by Karen Jonson
Kathi called me, fired up by the news. “How dare he think he can just fly into the U.S. and fly out again, while lying to the authorities!” She said she had just sent emails to Cathy, Sherri Tibbe (the head district attorney), the judge, and the Texas Attorney General.
I awoke the next morning at 5:00 on fire. I wrote a long email to the DA Sherri, who wrote back to me asking for the address of the house where Prakash might be found. All day long, we wondered what was happening. We finally heard that the DA had contacted Prakash’s lawyers, and that they were claiming to have no knowledge of him being in the U.S.
Hays County then scheduled an emergency hearing before Judge Charles Ramsay on Tuesday, October 5th. At the hearing, the State asked to amend the conditions of Prakash’s bond to include taking his passport back. They also asked that Prakash be required to submit to an independent medical exam to determine if he was fit to stand trial. Judge Ramsay agreed to the medical exam and said he would make a decision about the passport pending the doctor’s review.
The doctor found Prakash was perfectly capable to sit through a trial, even if he needed a special chair. At a follow-up hearing on October 27th, the State requested to have Prakash’s passport surrendered to the court. The judge agreed and his passport was placed in a vault in Hays County.
Cathy called to give me the news. She noted one interesting fact: “Guess where else he was while his lawyers were telling us he was bedridden? He was in Nepal. According to his passport, he flew there in March.”
Prakash had never been bedridden at all, just as we had all suspected. I emailed Eric with the news. On October 27th, he published an update:
“A state district court judge on Wednesday revoked the passport of a Hindu guru who claimed he was too frail to withstand a trial scheduled for earlier this year, but who prosecutors said has maintained an active travel schedule overseas.
“But on Wednesday in San Marcos, prosecutors cited evidence - including photographs on Websites documenting the guru’s travels and stamps from his passport showing his movements between countries - that Prakashanand had managed to take several trips during the time he claimed to be incapacitated.
“Speaking for Prakashanand, who arrived in court wearing a saffron robe and seated in a wheelchair, Austin attorney David Botsford… said the swami traveled exclusively on first-class flights so the elderly religious leader could lie down. ‘Every time he travels, he travels in the recumbent position,’ Botsford said. He added ‘… taking away the holy man’s passport would ‘impede his ability to practice his religion.’
“But Compton said Prakashanand had abused that privilege by misleading the court. ‘The victims in this case have been waiting three years to get to trial,’ she said. ‘Every single time somebody came here seeking a delay it was because he was too ill to travel. Enough is enough.’”
“In a written statement, Katie Williams, an executive at the ashram, said Prakashanand’s followers welcomed the trial. ‘We are eager for Shree Swamiji to have his day in court. The sooner the truth can be told in a fair and impartial setting, the sooner justice will be served and he can finally be vindicated.’”
Funny, because it sure didn’t look like they were “eager for Shree Swamiji to have his day in court.”
100
Pre-Trial Shenanigans
By Hook or By Crook
PRAKASH’S DEFENSE LAWYERS THOUGHT they had caught a break in mid-December 2010, when they claimed they had been denied key evidence by Hays County.
They wanted the case thrown out of court because there was a missing tape of the initial interview with one of the two girls cited in the case. Prakash’s original lawyers had requested the tapes in 2009 and had been told one of the tapes was missing. But no one seemed to care much about it until a year later, when Prakash was caught in the U.S. Now they cared. But the judge didn’t. Eric Dexheimer reported the events on 15 December 2010.
“Though the Hays County sheriff’s department has lost key evidence in the case against Prakashanand Saraswati, the religious leader charged with groping two underage girls in the 1990s, a state district judge ruled Wednesday that the case against the guru can proceed. Attorneys for Prakashanand, also known as Shree Swamiji, argued that the loss of a 1 1/2-hour recorded interview with one of the two women who said they were groped by the guru should have disqualified her statements implicating him.
“‘The bottom line is, whether you believe the sheriff’s office destroyed the evidence or lost the evidence, it creates a significant problem for the prosecution of this case,’ said Joe Turner, one of a half-dozen attorneys representing Prakashanand. Prosecutors in Hays County argued that a detective’s summary of the interview was sufficient for the case to proceed, and District Judge Charles Ramsay agreed. The trial is scheduled to begin in late February.
