In brief
In a significant ruling, a California appeals court has overturned the conviction of James Heaps, a former gynecologist at UCLA, who was found guilty of sexual abuse against patients. The court cited unfair trial concerns, particularly regarding a juror's qualification, and mandated a retrial. Heaps had been sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2023 after being convicted of five counts related to sexual misconduct during his career spanning over three decades.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court on Monday overturned the conviction of former UCLA campus gynecologist James Heaps on sex abuse charges. Heaps had been sentenced in 2023 to 11 years in prison after being found guilty of sexually abusing female patients. The ruling mandated that the case be sent back for retrial. A three-justice panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal determined that Heaps was denied a fair trial due to his defense counsel not being informed of a note that raised concerns regarding whether one juror was sufficiently proficient in English to fulfill their duties.Heaps was accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of patients during his 35-year career, with UCLA facing nearly $700 million in payouts related to lawsuits connected to the allegations. He pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts of sexual assault against seven women between 2009 and 2018, and was convicted in October 2022 on three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. While the jury acquitted him of seven counts, they were deadlocked on several others.Following his conviction, a judge ruled that he could be retried on the deadlocked charges. In their 31-page ruling, the appellate court noted that just one hour after Juror No. 15 was put on the panel, concerns about this juror’s qualifications were raised. The ruling highlighted that the juror did not speak English well enough to effectively participate in the deliberations.The court acknowledged the implications of requiring a retrial, particularly given the multiple victims involved and the sensitive nature of the charges, but emphasized the importance of upholding the constitutional right to counsel during critical stages of a criminal trial. “We recognize the burden on the trial court and regrettably, on the witnesses. However, the need to ensure a fair trial gives us no choice,” the panel stated.
