a minor and furthel
wo d be adrnilledbY title,
pornography,including the adull porncrgraPhy'
eclasfollows
anddate (3 RT 399-400):[hecourtro
clescliplion
'fhe
fiough.
the
lo
valtle
probative
some
still
iri
There
posscssionof a cachcof pornol3raphlon t colnplltel oocs
o[ intcntand slxleo lnincl, ownerslilll
icnclto go to tltc Lssues
the oomputel'
and poiiession A large anount of tiat on
was pLacoo
ownedby 3 particuhfpcrsonmay tendl'' s ow it
that personand that all ol thosctlli I go t0 tlic Lssucs
thereby
to a
in this caso,suchassomethingthat may hav beenshown
whc)
personwhile shewas a minor,rvasdolteb lhat pcrson
ownedthat comPuter'
to bi)
So for thosevideosand picturcs,thcy will b e allowed
the
r]oL
disclosedto the .iury, but only by trtlc n d datc,
I
conlentthemselves.And thejury cantake e circurnst,Lntia
]s llol
evidence for what is wofih. The Prob ve valuc
subslantially outweighed by the other facto
Count64 allegesa violationof PeralClodes e o t i o2n8 82 C o u n6Li
3I I 2,slLdivision(d).
a violalionof PenalCodesection
alJeges
4'r
C o u n t1s, 4 , 6 ,9 , 1 1 ,1 4 ,i 6 , 1 9 ,2 1 ' 2 4 , 2 62 9 ,3 1 ,3 4 ,a r d3 6a l l e g c
(cXL)
288,subdivision
olPenalCodescction
a violation
(3RT399-400)
rvitJr tfte excepticnof tie " 18 & Coofuseil" [ro.zie,
adult
pomography
shouldhave bcenexcludedfrom uial becausei naq no
bearing
onwhether
Ajaywassexually
attacted
t0 mhon. More
if theadultpomographycouldbe attdbutedto Ajay, which is uncear ftom
the evidence,it shouldhave beenexcludedfrom the tuial beoausei lackeda
meaningful nexus to the crimes charged as required by dre
ifornia
CourtandUnitedStatesSupremeCourt. Therefbre,the
Supreme
ssl0n
of the adultpornography
constituted
reversibleerlor becauseits
10n
unfairlyinflamedthejuy renderingAjay's trial fr.rndamertally
un
B. The Trial Court Admitted A Plethora Of Irlele
Pornography
FoundOn The Dev HomeConrputers,
Exhibit 45. ProsecutionexpertBrent Buehringfound a
lder on
Ajay's laptopcomputerentitled"Paidsite"which cootaineda
of file
namesrelatingto adultpomography.ot
(RT 2850-2851;
CT 28 8 - 2 8 6 3 )
'lpeg," indicatesthat
Thefile extension,
eachflle was savedftss lmage.
(11RT 2800;I7 RT 4726) However,tle imageswerenot vi
able on
Ajay's laptopas they werefoundin the "lost file,""o (11 RT 28 0, 2935)
"
BuchrinAtestif-led
that Lhe foul foLderrirlcs conrainc ln lhe
"Paidsite"folder were Ashley, Barely Legal, Blow Jobs, and tervlew.
(11 RT 2851) However, with the exception of a fol
called
"Ashleylove,"thesetitles do not appearon People'sExhibit 45: e list of
titlesfoundin the"Paidsite"
folder.(10CT2858-2863)
On dtect examination,
prosecution
expertBuehringtestifi that he
had viewed files entitled "Ashley Love" in a pdor case that
alned
imagesof younggirls dressedil sexuallyprovoaative"costumes.' ( 1 rR T
2851-2852)However,on crossexaminatior,Buehringclariliedth he had
no way of knowingwhetherthe hles entitled"Ashley Love,"
on
Ajay's laptopcomputer,containedremotelysimilarimages,(11 R 293s)
--
Lost IrLesaredeleredLilestharateIrot viewab]eto the r\
andoften ooly detectableby forensicsoftware. (1? RT 4758-21759
l5l
were not sho$n to lhe
While the actual images of this adult porlograptly
testifiedextensivelyab t the ponograPhYand
jury, DctectiveHenr.Lann
espuPofiDg to be
250 file
givena list of approximately
thejury was
(19RT 5141;l0 Cll 2858-2-863
adultpomography.
on
adult PoruograPn,!
Erhibit'19. DetectiveI{ermanntbundvi able
ar," had approxlmatelY
Ajay's laptop. One subdirectory,eotitled"Qc
y ore inchin size,(11
20 imagesin it which were approxitrlatcly one inclt
l0 CT 2881-2883) Defense ert Jefliey Fischbach
2982-298'7;
PJ
likely the prodrtctof a
explained that these gloup of "icotts" weLe lrost
p
advertisirl;"pctps-uP'
"pom storm" ra,hereirulwanted and unsolioitod
(17 rLf 412ti-4146)
on the comPuterwithout promptilg liom the us ,
Aj ay's IaPtoP
Accorclingto Fischbach,I(azaa softrvare,whi was on
inslalls a virus called cBar" whichaatsLike
computer,surrePtitiolLsly
Llllwalllod
aclwarespyware or n'Ialware(maliciousspywa and crcatcs
aiso
pop-upimagesrelatedto poruography (l7ItT 47 8-4746)Fischbach
the icon
testifiedthat there was llo evidencethat a user ver clickedon
thorrron Ajay's laptopoompulor.
images(% inctrby % inch)to clownload
Dctectivc
ln addilionlo th e iconimagcs,
(1'7l\T 4'72'7,4730,4732'4'733)
Hermannteslified that the lost file lolder con ned seven"Gills Gore
(l
Wilcl" pictute imagaswbich Fischbaohdescrib as advarliseflcnts L
17Nl 4729;19l{T 5 l4 I )
RT 2992-2993;
Exhibit 46/ lixhibit i0
was kept in tie
The Dovs owneda Dell towcr0omputcrIt
hone offrce and thetlmovedto apnr's bcdroomin JLtnc
0 ) uehring foLrnd60 adult
2 0 0 3 . ( 1 5 R l - 4 i 1 1 - 4 1 1 2A, C T ( 8 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 9
videoson the "D" drive movie lder of thc Dell towof
pornographic
a?
computer (10 cT 2864-2867)All, but one video rvhichwas in llre
'i-he
cloirned
t,r,ochild pomographymoviesshowl thejury Sapna
Ajay showedthemto her wete also foundin this le. (1I ltT 2865.2925.
12 RT 3002;l0 CT 2866) WhileBuehringtesli ed that severloI thc file
experl.l)r
names were suggestiveof child po|nogLaplty'prosecution
a?
152
recycle
bin,wereplacedonthetowercomputer
onAugust21,200 (withir
a week of a DVD/CD read-wiite drive being installed in
computer)around 1:00 a.m suggestingthat one person downlo
e 'lcwet
them
on to theDell towercomputer
ftom a discin onesi1.ting.(11 T )9222923;15PJI4112)
Many of Lhe adull pomogrirphymorie tit.e.. did not
describe the cortent of the pornography. (12 RT 3
Consequently,
DetectivcHemannwaspemittedto submita list
thejury
dre contentof tlreadultpomographyr\ delail(ExhibitNo 50).
describing
He was also permilted to testiry oo |he content of the pornoglap y whelo
the defensedisputedhis written sumnades. (12 R]l 3004-300; I 0 C T
2884-2E88)
Exhibit47/ Exhibit 18. Buehrinsalsofounda lbldel call
"Rated
R" conlainingeightviewablestill imagesof adultponographyo the Dell
towercompuler.(11 RT 2869; 10 CT 2878) The ".RatedR" ti ldel was
locatedin a dilecloly labcled "Attached," rvhich was locaLedio a parent
directoryentilled"Ajay." (11 RT 2869) Four of thejseimagcs ele also
forurdon one zip clrivedisk in the Dev hone (ExhihitNo 47'1 ( I 1 R T
2 8 7 0I;0 C T 2 8 6 8 )
There was llso a foldcr in rhe lecycle bin ol' thc D ll tower
containingapproxinately24 pornographic
imagesof bestialityau ( l l R T
2997-2999;10CT 286'7,2879-2880,)Sincethe file:r wcre in th
bin, it was impossibleto tell how lhey got or the DeLItower co puLeror
whether Lheyhad been viewed. (11 RT 412'7) Fischbach testi ied thcy
Stewat, verified those movies were adult pomograpliy. (ll
T t854.
2865;l2 RT 3004-3006)The thirdmovieSapnaclairnedAjay sh eq ner,
"18 & Confused"(alsoreferredto as"YoungTeenLolita RapeY ung Sex
WhoreDick PussyAnal l'een")wasalsofourd in this fite (5 R'I' 1 1 1 2l 1
;
RT 2910;10CT 2867)
ot
Th"." were 23 still imagesin Exhibit 48 and.one "vi
" rt thc
bouomofExhibit46. (10 CT 2867,2879-2880)
ii3
or an intemetsearch (17RT
pop-up'
a
e-marl'
an
ftom
come
couldhave
the files wore Fost iikely cotnputet
lhat
suggestsd
further
He
4127)
lhet-llenaue
beaause
ratherthantheresuLlol humansearching'
generated,
assignedtothebestialitytilewasanexhcm0lylongtlurrrericaluunbcr
Rt 4714-4'7'76)
C. Staudard of Revierv
Theerroneousadmissionofporllog|aplryevjdenceunderl]vidence
is revieqed lbr abuse of discretron
Code sections 1101, 352 ancl 402
in
4'l' 4i ) Iluwevef' as recogniz-cd
(PeopLev Page (2008) 44 Cal4fi l'
Cal App 4th 360' 363' "the abuseof
Ziesmerv SuperiorCourt (2003) 107
" Therelblo' the de 'ol'o standaro
discretionstandardis itseif much abusecL
applied where' as here ihe
of review may be tnole appropriatoly
apPlicatiolloL law to
of the trial court's order ttulls or thc
corfectr]ess
CoLLrt'sLtptc!' 107 Cai App 4lh at p'
undispufed facts. (Ziesmer v Superior
1 0 0 9 ' l 0 l 8 - 1 0 1 9 :/ t ?f e
3 6 3 ;P e o p l ev - J a c k s o n( 2 0 0 5 ) 1 2 8 C a l A P P 4 t h
Jane Doe B0l5v SuperiorCourt (2007)
'frial Coult Errcd B'
D. The
Found On The Dev Hot
Had An Attraction To I
Julv To Infer Ai^Y's
InflammatorY Evidcnce'
148Cal 'App4rh 489' 493 )
Bctrvccn Thc
1. A Narrow Ncxus Must Bc Established
Pornography And The Cr-ilne Bcfore The PornograPhy
Call Be Atlruitted As llcleY':rntEvidcnce'
of legalpornograpli;''''
characterevidence,like possessipn
In gene-.-aL,
'ol't'e1'edto
Prove hLs or hel
is iladmissible against a defendant when
Ll0i' sLtbd (a); scc
conduct on a spccifiecloccasion" (Evid Code $
In limitcd
40 )
generally, People v Page (20085 44 CaL'4fi 1
intent if thereis 'L
circumsta[cesit can, howover,be adnlilted to Pfove
(Evid Code
nalrow llexus drawu between the Ponography an{ Lheclirne
to pfovc
wherc pomographyis admjssibLe
$ 110t, subd. (b); Ibict) Even
L5,1
intentunderEvidenceCodesactionI 101,subdivision(b), the polnography
,,if its probativd
shouldnot be adrnittedagainstthe defenCa,nt
value is
substantiallyoutweighedby the probabilitytlat its admissiorfwill (a)
necessitate
undueconsumptionof time or (b) createsubstantidhangerof
undueprejudice,
of confusing
theissues
or of misleading
thejuryi,, (Evia.
Code$ 352.) However,asrepeatedly
wamedby the CalifomiaSupreme
Court, the admissionof propensityevidence,by its nature, is highly
inflamrnatory
andprejudicialrequiringtharits admissibilitybe ,,sfrutinized
with greatcare"with "closelyrcasonedarLalysis.,'(peopleu lho^p"on
( 1 9 8 02)7 C a l . 3 3
d0 3 , 3 1 5 . )
In People v. Page, +he def
assaultingaad murderinga young girl
at p, 5.) The police found defendar
(Ibid.) They also found three adult
tr
(1brd) The prosecutionarguedthe a<
because
oneof the covermodelslook
and,therefore,
showedthe defendant
hadan athactionto the victirir. (1d.at
p, 39.) Expandingthe prosecution,s
theoryof admissibility,the ai oourt
found all the pomographyrelevantbecauseit depicted ,,ps
pomography"as the modelswere,,stagedto appearyounger
their
actualage" demonstrating
"that the defendanthad an interestil young
girls,"4e(1d at p. 39.) On review,the califomia SupremeCoufi C ticized
t}letrial court'sanalysisof the issuefindingit failedto properly
rne
directrelationship
betweentho pornography
andthe allegedcrimes. (1d at
p. 40.) Specihcally,the Coufi found that, contraryto the prosJcution,s
opinion,the covermodel,,merelylookedsimilar,,tothe victim *di"h -u.
insuf{iciont
to wanantadmission
of thecovermodel'sphotograph alone
iet
4e
Thetrialcoul aisoadmitted
a bondage
magazine
to demonsirate
the
defendant
wasviolent.
t5
(lbid)
the hundredsof other imagescontaired in thb magazine
it found
beaause
Ultimately,theHigh Courtdid notreachtheissueofiei1or
sulferodno pfejudrcein lightof the
of enor,theclefendant
lhat,regardless
based
agrinsttrim Ncvertheless'
introduced
evidence
otherovetwhelming
ri Page' the Caiifornie
on the poor judgment exercisedby the trial court
general' Lo exerclse grealer
Supreme Coufi admonished trial courts, in
ttial becarrsesuch
cautior before admitting pornography at a crimilial
evidencecaneasilydistract,inflarne,andconl'useAjuryunderminingtlre
fairnessdue to a defendant. Specifically,the Court Yarnccl:
[PomograPhY]evidenoemaY
potentially more Probative el
amounts of time, a risk that t
lthe defendant's] murder in
on the intemel
pornographY
may view thousanc
defendant
comPutel Therefore,we urgt
in weighing the Probativevr
possessed
or acc
POmography
(1d.atp. 4t, fn. 17.)
The Unitod States SupremeCourt has hlso expressedsimilar
concemsaboutthe appropdatetypesof inferences[hat can be drawnfi ort
legalpornography lt Jacobsanv tJtliteds'lurer(1992)503
possessing
cJrildpontography
hadlegallvpurcliased
U.S,540,543-554,the defendant
passed
from a CaliforniaBook Store(BareBoys I and Il) beforeCongress
the ChilclProtectionAct of 1984which criminalizgdsuchconduct (1bld)
was targetedfof approximatelytwo arld
Dne to this purchase,clefendant
sting oqelationlo ah-cstpalrons
half yealsas part of a fecleralgovernmenL
of child pornography (lbid.) Afler years of inlensivesolicitation,
maga''ine
purchased
"Boys Who Love Boys," a pornographic
clefendant
activilies IJe u'aslrlcr
depiclingyoung boysengagedin valioussexrLal
anestedfor the knolvingreceiptof child pomoglaphvin violationof lR
(1datp 5a7)
U.SC.$22s2(a)(2)(A).
156
To rebut the delendant'"enLrapmenr
defense,t he proseculionwas
requted tc prcve beycnd a reascnabledoubt that the defendantwas
predisposed
to committingthe crime. (Jacobsony. [Jnited States,rupra,
503U.S.atp. 554.)To provepredisposition,
theprosecution
iniroduced
evidence
ofhis 1984legalprnchase
of child pomography(Ilare Boys I anci
II) aiongwith rnanyresponses
he providedgovemmentofft;ials rhioughour
the two yeaxsting operation.(Id. at 551-522) For example,ddringthe
courseof the stingoperation,the defendantwas askedto Iill out h sexual
interestquestiomairewhereinhe indicatedhe,,enjoyed... pre_teinsex.,,
(Id. atp.544.) He alsotold under.cover
officers,in wr.iting,,,pldasefeel
free to sendme more infomatioo, I am interestedin teenagesixr,rality.
Pleasekeepmy nameconfiden1ial.,'
(Id. ar p. 544.) In u s""on{ ,uru"y
sentto defendant,defendantindicatedthat ,,his interestin ,pret{ensex_
homosexual'materialwas aboveaverage,but not high,', (Ibi;i.) The
UnitedStatesSupremeCout foundall ofthis evidencelllulficient to show
thedefendanf
had a predisposition
for receivingchild pornograpny\1ta.at
p,554.)
The SupremeCourtsumisedthat the defendant,s
prior purdhaseof
legalchild pornography
was not evidenceof a predisposition
to durchase
illegalchildpomography.As heldby theHigh Court,
Evidenceofpredisposition
to do whatoncewas lawfirl is noi,
by itself,sufficientto showpredisposition
to do what is no*
illegal,for thereis a commonundelstandirlg
that mostpeoplb
obeythe law whenthey disapprove
of it. ... Hence,the fact
that petitiorer legally orderedand receivedthe BaLeBoyt
magazines
doeslittle to furtherthe Government,s
burdeno.f
provingthatpetitionerwaspredisposed
to commita crimineil
act. This is pafticularlyLmegivenpetitioner'sunchallengeh
lestimonythat he did not know until they arrived that thb
magazineswould depictmhors.
157
to the
supra'503U S atp 551) With respeat
v. [JnitedStates'
(Jacobson
the
communicationsthe defendantmade during the sting operation'
SupremeCouLtconcluded:
lrior to
Petitioner'srespollsesto the many commur}icatlous
the ultimate climinal act wele at most indicariveof certain
personal inclinations, including a predispqsitionto view
photographsof preteensex and a willingnepsto promotea
Evcn so'
ii.ren-agenaaUy supportinglobbyingorganizptions
petitioner's resPonseshardlY
would commit the crime o1
throughthe mails. Fufiherm(
'fantasies . are his own
government.'ICitation.]
(Id al pp. 551-552.) Conceruedabout the apprppriatenexus tequired
to
beforeillicit thoughtslegitimatclybecomeevidenceof a predisPositiorl
commita criminalact,the SupremeCouft noted:
may
of lcgrlly obtainedchild polnographyl.
[Possession
indicate a precliiposition to view sexually oliented
photoglaphsthat afe responsiveto his soxual tastes;bul
Lvidencethat merely indicatesa generic ihclinationto act
within a broadrange,not all of which is criininal,is of lUIg
probativevaluein eslablishing
Dreclisposition'
added.)
(1d.xt p, 550,emphasis
While neither Page nor Jacobson artic:ula|ea precisg tost to
determinewhen legally obtainedpomographylqgitimatelyevidencesa
criminalslateof mind, both the CaliforniaSupreqeCoufi and the Unitcd
States Supreme Court have hekl that it is inlptoper to draw btoacl
rll
mensre!7basedon the possessiott
abouta defendant's
generalizations
belirrc
pomography. In this regard,a narrow nexusmtLstbe established
pomographycanbe usedto provea defendant'scri{ninalstaleof mrnd
Relying on the diotatesof Jacobson,the SpcondCircuit explessi)'
lo
found that adult pornographycannotbe usedlo prove a predisposrtion
receivechild pornography.(fJnitedStates\).Ilarley (2ndCir' 1993)991
158
F.2d981,996.) In LlnitedStqtesy. Harvey,the defendant
was prosecuted
lbr recei-ring
childpomography.uder a federalstingoperaticn.(!C.ztpp.
983-984.) Pursuantto a search,the govemment
found a plethora of
pomogaphyin the defendart,shomeincludfrg
chilclpornography,adult
pomography
sirnulatingyounggirls,adultpornography
depictingbestiarrty,
aadadultpomographysexualizing
excremerrt (ld. at pp. 994_996.)All of
this evidencewas introducedat the dgfendant,strial
to show n1s
predisposition
to receivechild pornography. While the SecondCircurt
ultimatelyheldthatthe childpomography
andsimulatedchild pornography
were relevantto show the defendant,spredispositionto
leceive chiid
pomography,it found the bestiahtyand excrementponrography
to be
complotelyirrelevantand ineparablyprejudicial. (1d at p. 996
) Like
Harvey, the prosecutionin this case only intuoducedthe tities
and
descriptionsof the bestia.litypomography. (1rid.) Novertheless,
the
,,We
SecondCircuit concluded,
havelitle difficulty in conr:ludingthat rne
likely effectof this evidencewas to createdisgustand antagonismtowarct
Harvey,and resultedin overwhelmilgprejudiceagainsthtm.,, (lbia.)
Siacethe defendant
in lfarvey wasneverchargedwith the unlawfullecerpr
of obscenematerial,thc SecondCircuit held that the bestrality and
excrement
pomographyhad ,.noprobativeness
againstwhich to weigh its
overwhelming
prejudicialeffect',and reversedthe judgment. (Id. at pp.
99s-996.)
Similatly,rn Peoplev. Earle (2009)ttZ Cat.App.4th372,392, 412
the Courl ofAppeal reversedthe defendant,s
convictionsb()cause
the t al
courtallowedthe prosecutionto rely on evidelrceof generalizedsexual
deviantbehaviorto provetherequisitementalstatefor assaultwitli intentro
colnlnrt rape. In Earle, there was uncontroveltedevidencethat tre
defendant
had,on a priot occasion,
exposedhimselflo a youngwornanan.l
was,thereafter,
chargedwith committiugindecentexposure.(Id aLp.3g4.)
to provclhat
to rely onthisevidence
Thetdal courtallowedtheproseaulioo
withthe"specificinlent"to rapea sepalate
commitled
assault
thedefendant
victim,(1d arp.392.)
tho
the Courtof Appealreprimanded
In reversingthe convictions,
basedon generalizedsexuaily
trial'court for condernriiugthe def-endanl
offensive behavior flnding the "evidenceof indecantexposurehad no
tendencyat all to showthat he hada motiveto conlrlit sexualqssqu[t" (]d
to identity,LheCourtof
emphasis
in originai.)With rcspeat
at pp.392-400,
Appeal concludedthe defendant'sindecenl coliduct was insuffictently
to
distilctive to constitutea "uniquesignature"and,therefore,inadnissibLe
thel)ornthome,the Court01'
proveidentity, (Id. at p.394.) Flarnmering
Appealheld that menlalstatecvideocerelevantto proveonetypeol sexual
offenseis olten irrelevantto prove the reqtlisitculelrlalstateof dillerent
typeofsexual offense.
But a propellsityto comurit one kind of sex act cannotbe
supposed, without lufthor eviderltidly l'oundatron, to
demonstatc a propensityto coltu].lita dffirent acl Thc
frour clothing
psychologicalmanualsare fuLl of pa::aphilias,
are
critninal,
which
sotne
of
fetishesto self-mutilatio[,some
of which are not. No lawpersoncan do nore tharl guessat
to one kind
the extont,if any, to which a personptedisposed
to anol&erkind
of dcviantsoxlralconducturaybe predisposed
ls onelvho
of deviantsexualconduct,climinalol othcllvjse.
(Heallh& Sai Code,$ 7052)
commitsan act of necrophilia
more likely thaDa randolrly selectedpersoDto comnit an aol
of rape? Child molestation? Indecenl exposure? Is a
pedophilemore likely than a rapistor a nember of the public
to commit necrophilia? Without somc evidenceort lhc
a jury calnotanswerlhesequestious
subject,
(Id. at p. 399.)
