Juror's Flirting Imperils Rape Conviction

Defense Says Taped Call Between Defendant's Sister, Spurned Male Jury Member Should Nullify Guilty Verdict

(AP)  Convicted fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander should not be granted a new rape trial even though a juror flirted over the phone with the defendant's sister before a verdict was reached, prosecutors contend.

The district attorney's office on Thursday released a transcript of a recorded phone conversation between juror Alvin Dymally and Alexander's sister Sanjana in which the juror complimented her appearance and made plans to meet.

The defense claims the conversation is grounds to throw out a jury's finding that Alexander raped aspiring models, while prosecutors say the talk was just flirtatious banter and not about the defendant's guilt or innocence.

"The tape speaks for itself," Deputy District Attorney Frances Young wrote in prosecution's argument against a new trial. "It appears to capture a conversation in which Dymally wanted to privately tell Sanjana that he thought she was 'sexy' and that he wanted to see her 'afterwards.'"

Leonard Levine, the fashion designer's attorney, said there are parts of the conversation that have not been transcribed, including when Dymally told Sanjana Alexander that he loved her. Levine said Dymally changed his vote from not guilty to guilty in November after Alexander refused to meet with Dymally during jury deliberations.

"I think it's clear that he was in love with her," Levine said. "He was hardly an impartial juror."

In the transcript Dymally complimented Sanjana Alexander's eyes and long hair. The defendant's sister, who testified she called the juror because she was scared of angering him, did not say much beyond "thank you."

"I know you don't want to say much, but maybe afterwards I'll speak to you," Dymally said to her. "I'll do every possible thing I can do."

During the trial Sanjana Alexander was told not to talk or have any contact with witnesses and was removed from the courtroom after violating this directive. She called Dymally twice after the juror slipped his phone number in a note and taped one of the conversations, prosecutors said.

Young chastised Alexander's behavior but pointed out that the phone calls did not prejudice the juror's verdicts in the trial. Alexander came forward with the tape following her brother's conviction on Nov. 13.

A hearing is set to resume Monday on the new trial request for the 35-year-old fashion designer (left), who was convicted on more than a dozen counts of luring females to Los Angeles and sexually assaulting them. His seven victims ranged in age from 14 to 21.

Anand Jon Alexander faces similar charges in New York involving nine women.

The designer has been featured on the television show "America's Next Top Model" and worked with such celebrities as Paris Hilton and Mary J. Blige.

[finston]

What is interesting in this... is that prior to the Verdict. Defense did not want this juror replaced following a prosecution motion to discharge this juror, Alvin Dymally (city Building inspector)juror no. 12, Apparently, other jurors complained about his unwillingness to participate in the juror deliberations. A strong ground for removal of the juror. For some reason, Defense Strenuously objected to Replace Mr. Dymally.

From the facts, Defendant's sister allegedly received Mr Dymally's cell number prior to the verdict. Defendant's sister contacted the juror by phone, and taped him (illegal to tape.) Not only did Defendant's sister contact this juror... she attempted to initiate contact with other jurors.. So worrisome were her actions, including tailing two of the alleged victims, attempting to intimidate witnesses against her defendant brother, and talkint to jurors... that THe Judge admonished by the Court again prior to the verdict.

Her conduct is so egregious during that trial,, that it appears she was well aware of the consequences of her actions.. She was in fact warned by the court... Had not the Prosecutors attempted to discharge this juror for other cause, and the defendants insisted on keeping him,,, perhaps Defense attorneys would have a better argument. It is their defense bed... and now they don't want to lie in it....

It appears highly unlikely that Defendant's sister did not report the juror's conduct to someone on the defense team. Even if she had not....since she appears to have been present and aware of the efforts of the prosecutor to replace Juror No. 12 Alvin Dymally, She was directly admonished by the court, and therefore now under the jurisdiction of the court. Her failure to dislose is highly suspect when it was clear that Prosecutor strenuously sought to dismiss this juror, AND Defense wanted to keep Juror on.

