UCLA Doctor’s Sex Abuse Conviction Overturned: Impact on Patients and Future Steps
Two years after a former University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologist was convicted of sex abuse and sentenced to 11 years in prison, an attorney preparing an appeal made a shocking discovery for the defense. A note from the jury’s foreperson, who serves as the designated spokesperson for the jury, had been sent to the judge expressing concerns that one of the jurors lacked sufficient English proficiency to fulfill his duties and deliberate effectively. This juror was an alternate, brought in just two days before the verdict due to a medical issue affecting another juror. Alarmingly, the judge never disclosed this information to either the prosecution or the defense attorneys.
Related: Appeals Court Overturns Former UCLA Gynecologist’s Sex Abuse Conviction
“That note was never turned over to us,” said Leonard Levine, the defense attorney for Dr. James Heaps. “We were shocked.” A California appeals court recently ruled that this oversight violated Heaps’ Sixth Amendment rights, ordering a retrial. The decision to overturn his conviction has left lawyers representing Heaps’ patients devastated, and legal experts are baffled by the nature of the judicial error that occurred. Levine remains optimistic, believing that Heaps will be exonerated upon retrial.
“In my 30 years of trial and appeals work, excluding the defense from a jury question is unheard of,” stated Dmitry Gorin, a former prosecutor and criminal defense specialist.
Attorneys for Former Patients Criticize Outcome
Courtney Thom, representing over 200 of Heaps’ former patients, emphasized that the jury note should have been shared with attorneys. However, she criticized the defense for “exploiting” this error to overturn Heaps’ conviction. “When that happens, a common defense tactic is to delay the second trial,” Thom explained. “What does this say to survivors of sexual abuse? Who wants to come forward with their abuse if this is their path to justice?”
Related: UCLA to Pay Nearly $700M in Doctor Abuse Lawsuits
Thom’s firm secured over $240 million for Heaps’ accusers in a settlement with the University of California system. Many patients reported that Heaps groped them, made suggestive comments, or conducted unnecessarily invasive exams. In total, the university has paid nearly $700 million to settle lawsuits related to this case.
The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office plans to retry Heaps as soon as possible. Once that occurs, Levine stated he would request that his client be released on bond, similar to the arrangement before the first trial.
Foreperson Concerns
Heaps’ trial lasted over two months in 2022 and included testimonies from several former patients. He faced accusations of sexually assaulting hundreds of patients during his 35-year career, pleading not guilty to 21 felony counts involving seven women between 2009 and 2018.
Shortly after an alternate juror replaced another during deliberations, the foreperson sent a note to the judge stating, “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.” The note also suggested that “his mind is already made up.”
Later, when the judicial assistant spoke to the juror in Spanish, he insisted, “They think that I don’t understand English, but I do.” He maintained that he could continue deliberating. The next day, the foreperson informed the judicial assistant that the note no longer needed to be addressed, according to court filings.
Heaps was convicted in October 2022 of three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. The jury found him not guilty on seven counts and was deadlocked on the remaining charges.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Carter, who oversaw the trial, acknowledged to the appeals court that he did not notify the parties about the jury note and did not inquire further with the jury regarding it.
Defendant’s Constitutional Rights
If the note had been disclosed in court, Heaps’ defense attorneys could have questioned the juror’s qualifications or called for a mistrial, according to Robert Little, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in appellate law. Typically, any juror lacking adequate English proficiency is dismissed during the selection process.
“Mistakes are made in courtrooms and during trials every day,” Little noted. “The question in any given appeal is whether that particular error was harmless or prejudicial.” The three-judge panel concluded that the trial court’s handling of the note deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of his trial.
Another attorney for the former patients, John Manly, expressed that the overturning of the conviction “sends a message that victims, especially women and children, do not matter.” He added, “These brave survivors suffered through a four-year ordeal of prosecution and trial resulting in an 11-year prison sentence for this monster. Now they are being told that they must start over.”
Watson reported from San Diego.
Copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Two years after a former University of California, Los Angeles, gynecologist was convicted of sex abuse and sentenced to 11 years in prison, an attorney preparing an appeal made a shocking discovery for the defense. A note from the jury’s foreperson, who serves as the designated spokesperson for the jury, had been sent to the judge expressing concerns that one of the jurors lacked sufficient English proficiency to fulfill his duties and deliberate effectively. This juror was an alternate, brought in just two days before the verdict due to a medical issue affecting another juror. Alarmingly, the judge never disclosed this information to either the prosecution or the defense attorneys.
Related: Appeals Court Overturns Former UCLA Gynecologist’s Sex Abuse Conviction
“That note was never turned over to us,” said Leonard Levine, the defense attorney for Dr. James Heaps. “We were shocked.” A California appeals court recently ruled that this oversight violated Heaps’ Sixth Amendment rights, ordering a retrial. The decision to overturn his conviction has left lawyers representing Heaps’ patients devastated, and legal experts are baffled by the nature of the judicial error that occurred. Levine remains optimistic, believing that Heaps will be exonerated upon retrial.
“In my 30 years of trial and appeals work, excluding the defense from a jury question is unheard of,” stated Dmitry Gorin, a former prosecutor and criminal defense specialist.
Attorneys for Former Patients Criticize Outcome
Courtney Thom, representing over 200 of Heaps’ former patients, emphasized that the jury note should have been shared with attorneys. However, she criticized the defense for “exploiting” this error to overturn Heaps’ conviction. “When that happens, a common defense tactic is to delay the second trial,” Thom explained. “What does this say to survivors of sexual abuse? Who wants to come forward with their abuse if this is their path to justice?”
Related: UCLA to Pay Nearly $700M in Doctor Abuse Lawsuits
Thom’s firm secured over $240 million for Heaps’ accusers in a settlement with the University of California system. Many patients reported that Heaps groped them, made suggestive comments, or conducted unnecessarily invasive exams. In total, the university has paid nearly $700 million to settle lawsuits related to this case.
The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office plans to retry Heaps as soon as possible. Once that occurs, Levine stated he would request that his client be released on bond, similar to the arrangement before the first trial.
Foreperson Concerns
Heaps’ trial lasted over two months in 2022 and included testimonies from several former patients. He faced accusations of sexually assaulting hundreds of patients during his 35-year career, pleading not guilty to 21 felony counts involving seven women between 2009 and 2018.
Shortly after an alternate juror replaced another during deliberations, the foreperson sent a note to the judge stating, “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.” The note also suggested that “his mind is already made up.”
Later, when the judicial assistant spoke to the juror in Spanish, he insisted, “They think that I don’t understand English, but I do.” He maintained that he could continue deliberating. The next day, the foreperson informed the judicial assistant that the note no longer needed to be addressed, according to court filings.
Heaps was convicted in October 2022 of three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. The jury found him not guilty on seven counts and was deadlocked on the remaining charges.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Carter, who oversaw the trial, acknowledged to the appeals court that he did not notify the parties about the jury note and did not inquire further with the jury regarding it.
Defendant’s Constitutional Rights
If the note had been disclosed in court, Heaps’ defense attorneys could have questioned the juror’s qualifications or called for a mistrial, according to Robert Little, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in appellate law. Typically, any juror lacking adequate English proficiency is dismissed during the selection process.
“Mistakes are made in courtrooms and during trials every day,” Little noted. “The question in any given appeal is whether that particular error was harmless or prejudicial.” The three-judge panel concluded that the trial court’s handling of the note deprived the defendant of his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of his trial.
Another attorney for the former patients, John Manly, expressed that the overturning of the conviction “sends a message that victims, especially women and children, do not matter.” He added, “These brave survivors suffered through a four-year ordeal of prosecution and trial resulting in an 11-year prison sentence for this monster. Now they are being told that they must start over.”
Watson reported from San Diego.
Copyright 2026 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