In Holley v Yarborough(9th Cir. 2()09)568 F 3d 1091,1097, a
Californiacasocollatcrallyreviewedby thr;NirttltCirouLt,lhe delindant
leq'dactsor a minof. l'he
with muiliplecorntsof cotnnitLing
wascharged
hef bfeastsard otherplivateparts
miror accusedthe defendantof toucLring
160
while he baby-sather and her brother (Id aI p 1096) After Lhe
defenCant's
arest, the police lcuncl a .,lewd natchbook" and ,,sc./eral
sexuallyexplicitmagazinas,,in
the defelclant,s
bedroom.(Z/. at p. 1096)
Thisevidencewas introducedto provethe defbndantacted,,withthe intenr
of arousing,appeaiingto, or $atirying the lust,passions,or sexualdesires
ofhimselfor the child." (Pen.Codeg 288,subd.(c)(t) lr analyzing
the
)
issue,the Ninth Circuit fouod prejudicialer:or, but did not reverscthe
convictionbecauseit found therewere no SupremeCourt caseswhich
"clearly established"a constitutionalviolation as requiredby the Anti_
TerrorisraandDeathPenaltyAct. Nevertheless,
theNinth Circuitstressed
that:
The hial court in this caseadmittedevidenceof sexuaily
explicitmaterialstakenftom Holley,sbedroomover Llolley,s
objection,includinga natchbookcovertitl€d ,,WhenI was a
YearOld," which depicteda babyboy with unnatluallylafge
genitals,and threepornographic
magazineseuritled,,ljarely
,,BaLely
Legal," "Baby Face,"and
Ig,,, The magazines
containedonly imagesof adultwomen,no childr.en.fhe jury
could have drawn no permissibleinferencesfrom eitherthe
matchbookor the magazines. The matchbook,lar. 1io:n
reflectinga sexualintereslin prepubescont
girls, reflects,jf
,,at
anything,an off-coiorsenseofhumor,asit
bestexpr-essed
a joke about a marl's endowment.,, The magazinesare
similarly iffelevant, as they dopict adult \,r'omcn,not
prepubescant
girls. The only inferenceto be madefron these
magazines
is that Holley hadsexualinterestin young-looking
adultwomen.
Particularlyin the absence
of a limitinginstructioD,
the likely
influenceof this evidenceon thejuro$ wasto persltade
thctn
thatHolley had a dirty mind because
he engagedin olf-color
humor and bought pornographic,and likely ollensjve,
magazines.Holley wasdenieda fair trial as a result,because
the evidencepresentedwas both iuelevalltand highly likely
to be prejudicial,with substartialand injuriotLseffecton the
jury's verdict,
(Id.atp. 1101,fn,2.)
161
its discretionby etroneously
In the caseat bal, lhe lrial courtabusecL
admittinga plcthoraof pornograpllyevtdencethat Lradno bearingon the
'lhis
erroneousilltroductionol ovrdelce
chargesalleged againstAjay.
allowedthe jury to improperlyinfer that Ajay was a pervertor sexually
deviantwhioh the jury was peruitted to rely on, generally,to deterr'trrne
whetherhe was guitty of rape and lewd and lasciviouslyacts againsta
rninor. Given Sapna'sutterlyunreliableteslimonyandthe ambiguityofthc
pretexlcall evidence,this error allowedthe prosecutionto unfairly bolster
its weak caseto gain a convictionbasedon stiglnarathel than evidence
For thisreason,Ajay's convictionslnustbe reverscd
thc Dcv Conlputers,
2, The Adult PornographyForrudOn
'fo
Appellant,Ilad No
Even If It Could Bc Attlibuted
Bearing Ou The Chilges And, Thercforc,Shorrklllavc
BeelrExcl[dedAs Irrclevantl]videuce.
The ouly adultpornographytelevantto the chalgesin this ctrsewas
Ajay o1'
SapllaexPfesslyaccused
thehlm "Eighteenand Confused"because
showingit to her whenshewas a minor' 1he remaitlingadultpor:noglaphy,
includingthe bestiality,had uo bearingon thc chargosarld no et'folt was
madeby the trial coutl to fonn the requisitenoxusbetwecnthepomography
tt
and the crimo for putposesof admissibility (Sce generally,Jacobsort
IJnitedStates,supra, 503 U.S at pp 55A-552,Peoplev Page,supra 44
Cal.4that p. 41, fn. 17.) At the heairg on the motior to sovcrthe
pomographycharges(counts64 and 65) lion lhc casc,the prosccutron
argued the evidence supportingthe poroograpltychargeswas cross(counts
charges
thelewd andlascivtotts
as it equallysupported
admissible
l , 4 , 6 , 9 , l l , 1 4 ,1 6 ,1 9 , 2 1 , 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3a4n, d3 6 )b e c a L ttshee vs h a | e r l
g
an idenlicalelement:thatthe defcndaltactodwilh drc inlent01'arousir
or
ot Lrimself
o] sexlraldesires
appeali[gto or gratiryingthc lust,passions,
) hrle
. o d e$ $ 2 8 8 . 22, 8 8 ,s L r b d( c. X l ) ) ( 3 R T 3 9 1 - 3 9 6W
l h eC h i l d ,( P e nC
this may havejuslifiedjoinder,it doesnot changethe fact that lhe adult
t62
pomogmphyhadno relevanceto provingeitlterchargeor elerne|t.5Ofhere
is ncthins abcut adult pcrncgrephy(adult femalesand bestia.lity)that
suggests
atrindividual]vouldbe attractedto a tninor. As highly cautioued
rn Page,Jacobson,arrdEarLe,tJriskind of generalized
alalysishaslittle to
no probativevalue and is meantto unjustly stigmatizetlie dei'endantas
havinga "didy mi[d" whichthejury speciouslytranslates
into meelirlgthe
crrminalmensrea requirementfor aa unrelatedsex-crime As held by the
United StatesSupremeCout, "evidencethat merely indicatesa generic
inclinationto ac! within a broadrange,not all of whicir is cririnal, is of
little probativevaluein establishing
predisposilion.,,(Jacobsonv. united
States,supra,503 U.S. at p. 550,) Iror this reason,the adultpor.nography
(includingthe bestiality)was completelyi elevantto the crimescharged
ard shouldhaveneverbeenintroducedagainstAjay at triai.
3. The ProbativeValuc Of The Adult pornographyWas Not
Substantially
Outweighed
By Its Prejudice
Admission of the adult pomogr.aphyevidence was especially
objectionable
underEvidenceCodesoction352 sinceits probativevalue
was not substantiallyoutweighedby its prejudice. In additionto being
completelyinelevant, the probative value of the adult pornography
evidencewas especiallythin because
il was unclcarwhethelit belongodto
Ajay and,therefore,couldbe attributedto his mentalstate,
The only adult pornographyindisputablybelongingto Ajay was
Exhibit 45 which Peggy Dev testified he purchasedto assisthim in
providing sperm samples for ilfeflility trearments (15 ILl 409or
Otherwise,
the genesisof thecomputerpornography
wasextrelnelyLlnclcar
at trial. Both the plosecutionand defenseexpcrtsagreedthat it ,,vas
virtually impossibleto detemine who viewed the pomograph),on the
io
Arguably the child pomographyintroducedlo support the
pomogaphy counts was cross-admissible
to suppoft the lewd and
justi|'ing
joinder.
lasciviouscha:ges
I63
by
cornputerand whether it was plaoedon the compulerinadveLlently
b)
unsolicitedintemetsourccsor lvhetherit \'vasrolclltionallydownloaded
a person.(11 Nl 2931,2936-2938,2940)
uncorltestod
inttoduced
With respectto Exhibit49, the defense
evidence from forensic expeft, Jefliey Fisclrbach,who explained that the
pornography found on Ajay's laptop in the subdireclory entitled "QcBar"
was mosl likely the result of a virus whiclt created Lrllwantedand
unsolicited pornographyrelatedpop-upshe termed a "pom storm " ( [ I R'l
2982-2987; l7
RT
4728-4746)
Fischbach's opinion was llrrther
corroboratedby the fact that the imagesfound on the coDrpulerwere icons,
approximalely /z inch by % inch, which was endernicto QcBat virLrscsanrl
inconsistentwith viewing. (11 P'1' 412'/, 4'730,'1733) Finally, fLschbach
testified thal there was no forensic eviclenoeon the computerto verili that a
userever clicked on the imagesto view or downloadtheln (17 l{'f 4727,
4730,4732-4733)
Similally, with lespect to Exlibits 46 and 50, d]ere was r1o
lo Ajay. lll fac(,therc
conclusiveeviclencethat the pornographybr:lonplecl
was evidencqsuggestingSapnanay havebeenthe pelsonr'vhohansferred
'fower
or August21,
the pomographyfron the laptop,via disc,to the
wasplaoedon thel owercotrputcfon Augtrsl
2003.First,thepornoglaphy
21, 2003aboutone month4ft9l theTowercomputelwas rnovedto Saplla's
sincetheconputer
bedroom.(11 IIT 2923;15 RT411l-4112)Thereibre,
wasin Sapna'sbedroomit isjust aslikelytlLalsheor oncof her:boytiicrrds
placedthe pomographyon the computel ln addition,moretharlhall ol thc
pornographyvideo files on the Dell Tou'er movie lbldeL (Jixlibit 46)
appearto be originally ftom the Kazaafolder (Exltibit 44) on tlie Laprop
1 :7R T 4 7 8 9 - 4 7 9 l10: C I T
i n o l u d i ntgh eH - B o m bf i l e . ( 1 1R T 2 8 8 3 - 2 8 8 4
lhe evidenoeat LrrLl
2864) The H-Bomb lile is signifioantbecirlrse
indisputablyestablishedthat Sapnarehed on ao intemetsor.lrceenLitlecl
164
"EffectofA-Bombs" whendraftinga termpaper-for schoolon technology
(6 RT 1215;11RT 2884-2885,
2895;1,7RT 47C5-4707,
4790_419t;
\l CI
3184-3203
, Exhtbi 44) Althoughthetermpaperwas clueinMay 2003,the
forensicevidenceftom the Tower computeralso sho\,vsthat the H-Bomb
file wasopenedor "accessed"
on October15,2003consistent
with rltetime
ftame in which the pomographyfiles were accesseclon the Towcr
computer.(l7 RT 4790; 10 CT 2864-286'7)Therefore,sinceonly Sapna
wasinterested
in theH-Bomb,it followsthat shewasmore likely accessilg
the pomographyfiles, In additionto Sapna'sMay 2003 researchon I-IBombsand the October2003 "access,'
of the H-Bomb file, there is also
evidencethal Sapna'sinterestin atomioexplosionsextendedto Decernber
3I, 2003as,whenhousesitting for th€ Devs,sheaccessed
a docunenl rn
,'Dropping
her personalfile on the Tower calied
of alr Atomic bomb,, ( I7
W 4704-4705;15 CT 4377) Sincethe I{-Bomb file was downloacled
on
the laptopandthe Tower conliguouswith the pomographyand only Sapna
was interested
ia the H-Bomb, it is more likely that Sapna(aBdperhapsa
boyfriend),ratherthanAjay, was/wereviewingthepornography,5L
Exhibit 48 suffered from the same unleliability. Becausethe
bestialityimageswere found in the recycle bin, il was impossibleto
determine
how the imagcsgot on the con}p$erandwhethertheywereever
viewed. (17 RT 4127) Fischbachtestifiedthat the hles could havecorne
from an unsolicitode-mail,a pop-upvirus, or an inteuretsearch,noneof
which could be attributedto Ajay's state of mind.
(tj
l{l
4j21)
Fischbach,
levefiheless,sumlisedthat the files wele most likely computer
generated,
ratherthanthe resultof humansearcling,becausethe tile narne
5r
In addition,had the defensebeenable LointrocluceExlibit 8lj, an email piacingAjay at work on September
26, 2003at 8:30am,it woulcLhave
been abie to proye lhat Ajay was at work while pornogfaPhy was beurg
viewed at the Dev home. (SeeArgumentVII)
assignedto the bestiality fiie was an extremeiy long numericalnumber (17
6)
RT 47'.74-4'/'/
lhe probativevalueof the
All of this evideucaliuthel diminrshes
cannotconclusjvely
sinceit showsthatthepornography
adultpornography
theprejudicialeflbctsof thisevidence
be aftributedto Ajay. In conLrast,
were exLlemelysignifiaant. There is no doubt that the bestialilywas lhe
most prejudicial and mosl irrelevantpomographyintroducedagailstAjay
at his tdal. The prosecutioninttoducedtllis evidellcern an attemptto prove
whal xhe other evidencecould not prove - that Ajay was a sick perwert
capableof raping and molestinghis adoptealdaughter' This invilationto
unfairly stigmatizeand crimi[ally condemna personbasedon an uluelated
sexual interesl is the eKao! socnarioPage, .lqcobson,and Ettrle all
denounce.
4, The Failure 'fo Give A LiDiting Iustruction OD TItc
I{clevauceof the Adult PornographyFurtltet Pl e.iudiced
AppcllautaDdConstitutedhldcpendentIrror.
Al the hearingto seyerthe pornographychalges[on] the fell]0il]ing
chalges,hcld bofole trial, the triai courl indicatedit would give a lirnrting
instructionbecause"the Courtsof Appeal lell us they do work anclthat
they'reappropriateto give." (2 RT 66) Specifically,thetrial couflstated:
aboutthc
There could be linitiug instructiors,if necossal-y,
use of the [pornography]evidencefor pafticular charges
Typically, lhe attomeywho is opposingthe evidenceargues
don't wolk I'vc hcardLhatffotri
that limiting i[slrLrctions
prosecutorsand I've heard Lhatfroll defenseside as well.
But the CourtsofAppeal tell us theyclowork andthatthey'fe
appropriateto give.
(2 RT 66) The del'ense
neverobjectedto suchan instrlrction
Without any limiting instruction,thq jury was pennittedto draw
whateverioferenceit wanted\.vithregardto Ajay's guilt. Everlthe tfiirl
"thejuLy
coud ultimatelyheld that, wilh respoctl0 the adult pornogr:aphy,
166
cantakethe clcunstantial evidencefor \ /hat it's woLdr', (3 RT a00) In
lhis regard,Lhejury had no restraintsplacedon it and was lree tc lely cl
theadultpornography
to find Ajay guilty of the rapechar.ges,
the lewd alld
lasciviouscharges,
andto discemhis credibilityin all contextsof the case
As arguedabove,the adultpornogtaphyevidencewas inelevantLo ali of
the charges.However,eventhe prosecutionacknowledgerl
that the adult
pomography
hadno relevanceto the rapechargesbecause,
unlike the lewd
andlasciyiouscharges,
therewasno specificintentreqLrirement(2 RT 60_
63; 3 RT 391-394) Therefore,without a limititg insrructionrhcjury was
impemissibly allowed to f,trrdAjay guilty of the rapes basecLon an
urfouDdedbelief that he had the propensityto rape becausehe was a
sexuallydeviantperson as clemonstrated
by the adult por:nography,
especially
thebestiality.
While a hial court ordinarily has no duty to fur.l sh a limiting
instuction, the sua sponteobligationto give a limiting hsu.uotionrnay
arisein ar "exhaordinarycasein which the unprolectedevidenceof past
offenses
is a dominantpart ofthe evidenceagainstthe accused,aoctis both
highly prejudicial and minimaily relevant to any legitimate purpose.
(People
v. Rogers(2006)39 Cal.4th826,853-854,
citingpeoptev. Co ie
(1981)30 Cal.3d43, 64.) Here,the inadmissible
pomography
evidence
was a dominatt part of the evidenceboth becauseof its inflarDnatory
natureandbecause
it consumed
aboutl0% ofthe trial eviclence
despitethe
factthatonlytwo of92 charges
pertained
(4 RI 819-837,
to pornography.
8 6 0 5 R T 9 0 s - 9 2 31,1 0 1 - 1 t 2 11,1 5 7 - 1 I 5 9 ;R
6T 1 2 8 5 - 1 3 21
84
, 3 8t,4 7 t ;
'1 RT 1532-1534,
169l-1692;8RT 2A20-2023
9 ItT 2120, 2048-2063;
3043;il RT 2795-29s1,2826-2831,
2859-2864:
17RT 4554-4560,
46494756,4'758-4802)
As describedabove,the inadmissible
adultpolnography
evidence(includingthe bestiality)had no relevanceto proving Ajay was
athactedto minorsand had minimalevidentiaryvalue as dernonstrated
by
t61
the jury's unequivocaldecisionlo acqqil Ajay of both tha pornographl'
counts.For this reason,the trial coufi shouklhavegiventheJury a limited
eviden(eto ensureat a trinrmumit
on Lheadultpornoglaphy
instrucrion
wasnot usedto suppofithe rapeallegatlolls
troductionq!41!
E. The
On
the
omc
ComPttfe$
t Pornosrah\ Found
elhrtt
P r ei u d i c c d
RequiringReversal.
Rsversaiis requiredunderstatelaw wherethe lggorddemonstlates
there was a reasonableprobabilitythat, but fbr the error, the dciendant
would have obtaineda nlore favorableverdict (Peoplev Walsou(1956)
probability"underthe Walsonst^idard
46 Cal.zd8l 8, 836.) A "reasonable
chance"something
of prejudiceonly requiresa showingof a "reasonable
"morethan an abstractpossibility," (SeeCollegel'Iospital,Inc v Superior
supra,46Cd2tl
Court(lgg4) 8 Cal.4$'/04,714,c\tiogPeoplev Watson,
697,
(1984)466U S 688'693-694'
v. l,{/ashington
818,837,andSrrlcktand
adrnission
of
698 f1O4S.Ct.ZO52,80L.Ed,2d6741.)llele, tlreorroneous
the adult pomography(includingthe bestialilyevidence)warrantsteversal
because*le remaiuiugeviclelceinhoduccdagaiDstAjay at tlial \vas
extremelyweak. (Seeprejudicesectianof Arglment I sapra) Knowtrlg
the proseoution
that Sapna'stestimonywas repletewith inconsistencies,
wilh the
attemptedto convict Ajay by trying to corroborateher allegations
-- primarilythepornoglaphy
whichimpermissibll'
evidence
otherevidence
evokedimagesof sexualdeviarce. Not oulf i5 this typeof evidercc,by rts
rature,inflanmatory and highly prejudicial,il this oase,mary ofthejurors
their distasteand prejudiceagainslpomography (6 CT 17l l,
expressed
r os 2, ll andl2 all
l'718-1732,C
' 7T 1 7 4 8 - l ' / 6 21, 1 6 3 - l ' / 6 ' 1J) r r t o N
thc caseif ir iLrvolved
the
it wouid be difficultfor then lo deoicle
indicated
viewingof sexuallyexplicitvideosol uoLionpictures.(6 CT lTll:7 C'f
Juror No. 4 indicatedlhat the inlroductionof
on 'horr
pornography
might affectlier abilityt0 decldethecasedepending
1801; 8 CT 2034)
163
explicitandwhethertheyincludevioleuceasweli." (6 CT 1726)JurorNo
11 lvroie,"I atl veiy uncoinfoilablewrrn sexualmaterialsdue tc beinga
madtalrapeyictim." (8 CT 2034)
In addition,the improperadmissionof the pomographyeviclence
(ircluding the bestiality)was so grossly unfair it ollended the most
"fundamentaiconceptiots of jrstice,, violating appellant,s federal
constitutional
righl to a fair trial anddueprocess,asguaranteccj
by the litth
a.lldFouteenth Amendmentrights to the United States Constitution
(UnitedStatesv. Layasco(1977)43t U S. 783,790,97 S.Ct.2044.2048:
Peoplev. Turner(1984)3'7Cal.3d302,313.) Moreovcr.becarLse
adult
pomographyls protectedby the lirst Anlendmentof the l.inited Stares
Constitutionarld canoolconstitutoa crime, the inproper in{.roductioo
of
this evidencealso violated appellant,sFirst AneDdineDtrighr to fi.ee
(Ashqoftv. FreeSpeech
speech.
Coalitiol]
(2002)535U.S.234, 122S Cr.
1 38 9 . )
In this rcgald, the inadmissiblepornography evidelce was
partioularlyinvidiousasit wasusedto painran illegitimatcpicrureo1.Ajay
as a sexuailydcviantpersonto proveAjay was capableof rapinga tninor
and/orcommittilg lewd and lasciviorLs
actsagainsta miDor..ln hrm, it is
plobablethat the jur.y Leliedon this prohibited infcrenceto
reasonably
credit otherwisesuspectevidenceespeciallyas it relatod to Sapna's
teslimonyandthe pretextcall bothof whichrevolvedarounclstateof trrjnd
eticlence.(Peoplev V/atson,supra,46 Cal.2dat p. 836.) For the sarne
reasons,
the StatecaDnotshowthe erroldid not conlributeto the verdror
beyonda leasonabledoubt (Chapnanv California(1967)386 U.S 18,
87 S.Ct.824 [7 L.Ed.2d705];Cranev Kenluctqt
(t986) 476 U.S 683,
691[106S.Ct.2142].)Giventhisundeniably
pr.ejudicial
impacrurderstate
andfederal
lavr',
reversal
ofall ofappellaDts
convictrons
is required.
169
vI.
APPDLLANT'S CONVICTIONS SHOULD BE REVDRSED
BECAUSETHE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLYADMITTED
A KAZAA COMPUTERLOG OF ]IITLES CLAIMING TO BE
BASEDON THE PROSEC]UTION'S
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
KNOWINGLY FALSI, OFFDR OF PROOF TIIAT THE
FORENSICS SHOW]]D APPDLLANT DDLIBERATDLY
SEARCIIED FOR TIIE TITI,ES ON I'IIS LAPTOP
COMPUTER.
A. Itrtroduction
In the middle of trial, with aimost no nolica to the defense,the
prosecutionintroducedExhibit 44 over defenseobjeation. (ll RT 28282831) Exhibit 44 consistsof tbreeover-sizedcharts(referredto as 44A,
44B, and 44C) which reflect select file uames with accompanying
descriptionsfrom Kazaa'sdownloadlog ibund on A.jay's laptop. (2 RT
293; i I RT 2841-2842,2846-2848,2850, 2895, 2899'2900,2934) l he
KazaaIog, however,did rot containany actualconlerl (2 RT 293; I I RT
284t-2842,2847-2848,2850,289s,2899-2900,2934)
Kazaa was a computersoflwareprograln usedin the early 2000s
5?
l7
on lo Ajay'slaptop (11 RT 280?'2808;
whichhad beendownloaded
RT 4683-4685) As prosecutionexpert Brent }luehfing teslified,"most
peopleusedit for mnsic. You cangetmusicon it, you cangetmoviss,yotl
can get books." (11 RT 2807) Kazaaoperatedas a file translbrptolocol
(FTP) or a peer-to-peer(PzP). (11 RT 2808) "lherefore,to sharernusic,
movies,or bookseachparticipant(ofwhich thereweremillionsspreadover
the world) had to have somethingon theil oomputcrto sharebelorehe or
shecouldget music,moviesor booksfol free. (11 RT 2809,2844,2890)
The Kazaa software allowed the palticipants 10 sealch each others'
computers
for filesandsharethem (11RT rl809,2844,l7 RT 4683-4685)
compulerexpert,explained
lhaliLl
BrentBuehring,theprosecution's
the Kazaa log "there was a lot of mtLstc,which wouLdbe Likcart Ml'3
Kazaa
wascreated
in March2001 (17RT4685)
174
extension,
musicfiles. Therewasa lot oflnusic.,,(11RT 2g47) BLrehrLllg
evenagreedthat therev,/etelncte ,,inncccnl',{.itlesin the Kazaalog than
therewerepomographic
tirles. (ll RT 2897_289g)
In fact,of the 5,199
files deletedon the laptop only 122 (approximately3.5%) were even
suggesrive
of pomography(l 1 RT 2933_2934)
Exhibit44 represented
rhis
3.5o%
andwasoreated
by Bueluingwho simplyselected
thosefile flameshe
believed
sounded
likc adultor childpornography,53
Nameslike,Unclerage
,'incestpofo qwefty hail.iess
teenflashingher assin a subwayresturaunt,,,
vugln sex xxx ass,"and "younggirl fuckedin ass.,, (ll RT 2g42-2g43,
2846-284'7,2897)
This list wasadmitredinto evidenceas Exhibit 44. (l l
RT 2793;18RT 4870)
B. Staudardof Review
The eroneousadrnissionof pornography
evidenceundei.llvidence
Codesections1101, 352 anct402 is reviewedfbr abuseof <tiscretion.
