Anand Jon's Future Rests on Conflicting Tales

18 years ago

At its core, the trial of celebrity fashion designer Anand Jon Alexander, charged with 32 counts of rape and sexual assaults on 12 women and children in California, will boil down to two competing narratives.

Anand Jon carefully cultivated a public reputation as a celebrity designer with women constantly draped around his arms as in this file photo.

In the first, pushed by the Los Angeles District Attorney, the 33-year-old fashion designer is a “sexual predator” who sought out vulnerable and impressionable aspiring models, aged 14 to 23, and raped them.

In the other, peddled by his attorney Ronald Richards, Jon is a victim of the “thwarted expectations” of devious women who sought to trade sexual favors for career advancement and then turned on him when they didn’t get the breaks they hoped for.

“You can’t fault a man if women throw themselves at him,” Richards says.

Over the years, Jon has artfully cultivated a public persona of a highly connected designer to the stars, including socialite Paris Hilton and actress Michelle Rodriguez, even though many industry insiders complain that he is a man of modest talents and no real accomplishments. He was very visible in the fashion party scene, often attracting a bevy of young models, who were draped around his arms and waist.

There is little dispute that Jon, currently free on $1.3 million bond and staying with his mother and sister in New York, slept with several of his models. In past interviews he has often boasted how women throwing themselves at him is an appealing perk of his job. The core issue at trial will be whether the sex was always consensual, starting with the case that triggered his precipitous fall from grace on March 6 when he was arrested on a charge of rape of a 19-year-old lingerie model with whom he had corresponded for months via the Internet.

“This was a revolving door. The m.o. is similar. He allegedly met them over the Internet, promised to pay for a trip out here or sent them a plane ticket. And once they got out here, he used his position in the fashion industry to take advantage of them.”
— Los Angeles DA Office

According to police reports, Jon invited the model to join him for the Los Angeles Fashion Week, where he was also exhibiting — an offer the woman quickly snapped up. The New York Times quoted from an email reportedly sent by the woman to Jon on March 2 in which she wrote: “Hi babe: Here’s my email to send my information and confirmation number to. Miss you and can’t wait to see you. Love and kisses.”

She arrived at Jon’s apartment in Beverly Hills late night of March 4 and joined him in his bedroom, where, according to the police report, he first kissed her, then forced her into oral sex and intercourse.

Here the narrative is vigorously challenged by the defense. According to the police report, the woman asked Jon first to stop and then to “at least use a condom,” which he hrefused. The next afternoon, the woman ate lunch with two of Jon’s assistants before taking her charges to a rape center and then the Beverly Hills cops.

Defense attorney Richard ridicules her credibility. “Why would she change into pajamas” or not storm out of the bedroom? “Why didn’t she punch him in the face?” Richards told the New York Times, noting: “My client is 5-foot-4 and 130 pounds. He’s a thin Gandhi-type guy. He can’t overpower anybody. And girl would kick his butt. It’s not even a close call. That’s what’s so silly about this.”

Richards also argues that several of Jon’s accusers, many of whom stepped forward only after his arrest, continued to maintain contact with him after their alleged assaults to be in his shows.

File Photo of Anand Jon with socialite Paris Hilton and his sister Sanjana Jon who has professed the innocence of her brother.

“Is he being tried for capitalizing on women who are willingly sexual with him to get ahead, if he did that at all? All of these women have some twisted story.”

Police contend they found a striking pattern in the descriptions of each of the 11 other women who have accused Jon of sexual assault, including a 15-year-old who claimed she was victimized on March 3, the day before the lingerie model.

“This was a revolving door,” says Jane Robinson, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office. “The m.o. is similar. He allegedly met them over the Internet, promised to pay for a trip out here or sent them a plane ticket. And once they got out here, he used his position in the fashion industry to take advantage of them. And he allegedly told them if they said they were not comfortable: ‘Get used to it. This is what happens in the industry.’ “

In addition to the 12 women, California authorities say that at least 6 additional sexual assault claims against Jon are still under investigation in their jurisdiction as well as several others in New York and Texas. Additional charges are widely expected.

In one incident recounted by the New York Times, a 19-year-old woman in Dallas, Texas, was sought out by Jon through her profile on MySpace. Her father met Jon at the airport and actually grilled him on his concerns for his daughter’s safety, but Jon assured him: “I treasure the feminine being. I got all this spirituality from my grandmother and my mom.”

“My client is 5-foot-4 and 130 pounds. He’s a thin Gandhi-type guy. He can’t overpower anybody. And girl would kick his butt. It’s not even a close call. That’s what’s so silly about this.”
— Defense Attorney Ronald Richards

Only a few hours later, according to the father, Alexander had oral sex with his daughter. “I drove him to the hotel, where he raped my daughter.”

At its core Jon’s defense is that the sex he had with any of his accusers (which is not all necessarily acknowledged by his attorney) was always consensual. But that argument runs up against a wall in the charges involving minors, because under California law minors cannot give consent and several of his accusers are below 18. Richards has suggested these women misrepresented their ages to Jon. While that may well be a mitigating factor, it is not a legal defense, because under the law even if a victim consented, misrepresented her age or Jon genuinely believed she was over the age of 18, he would still have committed statutory rape if he engaged in a sexual act with a minor.

Jon’s next court hearing is scheduled for June 12.

Law of Rape/Statutory Rape

California Penal Code Section 261

Rape

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, “unconscious of the nature of the act” means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.

(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraud in fact.

(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator’s fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim’s spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.

(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, “threatening to retaliate” means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.

(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, “public official” means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.

(b) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

(c) As used in this section, “menace” means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

Statutory Rape

261.5 (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a “minor” is a person under the age of 18 years and an “adult” is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts:

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.

(3) In addition to any punishment imposed under this section, the judge may assess a fine not to exceed seventy dollars ($70) against any person who violates this section with the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with Section 1463.23. The court shall, however, take into consideration the defendant’s ability to pay, and no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her inability to pay the fine permitted under this subdivision.

261.6. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, “consent” shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.

A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.
Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility of evidence or the burden of proof on the issue of consent.

261.7. In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of consent, is not sufficient to constitute consent.

Punishment

264. (a) Rape, as defined in Section 261 or 262, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or eight years.