Ajay Dev was sentenced to 378 years with no physical evidence and a questionable
pretext phone call in 2009
By
David Greenwald March 5, 2025 0 comments
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
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
“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
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 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.
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
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.