Woodland, CA – In a stunning reversal, Yolo County Superior Court Judge Janene Beronio granted habeas corpus relief to Ajay Dev on Friday, overturning his 2009 conviction for sexually assaulting his adopted daughter. Dev, who has always maintained his innocence, had been sentenced to an extraordinary 378 years and four months. A bail hearing is scheduled for next Friday, and Dev is expected to be released pending that outcome.
This decision marks the end of a grueling, years-long evidentiary hearing that began in 2018 and faced delays due to changing counsel, the COVID-19 pandemic, and challenges in securing witnesses. Closing arguments were delivered last month by Jennifer Mouzis, Dev’s current attorney, and Steve Mount, the original prosecutor who came out of retirement for the case.
In her detailed ruling from the bench, Judge Beronio noted the legal standard guiding her decision: whether, by a preponderance of the evidence, the original trial failed to deliver a just and fair outcome.
The most critical factor, she ruled, was the failure by Dev’s trial counsel to authenticate official records from Nepal indicating that the alleged victim, Sapna Dev, had falsified her birth certificate to gain immigration benefits. This failure rendered key evidence inadmissible and, had the correct age been used, would have invalidated at least a dozen charges tied to underage sexual conduct.
Judge Beronio concluded that Dev’s trial attorney rendered constitutionally deficient performance, amounting to ineffective assistance of counsel.
She also reviewed new evidence from multiple witnesses who testified that Sapna had fabricated the allegations after a family dispute. The judge dismissed prosecution claims of witness tampering, stating there was no evidence of any conspiracy or misconduct by the defense.
While she found one defense witness lacking credibility, she determined that two others—who independently corroborated each other—were “credible, reliable, and non-cumulative.” One described a pregnancy scare that undermined Sapna’s claims of repeated unprotected sexual assaults, while another recounted Sapna admitting she had lied after being cut out of Dev’s will and sent back to Nepal.
On the crucial issue of the pretext call—long held by the prosecution as an implied confession—Judge Beronio was unequivocal. She said the recording had never been properly enhanced or clarified. Once it was, the call revealed no sexual content and no admission of guilt.
“By the end of the call,” she noted, “it was clear that Sapna didn’t believe she had received a confession.”
The court found that allowing Sapna to characterize the call as a confession amounted to the presentation of false testimony, and the defense’s failure to enhance the tape further demonstrated ineffective assistance.
Statement from Ajay Dev
After the ruling, the following written statement was given to the Davis Vanguard, which was prepared before the judge’s ruling and not read aloud in court:
“First and foremost, I want to thank Your Honor for your patience, diligence, fairness, and perseverance over the past six years during this evidentiary hearing.”
“I am deeply grateful to my attorney, Jennifer Mouzis, for stepping into this complex case mid-hearing. She believed in my innocence and has fought tirelessly on my behalf.”
“To my family, friends, and all those who stood by me—even traveling from across the country—thank you for your unwavering support.”
“To my aging parents: your unconditional love sustained me. To my two children: you are the true innocent victims in this case. I have missed you every single day, and I can’t wait to come home.”
“I hold no hatred toward Sapna. I pray for her peace. I also hold no ill will toward the prosecutor. Anger and hatred consume the soul; forgiveness and compassion are the values my parents instilled in me. I choose their path.”
Legal Background and Rebuttal from Dev’s Attorney
During closing arguments, Mouzis argued that Dev’s trial had been irreparably flawed. She cited changes to California law—specifically SB 97—that lowered the threshold for habeas relief based on new evidence. The proper legal standard is now whether the new evidence is “sufficiently material and credible that it more likely than not would have changed the outcome of the case.”
Mouzis forcefully rebutted the prosecution’s allegations that she and other attorneys, including appellate expert Cliff Gardner, were engaged in a conspiracy. She accused the state of resorting to baseless accusations against not only attorneys but also family members, community supporters, and even press figures associated with Dev’s case.
“Every individual who has ever supported Mr. Dev is accused of lying,” Mouzis stated. “But they bring no evidence—only paranoia. Their position is transactional: if a fact supports conviction, it is true; if it supports innocence, it must be false.”
She highlighted the inconsistency in the prosecution’s treatment of Michael Rothschild, Dev’s original trial attorney—depicting him alternately as competent and forgetful depending on which argument benefitted their case. Mouzis also criticized the DA for invoking cultural bias and dismissing valid testimony from Nepali witnesses simply because of their national origin or family ties.