(Peoplev. Page(2008)44 Cal.4thl. 44, 41 However.as recognizedin
)
Ziesmery. SuperiorCourt(2003)107Cal.App.4th360, 36:j, ,,rheabrseof
discretion
standard
is itselfrnrLch
abused.,,Therefote,lrede,novo staadard
of review may be more appropriatelyapplied wherc, as here, the
aoffectncss
of the trial coult,s orderturus on the applicalionof law to
The evidenceshowedthat the majority of fie Kazaa titles weLer.nos[
"
Iikely adult pomography with the excephon of two whjch q,ere child
pomography. Therefore,while Buehring tostified rat jre djd not krow
whether the hles in the Kazaa log (Exlibit 44) were, in faot, chrld
pornographybecausethe contentof the hles were not on thc cornputerand
becausethe titles of pornographyfiles in Kazaa were often inaocurate(l l
RT 2892,2934-2935, 2945), Exhibit 46 shows thar the Kazaa joe mlsr
likely includedpornography. That is, lj of rhe trrlcs found in rhekazaa
folder on Ajay's laptop wele also found on the Dcll Tower conputer (2
RT 293; 11 RT 2829-2830,2887; 10 CT 2864-286.t
lExlribir 46])
However,unlike the Kazaa log which had Do content. rnanv of the Dcrr
Tower files had content. ifherefore,the evidencesuesestsrh;t most of lhe
files in the Kazaa log were adult rarhel rhanchijd por;graph) . (2 RT l9l j
11RT2829-2830,
10CT2864-286j
46li
lBxhibir
171
undisputedfacts. (Ziesmerv. SuperiorCourt,supra, 107Cal.App4th at p.
1n re
363;Peoplev Jackson(2005)128 Cal.App4th 1009.1018-1019;
JaneDoe 8015v. SuperiorCourt (2007)148Cal App 4th489,493.)
C. The Prosecution
KnowinglvI[ade A FalseOffer 01 Prooll o
HaYeExhibit 44 Admitted.
The Kazaa log (Exhibit 44) was adnitted to show thal AJay was
arguedthis evidcnce
to minors. (11 RT 2830) The proseculion
attracted
was relevantto showthe specificinlent elenenl of the lewd and lascivions
c h a r g e(sc o u n t ls, 4 , 6 , 9 , 1 1 ,1 4 ,1 6 ,1 9 ,2 1 , 2 4 , 2 6 , 2 9 , 3 1 , 3a4n d3 6 ) ,r . e .
that "the defendantcommitledthe actwidr the inlcnt of arousing,appealing
to, or gratifyingthe lust,passions,or sexualdesiresof hirnselfor ths child "
(12 C'l 3251) In alguing relevanceto U)e trial cotut, lhc prosecutrun
suggestedthe hles "show the intent of dre petsonwho was downLoadirg
them" thereby "expos[ing.l tire state of miud or what tho pcrson
'Io
dowlloadingthis information
was lookinglbr." (11 IlT 2830)
shorv
that lhe I(azaa log feflcctcda persondeliboratelylool(inglbr child
pomography,
theprosecution
madethofollowingolferofproof:
The purposeof this informationis to show the iDtenlof tlie
person who is dow[loading this intbr-mationlton Kazaa
that'show you find it, Ifs - so i1'snot like I tYped
because
Avcnue,ancl.
in White IlousePfesidellt,1600I'annsylvania
GetsRaped"
oh,ury gosh,Iook,I got"Nire-Year-Old
(l I RT 2830,bold addedfor emphasis)
This argumertwas rot only false,it was knowinglyfalseand,thus,
arguorcnt
assumes
constituted
prosocutorial
misconduct.Theprosecution's
that a poISonusingKazaacannotinadvertentlyard/or unkoowinglyobraio
child pornographytitles while searchinglbr musia o. any other type oi'
legitimalematerial. Ilowever, asrepeatedlyexplainedby thepfoseclrtion
s
computerexpert,Brent Buehring,rvho cornpilcdthe KazaaLog-- chiLd
t]2
pomogaphytitles could have easilybeenamassedinadvertently
without
AJay'sinientoi kaowledge
Accordingto prosecutionexpelt, Brelt Buehritrg,a Kazaa
user
sea-rches
for materialby typingkeywordsinto Kazaato finclmusic,movics,
or books.(11RT 2807,2841,2845)However,
evenif theKazaauseLr"ras
looking for innocentlnateriai,pornographicmatelial oorrld bc garlicred
inadvefiently
if 949 of the ke).wordsenteredby the Kazaausermatchesa
ke).wordattached
to a file with a pornogmphic
name. (l I RT 2815,2g91,
2893) Therefore,
ifa Kazaauser.wanted
to find a songtitle \{,ithth€ word
"sex" in it, like "Sex Machine,'by JamesBrown, lle or she
coulcl
,,sex,,
rnadvertently
pull up a pornographyfile which had
inputtedas a
keyrvord.(11 RT 2893) Similarly,evenif a Kazaauser.was interestedLn
fiuding adult poraography,the searchwords cou.ldinadvortentiypull up
childpomography.(11 RT 2893) GivenKazaa'soverbr.oad
anclinexacr
methodfor searchingand finding tities,the Kazaalog alonesaysr]othirg
abouttheuser'sstateof mind,
Equallysignificanr,the keywordsand titlesinpuftedinto the I(azaa
programare doneby individualuserswithout any oversightfi.ont l(azaa.
(ll RT 2890) Therefore,
it is not uncomnonfor the titLcsanclkeywolds
allachedto a file to itraccurately
describethe contentsof thc fiLe. (11 I(T
2890) This alsoundermines
any ability to infer a specificintentfi.omthe
userbecause
nefariousmaterialscan be unintentionallypuJleclup rvith an
rnnocent seaLchespecially if itlrocent keywords ale allached to
pomography
hleby a Kazaauser.(llRT2g90) As defense
expeftJefficy
Fischbach
testified,
Kazaaallowsfor shari[g any sort of hle, but, of coursc,the
communityjust followed ftom Napster,sashosand startecl
shari[gmusicon Kazaa,aod anythingelsethat's t]ot easrly
l-acilitatedolr the Web or anythingthat a selvice provicjcf
wouldn'tallowyouto storeontheWebtendsto besomethiug
thatpeoplewouldput ontoa lpeer-to_peer]
progran
113
(17 RT 4685) Therefore,given the pomographyildustry,s intereslrn
exploiting Ka.zaa, aty legitimate Kazaa user Lisked downloauurg
pornographyudntentionally. Contary to the prosecution,sargrnnent,the
tutlesin the Kazaafolder,which weresuggestiveof child pomography,did
not tend to prove Ajay's stateof nird becausetherewas no eyidenceio
showAjay deliberatelysearched
for thosetitles.
The prosecutionknew or should have ktrown that the Kazaalog,
Exhibit 44, did not reflect Ajay,s stateof mind. Officsr Brent Buebring
wasa police o1.ficer
for the DavispoliceDe;rallmentfor 25 yearsand,at the
lime ofAjay's ptosecution,went backlo work for the depaflmeltpart tin.]e
as a retired annuitant. (ll
RT 2795) l\s a consequence,
Buehrings
knowledgeaboutthe l(azaapro$am was iurputedto theprosecution.(See
Kylesv, Whittey(1995)514 U.S. 419, 43j -438 Ut5 S.Ct. 15551
[,,the
individualprosecutorhas a duty to leam of any fhvorableeviclence
leown
to the othersacting on the govellment,sbehalf in the case,incluclingthe
police"l; People y. Zambrano(2007)4l Cal,4th 1082,j.132
lBrady ()\try
concelnsevidoncepossessedby the ,,prosecutionteam" which inclucles
both investigative and prosecutorial persoDnel].) Therefore, the
prosecution'sreplesentationthat the Kazaafiles necessarilyshoweclthzrt
Ajay searchedfor child pornographywhich, in turn,landedto showhe had
a sexualattractionto minorswas knowinglyfalse.
As is well established
by the SupremeCourt,a convictionobtained
by falseevidencecannotstzurd.(Miller v pate (1967)3g6 U.S l, 7
[g7
S.Ct 785,7881citing,Mooneyv flotohan(t935) 294 U.S. 103
155S.Cr
3401;Naupe v Peopleof Stateo/ Ittinois (19j9) 360 U S. 264
[79 S Cr.
ll13l;
Pyle v. Stateof Kansas(.1942)3t1 US. 213 [63 S.Ct 177]
)
Reversalis alsorequiredwherefalseand,/ordeceptiveevicience
inpacts rg
faimessof a trial and there is a reasonablelikelihood that rhe
.jur.y,s
judgmentwas affected.(Snrt4v Phitips (1982)45j U.S.209,
219 [102
r14
S Ct 940,9471; Gi.gliot.v . v(Jniterl
r t l L e uDStates
t u r y t (1972)
405
u ) U.S
u . J r150,
) u , r153_154
)J_l)4 L
\!y tz) +
[92
y,
S.Ct.763,7661
cit,trg,
Itlooneyv Hotchan(!935) Zg4U.S. 103 155S Ct
ingly false offer ofproof induced the
ribit44,to pr0veAjay'sstateof mind.
)losecution'smisleading examination
to thejury.
Dudflg its exanilation of computerexpert Brent Buehr.ing,tne
prosecutionmisled ard inflamedthe jury by repeatedlysuggesting
that
lAjayhad to haveenteredkeywordslike ,,anal,pom, Lolita, rape,,in order
popull up thef,ileslistedin the Kazaalo
ln aclditio[,
E. 0l RT 2945_2946)
the prosecution
presenleda knowingtyfalseargumentto the jury during
blosing
:losingwhereinhepersuaded
thejuD
you,that'sa malething. Girlsdon't do that.
( 1 8R r 5 0 1 3 - s 0 1 4 )
Sincet}Ie prosecutionknew the Kazaalog evideDcecolrld not prove
.fja/'s srateof mind, it was erlor to argueto tlle corrary duringclosing
ent; misleadthejury duringBuehing's testimony;ard presejrta faise
ofproofto the trial courtin orderto secureits admission.Giventhese
lhe admissionof the Kazaa log evidencerender.ed
Ajay,s tr.ial
y unfairrequiringreversal
D. IIg_Trial Court Should Have Excluded The Kazaa Log.
-DfiExlibit 44, Because It,s pr.obati.rre Volo"
Not
S&sb4U4lla$rgrcubjEildicial
Effect.
Evall absentprosecutorialmisconduct,the Kazaa log evidence
shouldhave been excluded. At tdal, the aourt admittedtlte Kazaalog
eyidenceto show identitybecauscit foundthatthe defenseopenedthedoor
to the issueon crossexaminatioo.As held by te trial court:
All right As 1aras this goes,I think thc defensehasopened
the doorthroughthe cross-examination
of Ms. Dev, aswell as
questionsto otherwitnessesabouther accessLopom andh(3r
suggesteddesireto view it through wherc she worked and
other thllgs, and so the likelihoodthat she would use these
tlpes of searchtermsiS relevantto thejury coosideringthat
issuetharthe defensehasaheadyraised.so I'rn goingio ler
the diagftmsbe usedasthey,represenllycreated.
(11 RT 2831) The tl.ialcou did not weigh the probativevalueo1.tne
evidenceagainstits prejudicialeffect.
In general,characterevidence,like interestin chilclpornography,
is
,,offer.ed
inadmissibleagainsta defenda.nt
when
to provehis or her conciuct
on a specified
occasion."(Evid.Code$ I101,subd.(a).)ia
The inherent danger in regard to the use of other-crimes
evidenceto prove a fact in the chargedoffense is that
5a
EvidenceCode section ll08 actuallyallows unchargedsex crime
evidenceto be admited lbr purposesof propensity Llowever,herc.the
Kazaa log evidencedoes not constitutethe crinle of possessillschild
pornography
($ 311.11)because
therewasinsufficienr
evidence
to eJtabhsn
that the files were, in fact, child pomography. (Seepeople y. Cottone
(201,1)123 Cal.Rptr.3d892, 900 review grantedAug. l?, 2011,No.
S194107freviewgrantedon whethertrial coufi or:juryshoulddetermine
whetherdefendant's
prior conductwas ',crimural"for purposesof acimission
underEvidenceCode secLion1108,but leavingintactthe premisethat
"EvidenceCode section II08,s plain langLLrge
requiresprior scxual
nlisconductevideoceto be a ,,crime,,];people v. Gerber (2011) 196
Cal.App.4lh
368,reviewdeniedon Aug. 17, 20 , No. Sl95t60
fhndrng
insufhcientevidenceof cdme for possessirLg
child pornographywhere
,1eal,,]
therewasno evidencechild depicted,w:rs
)
ir remlts,therribunat
,_!l]ry:rl"Ott'l
werghtto the
to giveexcessiye
vicious record oi erime thus exhibited,ana
ertherto allow it to beartoo shonglyon thepreselt
charge,or
-u
to take the proof of it as justifl,ing
irrespective
of guilt of thepresenichar!e,;, "on,l",o,ition
Jcitations.l
(People
v.Nouinghan(1985)172Cal.App.3d
434,495.)
Nevertheless,
prior bad act evidercecan be adlnittedin limited
circumstances.
(Evid.Codeg 1101,subd.(b)) Specifically,
Eviderce
Codesection1101,subsection
(b),provides:
As repeatedlywamed by the California Suprejne Court,
the
admission
ofpropensityevidence,
by its nature,is highly inflammatoryand
prejudicial
requiringthatits adrnissibirity
be "scr.utinized
with greatcare,,
analysis.,,(peoplev. Thompson
l.vith"closelyreasoned
(19g0)27 Cal.3d
303,315.)
"The admissibilityof otler cdmes evidencedepenclson (l)
the
materialityof the facts soughtto be proved, (2) the tendencyof
the
uncharged
crimesto provethosefacts,and (3) the existencer
of any rule or
policy requidng exclusion of the evidence.
fCitation.],, (peopte ..
378-379.) 'Evidenceof urcharged
Ldmission
requiresext{emelycareful
rl effectis inlerent irl suchevidelcc,
tly if they bavesubstanti1lprobative
vphrc." (Peoplev. Ewc.tldt
(1994)7 Cal4th 380,404, originaliralics;
t]'7
citations,intemal quotationsand bracketsomitted.) "Becausethis type of
evidencecan be so damaging,'[i]f the connectionbetweenthe uncharged
offenseard the ultimatefact in disputeis not clear,the evidenceshouldbe
excluded.' [Citation.]" (People v. Daniels (1991) 52 CaI.3d815, 856;
Peoplev Butler (2005)127Cal.App.4th49, 60.)
In the caseat bax,the proseculiotarguedthe Kazaalog evidence
was relevantto show Ajay's intent to aonx'nitlewd and lasciyiousacrs
agai[stSapnaand the trial courtadmittedtbe evidencelo assistthejury ro
determinewhether Ajay possessedchild pornographyand, therefore,
perpekatedthe chargedcrimes. While intent aud identity are legitimate
$ounds for admission,admissionis not properunlessthe proponentof the
evidence,in this casethe prosecution,can establishthat,,theevidencehas
substantialprobativevalue that ciearly outweighsits inherentpr.ejudicial
effect. (Peoplev Bean(1988)46 Cal.3d9L9,938;seea/so,Evid.Codeg
3s2.)
1. The Kazaa Log
ProbativeValue.
Evi(leucc Lacked Substantial
Sincethe prosecutionintoducedthe l<azaalog evidellce,it borerne
burden of proving the evidence was substartially probative by a
preponderance
of the evidence. (Peoplev. Bean,supra, 46 Cal 3d aLp.
938.) Preponderance
of the evidencerequiresa showingthatthe evidence
is "moreprobablethan not;' (Peoplev Dorutell(19.7
5) 52 Cal.App.3d762,
777.) "The proofmust be suffioientto arousemorethana nreresuspicion.,'
(Ibid.) ProbattLve
value of profferedevidence"dependsuponthe exlenrro
\yhiohit tendsto prove an issueby logic and reasonable
inference(clegrec
of relevancy), the importance of the issue to the case (degreeoI
materiality),and the necessityof provilg the issue by neans of thrs
parlicularpiece of evidence(degreeof lecessity)." (.People
v. Thompso4,
supra,27 Ca1.3d
303,3 18,fn.20.)
178
As a preliminarymatter,th€
coufi must deteflninethat ,,the act
occurredandthe CefenCa.nt
was Lheactor,,beforeit car be adrnitled
under
sion(b), for a non-propelsitypurpose
3 U.S.342,348
342];see
[lt0 S.Ct.
lal.A.pp.3dat p. 77'7 [therernusr oe
offensewas in fact commitledby the
27 CalApp3d 54, 66 [,,thecoLlateral
wilhout proof that the accusedwas
as ugruedsupra,the eyidencelacked
tuseit failed to showthat Ajay used
Pomogmphy.At br:st,the eviderroe
l rlotr.ulcoLLrhepossibiliry
rorrAjuy
rhyon his .laptopcornputerwithin th€
rf arnbiguily
is ilsufficie[rto jusrify
)reponderance
bur.delof proof: more
In Peoplev. Leon (2001 9l Cal,App.ath
812,815,the defencianr
'ltle evidence
was so ambiguousit iikely confusedthe jwy.,,
(Ibid.)
ativevaluebecause
the interpreterdid
tlly touchedhispenisir1opencoun or
's concluded
by rheCorrrL
ofAppecl
o testify to conductthat may
)st, could possiblelead to alr
ed the prosecution,s
burdento
r79
establishLeon's intent at the time he entereclthe premises
The prejudicial impact of testinony is increasedwhere it
conlLsesthe issue or inflames the jury lcitation.] The
admissionof thistestimonydid both.
( 1 da t p p . 8 1 6 - 8 i 7 , )
Leon is very similar to Ajay's case. Likc the "mastulbating"
evidencein Leon, the Kazaaevidencedid not prove \,vhatthe prosecutor
puryoftedit proved. That is, the Kazaalo11evidencedid not proveAjay
was searchingfor child pornography,Therefore,as requiredby Evidence
Codesection1101,subdivision
(b),theKazaalog evidence
shouldnothave
beenadmittedbecauseit did not "logically, naturally,and by reasonablc
inference"establishA,jay'smeltal stale. (Peoplev. Thompson,
supra,2'7
Cal.3dat p. 31r5.)As a result,the evidencesimply confusedthejury raLher
than assistedit with probativeinformation. (Peoplev Leon, supra,9l
cal.App,4rh
at p. 817.)
Tbe Kazaa log evidencawas not only ambiguousbecausethe
computerforensicsfailed to showthat the user deliberatelysearchedibr
child pomography,it was equallyambiguor"rs
in that it failedto showLhar
Ajay was the person using the Kazaa progran when the por.nograpliy
downloaded.In fact, Brent Buehringclearlytestilieclhe had no ideawno
was usingthe oomputerat the lime pornographydowoloadedor was being
viewed, (11 RT 2936) In addition,the defenseintroducedevidcnce
suggeslinglhat Sapra may have either deliberatelyor iDadverteDrly
searclredfor the files in the Kazaalog becauseone of the I(azaafi1es
entitled"H-Bomb," which Buehringsurmised
was a[ actualvideo01 aD
alomicbomb e:<plosion,
was referenced
in a tern paperSapnapreparedfor
a community college class in May 2003 which relied exclusrvelyon
intemetcitationsincludingoneentitied"Effecto1Aj]ombs,, (6 RT l2l5;
Il RT 2884-2885
2 ,8 9 5 ;1 7R T 4 7 0 5 - 4 7 0477, 9 0 - 4 7 91t ;1C T 3 1 8 4 - 3 2 0 3 ,
Ex-tribit44) Therefore,given the ambiguityard uncertairtysurrounding
r80
) either deliberatelyor inadvertently
enceshouldhayene.zerbeenadmitreq
rbdivision(b).
er (1975) 46 Cal.A.pp.3d
260,263,rhe
Theprosecutionintroducedgvidence
erltrty. (Ibid.) The chalgedrobbery
lereas the rncharged robbery was
lre conviction in Carter becausetherc
thatthe defendant,
in fact,cqmnitted
)tim from the unchargedrobberywas
: was unableto sufficiently idertify
Carter, As explainedby tho victim, he ,,recognized
the black turlleneck
iweateron ooe of the depictedpersons,but did not recognizethe face,,,
(tPeople
v. Carter,supra,46 Cal.App.3dat p.264.) The robberftom tne
robbery,which took placethe day beforethe unchargedrobbery,
iharged
worea blackturtleneck.(1d at p. 263,in.2) Findingthatthevicrirn
identifieddefendanU
he identifieda turtlenocksweater,,theCourtof
ppealconcluded:
While the facts of the Freelandrobberv were adntitted10
establishthe idenrityof the Swislowrobbcr,no identificarion
of the peryetratorof the Free.land
crimeresulted. Cerlainlvthefaclsofuncharged
offenses
carnoLbe admitred
unlessrhc
identityofthe perpetrator
is clearlyestablished.
d. at p. 265.)
Similarly, in this case, the Kazaa log evidence was
to show intent and identity yet failed to establishthesefacts.
h Peoplev. Long(1910)7 Cal.App.3d
586,589,the clefendant
was
ictedofpassinga forgedcheck. At trial, he deniedthe crime. (lbicl.)
prosecutionintroduoeda pdor unchargedconduct,for.the purrpose
ol.
entif,ingLong astheperpetratorofthe chargedcrime,whereinLong had
r8l
allegedlyaided ard abetledthe passingof threeforgedchecks (rl ar p.
591) The Court ofAppeal reversedLong's convictionfinding,,thevice ol
the prosecution'stactic lay i[ its failureto producesubstantial
evidetceof
defendant'scotnplicityin the other.three
forgeries" (1Drd) Long admitrecl
that he was present when the principal passedthe forged checks,bur
testifiedho did not parlicipatein thecdme. (Id. aLp.:t89.)FindrngLong's
identity as an aider and abetterof tho unchargedorimeto be ,,notciearjy
perceived"the Court ofAppeal reversedandwaned againstthe dangersof
usingspeciousevideDceofa collateraloffenseto supporta conviction (1d
atp. 590.)
Circumstantial proof of a crime charged cannot be
inlermingled with c.ircumstantial
proof of suspicior:sprior
occuffencesin suchmalmerthat it reactsas a psychological
factor with the result that the proof of dre crime chargedis
usedto bolstel up the theoryor fostersuspicionin the friDd
lhal the clefendant
musthayocomrnittedthe prior act,anclthe
conclusionthat he must havecommittedthe prior act is lhen
used in tuln to strelgthen the theory and induce the
conclLrsion
that he must also haye committedthe criule
chalged. This is but a viciouscircle. l-leL.e
tlie evidenceol
suspiciousprior occurrencesaffords lro substantialproof
whalsoevercoDrectingdef'endant
in any way witl] the chargc
on which he was tried.
(ld. at p. 592..) Like Long, the prosecutiol in lhis case inrrocLuced
suspiciousevidenccto unfairly associare
Ajay with child pomographyand
bootstrapped
ttLisnefariousevidenceinto its case-in-chief
which suffered
seriousweaknosses.(Id. at pp. 591-592l"by a bootstrap
process,
the
chargedforgery was ilrputed Lo the defbndantby renuousevidenceof
another forgery rvhose proof was so shaky that the pr.osecutor
nac
dismissedit for lack of cvider.rce"l.)
