{"id":243,"date":"2026-02-02T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-02T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=243"},"modified":"2026-02-02T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-02T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-heaps-b329296-ex-parte-jury-communications-right-to-counsel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=243","title":{"rendered":"People v. Heaps \u2014 UCLA Gynecologist’s Convictions Reversed Where Trial Court’s Ex Parte Communications With Jury Deprived Defendant of Counsel"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Heaps<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-02<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B329296<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Sixth Amendment, Right to Counsel, Ex Parte Jury Communications, Sexual Battery, Gideon v. Wainwright<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

James Mason Heaps, a former gynecologic oncologist at UCLA, was tried on multiple counts of sexual battery by fraud, sexual exploitation, and sexual penetration of an unconscious person involving seven former patients. The jury convicted him on multiple counts.<\/p>\n

During deliberations, the foreperson sent a note describing concerns that one juror did not speak English well enough to deliberate and had already made up his mind. Rather than convene counsel, place the note on the record, and respond formally, the trial judge twice sent his judicial assistant into the jury room to speak to the jurors about the note \u2014 once in English and, at the affected juror’s request, once in Spanish. The judge never informed counsel of the note’s existence, and the judicial assistant’s conversations with the jury were not transcribed.<\/p>\n

Heaps appealed. The Attorney General conceded that the ex parte communications deprived Heaps of his constitutional right to counsel at a critical stage of trial and that the prosecution bore the burden of proving the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial. The court traced the constitutional foundations from Gideon v. Wainwright forward, emphasizing that the right to counsel is impinged when a judge communicates with a deliberating jury without affording defendant and counsel the opportunity to be present. Sending the judicial assistant into the jury room to speak about the foreperson’s note \u2014 without notifying counsel and without transcription \u2014 was exactly the kind of ex parte interaction that deprives a defendant of counsel at a critical stage.<\/p>\n

Because the prosecution bore the burden to prove the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, the court analyzed whether the record could support such a finding. It could not. The note raised serious concerns about whether one juror could meaningfully deliberate, and the judicial assistant’s untranscribed conversations may have inappropriately addressed substantive deliberative issues, juror conduct, or both. With no transcript, the prosecution could not demonstrate harmlessness. Reversal was required.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n