The California Court of Appeal's 2nd District has vacated the sexual abuse conviction of Dr. James Heaps, a former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), citing concerns over a juror's language capabilities that compromised the fairness of his trial. The three-judge appellate panel determined that the trial judge did not properly inform the defense attorneys about a critical note from the jury foreman. This note raised alarms that one juror lacked sufficient English language skills to adequately participate in deliberations.
According to Heaps' legal representative, Leonard Levine, neither he nor his team were aware of the juror's language issue until an attorney involved in the appeal discovered the note two years later within court documents. He lamented that had the note remained undiscovered, it would have represented a significant miscarriage of justice.
Dr. Heaps was initially sentenced in 2023 to an 11-year prison term after a jury convicted him of sexually abusing female patients under his care at UCLA. He maintains his innocence, asserting that he trusts eventual complete exoneration.
Over his 35-year tenure at UCLA, Heaps faced accusations from numerous women, alleging sexual assaults. UCLA has paid out approximately $700 million to settle legal claims tied to these allegations, marking one of the highest sums ever awarded by a public university.
Heaps's trial involved 21 felony charges related to alleged assaults on seven women between 2009 and 2018. The jury found him guilty on five counts consisting of three charges of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration against two patients, while acquitting him on seven charges and remaining deadlocked on the rest.
The appellate court's 31-page decision highlighted that concerns about Juror No. 15 emerged roughly an hour after the individual was substituted into the jury following another juror's medical withdrawal. The jury foreman’s note explicitly indicated that this juror’s English proficiency was insufficient for proper participation in the deliberations.
Following the ruling, prosecutors have a 30-day window to seek further appeal. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office announced its intention to proceed with a retrial swiftly. The appellate court acknowledged the heavy burden that another trial would impose on the court system and witnesses, particularly given the sensitive nature of the case involving multiple victims and intimate medical examinations. Nonetheless, the court emphasized that safeguarding the constitutional right to effective counsel during a criminal trial requires a new trial under these circumstances.