Finally,the l(azaalog evidence
lackedanyprobative
valuebccausc
the issueof intentand identitywerenot disputedjssue:;atAjay,s trial The
only disputedissue at trial was \ryhether
the crinleshappenecl
or whether
182
Sapnafalselyaccused
Ajay ofrape becauseshebelievedhe was goirrg
Lo
seadher backtc Nepal. Similarly,rn pecple y
E.ucldt (1991 7 rla:4t-h
380,387-388,Lhedefendantwas charged
with cornrLittingler,vdancl
lasciviornacts against.hisstep_daughter
0n a weekly or biweekly basis
stadingwhel]shewas six or sevenuntil
shewas 14. I-Ier.vasalsorJiarged
with molestation(1d at p. 3gg.) Because
the rer.vdan<llascrviouscriarges
reqrrireda showiugof specilic inLent, prosccutior.l
Lho
v,,asper.rrtted to
introduce
evidence
unrlerEvidenceCodesectionll0l, subdivision
(b),
from thevictilu's oldersister,who testified
that fie defenclant
rad touched
hel breasts
andgenitalson tltrceoccasions
whenshewas approximatcly10
yearsold (1d at pp 389, 39r') 'rhe
california suprernecolrrt rc:versecl
Ewoldt'sconvictionfindingthat the uuchaged
sex cr.inelackedprobatrve
valuebecause
thedefelrdarlt's
iutelt with respectto tl.relewd aq(l]ascivious
chargeswas not ir dispute. (Id. at p. 406.)
Specilically,the l{igh Courr
held:
The evidcuccof defenda[t,sunchargedmisconclur:t
ir_rthe
presentcase is inadrnissiblefor. the purpose
of provjng
de{bndant,s
inlent as the chal.ges01.
f.ri,A
"o.,ritting
Evidenceof inlent is relevantto establish
that, isuning ""iri
tJre
defendurr
c.rmninedthc allegeLt
conducl.llc or shehrfborcd
l I e r c q u l s l t cl l l t e r ) r . I n t c s t i f y i n gf e g l f d i I l g t l l c
c l r c f J e so l .
lewd conduct,{the victiml statecltha-tdef.e-ndant
,.pJt"aiy
molesledh€r, fondling her breastsand gcnitalsand forcine
herlo touchhis penis. If defendantengJgedin Lhn concluci
his intentin doingso couldnot reasonabiy
be disputed as to
thesecharges,
the prejudicialeffectofthe admittingeviclence
of similar unchargedacts, therefore,wouicl out"woigh
the
valueofsucheviderrce
Probative
(Id. atp.406.) Ajay,scaseis almostirdistinguishable
iiolrrEwoldr. Li(e
thevictlmi\ Ewaldt,SapnaalsotostifiedthatAjay touchedher
breaslsand
genitals;thathe pressed
his penisagainsther while clothecl;that hc dieitalry
peretratedher; and forcedhet.to haveoral
sex with hin. (,+Rf 757_75g,
183
803,813; 5 RT 1158-1163)Therefore,ifthejury believedAjay conmitred
these acts, A.jay's intent wouid not be in dit;putebecause1henature of the
alleged touching establisheddre requisite intent flecessaryto prove ]ewd
ard lasciviousacts. Consequenfly,
sincespecificriexualintentwas an
undisputedissrLein Ajay's case,the Kazaa log evidenceshou]dhavebeen
excludedbecauseit lackedanyprobativevalue.
In sum,therewas sinlply iDsufficientevidenceto establishthatAjay
searchedfor child pornographyon his laptop. As a result,the Kazaalog
eyidencewas not p|obativeto proveintentandloridentityofthe sexcrimes
Ajay \ryaschargedwith.
As California Suprernei3ourt made clear in
Thontpson,"if the comection betweenthe unchartledoffenseand the
ultimate fact in disputeis not clear, the evidencesihouldbe excludecl.,'
(Peoplev. Thompson,
supra,27 Cal.3dat p. 316.) Ther.efore,
giverrthe
extraordinarilyquestionable
valueofthe Kazaalog evidcnceit shouldhavo
beenexcluded
2. Dvcr If The I(azaa Loe Eviclcrrce
IIad Sorne
ProbativcValuc.It ShouLlHaveBccuExcluded
Because It,s Probative Valuc Did Not
SubstautiallyOutweishlts PreiudilrialEffect.
Therecan berlo doubtthal allowirg thejury to irnproperlyinferthat
A,jaysearchedfor 122 files with child pomographytitlcs prejudicedAa)
especiallysince lhe case invoived approxirnately65 sex,relatedchargcs
againsta minor. As noted by the Califotnia SupremoCourt,,,evidence
of
other crimes aLwaysinvolves the risk of scriousprrjudice', (peoplev
Thompson,
slpra,27 Cal 3d at p 318.) Ilere,however,it wasevenlrorc
prejudicialsince tho "bad act" eviderccconccnedchiLdpourogr.apny
which, by its nature, is extraor:dinar.ily
inflamnatory and pre;udicrar
(Peoplev Page,supra,44 Cal.4that 41, Ii. l7.) As conclucled
by the
Conrl of Appeal it Leon, the more seriousthe chargesthe moreprejudicial
impactnefhriousevidencewill have on the chargedotfenses. (peoplev
134
Leon,supra,91 Cal.App.4that p. g17
[,,Thetrial coufi reasoneddrat the
interpreter'stestinony.i/as nct u,lduly prejudicialbecause
the cffgrscs
\ryereso senous. This rationaleloL.admittingthe testinoay was
the very
reasontor not admittingif,,].) ,,as Wigmorenotes, admission
of tlns
producesan 'over-strong
evldenca
tendencyto believethe defendant:
gutlty
ofthe chargesmerelybecause
he is a likely personto do suchacts,and it
'tendency
breedsa
to coldemn,not becausehe is believedguilty of the
preserltchatge, but becausehe has escapedLrnpunishecl
froln othor
offenses."' (Peoplev. Thompson,supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 3lZ,
oiting 1
Wigmore,Evidence,$ 194,p. 650.) This was certainlythe case
trereas
Sapna'stestimol]ywas highly questiouable
allowing thejr.rryto co:ndemn
Ajay basedon an unfoundedbelief that he enjoyedclild pornography.
And, as cautionedby the California SupremeCourt, this could
have
.lury
widespread
effecton thetdal asLhe
liight be unableto identify with a
defandant
ofoffelsive characte'randheDcetcncrto disberievethe evideiroe
in his favor." (1Did.) Given all thesefactors,the probativevalue of
me
Kazaalog evidence,if any, cLidnot substantiallyoutweiglLits prejLrdicial
effeclandshouldhavebeenexcluded.
3. Th,c Admissiouof fl@videuce,
ElLibit 44. Was Not Harurlcss Ri:ouirini
Reversal.
Reversalis requiredunderstalelaw wherethg recor.ddenol$trates
therewas a reasonable
probabiiitythat, but for the e(or, the clefe,ndanr
wouldhaveobtaineda more favorabievcrdict. (peoplev. lIlatson(1956)
46 Cal.2d818,836.) A "reasorable
pr.obability,,
underthe I4/a/son
standard
of prejudiceonly requiresa showingof a ,,reasonable
charrce,,sonethiug
"morethanan abstactpossibility.,,(SeeCollegeHospttal,)nc v. Su7terior
Court(1994)8 Cal.4th704, 714, crtingpeoptev lVatsctn,
supra,46 C)a:2cl
818,837,aqdStrickland
v tr/ashington
(1984)466U.S. 68g,693_694
69 ,,
698[104S.Ct.2052,80 L.Ed.2d674].) Here,the improper
admission
of
I35
the Kazaa log evidencewas so grossly unfar it oflbnded the most
"fundamentalconceptionsofjustice" violatiDgappellant'sstateandfederal
constitutional
right to a fair tlial anddlreprocess,asguaranteed
by rheFilih
and Foufieenth
Amendment
rightsto the UnitedStatesConstitution.
(UnitedStqtesv. Lavasco(1977)431U.S.?83,790, 9'7S.q.2044,2048;
(1984)37 Ca13d302,313.)In addition,
Peoplev. Turnetr
theprosecurorial
misconductwhich inducedthe tlial court to admit the Kazaalog evidence
equallydeniedappellanthis federalconstitutionalright:todueprocessanda
fair tdal, proteatedby the Fifth andFourteenthAmeDdments
of rheUnited
StatesConstituLion,becauseit renderedthe trial "fundamentallyurfair'',
(Dardenv. wainwright (1986)477 u.S.168, 180-I 82.)
The erroneousadnission of lhe K.azaalog; evidencewarranm
reversalbecausoimpermissibleintroductionof child pornographyevidence
is especiallyirLflammatoryaad weighed againstthe lemaining evidence
inlroducedby the prosecution
appellant'strial "fundamentally
render:ed
unfair." As thoroughly e.rgued,supra, in Arglrmcnl I, the prosecution's
casaagainstappellantwas extromelyweak and wroughtwith incolsistent
and imptausibletestimony. In additionto thc endemicweaknesses
iu rne
prosecution's
case,this errorwas alsorrladoespeaially
prejudicial
by the
prosecution's
closingargument
wherein,asnotcdsr/pr.z,
he expressly
rclied
on the Kazaa log evidenceto prove Ajay had perversesoxualinterestin
ninors and, therelbre,must hal,'eDrolestedand rapeclSapua. (RT 50135014)No doubttheprosecutor
knewthiswouldinpacttheentireiury,but
in pa icular,JurorNo.I1 who indicated
in herjuror questioruraire
that,'like
rnostpeople,I find sexualexploitationof childr-cnto be extemely heinous
and ir would be challengingfoL me to be objective." (8 CT 2034) 1'hrsrs
precisely the type of prejudice which lequires rcversal. Given the
overarchingimpact on Ajay's credibility ancl rhe lack of any specific
instructionlimiting the Kazaa log evidel]ccto the lcwd ard lasciyious
186
charges,
reversalis requirecl
on all counts.
\,.II. THE
TRIAL
COURT VIOLATED
APPDLLAJ{I''S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRESINT A IDEFENSEI]Y
EXCLUDING AN E-MAIL WHICII SHOWED APPELI,AN,|
WAS AT WORK WIIILE SOMEONE ELSE VII]WI]D CFIILD
PORNOGRAPHYAT IIIS I{OME.
A. Introductiolr
Computerexpert Brent Buehring found two child pomograpby
videoson theDell Towercomputeroonfiscated
from the Dev home. (g RT
2046; 11 RT 2853,2928;10 CT 2866 (Exhibir46)
At tuiat,the
prosecution
introducedth€m to provethat: (i) Ajay shorveclSapnachilcl
porro$aphywhenshewas a minor (corLnt65); and (2) Ajay
harbor.ed
the
inlentto toucha minor which wasgennaneto courts 64 and 65 (the por.n
charges)
andcounrs1,4, 6, 9, l L, 14, 16,19,21,24,26,29,3 t, 34, anrJ.
36
(commission
of lewd andlasciviousactsagainsta rninof. (3 RT 391_394,
399-400;10CT 2864-286j(Exhibita6)) Bueluirg concaded
rhat,basedon
his analysisof thecomputerforensiccviclonce,
he couldnot eleLelmine
who
possessed
or viewedthe pornography
fouDdon the computefand D]adeno
effortto makethis defermination.55
(Il RT 2936_2938,2940)
Bueb-rirgtestifiodthat a plethoraofpomographyon the Dell l.ower.
computerwas "last accessed,'
on September
26, 2003 fro[r g:36 a.rn to
8:56 a.m. includingtwo child pornographyvideos Sapnaclaimed Ajay
showedher which were ,,lastaccessed,,
at g:55 a.m and g:56 arrr
respectively.(11 RT 2926; 10 CT 2g66)A,,last accessecl,,
ctateis
tt
At.t.iol,_ the defenseemphasizedthat the person viewing the
pornogmphy
in May 2003alsodownloaded
a H-bomb;ideo The eviilencc
alsoindisputablyshowedthat Sapna,wrote a schoolpaperi[ May 12003
concernlng
tecbnologyalrd,asevidenced
by the biblioglaphy,citedonly to
mtemetsourcesilciuding onesourceelrtitled"Effectof A-Bombs.,,(6 RT
1215;11 RT 2884-2885,
2895;t7 RT 4'lOS_4j0j
I 1 CT 3184, 4:,90_4j91:
3203,
Exhibit44)
\1
consistentwith a user viewing a frle althoughit can also reflect a vlus
scanninga file. (l I RT 2825-2826)At trial, the defensecomputerexped
eKplainedthat whele "there are an abundance
of conLmolldates"tbr-"one
pafiiculartime" the last accessdatesmore likely Ieflect a virus scan,over
actualhuman viewing, especiallywhere this alusterof datescouespond
with a virus scan. (17 RT 46'71-4672)After crosscheckingthe lastaccess
datesexaminedby the Enaaseprogramagainstthe virus scan1ogin the
Deil Tower, del'ense
expertJeffreyFischbachconcluded,"I didn't find any
indication that they were dono by a computer." (11 RT 4671-46j2)
Therefore,the evidenceappgaledto indioatethat a personwas viewirig
child pornograplryat the Dev homeon September26, 2003fiorn 8:36a.m.
t o 8 : 5 6a . m .
To rebul the plosecution'sclaim that AJaypossesse(l
and/olviewed
the child pomography,the defenseattemptedto introducean e-rnailAjay
sentto Poggylrom his work on Septembel
26,2j0ai at 8:48a.rn.which
demonstrated
flrat Ajay was not homewhen the pornography,in particulal.
childpornography,
was beingvierved56 (15 RT 4t0;t-4111;15 cT 4333-
4334(Exhibit813))
At trial, defensecounseltried to introducatbe e-mail (Exlibit 813)
though PeggyDev's testimony.However,eachtime PeggyDev attempted
to t€stify about the e-mail, the Lrial court sustainedthe prosecution's
objections
basedon hearsay.(15RT 4102-4 104,4106;16RT 4262-4265;
tu
While the "last access"dateswere equally oonsistertwith a virus
scan,thejury shouldhave beengiventhe opportulity to rule out thatAiay
was the possessorof the incriminatingpomographyfouud on the Dev
computers- especiallythc child poroography If tJrcjury believedrhe
September
26, 2003 l.astacoessdateswere the result of a virus scan,tnen
sucha conclusion
would exculpate
Ajay. Iiimilarly,i[ the jury belLevecr
Ajay was at work while someoneelse was vieu,itrgponiographyon the
compuler(likely Sapnaand./orher boyftiend),this would furthelexculpate
Ajay. The del'enseshould have had the oPpoilunity to prove either
interpretation
ofthe computerevidcncesuppofiedA.jay'simocence
188
18 RT 4878) At the end of the trial, the prosecution
objeotedto rhe
admission
ofthe e-mail(Exhibitgl3) basedon releva,,rce
grounclsalthough
the basisof the objectionwas highly ambiguous.
As arguedby the
prosecutlon:
Okay. 'Ihis is an e-rnailthatsupposedly
carneftom Mr. Dev
to Mrs. Dev_having [othing to do with t]ris case
a,rd was
attempted
to be usedby coulselto establisir
who sentit, whai
rrmert was sent and whereit was sentfrom,
and for tlut
reasonI object.
(18 RT 4879) The tuial court excluded
the e-rnailfinding it was ,.too
araillaryto makeit really releva.nt
to what we,reclealingwith here. Sne
talkedaboutall that&om thestand,sowe don,t
Deedthe e_rnailitself. .Ihe
objeolior's
sustained.',
(18 RT 4gg0) In response
to clarilyingquestions
from defense
coulsel,the tl.ialcourtexplained
the d.efense
codcinot,,argue
what'sin it. You canarguehcr.teslimony
aboutthee,mail.,,(lg RT 4gg0)
"You don't get to say l)ow she meiltionedthis e-mail,
in summaryl,m
goDgto readit to you wor.dfor word.,,( I 8
RT 4gg0)
Durirtgclosingargument,defensecounselwas yery
careflrlnot to
referenceany informationcontainedin the e_rnail_
specificallythe tine
anddatein which Ajay sentthe e_mailto poggyfrom
his work. (lg RT
5090-5091)Ir this regard,clefense
counselreliedsolelyor testimonyfrolr'l
PeggyDev andMichaelMullen,the iDforntation
technologl,administrator
at{ay's work.57(18RT 5090)
On rebuttai,the prosecftionspecificallyrefenedto the
e-rrail rn
contaventionof the cout's orderandinconectlystated
that Ajay selt thc
e-mailfrornwork at 10:04a.m _ when,in fact,theexclucled
e_nailclearry
showedAjay sentthe e-mailto peggyfrom his wort at 8r4g
a m (19 RT
5141) This enor was significantbecauserhe colnputel.
log showedtltat
t^^
AlthoughPeggytestifiedthat shespokewith Ajay al
work arouncl
*
26,2003
(15RT;108),
a"r"".1,
i"".r"i'"ri
,?.99,".l:n^"-ber
g:30
wasbeh{een
8:00a.m.
and
a.n.
RT 5090).
s(I8
"i'i,
sorreonewas likely viewing pornographyat the Dev home on the Dell
Towerin Sapna's
bedroom
ftom 8;36a m. to 8:56a.m.(including
two child
pornographyfilms which were "last accessed"at 8:55 a.m.and 8;56a.ur)
while Ajay was at work. As arguedby the prosecution,placingAjay a1
work at 10;04 a.m. did not excludehim as a possibleviewer ol the
pornography.
(19 RT 5141)
In thc motion foL a new trirLl,the defenseleasserted
its objectionto
the exclusionof the e-rnail (Exhibil 813) arguing it had beenproperly
authenticated
requiring admissionunderEvidenceCode section1552(a).
(13 CT 3550-3551)The defersealsoargueda new trial was necessaly
becausethe prosecutionrelied on the excludede-mail in its closingand
falselyarguedthatAjay sentthee-mailat 10i04a.m.radlerthao8:48a.l,Ir.:
the timo period in which pornography
was likely beiDgviewedor theDeil
Towerat theDev home.(13CT 3551)
The trial court deniedthe dofense'smoLionfor a new trial andfound
that courscl failed lo provide a sufficient foundation. (19 RT 5232)
Specifically,the trial courlruled:
Section 1552 of the EvidenceCode ailows a printed
representation
of computerilfonnation to be adrnilted.That
is a very liraited admissionthough. It is to be admittedas
being a proper representaLion
of what is actually on the
computer. It is not to be takenas,tberefbre,what is on the
computeris accurate,and that's where the fouodatiol stiLl
to be laid for thepriulout,Exhibit813.
needed
While it may have accuratelyrepresr:nted
what was on thc
oomputer,therewas insufficientfoundationthat what was on
the computerwas accurate
(19RT 5232)
190
B. llandard of Revie.ry
A trial court'sdecisionLcexcludeevidenqeis reyie.a,cd
fo| abuscof
discretion.(Peoplev Brcdy (2010)50 Cal.4th 547,558L;itingpeoplev
Avila (2006)38 Cal.4th49| , 571-576.I
C. TheTrial CourtErrerlBy ExcludiugExhibitg.t3As I{earsay.
The e-mail Ajay Dev sellt to his r.vifefrom his work on Seplember
26,2003 at 8:48 a.m. was not hear.say
becausethe defensec,rly iltended to
introduceit to show the time and date in which Ajay was at work. Sincc
the time ard date of the e-nail, along with the iufonnation showing who
sentand receivedthe e-mail, were conputer gencrated,the c_nail was not
subjectto exclusionbasedon hearsay
Flearsayis an out of court statementoflbred for. the truth of thc
matter assert€d. (People v. l-lawkins(2002) 98 Cal.App 4th 1428, 1449.)
In this regard, it lecluiresthat a persot ol cLeclarant
aLLtho[the staton]em.
(1Dld) "1lre EvidenceCodecioesrlot conlemplat(rthat a nadrine cturmakc
a statement."(1hd ) Therefor.e,a computelgeneraledtime aud dato staup
placed on an e-rnail by a cornputer,sinlerDal opcratilg systelr is not a
statemeotand is not subject to heatszryrulos and oxceptic)rs. (ld. aL p.
1449-1450.)As explaiuedby the Sixrh Distrlcr Cbrur of.t\ppea] tt people
y. I'Iawkins:
The printout of the results of the courputor,s inLclllal
opemtionsis nol hezu.say
evideDce.It does oot reprosert thc
output of slatementsplacedinto the computerby out of court
declarants. Nor can we say that tl.ris priDtout its,llf is a
"statement" constituting heatsay eviclence. The undcr.lying
rationaleof the hearsayrule is that such st terDentsal.emad;
without al1 oath and their truth caD]ot be Lestedb)/ cross_
€xamination. fCitations.] Of conccln is the possibility that a
witnessmay consciouslyo| unconsciouslymisrepresetlllvhat
the dsclarart told hin or that the declarart nay consciously
o! unconsciously lnisrepresent a fact or. occlurence.
lcitation.] With a machine,hoq.ever,there is no porisibility
of a conscious misrepresentation,and Lhe posiib;lity of
191
rnaccurate
or misleadingdataonly materializcsifthe machine
is not functioningproperly.
(Id. aI p. 1449 crttngStatey Armstead(t,a. 1983)432 So.2d837, 840)
Consequently,
the test for admitlinga compulerprintout for purposcsof
showing evideuceof its interral operations,iike a timc/datestanp, Ls
"whelherth(j corl1putet
was operatingproperlyat the ti|ne of the pri lollt "
(Id. at pp. 1449-1450.)
D. Elfibit 813 Should Have Becn AduritteclInto Ilvitlencc
BecauseThe Record S.g$9i94j!' ShorysThat The Computcr
O194j!ng!4pq[
D41_Tur9 Sl314!gd Erdribit 813 !
_Vas
It People v Hawkins, the prosecutionintroduceda computer
printoutwith "lasl accassdates"oD it to show the delbldantstolesolfce
oodefronl lris prior employcr. (Peoplev Hawkins,supra,98 Cai.App.4th
a1p. 1446.) The defendanlin 1'1aral,tlr,r
objcDtedto thc colnputcrprintout's
admissionclzrimingthat the dale al]d tirnerof the last aocossdate wiLs
'fhe
hearsay.(1d.at p. 1446-1447
trial conrt|trleclthe tine/datesrtuup
)
wasnot healsaybccausc
it wasproducad
b),the itltcrnaioporating
sysrcnl
of a coD'rputer
Iathei thana statentenlmadeby a person (.1d.at p. 1447.)
The tial col'lrt admilled he eviderce after it found that the colnputor,s
clockhadnot treel ta[rperedwith (1bld.)
As notedby theCourtofAppcalh Uqtvlcins.
"rhctrialjudgodid l]ot
havemuch jnfomtationon the Lopicof reliabilityat the tirne he ruladfic
printoutsadmissible." (Peopley. Hawkins supra, 98 Cal.npp.4thar p
1446.) The prosecution's
experttestifiedthatthe defendant's
computcr
clockappeared
to be "funcrioning
ploperly"althoughhe conceded
that.a
systems
administrator
couldcLlange
thetime oll a colnputer
clock.' (L/ at
pp. 1431, 1448.) Basedon this irformation,rhe trial court t'buncl
the
prosecuLion
laid a properartdsuf]'icielrtfoundationLoadmit the evideDcc
(ld. at p 144'/.) On appcal,the Sixth District upheidthe decisiol (1d.at
pp.r4491450.)