“In a hearing that stretched for more than two hours Wednesday, Sgt. Jeri Skrocki explained that she discovered that the original DVD recording of the interview had disappeared in late 2009. The judge had ordered prosecutors to turn over a copy to defense attorneys, but they found that the copy was unviewable. When she went to the sheriff’s department records room to retrieve the original, Skrocki said, it was gone. A thorough search of the room by records custodians came up empty, she said.
“Prakashanand’s attorneys contend that the absence of a video record of the interview would deprive them of information and nuance crucial to the defense of Swamiji, including the young woman’s demeanor and whether her interviewer asked leading questions. Without it, ‘the court must strike the testimony or declare a mistrial,’ said Gerry Goldstein, a San Antonio attorney who is part of Prakashanand’s defense team.
“Assistant District Attorney Cathy Compton responded that Skrocki’s report of the interview was an accurate and sufficient representation of the accuser’s testimony and that the guru’s lawyers would have ample opportunity to question her during the trial.”
Round One in Prakash’s pre-trial battle had been lost. Their next move was to offer Hays County another $1 to $2 million for his passport back, a fact that Cathy mentioned in the trial: “… as much as another $2 million was offered for the return of the defendant’s passport.” Hays County declined the offer.
The next attempt to spring Prakash occurred when some mysterious person from California sent a letter to thirty-six Hays County officials insisting that, in his opinion, Prakash was being persecuted solely because he was a Hindu. In the letters, the man demanded an immediate dismissal of the case. He also posted the same message on a website. Part of the rambling diatribe included the following remarks:
“The Critical Mass of Truth Committee… reviewed the State vs. Saraswati case (Cause Nos. CR-08-272, CR-08-273). It is our opinion that this case represents multiple levels of dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation on the part of the complainants and law enforcement officials. Firstly, the complainants have made false and unsubstantiated accusations based on desires for revenge, the need for attention and possible monetary gain.
“Secondly, law enforcement, including the Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney’s Office and the residing Judge have abused their powers and grossly overreacted given the charges involved and the facts in evidence. Before this case goes to trial and hits the media, there is a window of opportunity for saner heads to prevail. Hays County and the State of Texas have opened themselves up for major embarrassments including charges of racism and religious persecution. In order to restore fairness and justice, I suggest the following possible remedies; Immediate settlement by mediation with other Texas State and Federal Officials participating.”
The communiqué was signed by a single name. When no one from Hays County responded, a second letter was sent out—this one threatening Hays County with a worldwide negative media blitz if the court did not return Prakash’s passport to him by the first of February. The day came and went with no media attention whatsoever.
The next threat escalated to include bodily harm.
About a week before the trial, an anonymous man with an Indian accent called a member of the prosecution team to say, “These people are dangerous, and Cathy Compton is potentially in danger.”
Hays County immediately implemented pre-emptive safety measures that included extra security in the courthouse and an undercover officer shadowing Cathy throughout the trial. The extra security was reassuring to the three girls, who had only their husbands, one brother, and a few others around to support them. Meanwhile, the courthouse was mobbed by the guru’s followers, which included more devotees than could fit in the courtroom. The spillover loitered in the hallway. A few of them stared at the witness room and gave us dirty looks.
On February 11th, Prakash’s new lawyers tried one last time to get the trial delayed by filing a motion for continuance, requesting more time to prepare. After that hearing we heard from Cathy via email that Judge Ramsay had denied the request.
“Ladies, we are going to trial.”
101
“Lawyering Up”
Mounting a High-Priced Defense
I CALLED PRAKASH’S DEFENSE TEAM “The Dirty Dozen.”
