Woodland, CA— The closing arguments in the habeas corpus hearing for Ajay Dev have brought new forensic and documentary evidence into focus, directly challenging key elements of the prosecution’s case. Dev, who was convicted of sexual assault charges in 2009 and sentenced to nearly 400 years in prison, maintains his innocence, arguing that crucial evidence was improperly excluded at trial and that his defense counsel failed to present key exculpatory evidence.
One of the revelations in the habeas proceedings involves forensic computer evidence. At trial, the prosecution argued that Dev showed the alleged victim pornographic videos before sexually assaulting her. The state introduced evidence that the pornography was accessed on a home computer between 8:36 a.m. and 8:56 a.m. on September 26, 2003. However, Dev’s defense has presented an email from Dev to his wife, sent from his work email at 8:48 a.m. on the same day, proving that he was at work during the time the pornography was accessed.
Michael Mullen, a forensic computer expert and former system administrator at Dev’s workplace, testified that Dev’s work computer could not be accessed remotely in 2003. He also confirmed that emails sent from the system would have been accurately timestamped, eliminating the possibility of manipulation.
“Petitioner could not remotely access his work email account in 2003,” Mullen testified. “The Network Time Protocol ensures that all computers are synchronized with the Universal Time Clock, meaning the timestamp on Dev’s email is accurate.”
This forensic evidence directly contradicts the prosecution’s claim that Dev accessed pornography at home before an alleged assault, raising serious doubts about CW’s (Complaining Witness)’s testimony on this issue.
Another crucial piece of new evidence presented in the habeas petition involves CW’s birthdate and legal documents from Nepal. During the original trial, (Complaining Witness) testified that she was born on January 5, 1984, making her legally eligible for adoption and citizenship. However, newly authenticated Nepali court records show that (Complaining Witness) was actually born on April 28, 1983, which would have made her over the age of 16 at the time of her adoption, disqualifying her from a streamlined path to U.S. citizenship.
“These official court documents show that the Nepali courts held a trial and determined that CW’s correct birth date was April 28, 1983,” the defense argued in closing statements.
These records were previously excluded from trial because the court ruled they were not properly authenticated. However, the defense has now presented certified attestations from Nepali and U.S. officials verifying the authenticity of the documents.
The defense contends that this new evidence not only discredits CW’s testimony but also establishes a clear motive for her to fabricate allegations against Dev—securing U.S. citizenship and retaliating against Dev, whom she blamed for the discovery of her fraudulent documents.
The pretext call, a recorded phone conversation between Dev and (Complaining Witness) orchestrated by law enforcement, was a critical piece of evidence at trial. The prosecution relied on CW’s own translation of the call, which they claimed contained admissions by Dev.
At trial, (Complaining Witness) translated Dev’s words as:
“But you had sex with me when you were 18.”
However, the defense has now presented an enhanced audio version of the call analyzed by forensic experts, revealing that Dev actually said:
“But you came with me since 18 years.”
David Notowitz, a forensic audio expert, testified that the original recording contained background noise and distortions, making parts of the conversation unclear. After enhancement, a court-certified Nepali translator, Roshan Bhatta, confirmed that there was no reference to sex in the relevant portion of the call.
The prosecution’s reliance on CW’s inaccurate translation was a major point in their argument for conviction, and the defense now argues that this misinterpretation unfairly influenced the jury.
Closing Arguments: Examining the New Evidence in Ajay Dev’s Case – Part 2
Another central argument in the habeas petition is that Dev’s trial attorney failed to properly authenticate and introduce critical evidence that could have altered the outcome of the case.
Jurors never heard from key witnesses, including (Complaining Witness)’s own friends and relatives, who later stated that she had admitted to fabricating the allegations. Witnesses such as Sangita Dev (Complaining Witness’s cousin), Dinesh Deo, and headmaster Bhabendra Yadav all provided post-trial statements that (Complaining Witness) confessed to making up the allegations due to personal grievances and fear of deportation.
“Had this testimony been presented, at least one juror could have had reasonable doubt about Sapna’s credibility,” the defense argued.
Additionally, defense counsel failed to properly authenticate the September 26 email, which was crucial to establishing Dev’s alibi against the pornography allegations. Despite possessing the email, trial counsel did not meet the basic evidentiary requirements for admitting it into evidence. The state appellate court later upheld its exclusion because the defense failed to provide technical verification of the email’s timestamp.
Under California’s revised habeas corpus laws, new evidence is sufficient for relief if it is credible, admissible, and more likely than not would have changed the outcome of the trial. The new evidence presented—forensic computer records, authenticated Nepali court documents, enhanced pretext call analysis, and witness statements contradicting CW’s trial testimony—meets this standard, the defense argues.
In addition, juror declarations support the argument for a new trial. One juror, Loretta Funter, has stated that if she had seen the new evidence, she would not have voted to convict Dev.
“If I had heard this evidence at trial, and found these witnesses credible, I would have found reasonable doubt and would not have voted to convict Mr. Dev,” Funter wrote in a sworn declaration.
Prosecutor Steve Mount has submitted his response to this closing brief and Jennifer Mouzis will get a final response in advance of the April hearing which will feature the oral closing arguments by both sides.