192
In analyzingthe issue,the Sixth District
relied orLEvidenceCode
sectian1552lyhichstalesh relevauip
r;
A printed representationof computer infomatioD
or a
computer program is presumed to be an
acculatc
representationof the computerinforuration or compLter
prog(amthat it purportsto represent.This ptesurnptiou
is a
presumptioraffecti[g theburderofproducing
evicl:ncc.If a
p a f l y t o c n a c t i o ni n r o d L r c ecsi i , l . n c e r l , a t r r p r i n . e d
reprcsentalion
ot cornputer
inl.orrnation
o. ao,np,,,a,
progl'.,,,,
ls ttraccurate
or unreliable,the party irtroducilg tbe pLi|tea
representatrot
into evidencehasthe burdenof proving,Uy a
preponderance,
that the printedrepresentation
i, nn oi"rrot"
representation
of the existenceanil conte,|tof the computer
iilformationor computerprogranthatit purportsfo repr_eletlt
(Peoplev Hawldns,supra,9g Cal.App.4th
atp. 1450.)
TheSixthDistrictwenton 10explainthat:
Theplesumptionoperates
to establishonly that a colnputer,s
prinl f,rnctior has wolke(lproperly. The,prcsumption
does
nol opelateto establishtho accuracyoi: r.eliabilityof rhc
printedinformation.On thatthresholdissue,upor
oijectiol,
the proponent of thc evidenceluust offer foturiiatiolai
_
evidencethat thecomputerwasoperalingproperly.
(rbid.)
Here,the dateandtime of thee-mail(Exhtbitg l3) wasprocluced
by
the selvet at Ajay's wor.k rilther tllan the ildivicluzrlcomputcl
A]ay usc.l at
work. As testified to by Michael Mullen, the system adninisharor
2rtthe
Departmentof Water Resorllces,the e_mailsystemat
Ajay,s work had no
remoreaccessand was operatedintemally at the office prior
to April 20Oo
(15 RT 4017-4020) Thus, the office e_mailwas run
internally by rhe otfico
sewer. Jeffery Fischbach,the defensecomputcrexpett, testilled
that clocKs
for servers supporting c-nail and the web ar.egcnerally presull
ed to oe
conect. (17 RT 4771) As explainedby Fischbach,,.Well
acrually in cmail there's evertmoLeinfonnation we can look at They
have ilfornatioti
that's given by the sewers that r.un tluough thern,
so we clon,t generally
193
assumethat Yahooor Hotmailor sornebodyis goingto cha|getheir datero
lacilitate[] whatsomebody
elsewants" (17 RT 4771)
l'his evidencewas sufficielltto lay a foundationto adnit the clare,
time, senderand receiverof the e-nail especiallysincethe prosecution
neversuggested
that the serverat Ajay's q,orkwasnot functioningpr.opelly
and only objerctedto the admissiolrof the cvidenccon hearsayalld
relevarcegrounds.(15 RT 4102-4106;
18 IiT rt879-4880)As lltwkins
aod EvidenceCode section1552provide,very little is requiredto lay a
foundationto show a computeror serweris olleratingproperlyespeciarry
where,as herc, there is uo eviderrge
rebuttillgthe basrcfunctionalityol a
compufer.(Peoplet Hawkins,supra,98 CaLApptlth at p. 1450;peoplev
Lugashi(1988)205 Cal.App.3d
6.:i2,
642-643;
Evid,CodeS t552)58l,tven
t8
It Lugashi,lbeSecond
DistrictCou ofAppealnotedthati
jurisdictious
The bulk o1'other
addressing
tlrisissuoadopted
sinilar analysesand upheldadnissionof coniputerrccolcls
with similar oI less extensivofounclalionalshowingsover
similar objections.(UniteclStatesv. De Georgia(9th Cir.
1969)420!-.2d 889, 893-894(rerta.lo?ucompanyrocord
admitteddespileno eviderocrega|clinghardwae, softwarc,
maintenanco,or intemal accuracytests);Merrrck v. United
Statesllubber Co. (1968)7Ariz.App.433 [440 p.2c]314,
(piaintiffs recordsof defeudanl's
316-3171
debtsadnitred
despiteno evidenceregardingcorrputeropcration);Statev
Veres(1968)7 Ariz.App.117[436P.Zd629,637-638]
(bank
records admittcd despiteassislantcashie['stestimonythat
records wera prepar.edby "aulomatic nrachtne',whose
operationshe did not undefstand,
and he oDly had accessto
the recordsand did not produccthem);,Szlth v. Bankof the
South(.1977)141 ca .App.1141232S.E2d 629,6301(bank
rccords); l1z1l v .Srale
(Miss. 1983)432 So2d 42j,
440 (shipping companyrecord adrni.teclalthoughmanager
krew nothing about its prcparation,but it \.vasa business
recordwith which he had daily contaotand uponrvhichhe
andlris companyrolied);,S/d/e
(1974)192Neb.44
v. I.I/atson
N
lv.2d
904,
(bank
905-9071
reoordsadrnifted
|218
withour
testimoryregaldingreliabilityand accuracyof systomas
bank not party to litigationand llad rjo ciaim against
194
wheretherearesomequestionsregardinga computer,sfuuctioraiity,
these
quesliotsare bestrescl*/edby a jury and shouLdgo tc the wcight
of me
evrdence
ratherthanits admissibility (Hawkint.,supra,9lJCal.App.4that
p. 1451;Peoplev Lugashi,supra,205Cal.App.3dat pp.
641-642.)
ht Lugashi the prosecutionintroduceda computerptintout
tonl
WellsFargoBankto prosecutea creditcarclfrauclcase.(people
v Lugasnt,
supta,205 Cal.App.3dat p. 636) The defenseobjectedto it oD
hearsay
groundand the evidencewas admittedpursualrtto the
L,usiness
r.ecorcls
exception.(Id. at p. 638.) While the computerprintoutin this case
is Dor
subject lo businessrecords exceptionbecauseit is not hearsay,
the
tlustwothinessrequiremenloftlte business
recordsexceptio[,as applieil1o
computerplintouts,is still instructivein detcrminingwhethera sufticienL
dafendnL);Statev. I,assmore(1978) 37 N.CApp.
5 [245
SE.2d107,109](bankrecords);
,S/a/e
t. ritapteii (tg:'6\ 2.g
N.C.App,363[224S.It.2dZO4,204-2}5l1airline
r."r;e.vaib,,
recordadminedalthoughprsscngerserwjccs[pcl.viso|llot
cornputerexpertand offereduo testimonyregarclingsystolu,
but was familiar with andltrew business
relied on it.
rnadeasbusiness
"nt,,i".
records
at timeofcveltt,andcouldirlterDrct
ftinrout);Endicaft Johnson Corporatiott v Go!,lt d.I).
I971Jl90 N,W.2d 75t, 156-7
57(acco,tnl.
rccords,rdrnirr(cl
aldoughlocalcornprryrepresenlarive
who did nor DreDilrc
recordsproduced
out ofstatewas unfamiliarwith cornpurcr
'State
operafionbut familiar with rccords);Httchinson v
( T c x . A p p1. 9 8 2 ) 6 4 2S W . 2 d5 1 7 ,5 1 8 ( r c c o r o
df s a s o t i n c
pumpingadmirreddcspircrro cvidenccrvherherc6rnouLer.
fu_nctioniDg
Wope\ly);Westinghouse
Elec. SupptyCo v B.L
Allen(1,980)138 Vt. 84 [4t3 A.2ct tZ2, 132_t1i3l0.Lck
ofeviderrce
regardingcomputer
operarion
an.l olhefdllcgcd
foundational
shofifallsgo to weight,not admissibilit;r,while
witnessgenerallyfaniliar with accountingproceduresand
palllcular account);State v. Kane(7979) 23 Wn.App. 107
(bankrecordri
1594P.2(I1357,1360-13611
admitteddesoire
no eyideDceregarding hardware,softrvare,or Dlog;am
reliability.
alLhough
normalllrequired.
wh,:rebenklarge-arcr
knownandno challenge
to
recorcls'
acouracy.)
.^
.well
(Peoplev. Lugashi,supra,205Cal.App.3dat pp. 643_64,i.)
195
foturdation
was laid in this case (SeeEvid. Codegg 1270,1271,subd.
(d) )
lhat is, in the context of cornpulergenerateddocunelits, the
trushvodhinessrequirementof the businossrecordsexceptionl:equiresa
sirniiar analysist0 whethera computetis fllL'rclioning
ploperly In tliis
r-egard,
the det-endant
in Zagasrlcontested
the srlI'flciency
of thelbrurdirtiou
laid to introduocoomputergenerated
doouments
liom WellsFargobccause
"no evidencer,vasofleredregardingthe compulerhardwareor sollware,lts
mailtenanoeor reliability, or any systemof internalchecks." (1d at p.
636.) Ratherthan offer testimonyIiom a colnputerexpert,the prosecution
inhoducedteslimonylrom a Wells Fargo employeewho dor.vnloadecl
the
computergeneratedintbrmationalld was larniliarwith usilrgthe systemon
the computer, (Ibid.) b tinding,this foundatiorlalevidencesufficienrro
admit the computergenerateddocunlcnts,the Corrrtof Appealheid that
havinga computerexperttestifyasto thc rcliabilityandmaintcnanoc
of thc
haldwareaDd/orsoliwareof theoompLlter
"!r'oLLld
l)otllavca bealingoli thc
basichLrstwolthiness
ofthe records.Whilc mistal<es
arcoftenrnadairrlhe
eDtrieson baok stalements,suah maters rnay be clcvelopccl
on crossexaninationand shor.rld
lrot affecttheadnissibilityof tl]e staterrentitsell,,
gd. atp. 642.) Here,however,thcrewereno risl<sof rnistakes
liorn hLrman
inpul. Ralhcr the time/datestampcameonLyfiom a conputorgeoel.ated
sourcewhich, accordingto compLlLer
expertFischbach,is so accurateit rs
used to subslantiatetha accu(acyof a BIOS date in al indiyicLual
(17 RT 4771) As concluded
cornputer.5e
iu thc lanclnatkcaseor IJIS
topic, "it would be extremelydjfficult to alter or forge the compuler-,s
output,withoutsuchan actionbeingappare
rt. .." (Stqtev tlrnstead(La.
1983) 432 So.2d 837, 841, sce also Pcople t' flctwkins,supra,9B
5e
BIOS is au acronyn for Basichput OutputSystem.One 0f rls
fulctions is to maintainthe intetnalclock o I Lhecomputefand is powered
by a 10 year watchbattorycnabllrg it do so inclependeltly
o[fie computcr
beingpowered
on0rofl ( 17RT11612
+613)
Cal.App,4that p. 1449kefeftrrL1to Armsteadasthe ,,leading
case,,in this
areal.) Fcr Lhis reason,ELhibit gl3 should have
beer aCnitted inro
evidence
to showday was at work at g:4ga.m.on September.
26, 2003.
E'W
Prciurlicerl
Appeant
Rcversalis r.ecluiredunder state la$,where the record delro[stralcs
there was a reasonablepr.obability tltat, but for the elTor.,the
dclbndant
would have obtahed a more favorable yefiict. (people v. Iltatson (1956)
46 Cal.2d818,836.) A ,,reasonable
probability,,underthe lzatso, srandald
ofprejudice otrly requircs a showiug of a ,i:easonabiechance,,
sornelhing
"more than an abshactpossibility.,, (SeeCollege
l-Iospital,Inc. v. Superrcr
Court (1994) 8 Cal.4Ih704, 714, cttlngpeopte v. Watson,supra, 46
Cal.2d,
8 18, 83'7,aJjdStr ickland v. Wash i rtgton (7984) 466 U. S. 6B ti, 693_69
4, 697,
698 [104 S.Cr. 2052, 8A L.Ed.Zd 6141) Ilerc, the er.roru,as
liigtlry
prejudicialbecauscit prcvelted Ajay tiom showirrg1l]at
he was not at l]ornc
when child pomoglaphy was being viewed.60Had Ajay beon able prove
to
that someoneelse was indepcndcltly viewing ohild poflrography
in lris
home while he was llot therc, ha would have rebuttecltl.r,3prosocutior,s
elfort to show he had the requisite mental state to con]mit
lowd and
lasciviousacts against a tninor and/or that he ,,,,,assexually attracted
to
minors. This specilicallyin.rplicated
countsl, 4, 6, g, 11, 14, 16, lg,2t,
24,26, 29,31, 34, and 36 whei.einAjay was convictedof comnittjng
lewd
and lascivious acts againsl a ninor in violation of petraj Codo
section
288(0(1).
In addition, since thc tdal court failed to instruct the
JUry that the
adLrltand child pornography was ooly relevant to proving the
lewd and
60
,
In fact, the prosecutioDarguedand the trial ilourt agl.eerci
that niuch
ofthepornography
shouldbeadnitted,oveldefense
objeition,il orderio
disprovelhe anLiciprted
del"errse
tlrelLhepornography
b;long(d LoS,1pn.r
( a n d . /hoerrb o y f r i e n dasn)dn o LA j a l . n r 3
n f : S Z . l r l _ : q O] :. r q _ 4 0 0 r
lasciviouscourLts
(ArgumentV), the euoneousexclusionof Exhibitg13
alsoimplicated
therapecounts
(counts
9, 14,19,24,29,33,36,39,42,45,
4 8 ,5 t , s 4 ,s 7 ,6 r , 6 3 ,6 5 ,6 7, 6 9 ,7 l , 7 3 ,7 : ; ,7 7, ' / 9 .8 t ) a st h ej u r yt i n c r v
reliedonthechildpornography
in lindingAjay guilty0frapingSapna.
No doubt, rebuttingthe child pomographyevicLence
and showiug
that Ajay did not possessDorvie\4'child pon:ographywas criticalto Ajay s
overall defensebecausechild po:mography,
by its very nature,is highly
hflanmatory and prejudicial. (PeopLe
v. Page(2008)44 Cal.4thl, 41, th.
y. UnitedStqtes
77;Jacobson
(1992)503U.S.540,550.) In additiou,
rhe
prosecutionelicited testimonyftom experl Williarn O'Donohuetltat rr rs
"very very rale" for a femaleto waDtto watch child pornographyand
ar:gued
during ciosingthat, with respectto the child pornography
cvideucc,
"Jusllike Dr. O'Donohuetold you, lhat'sa rrale thing. Gir.lsdon,tdo
thal." (12 R1'3280; l8 I{T 5013-5014)This evidence
andargumcnt
was
exLremely
prejudicialto Ajay who was the only nale that lived al the Dov
home.6rTherefbre,althoughthejrlry could also concludcit was one oi,
Sapna'sboyfrionds,it was criticalto be abie to rlrle out Ajay as thc
possessor
of the child pornogra1,hy.62
Consequently,
the adrnissior)
ol
Exhibit 813 would have bcena vcry effectiveway ofproving this beoause
scientificevidenceis often viewedasmoreobjectiveandpersuasivc.'[his
scienlific evidencewould have also given PeggyDev's testrnonyrnuch
rnorecredibility not only \.vi1hrespectto her taslimonyaboutAjay beingaL
Wlilo not objectedto by the defense,the pr-osccution,s
"'
elicitationof
this expert teslimoDywas arguablyinpermissiblcprofile evidenceas it
aliowedthe jury to concludeAja.vwas guilty basedo[ his gcncler.(Sec
Peoplev. Robbie(2002)92 Cal.App.4th
1075,1084.)
"'
In fact, unlike Ajay who had a full time job, the recordshowsthat
Sapnadid not haveclass(Physics)
on September
26,2003untiLl0:00a.m.
and that, during that period in her life, she rvas takingphysicswith hcf
boylriendAraz, .,vhotestilied the)'were having sex oncea week (4 RT
815;9kT 2220,2222,2288-2289,2324-2
25
l 63R
T ,4 2 1 51, 4 5 7 - 4 4 5184,
c] 3951-394)
198
work on September26, 2003, but all of lrer testimony which the
prosecution
consistently
discledited.
Frnally,the efior highly prejudioedAja1,becausethe prosecution
inaccurately
reliedon fie e-lnail in its closingirrgumentto suggestAjay
was not at work when child pomographywas likely being viewed at his
.,Tho
home.(19RT 5141)As argued
by theprosecution,
lastaccessed
dare
on 9-26-03whenhe wassupposedly
at work. On3,that e_mailwas at 10:04
'lhe
a.m.i[ the morning.
last accessed
dales,thoseare betweellg:37 ano
8:56in the morning.,,63
(19 RT 5141) I{owever,had rhe e_mailbcen
properlyadmitted,thejury would havebeelrableto establishthat Aj ay was
at work at 8:48 a.m. - exactly wheo the child por.nography
was being
viewedat theDev home.
Giventhe uudeniableeffeotchiid ponrographyhas on a jury, therc
car be no disputethat tlte t-ailureto aclmitthis r:viclence
prejudioeclAjay
"more than an abstractpossibility,, thereby r:equiringrevcrsal under
Californiastatelaw. In addition,thc failulo to all,tw Ajay to usc the e_narl
to provehe was rrotviewiug child potnographyir a child l.apecasewitll
multipleallegations
of lewd aod lasciviorrsactsis so cgregir)usit lises to a
conslitutional
violationofAjay,s SixthandFourLeenth
Amendmentright to
due processand right to presenta defense. (Chambersv. Misstssiryi
(19734
) 1 0 U . S . 2 8 4 ,3 0 2 9 3 S . C t .1 0 3 8 ) I n r h i sr e g a r dr, e v e r s a1l s
requiredbecausethe e[or was not hauulessbel,onda reasonablecloubt.
"Fri,luy, Septenber26, 2003 10:04ANt,, appearson tho top ot.
"
Exhibit 813. However,tl.ristime and datestat.LpreflJctswhen peggybev
forwarded the e-mail l'rom her. work e_urail o""or-,,i ar
[email protected] her personal e-mail account zlr
[email protected].
(CT 4333;I{T 4102) The defense
inteldedro
Iely on thee-mailto showwhenAjay ra,as
at worll. This is r:eflectod
in the
secondsetofheadings.Lr this regard,thee_mailreflectsthatAjay seothis
wife the e-mail fron his work on ,,Friday,September26, 2ti0j at g;+S
AM." (CT4333)
199
(Chapman
v. California(1961)386U.S.18,87 S.Ct.824lI7 L.Ed.2d705l;
Cranev Kentw:ky(1986)476U.S.683,691 [106S.Ct.2142])
VIII APPELI-ANT'SCONV]ICTIONS
MUIiT BE REVIRSED
BECAUSE
THE
TRIAL
COURT
SANCTIOI{ED
PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT DURING CLOSING
ARGUMENT BY ALLOWING TI.IE PROSECUTION TO
ATTRII}UTE AN ADMISSION OF ILAPE TO APPI]LLANT
TILAT DID NOT DXIST.
A. The Ilrosecution Committed Misg9.14\ctBy Tcllinr Thc Jw
That Aupellant Adrnitted R:rpius
Dg1Ufe_g&lilC_A1g11grent
Salna In BangkokIn A Note Passedllo His La*ryelDuring
he PleUrninr
e4ling:
A Frct Nc!!!rgr ln Evidcnce Nor.
SuDDorfcdBy Any FflctsOutsideThc I{ecold.
During tlte prelimiuaryhelu:ing,(lcfensccoursel questionedStrpla
aboul lhe dctails of tho rapesin an effort co cxposeher allegationsivcrc
fabricated.As part of lhis crosser:unination,he askedher.whelhershcl1acl
ever been rapcd outsidefhe Stale of Califor.nia,(2 CT 547) Aiior
questioningSapna as Lo where lll the rapes occurrcd,dcfcnsccounscr
sun.mrar.ized
her responsesand verified, 'Okay. ADr I corrcctthantllat alL
timesAjay l)ev has ever had sexualcontactwith you was wilhin thc Skt0
'yes,' (2
of Califolniaever?" (2 CT 547) Sapnadefinitivelyanswercd,
CT 547) Later in the questioning,defensecounselaskedher abouta trip
shetook to Nepal with AJayin Mry 2003duringthe Limoperiodin whrch
sheclaimedAjay was rapingher rwo to threetimesa week. (2 Cl j56)
Sapnavelified thal she had to sharea hotel roonr with Ajay in Bangkok
duringa layoverin Thailand. (2 Cl'l'556;3 CIT557) With thesefactsliesh
in her mincl, defense counsel asked her whcther there had been any
inaPplopriate
sexualtouchingwhile sher.vasforccdto sharea hoteL
r.oon
with Ajay miles and miles arvayfrom hone. (2 CT 556) With rhrs
prompting,Sapnaclarifiedthat, in fact, therehad beeninappropriate
sexual
touchingiu BarLgkok,but shehadjust pr.eviouslyfor.gotten
aboutit. (2 UT
200
256) Sincetherewas no physicalevidence
of the allegedrapesnoL zuly
witnesses,
the del'ense
took greatpairNto showthat Sapna,stestimony
was
eitherinconsistent
or implausible.Here,thepoint of the cross
examination
wast0 exposethe incredulityoI
Sapna,sstory both with respectto ner
willingness
to tfavelto Nepaiwith Ajay krowirU they
would haveto share
a hotelroomtogetheralld forgettilgthat
this allegedrapeeveroccunecl
At tlial, defense counsel cross exa1lrrned
Sapna witl] the
inconsistelciesabout the allcged Bangkok
rape eliciled dur.irlg the
preliminary
hearing (7 RT l50l-1512, 1699_I:l)2)
During closrrrg
argumellt,
the defensehighlightedthe inconsistetcyto
thejury as a reason
to disbelieveSapna,stestinolyt ,,Where
did it occuL? Is the stor.y
consistent?
At thepreli[rinaryhearingshewasasl<ed,
did hc everrapeyou
outsidethe state of Califomia? Answer, no.
Later she chalges ner
testmony.Well, it happened
in Bangkok.,,( I 8 Rl. 5030)
In an effort to minimizethis inconsislency,
the pfosocutiortold the
juIy thattheonlyreasondefensecounsel
k]]ewaboutthis incor]sistency
was
because
his client,Ajay Dev, adrnittedrapingSapnain
Bangkokclulingthe
plelirninaryhearingon a handwriflennote. Specifically,
the prosecLrtion
arguedasfollows:
. Sexin Bangkok.This is oneofmy lhvorites.J readto
you the preliminaryheajingrcstimolty.
a,rdyou could see
nownesetherup. Hc'stalkingto her. He exarnines
her. He
saysso you had sex on ConcordStreet,J Street,Chico
and
Monlerey.AnFvhereelse?No, don,Lthink.o.- Ot uy So
nowheleoutsideof the Stateof Califomia,Sapna?No.
lIe
goeson to a differentline of questioning,
queslionsher for a
while,comesback. Becauseyou,ll see,if you have the
reporterreadit back, thereis two differentsectiols of the
transcript.He comesbackto her and saysrnow, Sapnayou
remember
goirg to Nepalin 2000___May o1.200i*iif,
a.f.y.
R i g h r ?Y e s . A n d y o u h a da l a y o v c il q B a r g t o k . t u i h i t
Yes turd)ou hadro srayin a hoiel. Rlghr?y"cs.
Dicl;i hc
assaultyou in that hotel whenyou were all alonewith
him?
Oh,yeah,you'reright,he did. FIegorher.
201
Now, why did he ar;kher that question?Why did he
set her up like that? Becausejust like he told you, Teny
Easley,and wiLh Peggy,hc alreadykne\.'/the answento the
question. But what's importart is how did he know the
answerto the question? IlecauseAjay told hirr. Ajay sat
thcre and scribbleddown, you can catch her, we had sex in
this notel room in Nepal. There'sooly one otherpersonon
the plaret who knowsthal theyhad sex in the motelroom in
Nepal.
