Appeals Court Reverses Sex Abuse Conviction of Ex-UCLA Gynecologist

A California appeals court made a significant ruling on Monday, overturning a sex abuse conviction against Dr. James Heaps, a former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The court has ordered that the case be retried, citing a denial of a fair trial due to procedural issues.

The three-justice panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal determined that Dr. Heaps was not given a fair trial because the presiding judge failed to disclose a note from the court’s foreman. This note raised concerns about a juror’s ability to fulfill their duties due to insufficient English proficiency.

Related: UCLA to Pay Nearly $700M in Doctor Abuse Lawsuits

Leonard Levine, Heaps’ attorney, expressed concern over the lack of awareness regarding the note. He stated that neither he nor his team knew about the juror’s qualifications until two years later when an attorney involved in the appeal discovered the note in a court file. “If the attorney had not seen it, it still would have remained a secret, which is very unfortunate since it would have been a miscarriage of justice, but thankfully it’s been corrected,” Levine remarked.

Dr. Heaps was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2023 after being convicted of sexually abusing female patients. The allegations against him span a 35-year career, during which he was accused of assaulting hundreds of patients. UCLA has paid nearly $700 million in settlements related to these lawsuits, marking a record amount for a public university.

Related: Judge Rules Ex-UCLA Gynecologist Can Be Retried on Charges of Sexually Abusing Female Patients

“Justice is slow but it’s finally been done,” Levine stated, adding, “I believe it’s just a matter of time before he is totally exonerated.” Heaps faced 21 felony counts related to the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. In October 2022, he was convicted on three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. The jury acquitted him of seven counts and was deadlocked on the remaining charges.

The appellate court’s 31-page ruling highlighted that concerns about Juror No. 15’s qualifications arose shortly after they were seated as a substitute for another juror who had a medical issue. The foreman’s note indicated that Juror No. 15 did not possess adequate English skills to participate effectively in deliberations.

Prosecutors have 30 days to appeal this ruling. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office has indicated via email to The Associated Press that it plans to retry Dr. Heaps as soon as possible.

The appellate panel emphasized that the issue was too significant to overlook, necessitating a retrial. “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 ruling stated. “The importance of the constitutional right to counsel at critical junctures in a criminal trial gives us no other choice.”

Copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

A California appeals court made a significant ruling on Monday, overturning a sex abuse conviction against Dr. James Heaps, a former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). The court has ordered that the case be retried, citing a denial of a fair trial due to procedural issues.

The three-justice panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal determined that Dr. Heaps was not given a fair trial because the presiding judge failed to disclose a note from the court’s foreman. This note raised concerns about a juror’s ability to fulfill their duties due to insufficient English proficiency.

Related: UCLA to Pay Nearly $700M in Doctor Abuse Lawsuits

Leonard Levine, Heaps’ attorney, expressed concern over the lack of awareness regarding the note. He stated that neither he nor his team knew about the juror’s qualifications until two years later when an attorney involved in the appeal discovered the note in a court file. “If the attorney had not seen it, it still would have remained a secret, which is very unfortunate since it would have been a miscarriage of justice, but thankfully it’s been corrected,” Levine remarked.

Dr. Heaps was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2023 after being convicted of sexually abusing female patients. The allegations against him span a 35-year career, during which he was accused of assaulting hundreds of patients. UCLA has paid nearly $700 million in settlements related to these lawsuits, marking a record amount for a public university.

Related: Judge Rules Ex-UCLA Gynecologist Can Be Retried on Charges of Sexually Abusing Female Patients

“Justice is slow but it’s finally been done,” Levine stated, adding, “I believe it’s just a matter of time before he is totally exonerated.” Heaps faced 21 felony counts related to the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. In October 2022, he was convicted on three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. The jury acquitted him of seven counts and was deadlocked on the remaining charges.

The appellate court’s 31-page ruling highlighted that concerns about Juror No. 15’s qualifications arose shortly after they were seated as a substitute for another juror who had a medical issue. The foreman’s note indicated that Juror No. 15 did not possess adequate English skills to participate effectively in deliberations.

Prosecutors have 30 days to appeal this ruling. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office has indicated via email to The Associated Press that it plans to retry Dr. Heaps as soon as possible.

The appellate panel emphasized that the issue was too significant to overlook, necessitating a retrial. “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 ruling stated. “The importance of the constitutional right to counsel at critical junctures in a criminal trial gives us no other choice.”

Copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.