Skip to main content
PulseWire News
CrimeA California appeals court overturned the conviction of James Heaps, a former campus gynecologist at UCLA, on sex abuse charges, citing unfair trial due to juror's insufficient English. Heaps was previously sentenced to 11 years in prison for sexually abusing patients and the case is now set for retrial.

Former UCLA Doctor's Conviction Overturned Amid Juror Concerns

California appeals court orders retrial for James Heaps, former UCLA gynecologist convicted of sexual abuse, citing misconduct regarding juror qualifications.

Source: AP1 min read

In brief

On Monday, a California appeals court overturned the conviction of James Heaps, a former gynecologist at UCLA, ordering a retrial due to concerns about a juror's qualifications. Heaps was sentenced to 11 years in prison for multiple sexual abuse charges involving female patients. The court highlighted that he was denied a fair trial, impacting the integrity of the case.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court on Monday overturned the conviction of James Heaps, a former gynecologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, on sex abuse charges. Heaps was sentenced in 2023 to 11 years in prison for sexually abusing female patients. The ruling has mandated that the case be sent back for retrial. A three-justice panel from California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal concluded that Heaps was denied a fair trial, particularly as his defense counsel was not made aware of concerns about Juror No. 15, who was questioned for not having sufficient English proficiency to fulfill their duties in deliberating on the case.Heaps faced accusations of sexually assaulting hundreds of patients throughout his 35-year career, leading UCLA to pay nearly $700 million in settlements related to the allegations. He had pleaded not guilty to 21 felony charges involving the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. Following his October 2022 conviction for three counts of sexual battery and two counts of sexual penetration, the jury had also deadlocked on some charges.In its 31-page ruling, the appellate court noted concerns raised about Juror No. 15 within an hour of their substitution, including a note from the jury foreman highlighting the juror's inadequate command of English. The panel acknowledged the burden of requiring a retrial involving multiple victims but emphasized the constitutional right to fair representation in court. We recognize the burden on the trial court and regrettably, on the witnesses, the ruling stated, reaffirming the necessity of a retrial to uphold justice.

Topics

More on this story