(19RT 5124-5125)Interjecting,
clefense
couuselobjected
stating.,l oo1ecr
to this line, your Honor, I would ratherno1statein hont ofthejury. It is
Grffin eror."6't (19 RT 5125) Ctlaiming
not to heara legalbasisfor the
objection,the trial court overrulcddefcnsecounsel. (19 RT 5125) As a
consequeloe,fte prosecutioncontilued: "l'le asl(edthat question- the
only one reasonhe would l(rlow 10 ask that questionis becausoAjay told
him. The only other personin thal motel room. The otheronly pelsonhe
wouldknow had askedthat questicu.r."
(19 RT 5126) Then,theprosecurion
furthercastigatedthe defenseby arguing,"Watchitg tha[ cross-examinlltion
,'
of her by N{r'.t{othschildis likc watchiuga baby seal beingquestioned
( 1 9R T 5 1 2 6 )
This argument, sanctionedby the trial cout, constitutedgross
prosecutorialmisconductand violatedappellant'sFifth Amendmentfighr
againstself incriminatio[, Fifth Amendmentright to due proccss,Sixth
Amendmentright to presenta defense,Sixth Amendnentright to confront
witnesses,Sixth Anendment righl to counsel,and Fifth Amendmentrieht
6'
Notably, during the trial when defense counsel objected based on
prosecutorial rnisconduct, the trial coun excused the jury from the
cou room and excoriated defense counsel stating, "First ofl asserlingin
fiont of lhe jury that the prosecutorhas engagedin miscolduct and using
theword "misconduct"
hasclearlybeenheldby thecourtsof appealto be
improper
anditselfmisconduct.
" (14RT j635) Afterapologizing,
rherrial
courtadmonished
defensecorursel"i1 shal]not happenagain.',(14 RT
3635)
202
to havethe Stateproveits casebeyonoa
reasonable
doubtall incoryorared
to theStatestliroughthe Fou|teenth
Amendmenl.WhellrertheprosecLttrcll
conmiltedmisconductdurhg closingargu,:llent
and violated appellant,s
stateandconstitutional
rightsis a pwe questionof law and,thrs, requires
de noyorc:riewby this Corut. (peoplev. Croner (2001)
24 Cal.4thg89,
894, n.l; Peoplev. La.tuler(1973) 9 Cal.lld 156,
160; people v.
Teroganesian
(1995)3l Cal.App.4rh
1534.)
7nGrffin v. California(1965)3g0U.S.609,615,rhe
Supreme
Courl
held that the Fifth Aruendmentof the United
States conslirutiou,
incorporated
to the Statestluoughthe FoudeetlthAnendnent, .,forblds
eithercornmeutby the prosecution
on fl.leaccuse.l,s
silenceor.iustruction
by thecourtthatsuchsilenceis evidenceo{,guitt.,,Lr this
regard,the I-Lgh
Courtwarnedthat prosecutorial
miscouductiucludesrefBlencelo ,,facts
peculiarlywithin the accused'sknowledge,,(ld. at p.
614) or argument
concemingfactswhich the cLefendant
would bo.,the oniy pelson able
to
dispute
the restimony.,,
(UnitedStates
v Hastin| (1983)461 IJ.S.499,
503.) In fact, like the argumentby the prosecutionin this
case, Lhe
coNtifutionallydefectivcafgument\n Grffin rltclud,ed,
rellerenceto ,,Flc
wouldknowtl')at.FIewouldknowhow shegot down the alley.
I-Iewoutd
klow how the bloodgot oll the bottomof the ci]ncretesteps. I-Ie woutd
knowhow longhe waswith hcr in thatbox. He ,/,,ouldkrow how
her wrg
got off." (Grffin v Califotnia,supra, 380 IJ.S. at p. 611.)
These
arguments
are eerilysimilar10the argunentsmadeby the ptosecutionin
this case: "There'sonly one otherpersonon the planetwho knows
tha!
theyhadsexirr themotelroomin Nepal,, (19 Iff 5125) The Califor.nia
CoLrrtof Appealfound an almostidenticalargumentmad,ein people v
Giovianini(1968) 260 Cal.App2c1597, 605 to corstitute c/1/f/l enor
because
il impliedthat only ttLedefendant
couldknowthe truth: ,,Now, as
far as how the bottlewas broken.. . therewould be trvo people,possibll,,
who couldamwerthal, andoneof them,ofcourse,is dead.,,
HoweveL,utrllkeGri/fin andGiovianini,the prosecutiotlin this case
took it a step fufiher and manufaclured
an admissionby the defendantby
telling the jury appellantactually wrote his lawyer a note during the
preliminaryhearingwhich specifrcallyread,"you cancatchher,we haosex
in this motel room in Nepal." (19 .RT5125) However,the prosecution
had
no knowledgeof suaha noteandno suchllote was introducedto thejury as
evidence.
As recognizedby the Supre[re Court in United Statesv. young
(1985) 470 U.S. l, 18, improperargumenlby thg prosecutionhas two
flrndamentaldallgersr "such conlnents cau convey the impressionthat
evidencenot presantedto the jury, but known to the prosecutor,suppolts
the chalgesagainstthe defendantand can thusjeopardizethe defendant's
rightsto be tried solely on the basisof jtheevidencepresentedto thejLrry;
and the prosecutor's opinion cauies wirh it the imprinat
of lhe
Govemmentaud may inducethe jufy to hust the (ioverlment'sjudgment
ratherthan its own view ofthe evidence.i'
To implicate fedoral conslitutionaldue pr.ocess,,,the relevant
questionis whetherthe prosecutor'sccimmentsso infectedthe trial with
unfaimessas to make the resultingconvictiona denial of due process"
(J)ardenv Wqinwrighd(1986)417 U.S. 168,t8l) In Dardez,rhe
High
Courtdeniedrelief because"the prosectritors'
ar.gument
did not manipulate
or misstatethe evidence,nor did it imblicale other specificrights of the
accusedsuchas the right 10 counselor itheright to remainsitent,, (L1.at
pp. 181-182.)In contrastLoDarden,here,the prosecution
tralripledon
almostall of appellant'sfundamentalconstitutionalrights.
While showing a federal oonstilutionalviolation of due process
under the Fifth Amendment, incolporatedto the States though the
FourleenthAmendnent,requiresffisconductlhat fundarnentally
idbcts the
204
trialwith unfaimess,
statelalv elrot onlylequiresa showingtheplosacution
"usedeceptiv€ol reprehensible
nethodsto attelnpt1c persuadeeitherthe
courtor rhejury.', (peoptev Hitl (lgg8) t,t Cal.4lh
800, 819; seealso
Peoplev Martineze0l0) 47 Cal.4'h911,955.)
ln thisregard,counsel
may
not stateor assumefactsilr argumenlthatarenot in evidenceal1d
may not
engagein "tbrbidden tactics,,such as ,,accusingdefense
counsel ot
fabricating
a defenseor factuallydeaeiving
the jty.,, (pec.,p/e
v. Bordelon
(2008)162Cal.App.4'hl3tl, t323;peoptev. Frienct(2OOg)
47 Cal.4tt,l,
31.) "The effect of suchremarksis to lead the jur), to believethat
[ne
districtattomey,a sworn officer of the court,had infomation which
the
defendant
insistson withtrolding;or that theymay co+sidermatterswhich
couldnot properlybe introducedil1evideDce,,,
(peoplev ,lohnson(l9gI)
121Cal.App.3d
94,103.)
ln Peoplev. Johnson(I9BL)121Cal.App.3d
g!,91_gg,the victim
anddefendant
had sex on a fust clatea[d, tlereafter,the victim ciairnecr
rr
was rapeaad the defendantclairnedshe falsetyaccusedhim of rape to
extortmoneyfrom him, (Peoplev. Johnson,supra,12! Cal.App.3d pp.
at
97-99.)To proveits theoryof thecase,thedefensecalfedTerly Osbome
to
thestandwho testifiedthatthevictin calledhim to deliivera message
to flre
defendant
that she would cLropthe chargesif the detendantwould ..tunl
overhis car andhis baDkaccoun1.,'
(1d at p. 100.) Neitherthedel.emenor
prosecutionaskedthe viotiD whethershe callectOsbornoto extod
the
defendant.During closingargument,
however,theprosecutionarguedthat
had the victim been asked,she would have deniedmal<ingaly such
statement.(1d atp. I02.) Specifically,
theploseoutionit Johnsonargued,,
"I'n not goingto bring N4rs.(J) all the way herejust to say did you say
that,andhaveher sayno.,, (1&ld) Findingprosecutorial
qrisconducland
reversingthe defendant'sconviction,this Courl held that ,,whiiern some
circumstances
it is properfor a prosecutor
to corllmelrtupona defendant,s
205
failure to ask cerlain questionsof a wihess, it is not permissiblefol a
prosecutorto statewhat the answerio a questionwould be if it had been
of
asked." (Ibtd.) This type of argumentis not orly a tnischaracterization
fabrication
ol'thefacts,it is a complete
of
lheevidence
or a misslatement
sorl" 01'prosecutorialmisconductthat
evidenceand,thus, is the "grosse,st
oanbe perpetated. (Peoplev Brophy(1954)l2Z CaI App.2d638,652.)
In largepait, this caseis no different tha.rPeoplet Brophytv|'ere
this Court reversedthe defendant'sconvictionbecausea prosecutorpulled
as
out a bullet durhg closingargument,whicb had neverbeenintrodtLced
evidenceat trial, and claimedit lvasthe missingbullet tbund at the cnme
scene.(Peopler. Brophlt,supra,122Cal.App.2d638,652.) I-ike the case
at bar,the prosgcutionwas desperately
hying to cover-upthe weaknesses
in
with two corurts
chargedthe del'endant
its case.ln Brophy,lhe prosecution
of assaultwith a deadlyweapon,to wit, a pistol. With respectto thc first
assault,the prosecutionintroducodbullet casingsto prove the pistol had
beenfired at ltre victims. (Id aXpp. 650-65i1)I-Iowever,no casingswere
introducedto Prove the secondassaulteven though the victin staledhc
forrndthe hred br.rlletat the crimescene.(Ibid.) ht an effort to oxposethis
weaknessin the proseculion'scase,the defensearguedthe follo\,vingto tho
jury duringclosing:"Now, theytalk aboutsomebullets- pardonne. Ir4r.
Shirley,I believe,said down here was where he pickedup a buller
Now, whereis the bullet? I
somewhere.He said down hele siomewhere.
fully expectedhim, after he got thal, to comeup herewith ft." (Id. at p.
651.) In response,lo lhis argument,the proseculionbloughta bulletto the
rebuttalargumont,showedit to tle jury, and declaredthat it wasthe buller
hred in the secondassault.(1Dld) As arguedby the prosecution
in Broptry,
"Now quite a bit has bee[ said aboutthe l€stimonyof Mr. Shirley,who
'Ihere
loundthe bullt:ts. Whereis that bullet'i
is the bullet(Showirgto
jury) Mr. Edwardsfappellant'scounsel]krows it as well as I do. That
206
--."
bullet'ssoflattened
(16rd.)At thisjunctLre,thedelense
objected
to
argument
andthetdal coudsustained
theobjecticn.(Irid.)
theimproper
the
Findingthemisconduct
to beof the"grossest
sorl" lhisCourlfeversed
conviction
thejury
defendant's
despite
thofactthatthetrial coul instrucled
Lodisregard
the improperargument.Qd. atpp.65l-652) l-lke Brophy,the
prosecutionessentiallymanufactueda new piece of ovidenceduring
closingargumentin arl effofi to win its caseat ary costrelderingthe tuth
findingfunctionof thet al completelyiueleyanl,I-Iowever,"it is asmuch
[the prosecutioll's]duty to refrain ftom impropernothods calc aled lo
producea wrongful convictionas it is to uso every legil.imatemeansto
bringaboutajust one." (Id. l\tp.653.)
The CaliforniaSuprerneCourt rciterateclthe egregiousness
of this
miscooductin ils seminalcasePeoplev. Hill (1998)
type of prosecutorial
refelence
by the FlighCourt,a proseoutor's
17 Cal,4h800. As emphasized
to factsoo1in evidenceis clearrnisconduct
"becausesuchstatements
tend
to makethe prosecutorhis own wilness- ol'feringru')swor:n
lestimollynot
subjectto cross-examination,
It hasbeenrecop;nized
lhal suchtestimoni,
althoughworthlessas a mattcro1'law,canbe dyDamiteto the.iurybecause
of the specialregardthe jury has for the prosecutor,therebyeffectively
circumventing
the rules of evidence."(Id. at p, 828) Like Johnsonand
Brophy,t|e CaliforniaSupremeCourl, in F1il1,reversedthe defendant's
conyictionswhere the prosecutionlelied on illcts never iltroducsd into
evidence
duringclosingargument.Specifically,
thepLosecutor
toid thejury
thatno drugshad beensoldat lhe crirnescenesincethe defendant'sauest;
tiat an expertcould havetestifiedaboutthe bLoodon the knife, but the
proseaulion
had no obligationto inlroducesuchevidence;and that one of
the key defensewitnesses
was biasedbeaause,
havingthe samelast narne
asthe defendant,
shemusthavebeerrelatedto him. (1clat pp 828-829.)
Theproseculionalsotold thejury that thedefendant
hadgoneto prisonlor
201
killing, stabbing,and robbingwheretherewas no evidenceto supportsuch
prosecutorial
an assertion. (Id. at p 837) All of these incidentsof
Courl
misconductwere deemedto be errots by the CaliforniaSupreme
(1d at p. 839.)
In addition to the Fifth Amendnlent due process violations
prohibited utdet Darclen and G'tffin, appellantwas equally deniedhis
Sixlh Amendmentright againstoonfrollation becausehe was utrableto
anrl
cross examinethe prosecutiol,rvho decidedlyaoted as a witness'
"testimony"was falseastherewasno
exposethe fact that the prosecution's
evidencethat aPpellantwrotea llole ro his lavvyerat the preliminaryhearing
admittinghe raped Sapnain Barrgkok (SeegeDerallyPointer v Texas
SixthAmendment ght to confrontand
(1965)380 tJ.S.400 frecognizing
cross-examinewitnessesaPpliesto the Statesthough the Fourleenth
knowing
Amendmentl;Miller v. Pate (1967) 416 IJ S l fprosecution's
that a Pair of sholls found near the crime sceneand
misrepresentation
introduoedinto evidencehad blood slainsron thenl when, in lacl, the
prosecutionknew the stainswere ftom pa'lntconstituledleversibleerror
violating defendant'sfifth aud FourtcenthAmendmert rights to due
processl,)
Like lhe etror in Peoplev Gaines(1997) 54 CalApp4tl'821
reversedon Sixth AmendmenlConfrontationClausegrounds,errorin this
caseis undeniable.In Gaines,tho victim was physicallyattackedon the
) Thevictirn
streetby two mer who stolehis bicycle (/d at pp, 822-823
was able to reporl the crime to ihe police within five minutes (1d at p
823.) Heeding the radio broadcast,two separateofficers stoppedt\'vo
differeutmen in tlvo distinct locationsriding bikas in the neighborhood
the first maleasoneofthl- altackefsand identifiedlhc
Thevictim identiFred
bicyclehe was riding as his own. ilbld ) 1'hevictirn idcntifisdthesecond
with 80%certainty,asthe secondattacker (.lbicl.)
person(thedefendant),
208
At trial, the defendanttrLGainestestrltedthat he was initially tiding
his bikehomev,'ithRay Hicks on flrenightofthe crimeandexpectedllicks
tt'
to testiryto this at his fria.l.(Peoplev Gaines,supra,54 Oal.App. at pp.
823-824.) However,Hicls neverendedup testiryingat lhe defendant's
trial. To explaiDthis ornission,the prosecutionargueclduling closing
was madeafter:the
argumentthat,"N&. Hicks didn't testify. That clecision
the defendantsJippedand he told sorne
defendanttestified becarLse
untruths.Ard Mr, Hicks was goingto teslify to the conlr'ary.Mr. Hicks
that got ivlr
would haveimpeachedthe defendant,
and it was the defe,nse
Hicks out of herebeforehe could damagethem. Il was the Peoplethat
weretrying to frnd Ir4r.I-Iicksat that point." (1d.at p. 1125.)In finding
the Firct District Courtof Appealheld "the prosecutorwas 1n
miscoaduct,
plain effectpresentinga condensed
versionof lvhathe \ir'astellilrg thsjury
would havebeenMr. I{icks's testimory, When this tactic is achievedin
the guiseof closingargument,the defendantis deniedSixlh Arnendment
rights of conffontationand crossexamination." (Id. at p. 825 see also
Peoplev. Hatl (2000)82 Cal.App.4tr'
813,817-818,
Peoptev Bolton(1979)
23 CaL3d208.)
The misconductin this casewas muchrnoreegregiouslltan that ill
Gaines because,unlike Gaines, the "testir:nony"fabricated by tho
prosecutioninvolved the defendant,rather (ran a third party defense
witness,andinvolveda fabricationof a full admission
by the defendantof a
rapein a rapecase.Therefore,like Galzes,the prosecution's
Lerlarkslvere
anundeniable"head-onassaultat the defense"madewith theunmistakabLe
intentionof trying to convincethe jur.y the del..ense
was lying. (1d.at p.
826.)
In additionto violatingappellatt,sdueprocessriglrtsurder G/rff,
utd Darden and his Sixth AmendmenL
right to cr.ossexaminationurder
Pointertnd Pate,the prosecrLtion's
renarksalsrtvioiatedappeilaDt,s
Sixth
209
AmendmentlighttocounseibyviolatingtheAttongyClientpdvilggeand
by casting aspenions on the
his Fifth Amendment due Processrights
simply produce a bullet durlng
defense. That is, the prosecutlondici not
closingargumentthatwasnototherwisepafioftheevidence,|tkeBrop
or noD-testil]i[e
nor did it simply put wordsinto tlle mouthof a testifying
witness,likeGaines,Hilt,andJohnson'Instead'theprosecution'sremarks
defendanl'sfundamental
infringed upon almost every one of the
Fifth
rights bearingon a fair trial tn this regard'appellant's
oonstitutional
the prosecution
Amgndmentright to rgmainsilentwas inplicated because
than simply atributing
fabricatedstatementsmade by irppellantrather
Moreover' further
fabdcated stalementsto a thir:d party wilness
the prosecutionattributed
the error,the fabdcatedstatenLents
exacerbating
oul of court'but'
to the aPpellantwere nol simplyallegedstatenentsmade
appellantallegedlyruadeto his attomeyduring
rather,they were statements
the Prcliminaryhearing'which werc
a critical stagoof the proceedings,
Sixlh
clearly protected by the Attorney/Client privilege and lhe
Amendment.
cou:rselin a schemeto ossentlally
Finally, by implicatingderfense
rernarks
deftaudthe ju.ry of the futh, ai accordinglo the Prosccution's
dsfensecou$el must have knor.vnhis client was guilty, the proseculion
furrherdeniedappellantclueprocess.The CaliforniaSuprelneCoult has
made it very clear that the prosecutioncannot "attack the integrity of
on deibnsecounsel" (Peoplev l'li
defensecounsel,or castsaspersions
supra, 7'7Cal.4th at p 832) r\s statedin PeoTrlev Belnn (20a9) 168
!o accuse
Cal.App.4th4'-\2,441,"lt is generallyimptoperfor theprosecutor
defensecounselof fabricatinga defenseor to imply that aounselis fiee to
thejury." (SeealsoPeoplev Bah (1911)5 Cal3d 839,847I"the
deceive
counselfabricatecl
that det-ense
unsuppofiedimplicationby the prosecution
a defenseconstltlrtesmisconduct"l) ID turn, nll of thesefuntlamenlal
210
constitutionalviolationsworkgdtogethertolessentheplosccutionsduLyto
doubt TlLerefore'the prosecuticos
piove its casebeyonda reasonable
as they implicated
improperremarkswere especiallyegregiousinsofat
notedby the United
alnosteveryright protectedby the Bill ofRighls As
of the Bill ofRights are
Stat€sSupremeCouft,"Whenspeciflcguarantecs
*nt prosecutonal
involved,this Coud has tal(enspecialcare to assure
(Donnelly
conduct in no way impermissibly inftinges them"
Dechristoforo(19'74)416 U S. 63'7' 643')
from
ln sum, the prosecution'sfabricationoll a handwritlennote
hearilg allegedly
Ajay to his lawyer written during the prelimi-nar-y
indicalingthatAjay had adnittedrapingSapnain Jlangkokl'undameotally
eror'
infectedthe faimessof the tuial constitutinglledemlconstitutional
Not orly did the fabrical.ion,made during clDsingarguments,imPlicate
almosteveryright protectedby the Bill of Riglts, it concerneda fabncated
to a rapein a tape caseand,therefore,went to the heartof the
admission
of this miscollduct,the rernarksaiso
case, Given the sheercleceptiveness
statelaw error.
constituted
MiscouductWarrantsRcversalUnclera
B. The Prosecution's
Stateand Fc{leralStnndardofPrciudice
Wherethe prosecution'smisconductlendeff a trial lundameutally
unfair underDarden atd/or Grffin, dueptocoss'-equiresreversalwhere,
v Califurnia(1967)386U.S. 18,theerroris not hanriess
tlnderChapman
do\tbt.(UnitedStatesv. n:asting(l9il3) 461 U.S 499,
beyonda reasonable
misconductotLlyriseslo the level of state
510.) However,if prosecutorial
methodsthat may nol
law enor by use of deceptiveand reprehensible
render a trial f,rndamentallyunfail, reve$ai is lequired where "it is
probablethat a resultmore favorablelo the defendantwould
reasonably
without themisconduct."(!eople v Martinez,supra,4'7
havebeenreached
is
at p. 955.) More spocihcally,
wher a lrtateclaimof misconduct
Cal.4'h
2rl
madedirectlyto thejury' reversalls
comnrcnts
prosecution's
the
on
based
requiredwhere..theleisareasonableiikelihoodtha|thejulyconstruedor
lashion"
in an objectionable
-, of the comPlained-ofremarks
oOOtr"U
4'" 1 2q )
lPeoplev. Friend Q00g\ 4'1Cal
commenls
the Prosecution's
I{ere, lJrerecan be uo doubt that
and federal standardsof
prejudiced appellant accordinglo both state
closing
by the prosecutiondLuin6;
prejudice. The impropercommelltmade
algumentsattlibutedarladmissionoflaPgtoAjayinarapecase.While
to threetimes a week ovet a five
Ajay was accusedof raphg Sap[atwo
dre rapesnor witlessesto
year period, there was uo physicalevidenceof
of one rapewould leadthe
theseallegedrapes. Therefore,an admission
oondemning
jury to believe Sapna'stestjmollyover the defensethereby
power ard weight ol the
Ajay for all the rapesaLlegedby Sapna fhe
co[unentsto thejury cannotbe ulderstated'
prosecutionrs
ago,
over fifty years
As recognizedby tho United StatesSupremcCotut
because
by the prosecutiorL
the jury heavily relies oo rePrcsertations
theprosecutiottdoesnotlepresent..anoldinalypadytoacontlove|sy,bI
compellingas its
sovereigntywhoseobligationto govemirtparlially is as
criminal
obligationto govern at alll and whose intetest,therefore'in a
"
prosecutionis not that it shall vrin a aase,but thatjusticeshallbe done
(1935)295U S 78, 88 ) Thercfble'lbr jusliocto
(Bergert lInited States
prevaiL,a prosecutor"may strike hard blows, [but] he is not at liberty to
strike foul ones." (IDrd.) Given tiris unique role of the prosecutor'
of personal
insinuations,and,cspecially,asseftions
"impropersuggestions,
knowledgeare apt to carry suoh weight agailst thc accusedwheo lhey
shouldproperly carry none" (-lbld) This is especiallytrue rn rapecases
againstthe
wherethe casooften comesdovrnto lhe word of the dot'endant
word of the allegedvictim
As noted in Johnson,"In nost sex offense
ancltheallegedvictimarethesoleor principal
the allegedperpetrator
cases
2t2
dangerthat prosecutonal
wihessesand in such casesthere is grave
lohnson'sLtP!4'Izl
may tip tho scalesofjustice " (Peo1't"e
misconduct
"t
atP. 105.)
