Hundreds of people assemble in front of the Woodland Court at the five year anniversary
of Mr. Dev’s conviction
By
David Greenwald March 3, 2025 0 comments
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.
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,
“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
f
iling 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
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
“(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.
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