Among the witnesses targeted by the prosecution were a retired headmaster, Bhabendra Yadav, and schoolteacher Schweta Deo—both of whom testified that Sapna had privately admitted fabricating the allegations. Mouzis noted that the DA’s office, which routinely pays for witness travel, tried to discredit these witnesses solely because their travel to testify was funded by the defense.
Mouzis concluded by urging the court to consider the overwhelming weight of evidence pointing to Dev’s innocence—not just the failures of trial counsel, but the subsequent efforts by the state to preserve a conviction at all costs.
Judge Beronio scheduled a bail hearing for Friday, May 23, where Dev’s defense will argue for his release on his own recognizance (OR). While the district attorney may seek to retry the case or appeal the habeas ruling, such moves appear unlikely given the strength of the judge’s findings and the evidentiary issues identified.
“I believe he may be innocent,” Judge Beronio said in court, indicating she was disinclined to keep Dev in custody pending further proceedings.
I won’t pretend to know 1% of what you know about this case, so I won’t pretend to have an informed opinion. But I know this one you really believed in. A sincere congratulations on triumph in this case — and if you are correct about the truth here, best wishes to the improperly imprisoned and their family.
I don’t know all of the particulars of the case but 15 years is enough time served for the crime he was convicted of.
I believe our prayers over the years were worth every second we’ve spent. I was convinced that Ajay was innocent the day I met him as a patient in Jamestown. I’m so proud that he had the willpower to stay involved in assistance to others all the years he was wrongly incarcerated. Congratulations Ajay!!!
Judge Beronio’s decision in the Ajay Dev matter is rightly earning headlines for its acknowledgment of a catastrophic failure in the authentication of foundational documents—failures that rendered key evidence inadmissible and catalyzed an extraordinary miscarriage of justice. And yet, as someone whose case has likewise been mishandled under her gavel, I find it chilling that this clarity of judgment comes only when the damage is already done. Her ruling now—anchored on ineffective assistance of counsel and the overlooked falsification of identity documents—stands in disturbing contrast to her own repeated disregard of similarly foundational procedural defects in my case, where material records and jurisdictional facts were ignored, suppressed, or outright mischaracterized during the domestic violence and custody motions initiated and honored and continued dutifully by Richardson in October 2023 (after domiciling in Sep 2023) until Jan 2024 when Beronio first came to Family Court to “Give it a Shot,” mine being one of her first cases. By March 2024 the lives of my beautiful daughter and I were forever changed. A year later, our lives still hang in perpetual limbo of temporary orders now handled in a foreign jurisdiction, where neither of us ever belonged, separated, our bond mangled, trust broken by the system that should have protected us from dangerous criminals who are simply better equipped to out litigate and out manipulate a Mother, a Veteran, and live long care giver to other disabled Veteran’s. Where were you Judge Beronio. I still remember how bored you appeared with your head sullenly resting in your hand, unfazed by the audio recordings of him admitting that he would lie about beating me, the recording of him telling me he would end me, of the recording where you could hear him hitting me, and during the testimony of the witness who saw him charging me in broad daylight fists raised ready to strike, with my daughter and I recoiling in fear. Where were you? You failed me and you failed my daughter, and you enabled a legally adjudicated mentally unstable man, with a known history of abuse towards women, diagnosed with several unfitting and untreated mental disorders to continue his campaign of terror.
In Dev’s case, Beronio held the defense to a standard of diligence she previously failed to uphold for herself when denying basic due process in mine—where authenticating documents, respecting jurisdictional boundaries, and weighing testimony without bias should have been legal minimums, not afterthoughts. The legal standard she now touts—whether a preponderance of evidence demonstrates a fundamentally unjust outcome—cuts both ways. And when applied retroactively to her own role across my record, it paints an equally damning picture of judicial inconsistency, bias, and constitutionally deficient performance from the bench.
Let us not forget: a judge cannot claim credit for correcting injustice in one case while continuing to perpetuate it in another. If Judge Beronio truly understands what it means to remedy a miscarriage of justice, then it is time she reflect deeply on the pattern of errors that have echoed throughout her courtroom long before Ajay Dev’s name returned to the docket.
Strong Work Beronio.
David, thank you for your coverage of this case for the last 16 years. You were the one person that took the time to really research this case and ask the pertinent questions when others didn’t want to take the time. I remember at the beginning you were not convinced but as you read transcripts, interviewed people and took a deep dive you started to realize that Ajay was wrongfully convicted. You gave the family hope that sustained us for 16 years. It was hard to understand how something like this could happen to such a good person. Thank you so much!