Cal.App.3d
has emphasizedthat
Similatly, the California SupremeCourl
are a highly prejudicial
"statementsof supposedfactsoot in evidence
" (Peoplev Hill'
form of misconduct,and a ftequenlbasisfor r]lversal
r'vaseven more
supra, 77 Cal.4$ at p. 828) Here, the misconducl
faot duringclosing
prejudicialthan mostcasesi volvilg a misstatenentof
jury to verify \'r'hetherthe
argumeltbeoausethere was Ilo way for the
of the
comlnsnlswere aouurateby askingfor a read back
prosecution's
'l.|erefore, unlike a more typical
targetedtestimory or evidence
of facts'Lheluly
caseinvolvingtlle misstatement
misconcluct
prosecutodal
by the
evidencePresented
no reasonto cloubtlhe fabricatecl
had absolutely
oblcchot'
proseculion In fact, sincellre ttial court overruleclthe dr:feuse
misconductwas sanctionedby lhe authorityof the trial
the prosecutorial
"the
ooufi. As recognizedby the United StatesSupremeCourt in Grffn'
are dre ecluivaleulof an
commentalrdthg court'sacquiescence
prosecutofs
" (Grffitt v Califotnia, supra' 380
and its acceptance
offer o1'evidence
U . s .a tp , 6 1 3 . )
oase,iL cannotbe
in the prosecution's
Giventhe severeweaknesses
saidthat the prosocutioli'scommentswere harnlessbey'rnda reasonabLc
fabricatodan admissionof rapcand
doubtespeciallywheroLhQprosecution
it dudngclosingalgulllentsothatAjay couldnot refuteit Given
presented
fie highly ilcriminatingand irflammatorynatureof theseconments,thele
likelihoodthat thejury construedor appliedthesedeceptive
is a reasonable
by the trial court,in an objectionable
tactics,sarrctioned
andreprehensible
fashion.For-thesereasons,this Cout mustreverseappcilants coDvictiotts
andgmrltl]im a newtriaL.
2t3
IX.
APPEI-LANT'S
CONSTITUTIOTNAL
RIGHT
1'O-
o
wHr'IlE'_,rHE
iir-,trnrqcnul APPDALwAS DDNIED
TO ]IOLD AN EVIDENTIARY
i.Ni,I.I, COUNTREFUSIID
ro RESoLvE I{ATERIAL uNsErrLIiD
uiailnC
PORTIONSOF THD IIDCORD
l. InEqdudig-[
coutl grantedapPellant's
On or zLbotttOctober7, i]0i0, the tlial
but was not limiled to'
applicationto seLllethe lecord "vhich illoluded'
the video-tapedpolice rntervlew
settlementon whether the jury received
368' in resporscto the
betweenStrpnaand DetectiveLl;rmann' Exhibit
jury note iiom iunc 24'
first jury note; and whethertherowas a missing
courseof settlemcnt'the
2009. (ACT (2/l'1/2012) l, 3) During lho
recold: whctherthe
prosecutiol identifredan additionalomissionin the
of
jury received tire evidence a'dmixledduting the first mor:ning
(ACT (9/30/ll) 49deliberationsresultingftom a re-openingof lhe case
52.)
he]d
In an ef:[ortto settletheseomissionsin thc record'thetrial coult
counsolPrcsent;a
a meet and confer wifh the prosecutionand del'ense
delense
heating was held to interview coufi clerl':MarcelenaLeonl the
jurors and tho
plesenleddeclalationsauclhearsaydealarationsltour eight
one declarationliom a jttror' ]'hc
bailiff; and the prosecutionPrcsrented
facts from the judge, lawycrs, clerk, bailifl; and jutols presentedsome
significantinconsistenciesTo tesolvetheseincolsislenciesandsettlethe
record in accordancewith appeLlant'sfecleralcoustiltttionalright to a
meaningfulappealsecuredby Lheright to 1!sufficientIecordoDappeal,the
defenserequestedan evidentiay hearing.A11evidcDtialyhealingwould
both resolve lhe inconsistenciesio the omergingrecord and allow the
primarilyjutors,who eilhercouldnol
lhosepersons,
to subpoena
defense
be locatedor were ttnwrllingto be interviewedvoluntarily
214
ror
30,2011,thetrial coufi deniedthe delensemotron
On September
because'basedon a readng
hearingltnding il unnecessary
an evidentiary
the factsshowed
of the facts"in the light most favorableto the defense"'
lheiewas Lromissingjury note tiotn
thattheju], receivedEx[ibit 36 rLncl
lhat whetherthe
June24, 2009. (ART (i/3 V2012) 41, 4'7) It illso ruled
the ilrst
jury receivedthe secondbatchof oewly adldtled evidenreafter
issue (ART
moming of jury deliberationswas an "ltnsetlleable"
s1-s2)
(113112012)
B. Strndard of Re.&I
requestfor an
Whetherthe trial couft enedby denying1hedel'ensQ's
and \ahether'thc faots
evidentiaryhearingduring settleneutproceeclir.tgs
supportedthe cer-Lified
viewedin the light most favorableto the clefense,
ate rssuesot pure law and,thrrs,lequite de novo rcvtev'
settledsratement
(Peoplev. Cromer(2001)24 Cal4th 889, 89'{, rr 7l PP'ople v Lawler
(1995)3l CaiApp 4th
(1973)9 Cai.3d156,160;Peoptev Teroganetian
1s34.)
C. Thc Trial Coql!ll11glll11l)qlv|;tg ADpellantAn DYidPntirrv
Settlentent .llloceedinrqs IlrlDliq4lillg
He.rrius Du.jq
Aprrellant'sConstitutionalRight'fo A Metningful Appcal
^nd A SufficiontIlecord on ADDe^1,
Io Drcper v Washington(1963) 3'72 tJ S 487, 499, the United
revicv'/,
Courthelcltliat,wherea stateplovidesfor apPellate
StatesSupreme
detlauda sul'ficieutrecordof completeness
equalprotectionconsideratious
in orderto guarallteea proper colNiderationof a defendant'sclaims oD
(1969)395 U S 458,458-459)
appeal.(Seealso,Williamsv Oklahoma
du(lprocessdepends
Whetheran incompleterccorddenicsa staleappelLant
on the evaluationof two criteria: (1) the value of the transcriptlo the
in co rectionlvith the appealor trial for which it is sought;and
defendant
(2) the availabiLityof altcrnativedevicestlnt would fulfill the same
functionsas a transcript, (See,Britt v. NortJtCarolina (1974)404 If S
2t5
885
(9thCt 1989)
v Rlrery
Mardera
&n.2,92S.Ct.431(19'7l);
226,221
F.Zd6+6,648.)
was missingseveraliury
In the caseat bar, the rec':rd on appeal
notesandlesponses-mostofwhichocculledduringjurydeliberations'
the missingrccordmeetsthe lirst
Therefore,the subject and contentsof
notes submitledduring jury
criteria as jury notes, especiallysubslantive
are an undeniablevaiueto the appeaL
deliberations,
1 9 5 '9 2 S C t 4 1 0 '4 1 5 '
l n M a y e rv C h i c a g o( 1 9 7 t )4 0 4U S i l 8 9 '
suitable altemalivesto a
the United States Supreme Court discussed
Ciouftnoted'
verbatimtranscript. Specifically,theFligh
proceedingsare
Altemative methods of reporting trial
before the appellate courl an
permissible
'"luiuul.nt if they placo
report of the events at hial fiom whioh the
agreed!o
appelJaot'scontentionsarjse A statementof facts
perhapson the
U'f Uo,f,tia"t, a full narative statemenlbased
on the court
triat.iuctge's minutes taken drLring'trial or
untranscribednotes, or a bystander'sbill o[
;;";t';
might all be adequatesubslitutes'equallyas good
"*l""ptiont
as a transcriPt.
(Ibid.)
Consistentwith SupremeCourt Preocde[t'Californialaw eqLlalLy
does tlot
acknowledgesthat a record of suffioient compleleness
(Peop[ev Scolt
automaticallytranslateinto a conlpleteverbatimtranscript
to
upontheappellant
(lg'/2) 23 Cal.App3d 80,85.) Rather,itis incumbent
his or her
attemptto reconstructthe missing parts of the record before
^t
(1991)5I
federaldue processrights are irnplicated (People Malabag
cal.App.4th14 19, 1422-1423.)
In Peoplev Malabag,thi: CalifomiaCoun of Appealloundthat the
appellantwaived his state and federal due processright to a sufficient
after
ptoceedings
he failedto pursueseltlclnent
recorrlon appealbecause
2t6
his attemptsfo augmentthe recordfarled (Peaplev MaLabag'supra' 5)
atp. 1425.)As heldby the cout irt lt[alabag,
Cal.App.4th
Ilaving failedto obtaina lnorecompleterecordof lo explaLn
any inability to do so, dsfendantmust rdy on the record at
hanctwhicll is, itl l]act,sufficieiitto suppodthe order from
which the appeatis laken. To hold othelwisewould be to
allow an appeltartto replyupongapsin a recold c'f his own
devisi119.
(ld. arp.1425.)
the CaliforniaCourtofAppeal held that,
Similruly,it Peoplev. -/ones,
Where other nethods of teconstruotjrlgthe l3cord are
musLP(oceedwith lhosealtornatives
available,the deI'endart
in order to obtain review. It musLbe shown that it is
lbr the missing
impossiblelo securean adequatesubsLitute
trauscriptt€stino[y aud that lhere are substan{ialissues
requiringthe banscript.
(People
v Jones(1981)t2.5Cal.App.3d298,300.)
The purposeof a seltledstatemcntis to providethe appellatecourt
with a recold of trial courLproceedingsfor which thQreis no formal
v. Anderson(2006) 141 Cal.App.4[h430,
contemporary
recorcl. (PeopLe
440.) In this regard,
the settlernentis used for filing in 'gaps tn the
appellaterecord.' lcitatior.] Consistentwith this limited
pulpose,the settledstatemertis 'intend,:dto ersurethat the
recold transnittod b the reviewing corrr'l preselvesand
in the trial
confoms lo the proceedings
actuallyulLdedaken
'allow
palties to createproceedings,[1ake
court,' Dot to
records,or litigate issucswhich they oeglecledto pursue
earlier' [Citations.
I
(1bld.) Neverlheless,as noled by the Califomia SuprerrreCourt, dler-ei s
"scant decisionalauthority construingsettleme,ntprocedtues." (1z1ar,ts
Superiar
Court(2002)27 Cal.4tl1176,
195.)
211
auhorrzes
Cal LEXIS 1363expressly
t. Hardv(1989)191!9
PeopLe
thetrialcoudtoholdanevidenttaryheadnctosetlletherecordonappeaL'
alsoprovidesfor suchauthorilyiLr
In additiontollarcly, the Evidencr:Code
proceedings(SeeEvidCodo$$704'1150)
similarposl-verclict
794-796'a rccord
lr PeoltLev GarcL (2005) 36 Cal4d'T7'/'
a dcciaralion trom hrs
settlenent qrase,defense counsel submitted
of soveraliulors regardingpotenlral
investigatorcoucemingthe staten:renLs
ofthe
,,Ihe CourtofAppeaLmajoriryheld thal the declaration
misconducL.
defenseinvestiga|orrelieduponbydefendaltinsuppotlofthispoiltwas
to impeachthe jury verdict"
inadmissibtehearsaythat could no1be usecl
SuPreneCourlreired
(Id. at P.'796) On leviow,how?ver'the Califonia
j11
cleclaration"concerning
on the i[fomlatioD conlained lho "hearsay
rleliberationsal the crimescena
atrdsegregated
irnproperexperirnentation
rc-visiteddluilrgdeliberationsartclreversedtlreCorutofAppeaL'sopiniorr.
Courtreversed
rheCalilbrniaSuprerne
(Id. aLp.796,80?-808) AlthougLr
whelhet'an
the Court of Appeal clecision,it never overtly cliscussed
eviderlceto satlLetllo
invesligator'shearsay dealaratjonis com!elelll
GiveD the uncertainlyregalding the competcnayot a
to hold
hearsayclsclarationto rosolverecordsettlementissues'it is critical
tecord. (1Drd)
an evidentiaryhearing to perfi-ct an appellanl'sright to a meaningful
appcal.
However,whereEvidenceCodsseotion1t50 is invokedby defensc
coursol, California law colsislently permits defendantsto rely on iury
to provejury roisconductto impeacha verdict
afficlavitsand cleclarations
to
(SeeIn rc Hamitton(1.999)20 CaL4th 273,280 (a juror is competent
testifyor fut'nisha deolaration!fiout any overteventor cilctnrstanceopcn
or tho othersenses);Peoplcv Vomaskrr
to corroborationby sight, hearirLg,
may be rtsedlo impeach
905,90? ("JuroLal.fidavlts
(1997)55 CaL.App.4th
staternerts,conduct,
a verdict if tlley refef to objoctively ascertainable
2l ii
conditions,or elents, but not subjectiveleasoningplocessosofjurors
");
cfjurors
50CalApp4th 103,112("DecLarations
v. Duran(1996)
People
biasor otherdisqualifications
maybeusedto showthai aluror concealed
duringvoir dire");anclPeoplev Hord (1993)
by providhgfalseanswers
prove tnaLone or.
15 cal.App.4th 7 Ll, 7 i 9 ("Juror affidavitsmay be usedto
dire Allldavlts
more of the jurors concealcdhis bias ol prejudic;eon voir
ol1 voir dire) )
can be used when the bias rvas levealed by false answert;
thc use of
The useof afhdavitsand declaralions,however,doesnot e>:clude
review il is
testimony. Where jury misconducl is laised oLr collaleral
ofjurors
commoll to hotd an evidentiuy hearingrequiring the teslinory
(Seeh re Hamilton, supra,20 Cal.4that p 284:285)
aDd
In general, California law affords trial oourts gr?at latitude
a
authorityto sellle the recorcL "The r$les confbr ftrll po'ler over such
an
record in the trial judge. As long as the trial juclge do':s not act in
"
arbitrary fashion he has full ancLconplete power ovcl such a tecord
'l'he
Caiifornra
(Mark; v. SuPerior Cotttt, sttpra, 2'7 Cal.4'nat P i96 )
that the trial court lnust'lesorl
eurphasized
SupremeCoufl hasrep€atedly
to all availableaids, inclrLdingthe ludge's own memory aud thosc 01'the
paticipants" before it can deLerminethe re'cold is Dot arnellablo to
setllement. (1Dld.,(emphasisadded);see a\so,'peoplev Gzikowski (1982)
32 Cal.3d580, 585, n. 2.) ln Gzikowski,the CaliforniaSupretneCourl
statedthat:
When a settledstatenenl of ?rrrepolted In^ttelsis recltested,
the nemories and notes of tl.ie pafiicipants are dle only
'l'herefor:,
cottlscl
soutces ftorn wlrtch it can be clerived
may fairly be required to draw on Lhose souces to
how a particularunreporLedmattermay be useful
demonstrate
on appeal,
(Peoplev. Gzikowski,liuPra, 32 Cal,3d at p J 85, n 2.) Consistenl with
Marks and Gzikowski,1he Cloult ol Appeal in -/ore.t foutld that, "Where
219
th3 recordareavailable'the deferdantmust
othermethodsof reconstrrrcting
oblail1revie\Y It musl be sh0wn
proceedwith lhoseaitenativesin or(lorto
substitutefor the missing
that it is impossible lo securean adequate
transclipttestimonyandtha|thelearesubstantialissuesrequillng|he
125Cal App3datp 300)
lramcript (Peoplev Jones,supt'ct'
to settlethe rccord
Given the broadpower allooatedto trial courts
to reconslruatmissing
and the necessityto use all availablemelhods
y aPPellant'srequestfor an
portionsof the lecorcl,it was e or to dr
presentedby the defenseand
evidentiaryheifing espeoiallywherethe 1'aots
had
powet' the del'ense
prosecutiouwore in conflict and,without subpoena
r9solvethe omissionsin
no powe( to obtain the inlonlation necessalyto
r[volved iur')
the record. That is, the critical issrtesrequiringsettlement
notesandLhercceiptofselectad:mittedevidenceHowever'juror:s'byla
(liscussthe casewith any intereste(t
are givcn tho "absoh.rteright" not to
to subpoena
it was necessaly
Civ. Proc, $ 206) Therefore'
party. (CocLe
the omissionsrn lhe
Lhejurors and the baili1.f,at a fiIininum, 10 resolve
vlolaled
record. Consoque[tly,the lailure to hold an evide[tiafy ]realing
procassancl
appellanl'sllifth and IjourteenthAmendrnentrighls to due
right to a
equalproteclionwhich, in turn, seourshis federaloonslilutioral
sufficienttocordon appcalancla meaningfulright to appeal
D. Viewed in the Ljett Most tr'aYorablcto thc Delensc'the
d on
ote Submitte
Itecord Omitted nll Unanswercd Ju
June 24. 2009 RcqqiqllUg-..llluida[ccon Whether it Was
Proper to View TeqiilnonYfrom One of
aDna's Fricnds as
the Trttth.
'fhe
minuteorcierfor June24, 2009iudicates
'lhe
lrom ihejuty
Courtwasin receiplof (1) question
Court askedthe clerkto call cottnselandreadthemthe
queslion,verbalim The Ciourtthen contaotedboth
call
counselby cortbronce
220
to llle Jury
The Coultto senda writlenresponl;e
in themonlirg, asthejury haslefl Ibr the dayto
retum tolno ow at 9:00 am to resuroe
deliberalions.
(12CT 32'72)
lhat a writtenlesponsc
The ldnute orderfor -iute25' 2009conlrr:ms
to thejuryr "Cour1hassenlIn
to theJune24,2009jurynotewasprovided
yestelday" (1?a writtenresponseLoqueslionsubnittcdby the july late
24' 2009
CT 3274) Theteis no jLuy Dotein the cieft's transcriptfor June
or anyresponse.
JrtrorNo' 1 recalledthat the
investigation,
Pursuantto the seLllemenl
regardingthe testintonyof oneo1'
jury submitteda ooleduringdelibetatiolrs
whetherthejury couldtakethe lestimony
thevictim'sfriends.Specifically,
237) fher:eis nojury nolc in the rccord
for the huth. (l ACT(2/l'/ l')'012)
concenillg the testimonyof onc of the vicli:o]'sfi'iends Jtuor No l
3210,3372;
thejuy notesin therecord(12C'!:32.t13-3259,3264,
reviewed
ACT (5/14/2010)13) and stated,in a declaralionsignedunderpenaltyof
perjury,that he dicl not soe that nole amollg,that glotLpo[ juty tiotcs
(Ac'l (21l7 I20 12)2 5'7)
subnifLedcluringcLeliberalions.65
u'
During the Meel andConl'er,TraceeGtimes(the clerk) foundfu99
and file slampedJuns
jury notessubmilledduringdeliberations
additional
in theIecordon appe^l
25,2009. Noneof thesejuly notesweleinoluded
for missingjrurynotes (.ART(1216/201e,
despiteseveralaugmenlr(lquests
questiorsabout
jury notesconcemeci
2, 3, 4,':'1-15)The threeadditionaL
reachinga verdictand/orbeingdeadlocked.l'.loncof the additionaljury
a questionaboulthetestimonyofone olSapna'sliteDds
notesconoerned
It is equaliyclearftom the recordthatthe undaicdnotesubnittedby Juror
No 12 (ACT (5/14/2010)1:l) couldnot have beensubnittedon Junc24,
2009 becausethe reporlcr's traNcript rnequivocally shor'vsit was
(19 R1 5101-5104)As
oDJune1i,2009 befor:e
deliberations.
submitted
indicatedby the reporter'stranscript,this Coult readthe lote word fot
word on the recordand verballyrespondedto il on the recold. (19 RT
not
i3) coLrld
this undaled
note(AC'l (5/14/2010)
Therefore,
5104-5105)
betheomittedjury notefi:omJune24,2009.
22r
record and Juror No l's
Given this unmistakableonission in lhe
juty lrote in the record't]re lrlal
specilicrecollectionaboutan una[swered
in the light most favorablet0
courl clearlyerreclin finclingthat,as viewed
the lecold
the defense,therewas n0 omittednotefrom
M o s l F r v o | a b l e t o t h e D e f e r ' r ) ethe
E
" . \'i"i\led in thc Liglll
Eiihibit 3 6 B
R;*,t s!!f!i Th" 1 hc J u r\ Iltvcl Reccived
p,rlice lrtletvierv Bctwceo S:rpna aud
" : v i O aH
" - "f ". ;n"anO
s rt :r l t s F i r s tJ t r n N o t c '
r . l . R e s D o uT
tE;-ir"
EvidenceProvided
1. Dxhibit 3613Was l\{issirg From f'he
1'oThe JurY.
Lhefirsl jury noteon
JurorNo 2, the foremanof thejul' subnitted
(e lo watch Del T-lermatur
June 11, 2009 which tead: "We $'ould L
an inteNiewwilh JurorNo
interviewwjth Sapna #:2." (12 CT 3258) h
for Exlibit 368
2, he clarified(hatlhe nolrewas intendedlo be a rcquost
a
fluror No 2l did remembersubnitling iury
iew
inte
note regarcling the video-taPed
betweenSapnaantl Delectiv'3llcrmann fJulor
No. 2] sairi lhat, vr'herhe watchedthe videolaped intcwiew rluring lr:ial, he lbund . it
somcwhatdifiicull to believeSapna So' he
wantedlo seeit againduringdeliberationsTo
tLleJury was never
the bestof his recoilection,
to watchdunng
g,iventhe video-lapedintervie\ry
deliberations.
244)
(t A\cr (2t111?,012)
on JuneI 1'
agroedthatthefilstjuly nole,submitLed
Theprosecution
(.12CT 3258),reflecteda requastfor Exhibit368: the video-laped
2OO9
interviewbenveenDetectiveIllrmam and Sapna (.1 ACT (211112012)
preceoi
therequcsted
152,155) It argucd,however,thatthejtu)/ received
in Lhecase
baililf bfoughtlhe jury all of lhe evidence
onceti.Le
eviclence
ILelyingon a declarationfrotl JurorNo 3, thc ptosecutionsurmised:
Juror:#2's note was the first note senl by the jury and u'as
sentbeforeANY of the evidelrcewas sentto thejury' The
th€
coul, therefore, nee(ledto do tothhg other than scnd
copy of the interview alongwith AtL TltlE RF'ST OF TI{E
room Justastherers
EVIDENCEinto the jury deliberalion
no requirementfor a specialnote from the Court nolatllg
the jury'
,fr", al".V OTFIEI{pieceof evidencewas goingto
the
there was no spe,;iulneed to note that the copy of
jury
as it
wasbeing:ientto the
ini"rview thot wus requestecl
AFTERthercquestaboutlhe intefliew
was all sentLogether
from Jutor# 2.
