Tuesday, February 3, 2026
Page 1
C.A. Says Former UCLA Doctor’s Conviction Is Undermined Due to Undisclosed Jury Note
Opinion Says Judge Interfered With Defendant’s Right to Counsel By Failing to Reveal That Foreperson Had Expressed Concern Over One Juror’s Command of English Language
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. One of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that the constitutional rights of a former UCLA-campus gynecological oncologist were violated during a trial in which he was found guilty of sexually abusing patients, saying that the trial judge’s failure to disclose the existence of a jury note, expressing concern that one of the panelists did not have sufficient English skills to deliberate, to the defense attorney undermined the conviction.
Yesterday’s opinion, written by Acting Presiding Justice Helen I. Bendix, faulted Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Carter with failing to reveal that the foreperson had expressed the panel’s purported collective concern that one panelist, identified as “Juror No. 15,” lacked the necessary language skills despite having twice sent a judicial assistant, Luis Corrales, into the deliberating body’s room to discuss the note. Bendix declared:
“Justice [Hugo] Black put it simply in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)…in holding the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies in state criminal trials: ‘The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.’…Our high court warned that right is impinged when a judge communicates with a jury during deliberations ‘without affording defendant and counsel an opportunity to be present…’….That is what happened here.”
Saying that the attorneys with the Office of the Attorney General had failed to meet their burden on appeal, the justice added:
“We conclude respondent fails to satisfy its burden to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the deprivation of counsel at a critical stage in the proceedings was not prejudicial. We thus reverse the judgment and remand for a new trial.”
Guilty of Five Counts
Appealing his conviction based on the nondisclosure was James Heaps, who was found guilty of five counts of sexual battery and other crimes in October 2022. In April 2023, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison.
About two weeks after the jury began deliberating after a nearly two-month trial, one of the panelists expressed concern that continued service was causing a financial burden, and the parties agreed to replace the individual with an alternate, Juror No. 15, on Oct. 18, 2022. The panel was advised to start deliberations anew.
A few hours later, the foreperson sent a note to the court saying:
“We have observed that the language barrier with Juror [No.] 15 is preventing us from properly deliberating. Juror [No.] 15 was not able to understand calls to vote guilty or not guilty, and expressed to us that his limited English interfered with his understanding of the testimony, resulting in every case being the same, and his mind is already made up.”
Counsel was not informed about the note, and a minute order, dated Oct. 18, 2022, makes no reference to it. Two days later, the jurors reached a verdict; it is not clear from yesterday’s opinion how the defendant learned about the existence of the note.
Settled Record
Div. One granted the defendant’s request to augment and settle the record. A hearing was held on Nov. 7, 2024 before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Ryan, who quashed a subpoena issued to Carter, opting to rely on the trial judge’s sworn declaration.
According to the declaration, the judge had received word of the note around 3 p.m. on Oct. 18, when he was “conducting a Teen Court at Burroughs High School in Burbank.” He said that he instructed Corrales to inquire if the panel could continue to deliberate, and that Corrales informed him that the jury’s concern had been later withdrawn.
Corrales testified that he did not recall exactly what was said to the jury but admitted speaking to Juror No. 15 in Spanish. He said that the panelist told him that he does understand English and understood the process.
He swore that he asked all the jurors if they could continue to deliberate and that “they said yes.”
Heaps’ trial attorney, Leonard Levine of Encino-based Levine, Flier and Flier LLP, averred that, if he had been informed, he would have sought to determine whether the juror was “qualified to serve” and investigated the note’s assertion that the panelist’s mind “is already made up.”
Justice Gregory Weingart and Michelle C. Kim joined in yesterday’s opinion reversing the judgment of conviction.
Notification to Counsel
Noting that the attorneys with the Office of the Attorney General conceded that all communications with the jury should occur in “open court, with prior notification to counsel, Bendix opined:
“Respondent fails to demonstrate that the deprivation of counsel was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for two reasons. First, [Corrales] was unable to recall critical parts of his discussion with the jury making it impossible to determine exactly what happened. Second, although [Corrales] testified the jury resolved the issues expressed in the Note, the record does not reflect how they resolved those issues.”
She continued:
“[T]he Note raised questions as to Juror No. 15’s ability to serve as a juror, and [Corrales’] testimony did not show that the jury ‘resolved’ that issue [in] a manner consistent with defendant’s right to a jury trial by competent jurors. [Corrales] did not testify he assessed Juror No. 15’s English language facility. He testified Juror No. 15 reported he understood English, arguably a hearsay statement.”
Bendix added:
“Indeed, [Corrales] testified he conversed with Juror No. 15 in Spanish, at that juror’s request. Juror No. 15’s statement…that he understood English merited additional investigation given 11 fellow jurors perceived that Juror No. 15 had a language barrier significant enough to interfere with his participation in jury votes and with his understanding of the testimony.”
Jurors’ Assessment
Reasoning that, “[a]lthough it is possible the jurors were mistaken in their assessment…, it is also possible the jury resolved their concerns in another fashion,” she pointed out that “[i]t is possible that Juror No. 15 ‘follow[ed]’ the other jurors, something he admitted during voir dire that he had done when he served on a prior jury.”
The jurist declared:
“We recognize the burden on the trial court and regrettably, on the witnesses, in requiring retrial of a case involving multiple victims and delving into the conduct of intimate medical examinations. The importance of the constitutional right to counsel at critical junctures in a criminal trial gives us no other choice.”
The case is People v. Heaps, B329296.
Multiple lawsuits have been filed against UCLA for failing to protect patients after becoming aware of practitioners’ misconduct. In May 2022, the University of California system announced that it had agreed to pay nearly $375 million dollars to more than 300 women who claimed to have been mistreated by Heaps.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company