The case of former UCLA gynecologist James Heaps is headed back to court after the California Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a retrial, faulting the trial judge’s handling of a note that jurors sent during deliberations. The appellate court said the jury-management mistake violated Heaps’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a critical stage, setting aside verdicts that had followed a lengthy trial in 2022.
According to reporting on the appellate decision, jurors later raised questions about whether an alternate juror — brought into the case after other jurors encountered issues during the trial — could understand enough English to deliberate. A note from the jury foreperson relayed that the language barrier involving alternate juror No. 15 was preventing the jury from deliberating properly, and it also suggested the juror believed he could not appropriately weigh the evidence after being asked to deliberate.
Defense attorney Leonard Levine, who represented Heaps, said the failure to share the note with attorneys during the trial shocked the defense. “That note was never turned over to us ever,” Levine said, describing the discovery as an “astounding find for the defense counsel” that his team encountered while preparing the appeal.
The note itself, as described in court filings, told the judge that juror No. 15’s limited English interfered with understanding testimony and that the juror could not properly deliberate. It also appeared to state that “his mind is already made up.” The reporting said that after court staff later spoke with the juror in Spanish, the juror insisted he could continue deliberating, according to the same record.
The trial judge, Michael Carter, told the appeals court in a written declaration that when he received an email about the jury note, he instructed his judicial assistant to ask the jury whether deliberations could continue, and he said the jurors responded yes. Carter also said he did not notify the parties or inquire with the jury about the “Note to Judge,” and the appellate panel concluded that this deprived Heaps of his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage.
The appeals court’s ruling has been met with sharp reaction from both sides, with legal experts focusing on how procedural errors can determine outcomes even after a jury verdict. Dmitry Gorin, described as a former prosecutor and criminal defense specialist, said that, in his 30 years of trial and appeals work, excluding the defense from a jury question is “unheard of,” while Robert Little, an appellate attorney, said the appeal question hinges on whether the error was harmless or prejudicial.
Attorneys for former patients who accused Heaps criticized the result, saying that the conviction’s overturning delays final resolution for survivors of sexual abuse. Courtney Thom, who represents more than 200 of Heaps’ former patients, said that the jury note should have been shared with attorneys, but she also argued that the defense “exploited” the error. Thom questioned what the appellate outcome means for survivors seeking justice, pointing to the uncertainty created by a second trial.
Thom’s account came alongside other criticism from attorneys for alleged victims. John Manly, another attorney representing 200 former patients in the case, said in a statement that the overturning “sends a message that victims, especially women and children, do not matter,” adding that survivors would “start over” after a prosecution that had produced an 11-year prison sentence.
The appellate decision follows Heaps’ October 2022 conviction on multiple counts, after a trial that involved testimony from several former patients. Heaps pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts involving allegations of sexual assaults across a span of years, and the jury found him not guilty on seven of the counts while deadlocking on the remaining charges before the case proceeded to verdict. The reporting said the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office plans to retry Heaps as soon as possible, and Levine said the defense will ask that Heaps be released on bond as he was before the first trial.
The appellate ruling also described the jury’s deliberations after an alternate juror was brought in, and the subsequent steps taken — including the note to the judge and the later communication with the juror. With the case now set for retrial, the dispute has shifted from the evidence at trial to whether the earlier process that led to the jury’s verdict met constitutional requirements for counsel and fairness.