(1 ACT2/t'712012)
establi:rh'by clear aDd
Both the record and the juor declarations
before
convincingevidence,tha{:the july did uot srtbmil i1s lirst note
First' cotrtraLl lo the
receiving all the evidencefrom the bailiff
position,the clerk'stranscriptprovideda clearnotationasto
prosecution's
whenth.ebailiff deliveredevidenceto thc.iury For exarnple'lhe minute
order ftorn June 11, 2009 cleatly states,"Vr:rdict forms and admitted
to thr:july|ool.r'" (12 0T 3238) Accordingto the
weredelivered
exhibits
to thejllry alonnd10:35
minuteorder,the admitlcdevidencewascleliveLed
a.m. (12 CT 3238) The first jury uo1e,howel'er,was not subnitteduntil
after 1:45p.m.(12 CT 3239) Thereareno olllcl not'rtionsin tLleJuneI i,
2009 minuteorderindioatingthat lhe bailiff Providedthe.itrry auy other
Therefole,thejury had"all" ofthe evidence
evidence,(12 CT 3238-3"139)
that Exlibit 368
whenit askedto seeExhibit36 wlfch, in turn, sstablishes
wasmissingfrom theevidel}ce.
In addition,the tuialcoutl exprcsslytold the jury thcrewould be a
slightdelayin the bailiff gettingthe evidenceto the deliberatiooroon due
ofthe clerkoDdttty.As expiai[edto thelury by the trral
Lotheinexporience
court:
It will Lakeus a monent to makesurc that the exhibitsare
properlyloggedand organizedto be sefltin with you You
probablywon't seethemuntil eithertheiend of this noflring
or see lirem this aflernoou. Deliberateas besl you can
y o ' tr t i l l g e t
s f r o n to ' ; o r r 'b u r
w i r h o u ltl a \ i n gt h ee r - h i b i rt n
loggingLhem Mv
;t ;;"t"'; the clerk has |-Lnish'",.l
;:t
whole
:;JJ";[;i;'h;'
bee'heretl'ou5;bthe
]11:si-:u:
off loday'andsoit is c9t"i ,:"-.ti.:"^i
acruaily
who rs rlot ciurleas
"r"""*ii"o"y,
tit" u*ause we l.tavesom€rone
itnia
in here
"lru"
witn no* we'vebeendoingthings
faJt;r,r
wouldnot
therecardclenrlyshowsthatth.3iury
(19 RT 5153) Therefore,
i[ direct coltfasLto thc ldal courl's
have askedlbr a piece of evidence'
ftom the bailifi
order,beforeit receivedall the ovidence
Lhalthejtuy did not askfor
In fact, JurorNo 3 "specillcallyrecalLs
anyevidencebgforethebailiffbrouglr|itallinbeczrusetl]ejurywastoldlt
wascomirrg'SheaISorecal]Sthejudggiristluctingthojuly|hatitNouldbe
go abor'rlevetylhing" (t Ac1'
provided all the evidencean(l how to
368 musthave been
260) Theretbre,lhe requcstfcrrExhibit
(211712012)
that it was
estabLishing
n.iadeafter the jury receivedall tlle eviderlce
given1othcJury'
nissing ftom the eYidence
'fhe
by clearandconvillcingevidenccthatthe
recordalsoestablishes
JuneLl' 2009'
jrlry was not askingfor equipmentto view Ilxllibit 368 On
of tho iury' tlle trial
immediatolyaller the bailiff was swom to lake chalge
goillgto usc?" (19 RT
courlasLedtho bailifll,"Whrchjury room ue you
"Dcpartnlelt5' yourLlonor""(19
the bailiffinrlicalecl,
5155) In response,
a VCII'DVD
RT 5155) Depafinent 5 houscsa televisionsct containirg
to \'iew
player,therefore,thejury coulil rrothavebcenaskingfbr equipnent
Exhibil368sinceil alleadyl')adicoessto suchequipmeot
"l
During trial, the prosecutioninformedthe coult of this thct explaining:
kno\'vthe Courl has dowr in Deparlmert5 a TV with a DVD/VCR
player. lf the jury wishesto view that, they don't have lo liave a
laptop col.nputerto c1oso l just wallt to let thc Court knorvand
'fhe
bailiffalso
in caselhcte'sanyrssues' (18 RT 4837)
counsel,
itlvesligalor'
wilh counsei's
conlirmedthis fact in his convetsatiols
124
rvas
A:rthony H. Gane. Accordingto Mr' Gane,"Mr" Schmidt
to
certainthe jury deliberaticnrcctn had the equipml t lccessary
watcha D\D or VllS. TheDVD/VHS oquipmentwas 1r1lne room
wherethejury delibefatedandremainedthele ultil they completed
(.1 AC1'(2l11l2\l2)269) SirLilarly'JutorNo
deiiberations."
tl.Leir
5 specihcallyrcmembered there was a lelevision set in the
-
deliberationtoom because"it was an lbstacle irL the way We
to gQtit out ofthe way " (1 '\C'l (211112A12)
shovcdit itto a cornler
250) Therefore,lhe recordandthe settlenelt inv(]stigationclearly
thatthe hIStjury note,subnitlerlon JuneJ1,2009,r'vasuol
establish
but latl-ter,a requestIb| Exhibit 3613
a requestfor equJpment,
the
the sel 01'evidcnce
Exhibit 36B wasmissing:[.roln
ConsecLuently,
bailiff initialty pLovidedto thejury andlltis fact shoLtldbe rcflectecl
in lhe cerlifiedsettlcdstatenlcnl
2. The Jury lVas Ncvct'Giveullx.hibit368 Pulsurnt To Its
ReqrestIIl Thc First Jtlr'yNotr:SubmittodTo'fhc'Iual
Court,
While the recordtihowsthe tliirl courl decidedto glalt llle luly's
requestto obtainlixhibit 36ll (12 CT 3239),tbe recorderluallyestablishes
that the july was nevet giYenIixhibit 368 in accordarcewith the trial
court'sruling. Therefore,q'hile the law may llresumethat a colut actsln
with its duty, l.his presurnptioljs rebuttab]eand has beel
accordance
in this case. (.teePeoplev Garris(1953)120Ca1 App.2d617,
rebutted
ofa showingin therscordto thecor'ltralyatrappellate
618("In the absence
presumptions
in favorof thejudgmentand
courtwill indulgeall reasonable
ruiings of the trial court, aLndwiil presumethat the procaedrlgswere
the ninute orcler'sindicalton
regularand freefrom eror.") Consequently,
that the trial cout grantedthe jury's leqLresldoesnot end the ultluiry
that the juty neverteceived
Given the plerhoraof ef idenceestablishing
Exhibit368, this issuere:nainedripe lirr setllemeri.
22:
thar:'on June11' 2009'tliebailim
eslat'lished
The clerks'transcript
deliveredtheevidenQetotheJulyong4goocasionatapproxirrrately10:3
beforeLhedefensere-opened
a.m. (12 C'l'3238) This deliverylook piace
'Iheroalier'the
ei'idence
inlo
exhibits
plethora
othor
ol
the caseto admita
thatExlibil 368 wasrnissirgfioln
jury askedfor Exhibil368 establishing
the jury lha trial cor'rft
the evidencewhich had been deliveredto
jury' At
that oniy lhe bailiff would deliverevidenceto the
acknowledged
"The bailift either
*,e May 21,2011 hearing,the trial court explained'
frorr the clerk' oI theclerk
comeshto the coulhoolIl,gelsit lthe evideoael
the clerkandwalk
walks it to the bailiff andhandsit ovor,or I take i1 iioll]
at that poirt so
it to the bailiff becausothe cl'rrk is doing souelhing
(ART (l/3112012)21)
importantthat I needto let hcf continuedonrgit "
a
Tho bailiff, DepulyDerekSchmid!,was celtainhe neverdelivcrcd
aftct he
DVD, VI-IStape, ol CD diso to the jur;r duringdeliberations
cvidonce (l LCT (211112012\
initiallybroughlthejury all dre aclmittect
ancl
cLezrr
269) Therelble,in the light mostf^vorableto the dolblseandby
jury was neverprovidecl
convincingevidencetho facts eslzlblishthat the
Exhibit 368 p.rrits requost.
fiat thc
recallod
Wift the excePtiorofJurorNo 3, who erroreotrsly
flrst juty note was submitledagainstcourt orclers(belbtetLrebaililT
indicated
who spoketo the defense
ail other.jutols
the cvidence),
deliveted
and/olthat
eitherthat 1.heyneverwalohedExhibit 368 duringdeiiberations
oo
thercwere no DVDs, CD-roms,or V]JS tapesin the evidence (l ACT
66
Noto that LhebaiLifi Deputyl)clek Schmidt,recallslhal thefowcfe
two to five cornpaclcliscsirl the box of evidencche initialLy
approximately
DAID 268-269))Flowever,Dsputy
biougtrt to the jury. (1 ACI (2117
Schmidtstatedthat "he didl't examinet]remso hc did not know i1'they
recal1
seeiuga
and"did nol specifically
audio,photos,or viclero"
conlainecl
DVD amongthe evidencehe broughtin, bul he couLdnot saythefeu'asrrot
269)
aDVD aslre did not look al everylhingclosely" (l A'CT(2111/2012)
videosr'vetealsoon DVD/(ll)Sincethe porDographyexhibitsand iamiL.'r
226
therefore'
(2117/201.2)236-241,2+7-252, 256-261) Thesedeclarations'
jury with Exhibit
ocroborate+'hefacl that the bailiff neverproviCedthe
pursuant
subsequenliy'
368 - not with the originalbatchof all evidencenor'
to thejury's request.
the May 27'
During the November19,2010 Meet and Conferand
courl maintained
2011hearingto interviewclork MarcelinaLeon,the trial
jury receivedwhat
thatlhe omissionof any docuentation showillgthatthe
(andwhat the courtgranted)is imrnaterialbecause"logistical"
it requested
are
matters,like giving thejury rLnadmittedpiecoo I evidenceil requested'
(ART
not regularly recorded in writing in the clerk's tanscdpt
27) Ilor example,lhe |Iial court
(1l3ll2l!2) 2l-22, 29; AC'l (12/612010)
explained,
Logisticalrequestsfrom thejury suchas,canwe havea playba& devicc,or can we havewituessSmith'stestimonyread
tiil 4130,can
to us, or we know you saidwe haveto deliberate
we leaveat 4:15, somebodyhas softballthis afteflloonwith
theirkids? I don't bothertypingup an answerto those
(ARr (1/3i/ 2012)21)
Simitarly,thetrial courtexplainedat thel\4eetandConfer:
Yeah,we don't sendin an answer.We just say,okay,here's
the equipment,walch the video ll So, that's - yoru settled
on appealir; [] we gavethetnwhat they askedfor.
statemenL
We do not call them into the courlroomand thengive them
fui1herinstruction.Vy'edo not sendin a written irulruction
you may havenoticed
tiat saysyou askedus for a videotape;
the bailiff just walkedin with a big pieceof equipment.We
just sendin thebig pieceofequipment.
27)
(t\CT (1210612010)
rorns,the jury's fust rote slill conclusivelyshowsthat Exhibit 368 was
missingfrom theevidence.
221
this asscs;menl
contradicts
However,the lecord on appealsquuely
Firstandforenosl''theclerk,stlanscdptclearlyStatesthat..writtetranswels
clea rlirectivedocsnol providelor
will go to julors." (12 C't 3239) This
explainedils pollcy t0 thejury
logisticalexceptions In addition,this Court
beforedeliberations:
eitherby returningsomethingto
I'll ausweryour questionsi
and
*.itag o, lt *ill t'" back hereiu tlle cotlrhoom
"o"'inii r''" bro"ughtln. and t-ll givr: you oral instructions
'giin",
it is backherein Lhecouflrootnandl
t"ut. wh"ether
roomarldl
"""
i,trr"a, yor',,qu.rrionoralll or 1ouarcin Lltejury
you Jret(' takethalas turtherJurl
sendin a writtenresPonse
I've berlnIeadlngto yor'lrnow'
jusLLil(ethe orLes
insLructions
with the hial cou
(19 RT 5148) Consistent
's policyarlicuiated
at t'ial'
therecordrofloctslhatallanswerswereprovidedlothejuryin\'vritingand
minuleordels Fot example'with
in writing in coflesponding
documented
coLrrtprovide(laL1
respectto the otherjury requestfor evideuce'the trial
writtennotatioDwas
to t.hejury and a separate
written a.nswer
independenl
a
minuteorder' Specifically'thejury suburitted
madein the corresponding
protcxtcall
note asking,"May we pleasefhave] 12 copiesof the
thc trial courtt)ped up
" (12 CT 3264) In rosponse,
translation/1rar$cdpl
fie followirLgwritten responseandgaveit to thejuly'
Oueslen 2-:"May we please[sic] 12 copiesof
the pretextcall traIIslation/transcript?"
r!451yg1:Yes. Pleaseretum Exhibits I I C, l lD
and 799 to the bailiff tbr coPYing
J u n e1 2 ,2 0 0 9
vll
s I i m o r h -f a
(r2 cT 3264)
22E
rn lvrlurg
coresponclingminute order documoutedthe ovent
'Jeir requcst and
noting,"Coud answersthe jury il vrriting, g;ranting
'fhe
(i2 CT
providingrhemwith 12 copiesof exhibitsilC, 11D,and 799"
326t)
was
that the jury
No sttchanswel or mi[ute orclelentry exisls lo indicatc
declaratlons
given Exhibit 368 per its tequest This omission and the
provided by
counsel show by
clear alld
convincing evlilence'
to tJredefelse'
independently,and as viewecl irr the light most favorabls
despitethe
that the juty did llot receiveExhibit 368 dosPit'3its requestal1d
trial court'sdecisionlo graolthejLlry'sroquest'
F. Thc RecordWas "Unsettlcrble"V/ith BelQ'rclTo-Jvbclher
The Jrtrv Was GivettI\cwly Adt'uittc(lLvi(le[ce Allcr Jurv
DelibelationsSj4$g!
'fhejury slarledcLeliboraling
on .fune11,2009at 10:35a :n' (12 C I'
3238) Severalhourslatar,the lliaLcourl re-oponedthe caseat the defoDse
requesf,(12 CT 3240) At this hearit)g,approximately50 exhibitswere
admittedinto evidence.(12C1 3239) Nothingin the recordshowstl]atthe
jury was proviclecL
this additionaleviclenceand the bailift indicaLedin a
post-veldictinteryiewthat he neverptovideddle jury wil:h a secondbalch
incideutto thisbeartnC 02CT 3239;l ACT (2/l'7/2012)269ofevidence
2',70)
30, 2011,the trial court
hearingheldon September
At the settloment
" (ART(1/31/2012)51in therecordwas"unsettleable
ruledthisornission
52) Sirnilarly,the cefiifiectsettledstalenenlprovides,"Nothrrg io lhe
recordindicateswhetherdre bailiff actuallyfollou'edtho court's orderto
deliverany part of the admitledevidenceto thejtry."
(2 ACT (2/11/12)
omissioLr
in the tecord violated appellant's
308) This ur.uesoLved
appealanda sufficienlLecordoll appeal
right to a mearLingful
colrstitutional
asprotecledby the Fifth anclFoufteenthAmendmentrightsto due proccss
andequalprolection
229
WarrantingReversal
G. TheseErrors PleiudicedAppellattt
evidentiatyhearingto settlelhe
The triaLcourl's failure to hold an
statementi[ contrastto the faOls
recordou appealandto ccrtily the settled
cieniedappellanlhis right t0 a
obtainedin the settiemenlinvestigalion
on appealas guaralteedby the
meaningfulappealand a sufltcientrecotd
1roeciualproloctionand due
Fifth and Fourleenlh Amendmell riglrts
issuerevelsalis rcquired
process Thorofore,as a federaiconstilutic'nal
halnless bcyonda reasonable
unlessthe Slate carl show the crlors wetc
US atp 24) Asastatelaw
dolrbt.(Chaprtant. California'supra'386
there is a reasonablc
eror, reversal is required if it cart be sho\ryn
provide a basisfor
probabiliry thal the omissionsirL the record wotLld
46 Cal 2d at P 836)
reversalon appeal (Peoplev Watsotl,suprQ'
beiDgLlalnessslllcc
It is iLardto collstrueally jury nole issue?LS
fl:rc'
what is significanlto jurlr's duriugcleLibelations
jury noLesincliQatc
fiienclshad to
a missingjury nole about lostinony ftom one of Sapua's
jur')'that mucirof tire
havebeensignificanlas Lhetlial courtinstrLrctedlhe
for stateol nrind
testirnonycould rot bc viewedtbr Lhetruth' but orlly
[ticnd
evidence.It seemshighlvplobablcthatanytestinonyliom Sapna's
a witnessiDd'
would have been used to ovaluateher credibility as
168
therefore,was clitical to the case sirmlally, the omissionof Exhibit
dre
fron the evidencewas of critical imporlanccas demo[sfated by
imploredthc.iulylo view Exhrblt36]l
closingwhichrepeateilly
defer.rse's
and lies il Sapna'stestimony (18 RT
to highiightthe inconsistencies
5030,5032) )lilally, the fact Lhatit is unclearlvhethel
5022,5027,5029,
the jury over received approxtnately 50 admitted cxhibits dLrfirrg
a
be,r'orrd
in a very closecasecanttotbe deenetlharmless
deliberations
and a lle\'r'lllal arergclLllfe(l
doubt For theselealo[s, ]:eversal
reasonable
as the omissiolls in the lecord denied appellanthis fundamentalright lo a
lteaningfulappeal.
2i0
ITPPELL-$I.T,S
DUE PROCESS DEMANDS TI{AT
..'CONUCTTONS
X.
A
AND IIE BE GRANTEDBE REVERSED
OF
NEWTRIAL BASEDON THE CUMULATIVI]EFFECT
IN IIIS CAS[.
ALL THEERITORS
that the combinedeffect
The SupremeCout hasclearlyestablishc)d
lenders the
of multiple trial court eLrorsviolatesclueprocesswhere it
unfair (Charnbetst Mississippi
lesLrltingcriminal trial fuLrdameutally
eruors
(1973)410 U.S.284,298,302-303[combinedelTectof indivrdual
"deniedfChambers]a trial in aacordwith traditionaland fundamental
'J-he
of dueprocess"and "deprivedChanbersof a l''airtrial"] )
standards
cumulativeeffectof muLtiPleerrorscarlviolateclueprocessevenwhereno
singie error rises to the icvel of a constilutionalviolation or woulcl
warLantlcvcrsal (ld atp 290, n 3; seealso Montanav
independently
Egelhaff (1996) 518 lJ.S. 37, 53 lsLaLingtltat Chanbers heid that
evklenliatytuJinl;scal, in combinatio[,rise to Lholevel of a
"erroneous
Taylorv Kentuclq'(1978)436 U S 478,
lfederal]dueproc€ssviQlzttic,n"l;
487 n. 15 ["[T]he crumrlativecilbct of the polefltialLydatnaging
of this case violaled the due plocess guarantce of
circumstattces
fairness..."l.) Moreover,wheie lhere ate a cornbinationof
fundamental
both federal oonstitutionaland state law enors in eLfial, they are
ofprejudice. (Cooperv
standznC'
viewedusinljthe Chapmctn
cumulatively
Sowders(6th Cir. 1988)837F .2d 284,285-288iMenziesv Procunier(5th
Lincolnv. Sunn(9t1tCir. 1987)807F 2d
Cir.1984)743F.2rJ281,288-289:
8 0 5 , 8 1 n4 .,6 . )
It is hard to imagine a case more ripe for tr:versai based ol
the
cumulativeerror. Althouljheachclaimjustifiesreversaliodependently,
cumulativeimpactto the collectiveenors cannotbe ignolccl. The tacc of
the trial would have been dmnatically dift'etelt: the jury would have
why Sapnahad a motiveto falselyaccuseAJayas, at tire tlme
understood
231
to
Ajay and Peggyr'verepLanninp;
she went to the poiice, she feareclthat
backto Nepaldueto a oornplete
reyerseher adoptionandhaveher'deported
the july wouLdhave lever hcard
breakdownin the family relationship;
incompetentevidenceattributingt!V0admissions0frapetoA.]aythathad
biased"experl"testin.ionylrom
absolutelyno foundation-- one traseclon
thrl Prosccutionduring ';lo;ing
Sapna and the socond fabricated by
inflamedandcooftlsedby
argument;tho july would not havr:becnunfairly
evidenceintroduacdby the
the overwhelning amount oI pomography
Ajay as a sexualdevlan!- thls
prosecutionin arl attenpt to mischalacterize
evidcncervhichwas
was especiailytrue of d1eI(aaza chiicl polnography
as a result of iLulocarlt
unklowingly rJownloadedonto Ajay's laptop
rtrleoul
fol music;the jrLrywoul(l havcboenableLoaffiruatively
searches
asthe e-mailprovirg he
Ajay asthe personinterestedill child porDograpiry
was beingvicwed at the Dev home
was at work rlhen child PornograPhy
theJuf) totlld
would have been introdtlcedas evidenceat the triai; and
and
SirpDa
poli0cintelviewbetween
havebeenableto viow thevidco'tapcci
by
Deteclive H.ermarur,Exhibit 36l], du|ing delibetationsas unPbrerl
to highlightthe inconsiste'lcies
couosolduringclosingi[€iurnents
clefense
andIies in SaPna'sLestimony
Ajayri l"tc
In sun, absentlhoseerlors,thejury wouldhavedecided
tes'tiniony'
basedalmot;tentilely on Sapna'sinconsistentand implaLlsibJe
Ajay deserveclto have that trial. ILlstoad,his convictionsand 378 year
senlgnce \ Iero oaseo on au eglegiously compronised trial which
''vith the
completelyfailed to perform its truLhseokilg function Even
admissionof higtrly prejudicialinconpclentevidenccandthe cxoltrsionof
it is
the casevr'asa closeorle Therciore,
evidence,
extlemolyexculpatory
to find that the otmlulativeetrorscouidhavebeel hatnless
irnpossiblc
J'rPr-d,
186 LI'S at p
beyonda rcasonabledoubt. (ChapmanI CcLLiforniu,
ctl:orsin appellart'scase\'vilnant
24.) For this reason,the cumulaliYe
2j2
reve$al ofhis convictioN and a new trial
coljeLUEION
asksthi
AppellantrespectfuLly
For the foregoingroasons,
reve$ehis convicti0nsand$ant hm a newtllal.
Respectfully submitted,
DATE: August!,2012
2jj
Wortl Count Cet tihcate
I ceriify that the attachedAppellant's
ing Brief, in li! Poinl
the 25'50 word Limit. This Court
font, is 75,346 words and, thus, exceeds
bri f in an orderdatedJulY
grantedAppellants requestto ltLean oversized
23,2012.
DATE: August1,2012
sub
RespecttullY
Lauren
Atto
Ajav
PROOF OF SERIY'ICE
declafothal1 am a residentofLos Algeles Counly'Califolria;
I, the undersigne<l,
i N Pass
llskenazi-Ihrig'132
thatmy businessaddressis the Law Office of LaurcnE
the ageofeighteenyeats;
Aven,,e,suite#100' Burbank,California91505;that I am ovel
action;andthat I servedby rnailthe documents
thalI am rlot a partyto the above-entitled
hereinto the following:
described
Mr. Ajay Dev
CDC#AAO329
P.O.Box 409040
lone,Califomia95640-9099
TheHonorableTimothYL. Fall
2
Department
Courl
Street
725
CA 95695
Woodlaud,
DeputyDistrictAtloflrey SteveDMount
Attorney'sOffice
Yolo CountyDistric1,
3012ndStreet
Califonria95695
Woodland,
MichaelRothschild
901F Steet,Suite#200
Californja95814
Sacramento,
A copyot
BIDAQEDIEEILANI'S
oPDNINGBRIDF
on Augusta 2012at Los Argelei,Califoroia
Thisproofof serviceis exeauted
declareunderpenaltyofpedury that the tbregoingis truealrdcorrectto tht:bi:stofmy
knowledge.
LAUREJNE.