One never knows what to expect when entering the madhouse that is the Anand Jon courtroom – known more formally in Superior Court directories as Department 102. Jon, the Indian-born fashion designer, was convicted of 15 counts of sexual assault and one rape charge last November. He was to be sentenced January 13 and faced a minimum prison term of 67 years behind bars. Then news of a maverick juror's actions sent this case tumbling into more than four months of limbo – where it remains today. Jon's sister, Sanjana Alexander, claimed Juror No. 12, Alvin Dymally, had contacted her several times during and after the trial. The defense seized upon this contact to ask that Jon's convictions be set aside in favor of a new trial.

If matters were only this simple, a ruling on that motion could have been made months ago by Judge David Wesley, a fair man with apparently inexhaustible patience. Things became complicated from the outset because the defense didn't merely wish for a new trial – Jon's lawyers demanded one prosecuted by the state attorney general's office, in which the Los Angeles District Attorney's office would play no part. This was because, they claimed, the D.A.'s office had sabotaged their efforts, which had been condoned (though not encouraged) by Wesley, to secretly tape record a meeting between Dymally and Sanjana Alexander. (See “Anand Jon's Post-Verdict Twilight Zone”) On April 27 the judge denied the defense's request to recuse the D.A.'s office; a new-trial hearing is scheduled to begin May 27, stretching out this process longer than the trial itself.

Matters have gotten baroquely weird because of questions about the

veracity of Sanjana Alexander's statements regarding Juror No. 12.

Prosecutors and D.A. investigators have made no secret that they

thought there was a real possibility that Alexander's “sting” meeting

with Alvin Dymally was a staged ruse — or perhaps, that Dymally had

never contacted her in the way she described. (The first contact was

supposedly a note passed in the court cafeteria; the second, when

Dymally allegedly broke away from fellow jurors to step into the same

elevator Alexander was taking; the third was by phone after the


If the ruse fears sounded like D.A. paranoia, the reason for the

prosecution's doubts became clear during an April 17 hearing: Deputy

District Attorney Frances Young believed that Alexander was in the

process of shopping her brother's case to 20/20 producer Teri Whitcraft

and that Alexander had told Whitcraft that Dymally hadn't actually

contacted her in the manner she claimed. Young, who has spoken with

Whitcraft, said the producer had, in exchange for an exclusive

interview with Jon for 20/20, agreed to also profile the trial.

Whitcraft anxiously followed the slow pace of several hearings because

ABC Television wanted the show to appear during this month's sweeps

period. Here's Young examining Alexander:

Young: And during that time that you have spoken to her, isn't it

true that you admitted to Teri Whitcraft that you actually never had a

conversation with Juror Number 12 prior to the verdict, there were hand

gestures, but no conversations? Isn't that true?

Alexander: I don't think we had this conversation.


Young: Don't you have regular conversations with her about the –

this motion, this hearing, this recusal motion and this motion for a

new trial, because aren't these motions holding up Teri Whitcraft's

segment on 20/20?

Alexander: Yeah, but I don't discuss this with her.

Young: . . . you didn't tell Teri “I never actually, in fact, had

conversations with Juror Number 12, they were just hand gestures”?

Alexander: I don't recall.

The idea that the defense's recusal and new-trial might be viewed as

formalities “holding up” the airing of a TV show gives one pause. It

must give Jon's lawyers a lot worse, as they have seen their motions

delayed over questions not only about Alexander's trustworthiness but

also over an Internet flyer, picaresquely titled, “Prostitutes for the

Prosecution,” issued by the Jon camp showing photos of his under-aged

accusers in nude or semi-nude poses. In fact, the exasperation on the

faces and in the voices of Leonard Levine and other attorneys is

evident – along with occasional comments.

“Lookit,” Levine said during one April 17 sidebar conversation,

“this could end up being the biggest hoax or whatever. I don't think it

is, but that's a separate issue.”

In fact, there are two Anand Jon defenses. One is the legal battle

fought in court, the other is the ad hoc effort by his sister and other

supporters, through their Web site, to drum up local public support as

well as media sympathy in India. One tactic of Jon's supporters has

been to portray him as a victim of American racism and xenophobia.

Their chief bill of accusations is a 35-page document of tightly spaced

type called, “Is Brown the New Black?” It claims, among other things,

that “[b]oth the government agents and the 'so-called victims' were

exposed to have made vile racial jokes/comments like 'India Head' and

'curry smelling dick.'”

“Is Brown the New Black?” also charges, though in sometimes vague

and repetitive phrases, that a conspiracy was engineered by one of

Jon's former business partner, with connivance from angry former Jon

models and assistants, to put him behind bars. “The New Black”

describes Jon's situation as “a Hollywood horror movie based on absurd

false allegations by a group of scorned women that an overzealous

prosecutor hyped up with their blatant abuse of power.”

The crux of this conspiracy theory involves one of Jon's business

partners being removed from check-writing privileges in Jon's

denim-design company, Jeanisis Fashion Inc. Out of revenge and greed,

the theory goes, the partner tried to set Jon up for arrest for sexual

assault on minors at the time when Jeanisis was just receiving

capitalization from the Joseph Stevens & Co. Inc. investment firm

in New York. A Securities and Exchange Commission filing signed by Jon

on July 17, 2006, lists Stevens as Jeanisis' sole investor. Jon was

arrested in March, 2007.

From this stems another charge made by Jon's supporters — that many

of his accusers were recruited by the disgruntled partner's mistress,

who also, supposedly, is busy trying to generate interest in a reality

show about models, and that the prosecution's case rests upon a

quicksand pit of fabricated charges made by gold diggers. “The New

Black” is not shy in assailing these gold diggers (many of whom

testified as sexual assault victims in Jon's trial), claiming that

“most [were] involved in extortion, theft, previous false allegations,

illegal drug use and distribution, violence, mental instability and

working in the porn industry and as escorts and prostitutes.”

From a distance, when all of the trial's more inconsistent testimony

against Jon is added in, the conspiracy theory looks somewhat

compelling. The problem with the evil-business-partner theory, however,

is that it was not part of the defense's strategy in Jon's trial – a

trial that ended in November. It's hard to imagine that Leonard Levine

and company, should they get their second chance to save Jon with a new

trial, will want to push conspiracy scenarios on a new jury.

Advertising disclosure: We may receive compensation for some of the links in our stories. Thank you for supporting LA Weekly and our advertisers.