Woodland, CA. – In her closing brief, Jennifer Mouzis challenges the conviction of Ajay Dev, arguing that his 378-year prison sentence was wrongfully obtained based on false testimony, mistranslations, and ineffective legal representation. The hearing is set for April 18 (Friday) at 9 am at the Yolo County Court in Woodland.
The Petitioner’s Closing Argument, submitted after five years of evidentiary hearings, contends that key exculpatory evidence was withheld from the jury and that the case against Dev relied entirely on the unverified and misleading testimony of the accuser, (Complaining Witness).
“The judicial system has repeatedly failed Ajay and affirmed a 400-year sentence based upon the allegations of one witness permitted to commit perjury on the stand,” the filing states. The defense asserts that (Complaining Witness)’s credibility was central to the case and that evidence now available demonstrates that she lied under oath, manipulated law enforcement, and had a clear motive to fabricate allegations against Dev.
The case revolved around (Complaining Witness)’s accusations that Dev raped her multiple times per week for five years, beginning shortly after he and his wife, Peggy, adopted her from Nepal at the age of 16. However, according to the petition, prior to trial, (Complaining Witness)allegedly admitted to multiple individuals that her accusations were false and that she reinstated them after being convicted of fraud in Nepal.
“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 filing argues.
Dev and his wife adopted (Complaining Witness) in 1999, hoping to provide her with educational and economic opportunities in the U.S. while preserving her Nepali cultural values. However, according to the defense, significant conflicts emerged as (Complaining Witness) began embracing an American lifestyle, dating men against the expectations of her adoptive parents.
“(Complaining Witness)’s home life with Peggy and Ajay became increasingly strained,” the filing states. “(Complaining Witness) continued to go out without permission and would refuse to tell Peggy and Ajay who she was with.”
In December 2003, (Complaining Witness) moved out of the Dev household, leaving a note thanking her adoptive parents for their love and support. Shortly thereafter, Ajay cut off financial assistance to her and her family in Nepal, believing that she was rejecting the family’s values.
On February 1, 2004, (Complaining Witness)’s boyfriend abruptly ended their relationship, citing an email from Ajay as the reason. According to multiple witnesses, (Complaining Witness) was furious and blamed Ajay for the breakup.
“The very next day – February 2, 2004 – (Complaining Witness) went to the police station and accused Ajay of raping her two to three times a week for five years,” the filing states.
The defense argues that this timeline suggests a clear motive for revenge and casts doubt on the credibility of the allegations.
One of the prosecution’s key pieces of evidence was a recorded pretext call between (Complaining Witness) and Dev, where (Complaining Witness) attempted to elicit an admission of guilt. However, the defense argues that the call contained over 22 denials from Dev and that critical portions were mistranslated.
According to a court-certified Nepali translator, Ajay Dev never admitted to any wrongdoing. Instead, he repeatedly denied (Complaining Witness)’s accusations and even told her to go to the police if she believed she had been wronged.
“(Complaining Witness), it’s wrongly accused,” Dev reportedly said during the call. “This is the worst possible accusation I could possibly have.”
When (Complaining Witness) insisted that Dev had sexually abused her, Dev responded, “No, not true. It’s a big lie and you are trying to frame me.”
At one point, (Complaining Witness) told Dev that she was going to the police. Dev’s response: “Why don’t we both go to the police together?”
The defense also highlights critical errors in the translation of key statements from Nepali to English, arguing that the prosecution relied on (Complaining Witness)’s own interpretation of the conversation rather than an independent certified translator.
The defense filing points to multiple witnesses who testified that (Complaining Witness) admitted to lying about her allegations.
Among these key pieces of testimony:
- Sangita Dev, a family member, testified that (Complaining Witness) told her Ajay never touched her.
- Dinesh Deo stated that (Complaining Witness) admitted reinstating her allegations to return to the U.S. and for revenge.
- Bhabendra Yadav, a close family friend, testified that (Complaining Witness) confessed to fabricating her accusations.
- Shweta Deo, a friend of (Complaining Witness), also testified that (Complaining Witness) admitted to lying to the police.
Additionally, forensic evidence and Nepali court documents indicate that (Complaining Witness) committed passport fraud, raising further concerns about her credibility.
Beyond concerns about (Complaining Witness)’s credibility, the defense argues that Dev’s trial attorney failed to introduce critical evidence that could have exonerated him.
Among the alleged failures of Dev’s defense attorney:
- Failing to authenticate key Nepali court records that undermined (Complaining Witness)’s credibility.
- Failing to challenge the pretext call translation with expert testimony.
- Neglecting to introduce an email that contradicted (Complaining Witness)’s statements.
- Failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct, particularly in closing arguments, where the prosecutor falsely claimed that Dev admitted to his lawyer that he raped (Complaining Witness).
According to the filing, “The judicial system has allowed (Complaining Witness) to perjure herself in front of the jury while the trial court implicitly, and at times explicitly, reminded the jury that they were unable to make that determination.”
Given the overwhelming evidence of perjury, mistranslations, and ineffective legal representation, the defense is seeking a new trial for Ajay Dev.
“Petitioner has proven by preponderant evidence that the underlying trial should be vacated,” the filing states, citing:
- New evidence proving (Complaining Witness) lied under oath.
- Witness statements confirming that (Complaining Witness) admitted to filing false charges.
- Failures in Dev’s legal defense that prejudiced the outcome of the trial.
The filing further argues that no reasonable jury would have convicted Dev had they been presented with the full scope of the evidence.
“The United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court recognize the fundamental importance of the writ of habeas corpus to avoid miscarriages of justice caused by the punishment of innocent persons,” the petition asserts.
