Anand Jon Alexander: Anand Jon Alexander charged with 29 sex crimes
By Therese Lisieux on September 13th, 2008Anand Jon Alexander, a celebrity fashion designer, was originally from India. Anand Alexander made a name for himself in the US until his fame got bigger for the wrong reasons.
Anand Jon Alexander
He was charged with rape, lewd acts with a minor, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, sexual battery by restraint and attempted forcible oral copulation. Briefly, these technical terms allege in crude terms – rape, sexual assault, pedophile sex crimes and oral sex. The alleged incidents happened from Aug. 2000 – Mar. 5 2007. The sex acts supposedly took place in Anand Jon Alexander’s condominium in Beverly Hills. New York and Massachusetts also want to investigate Anand Jon Alexander in relation to alleged sex crimes. Anand Jon Alexander remains free on a $1.8 million bail, pending trial. LA prosecutors dropped 30 charges against Anand Jon Alexander. The remaining 29 charges might still send Anand Jon Alexander into jail for 122 years.
Anand Jon Alexander used to design clothing for Paris Hilton, Mary J. Blige and other celebrities. Anand Jon Alexander appeared in America’s Next Top Model (antm) His lawyer remained optimistic that the so called witnesses have no evidence and Anand Jon Alexander will be acquitted of all charges.
Please click here for more recent posts.
mobile device
March 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
ANAND JON WAS FRAMED WHEN HIS COMPANY GOT FUNDED BY WALL STREET. THE ONLY RAPE KIT WAS NEGATIVE AND ANAND JON EVEN PASSED THE POLYGRAPH. THIS IS JUST RACISM
Prosecutor misconduct in the Anand Jon trial
Tuesday, 03.03.2009, 06:10am (GMT-7)
 LOS ANGELES: “I’ve never seen anything like this in my 25+ years practicing law,” said Anand Jon defense attorney Leonard Levine. One thing is clear from the Anand Jon hearing on February 27 in Department 102 of the LA Criminal Courts Building in front of Honorable David S. Wesley, that Anand Jon did not get a fair trial. It’s also clear that at least one or more jurors contacted the defendant’s family more than once. That alone, according to the law, demands a new trial.
The question is, were these jurors trying to do the right thing since at least one admits during a special hearing that they wanted to vote not guilty on all counts but other jurors were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring some to vote against their will. Or were they up to something malicious like extortion?
Were they reaching out to expose the lies and misconduct going on? Regardless of the reasons, according to case law there has to be a new trial. [An important note: During deliberations in November, there was a special hearing held regarding these same jurors. One juror stated that others were ganging up in the jury room and pressuring others to vote against. One of the jurors requested to speak with the judge in private.
What was going to be disclosed remains a mystery as private conversations with the judge are not allowed. As the deliberations dragged on, after 9 days the judge commented that it "looks like we're heading for a mistrial."]The recently filed defense motions are currently under seal. However, pertinent clues to those motions were discussed in court. It would appear that the motions focus on misconduct by the juror and the prosecutor.
“The motions are under seal and still cannot be discussed at this time,” said Leonard Levine. “We trust that the court will do the right thing by granting these motions. We are enthusiastic for a new trial for Anand Jon, a trial that will send an innocent man back home to his family.”While Judge Wesley indicated that Anand Jon may get a new trial, the staggering abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct practically demands not only a new trial but also the removal of the prosecution.
There is substantial case law that has obviously been violated when the sanctity of the jury system itself has in any way, shape or form been influenced, contaminated or compromised – it automatically and immediately leads to a new trial. “There is still a considerable amount of discovery that needs to be uncovered,” commented defense attorney Ronald Richards. On April 1, 2009 a full evidentiary hearing has been scheduled.
What we do know for now is that at least one or more jurors were under surveillance and investigation with very suspicious activity during the trial. Despite a formal court order the prosecutor’s office intercepted a truth seeking process and intentionally sabotaged it. “But for the District Attorneys blocking the door to justice…we would have found out why the juror contacted [the defendant's sister],” Richards said at the news conference as reported in LAWeekly.