The fact that she called juror no. 12, the fact that she actively disobeyed a court order not to try to talk to other jurors, means that she can be convicted of attempted or actual jury tampering.

Failure to disclose means a waiver... If knowledge by defense attorneys exists, then it means that Defense attorneys can be charged with Professional Responsibility violations.

If I were the judge... I would deny the motion for a new trial....Let Defendant's appeal...and the Appellate court can remand back for an instruction for new trial if that is their decision. Further, I would charge her for Witness intimidation, jury tampering.....Failure to disclose juror misconduct to the proscution, who could have remedied No. 12 Misconduct at any time prior to the verdict... (re-deliberation was all that was needed)... Finally, as an example, Juror 12 should be prosecuted for Juror Misconduct....

What is lost in this...is that there is a revictimization of the victims of Defendant's conduct including the 14 year old girl whom he has now been convicted of sexually assualting.

[stn_sage]

The juror wasn't supposed to be having contact - it was improper of him.

The defendant's sister wasn't supposed to be having contact - it was improper of her.

The crux of their interaction was PERSONAL and between THEM! And NOT about the case - that was acceptable.

So, my point(s) are: either you charge them both with improper conduct for breaking procedural rules; or, you forget it since it didn't directly involve the merits of the case! But, in either case there's NO basis for a new trial for the defendant. Period.

Only in L.A. does this type of 'crapola' come up on a regular basis!
The legal system in L.A. is a pathetic joke! And a sad reflection of
what passes as "redress" in America today!

[nextgenman09]

Exactly. Its Skankafornia afterall.

[carolhill814]

Is this insane or what I think the whole entire case should be thrown out and started all over again and moved out of town.

I think someone should be going to jail for this don't you?

[rwsmith29456]

The system is good. It's the people that are rotten.

[rushlimpdrug]

"Sanjana called the man twice. . . "

". . .defendant's sister, who testified she called
the juror because she was scared of angering him. . "

so she couldn't call the cops ? ? ? ? ?

[1notrub11]

Fact is, she didn't - and that starts her crime. I would also dig to see if there is proof he put her up to it in any way.
The way to stop this it to work to convict both of them. As a companion in crime, she is totally incompetent. And the tape turn in is a desperate move to save him, I guess.

[John_Merritt]

Nothing that occurs within the parameters of the legal system surprises me not. Mr. Alexander is on trial for an 'isolated singular' case of assault on the young, unsuspecting and possibly unwilling.

If this is true, his M.O is somewhat overt in nature, and it would not surprise me one bit if he did not have his sister stage this. Especially if he knew things were not going real well for him. And then again his sister could have purposely deployed this strategy in order to possibly free her brother.

The judge appears to know more about the dynamics of this case, and perhaps of the participants as well. Remember he/she sat in on the trial and is perhaps acutely aware of things we have no clue about. All I can say is stayed tuned, we will find out soon enough.

[John_Merritt]

Correction: Second sentence should read "Mr. Alexander is NOT on trial for an isolated singular........... Sorry. Should have done better at proofreading.

[cheteunice]

I wonder what the prosecutors would be saying about this if the verdict had been different? They would be screaming their heads off.

[NancyLou9]

Wow, she wasn't intentionally going out of her way to taint jurors and/or witnesses, was she? She should be charged with both witness tampering and jury tampering. When the juror slipped his number to her, all she had to do was throw it away. Instead, she calls him and records it. She wasn't looking to help her brother out at all, was she?

[rhs648]

Of course. That is what both sides do. It goes with the terrirory and is part of their job.

[Kuei1248]

"Wow, she wasn't intentionally going out of her way to taint jurors and/or witnesses, was she? She should be charged with both witness tampering and jury tampering. "

And illegal wiretapping!

[1notrub11]

She should definitely be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - she was warned. Further, unless it was a one vote conviction edge for the guy, the verdict stays.

[hungry1968-16]

Put them both in jail, and give the guy a new trial. What's the problem?

[summarex]

The worst thing of all here is that the prosecutor is still trying to keep this poor devil in jail. Ne need to impose a tough new code of conduct on these government supported legal animals or put a rope around their necks or both.