In the continued pursuit of justice for Ajay Dev, his defense team procured and presented new evidence that calls into question the very foundation of his conviction. Dev, sentenced to 378 years in prison based on allegations from his adopted daughter, (Complaining Witness), has been seeking relief through a habeas corpus petition, arguing that crucial evidence was either misrepresented, omitted, or ignored during his trial.
In this second part of our analysis, the Vanguard delves into the core of the defense’s closing argument, which underscores (Complaining Witness)’s credibility issues, the pretext call inconsistencies, and forensic evidence that directly contradicts the prosecution’s case. The central question: if the jury had access to this new evidence, would the outcome have been different? Attorney Jennifer Mouzis argues a resounding yes.
See part 1:
At the heart of this case is (Complaining Witness)’s testimony, which served as the primary basis for the prosecution’s case. As the defense argues, “No (Complaining Witness), no case.” Yet, the habeas hearings have unearthed significant credibility concerns regarding her allegations.
Inconsistent Statements and Motive to Fabricate Allegations
One of the most compelling revelations in the habeas proceedings is the testimony from multiple witnesses who claim that (Complaining Witness) privately admitted to fabricating her allegations. According to the closing argument:
- Testimony revealed (Complaining Witness) told Sangita Dev that Petitioner did not improperly touch her.
- (Complaining Witness) allegedly admitted to Dinesh Deo that she reinstated her sexual allegations against Dev to return to the United States and seek personal revenge.
- Bhabendra Yadav, a close family friend, testified that (Complaining Witness) confided in him that she lied when accusing Dev of sexual assault.
- Another close friend, Shweta Deo, stated that (Complaining Witness) admitted to lying to the police.
- Testimony further indicated that (Complaining Witness)’s sister demanded money from Ajay’s brother.
If these statements had been introduced at trial, they could have fundamentally altered how the jury assessed (Complaining Witness)’s credibility. Additionally, it was revealed that (Complaining Witness) had been convicted of passport fraud in Nepal for falsifying her birthdate, which further casts doubt on her honesty and motivations.
A major component of the prosecution’s case was a recorded pretext call between (Complaining Witness) and Ajay, where she attempted to elicit an admission of guilt. However, as the defense’s closing argument highlights, there are critical translation discrepancies in the Nepali portions of the call.
During trial, the prosecution relied on (Complaining Witness) herself to translate the call, despite her vested interest in its interpretation. The defense, in contrast, presented testimony from Dr. Shakti Aryal, a certified Nepali translator, who found significant inaccuracies in (Complaining Witness)’s translation.
For example, during a crucial part of the call, (Complaining Witness) asks Ajay why his life is being ruined. The disputed translation hinges on Ajay’s response, which, according to the prosecution, implied an admission of guilt. However, Dr. Aryal’s translation of the Nepali portion suggests an entirely different meaning:
- (Complaining Witness): “How is my life ruining you, Daddy?”
- Ajay (in Nepali, as translated by Dr. Aryal): “Because you have falsely accused me after turning 18.”
The defense argues that this critical misinterpretation led the jury to wrongly believe that Ajay was confessing to a crime, when in reality, he was expressing frustration at being falsely accused.
Additionally, throughout the call, Ajay repeatedly denied the allegations and urged (Complaining Witness) to go to the police—a statement that is inconsistent with the behavior of someone guilty of the alleged crimes.
Beyond testimony, forensic evidence further undermines the prosecution’s narrative. A key piece of the prosecution’s case was that Dev impregnated (Complaining Witness) as a result of the alleged abuse. However, forensic evidence, including expert testimony and medical records, suggests otherwise.
During trial, (Complaining Witness) claimed that Ajay accompanied her to a clinic and signed the paperwork for an abortion. However, forensic handwriting expert James Blanco testified that the signature on the documents was not Ajay’s—it was forged by (Complaining Witness) herself.
At trial, (Complaining Witness) initially insisted that Ajay had signed the paperwork. When confronted with the expert’s findings, she later admitted:
Defense: “You recognized the handwriting for the signature Ajay K. Dev, as in fact being your handwriting, right?”
(Complaining Witness): “Yes.”
This admission alone raises serious doubts about the credibility of her accusations. If she was willing to falsify documents and lie under oath about something as significant as an abortion, what else might she have fabricated?
Another crucial piece of evidence that the jury never heard was that (Complaining Witness) had been convicted in Nepal for falsifying her date of birth. This conviction was directly relevant to the defense’s argument that (Complaining Witness) had a pattern of dishonesty and that her primary motive was to secure U.S. citizenship.
“If the jury knew that (Complaining Witness), prior to trial, admitted her motives to file false charges against Petitioner and, during trial, lied to the court about something as basic as her age, it more likely than not would have changed at least one juror’s decision, thereby changing the outcome of the case.”
The defense’s closing argument further asserts that Ajay’s trial attorney failed to provide competent representation in several key areas:
- Failure to Authenticate Nepali Court Records: The defense argues that records proving (Complaining Witness)’s passport fraud conviction should have been introduced at trial.
- Failure to Challenge the Pretext Call Translation: The defense failed to secure an independent court-certified translation of the Nepali portions of the pretext call.
- Failure to Introduce a Critical Email: An email that could have demonstrated that (Complaining Witness) was lying was never authenticated and admitted as evidence.
- Failure to Retain an Audio Enhancement Expert: Given the importance of the pretext call, the defense should have hired an expert to clarify the recording’s accuracy.
Had the jury been presented with properly authenticated evidence, the defense argues, at least one juror could have been persuaded to vote differently, resulting in a hung jury or an acquittal.
