Spotlight on prosecutor misconduct in Anand Jon case

Anand Jon

LOS ANGELES: Prosecutors were in the spotlight on the witness stand in the latest hearing involving prosecutorial misconduct in the Anand Jon case. Defense attorney Leonard Levine stated to the court, “The actions of the prosecution are supposed to be unbiased and even-handed. We believe that they are not.”

“Lawyers for Anand Jon Alexander also accused the Los Angeles County district attorney's office of sabotaging their attempts to investigate.” “…the designer is seeking to recuse the DA’s office from the case and his attorneys grilled prosecutors and DA investigators.” (LA Times)

The prosecution could not hide dismay and panic. Outwardly defiant DDA Francis Young and DDA Mara McIlvain smugly took the stand with a self-described “we are paramilitary” attitude. “Deputy district attorneys McIlvain and Young did not appear at ease in their unaccustomed roles as witnesses compelled to explain their actions.” (LA Weekly)
DDA McIlvain shrugged and shifted blame to her “supervisors” for having made the decision to violate the court instructions. McIlvain testified that she did not even know about the decision to “intercept the juror”.

When supervising investigator Brian Bennett took the stand, he revealed that everything was discussed with both McIlvain and Young in the room.

The DDAs did not inform Bennett that the court had authorized the defense’s operation or mention that Judge Wesley raised concerns about possible extortion.

“Wesley sharply questioned investigators about their behavior, suggesting if the defense had interfered with a prosecution sting, the defense operatives would have been arrested.” (Linda Deutsch, Associated Press.)

DDA Young admits she discounted this (court approved) undercover operation as a “charade” mainly because they would not have “control” over it.  Young squirmed in the witness chair, clearly not accustomed to explaining their illicit actions.

DDA Young contradicted both McIlvain and Bennett. Young’s version was that “only one of the DDA’s was present”.

Young also admitted phone calls with Curt Hazell (“#3” in the DA’s office) as well as supervisor Richard Doyle “popping his head into the room”.

[Note: Mr. Hazell himself was recently the center of a misconduct hearing regarding a written confession never turned over to defense.  That 1982 death penalty conviction was finally overturned in 2009. According to LA Weekly instead of sanctions, Hazell was promoted to one of the highest administrative positions in the DA’s office by his college roommate, DA Steve Cooley.]

DA investigators Laurie Devine and Chris Turpin then took the stand.  Each contradicted the previous testimony of their bosses. Investigator Turpin verified that both DDAs were in the room and gave “instructions” regularly throughout this case. However, Investigator Devine stated that neither DDA was “present”!

Each testimony that day was contradictory. What is the truth? Who was perjuring themselves? Will justice prevail?

“This [testimony] gives new meaning to the phrase ‘win at any cost’; such blatant misconduct should cause the recusal of the entire DA’s office, at the same time granting Anand Jon a new trial” expressed Leonard Levine after the proceedings.

California State Attorney General representative Stephen Matthews was present and was observed at times sinking his face into his hands. Imagine the embarrassment watching this mockery of the justice system.

During the trial itself lead detective George Elwell was exposed “not officially booking” vital exculpatory evidence, making racist comments, and pressuring, coaxing and intimidating witnesses to suit the prosecution’s agenda.  Other jurisdictions also admit that LA pressured them to file charges against Anand Jon.

Elwell pointed to the prosecutors stating that he turned over everything to them. Those same prosecutors, McIlvain and Young, in turn blamed Elwell with incompetence.  At this point the defense filed a motion for mistrial. It was denied.
One or more of the jurors had admitted that they wanted to vote “not guilty” for Anand Jon. This may explain why the prosecution took a huge risk and intercepted the juror from coming forward.

During the trial Holly G and Britny O stated that the prosecutor’s office coached them about “drugs found in the apartment.” However, detectives testified there were no drugs. Also, the prosecution pushed a “violent crimes” mantra to the court, the world and the media, yet six months later recanted “no violence, no injuries, no weapons”. Why is it OK for these DDA’s to lie to get a conviction? How are they allowed to flaunt this flagrant miscarriage of justice?

The sheer audacity of the prosecution to deny a vendetta, prejudice and racism in this case is mind boggling. “Curry smelling dick”, “India head”, “sandnigger” are some of the comments heard around this case.

Defense attorney Ronald Richards stated: “Today was the first time I really saw hard evidence Anand’s family is a victim of a bias and partial prosecution team. The explanations the DA and the three investigators gave for the reasons why they intercepted the juror were incredulous, nonsensical, and trampled Anand Jon’s due process of law.”