Appeals court overturns former UCLA gynecologist's sex abuse conviction

Heaps' attorney, Leonard Levine, said he and his team were not aware of the note or that there was any question about a juror’s ability to serve until two years later when an attorney working on an appeal discovered it in a court file.

If the attorney had not seen it, “it still would have remained a secret, which is very unfortunate since it would have been a miscarriage of justice, but thankfully it’s been corrected,” Levine said.

Heaps was sentenced in 2023 to 11 years in prison for sexually abusing female patients.

“Justice is slow but it’s finally been done,” he said, adding “I believe it's just a matter of time before he is totally exonerated.”

Heaps was accused of sexually assaulting hundreds of patients during his 35-year career and UCLA made nearly $700 million in payouts over lawsuits connected to the allegations — a record amount at the time for a public university.

He pleaded not guilty to 21 felony counts in the sexual assaults of seven women between 2009 and 2018. He was convicted in October 2022 of three counts of sexual battery by fraud and two counts of sexual penetration of two patients. The jury found him not guilty of seven of the 21 counts and was deadlocked on the remaining charges.

In the 31-page ruling, the appellate court panel pointed out that within about one hour of Juror No. 15 being seated as a substitute for a juror who had a medical issue, concerns were raised about whether the person was qualified to serve. The foreman's note indicated that Juror No. 15 did not speak English well enough to participate in the deliberations, the ruling stated.

Prosecutors have 30 days to appeal the ruling. The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The panel stated that the problem was too grave to not order a retrial.

“We recognize the burden on the trial court and regrettably, on the witnesses, in requiring retrial of a case involving multiple victims and delving into the conduct of intimate medical examinations," the ruling stated. "The importance of the constitutional right to counsel at critical junctures in a criminal trial gives us no other choice.”