In 2009, Ajay Dev was wrongly convicted of 76 counts of raping his adopted daughter and sentenced to 378 years. Now, a decade later, he is having his Habeas Corpus hearing in Yolo County, attempting to exonerate him.
Listen for the first time as he talks about his experience behind bars in a California prison and listen to people around him talking about his case and how the jury got it wrong.
Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.
You did a wonderful job with this podcast covering the case from when you first heard about it until the present–interviewing different people who have knowledge about the case.
Ajay speaking from jail tears at your heart as he explains how life has been the past 10 years — being away from his family and in prison when he has been wrongfully convicted. He also speaks to the issue of wrongful convictions in general and how people need to push for justice reform overall.
Thank you for your detailed coverage. Let’s hope all the new evidence (ex: 6 witnesses whom the accuser told she was lying) will finally show that Ajay’s conviction should be overturned.
I don’t know what happened in the actual trial. But a question that kept coming back to me was why didn’t (or did they?) the defense object to the alleged victim’s translation of the pretext phone call during the trial.
My thought is maybe they did not object because literally the translation was acceptable because Ajay would understand his line as a rhetorical answer, and didn’t think that the jury would convict him because of that. When the jury presented the verdict, it was too late.
Otherwise, rationally there is nothing wrong allowing the alleged victim to translate the inaudible line. If her translation was NOT contested by the defense, it should be treated as fact AFTER giving the defense a chance to contest. When the jury found that conversation pivotal for the verdict, the court should ask for contest. Did the jurors ask questions? Did the jurors ask about the translation if it was so important?
The Davis Vanguard is an independent news organization that is supported by readers and provides in-depth coverage of local issues, and readers can support their work by becoming a sustaining member.
The Davis City Council unanimously approved a new economic development strategic plan, directing staff to return in 60 days with a detailed work plan to implement the strategy and address barriers to business development.
Yolo County officials have completed a program to identify and remove unlawful restrictive language from historical property records, marking a significant milestone in the implementation of California's Restrictive Covenant Modification Program.
Judge Frankel made a difficult decision to keep a man in custody after he violated his release terms, despite the fact that the violation was minor, as the court had already tried a less restrictive option and it had failed.
Trans people are often vilified in the media, but the real issue is the control-based system that punishes them for rejecting the traditional binary of gender roles, and the state is being used to enforce this punishment through laws that restrict their rights.
David,
You did a wonderful job with this podcast covering the case from when you first heard about it until the present–interviewing different people who have knowledge about the case.
Ajay speaking from jail tears at your heart as he explains how life has been the past 10 years — being away from his family and in prison when he has been wrongfully convicted. He also speaks to the issue of wrongful convictions in general and how people need to push for justice reform overall.
Thank you for your detailed coverage. Let’s hope all the new evidence (ex: 6 witnesses whom the accuser told she was lying) will finally show that Ajay’s conviction should be overturned.
I don’t know what happened in the actual trial. But a question that kept coming back to me was why didn’t (or did they?) the defense object to the alleged victim’s translation of the pretext phone call during the trial.
My thought is maybe they did not object because literally the translation was acceptable because Ajay would understand his line as a rhetorical answer, and didn’t think that the jury would convict him because of that. When the jury presented the verdict, it was too late.
Otherwise, rationally there is nothing wrong allowing the alleged victim to translate the inaudible line. If her translation was NOT contested by the defense, it should be treated as fact AFTER giving the defense a chance to contest. When the jury found that conversation pivotal for the verdict, the court should ask for contest. Did the jurors ask questions? Did the jurors ask about the translation if it was so important?