When the powers-that-be at the ashram finally acknowledged the criminal charges against Prakash, the devotees were told: “Barsana Dham is lawyering up.” They were not kidding. No expense was spared to surround Prakash with high-dollar legal representation. By the time the criminal case reached trial, almost three years after Prakash’s arrest, they had hired nine attorneys, none of whom came cheap. The defense team also included a private detective (on the case for nearly three years), a public relations specialist (one of the most expensive in Austin), and a jury selection specialist. Despite having high-priced lawyers, once Prakash was caught in Austin in October 2010, there was a lot of lawyer shuffling, which continued right up until just weeks before his trial started. I assumed their scramble meant they were scared.
Prakash’s first new lawyer was Joe Turner, who was allegedly one of the most expensive defense lawyers in Texas. The Austin American-Statesman had run an article about him in the August 1998, in which he was reported to be friends with Willie Nelson, whom he had successfully defended on drug charges. The article also stated that he called himself “Mad Dog,” based on his courtroom style. He was quoted as saying, “I can be ruthless… and I’ve been known to cheat.” Many referred to him as a snake in the courtroom—a perfect fit for Prakash, I thought.
So I was surprised to learn that by late December “Mad Dog” was out and an Indian lawyer from Houston was in. It was a strange choice, because the Indian attorney did not appear to have much trial experience, if any. I wondered why Turner had been cut loose. My guess is that it was due to a strategy conflict between him and his client—maybe even over the generous plea deal offered to Prakash by the State? To accept the plea deal and avoid a trial, Prakash would have to admit to one count of “indecency with a child by sexual contact” for each girl (he had been charged with ten counts per girl), accept probation (with continuous monitoring by a probation officer), and be registered as a sex offender. Word came back from his defense team that Prakash would admit only to one count of “assault” per girl. The state passed.
By early January, Prakash was again hiring new attorneys. In fact, it wasn’t clear until just days before the trial which lawyers would be representing him. The final decision was Jeff Kearney from Fort Worth, Texas, and Jo Angelyn Gates from San Diego, California.
If we thought Joe “Mad Dog” Turner was bad, we were in for some surprises.
102
Cathy Compton
A Warrior for the Prosecution
CATHY COMPTON HAS LITTLE PATIENCE for people who hurt children, and it shows in her high conviction rate of child molesters—“I prosecute the cases of the creepy dirt bags of the world,” she told me when I met her in August 2008.
Within an hour of meeting her, I knew she was exactly the person we needed to prosecute Prakash. She had incredible insight, unshakeable confidence, and complete faith in the girls’ case. Plus, she was smart as hell. She could see right through Barsana Dham’s media hype surrounding the “holy” guru. “He’s no saint,” she said. “He’s no different than the rest of the child molesters I prosecute.”
Despite her obvious intellect, Cathy was down-to-earth. She had none of the condescending, “I’m the smartest person in the room” attitude common to some trial attorneys.
Once he was caught in the U.S. in October 2010, the gloves were off and it was game on! “The first thing I did,” Cathy said, “was tell his lawyers, ‘Your client is not getting any more special treatment.’” Up until that point, Prakash’s lawyers had finagled special conditions for their client, such as hearings in the afternoon when the courtroom was less crowded. “Now he’s going to be treated just like any other defendant,” Cathy informed them.
It was clear Prakash’s entourage did not like Cathy at all. At one of the pretrial hearings, one devotee flipped Cathy the finger. At a later hearing, another person hissed at her.
Three weeks before the trial, Kate and I had lunch with Cathy. We tried to get some insight into her strategy for the trial, but all she would say was, “I won’t know how it’s going to play out until the trial starts. I need to see what the other side does first.”
“How will you stand up to his nine lawyers?” I asked.
She laughed. “I’ll be the last man standing—and still have more energy left than the rest of them.”
On the first day of the trial, while we were waiting in the witness room, we could see Prakash’s entourage meandering aimlessly in the hallway. Finally, all of his people made their way into the courtroom, and the hall settled down. Then we saw Cathy walking toward the courtroom, pulling a cart of files behind her—like she was going into battle with her own arsenal of weapons. Amy Lockhart, also a fierce defender of children, walked purposefully beside her. Cathy’s back was ramrod straight and her body language said: “Bring it on.”
The battle was about to begin—and the girls’ warrior was locked and loaded.
PART SIX
In the Trial
Truth and Consequences
“One sannyasin once told me, ‘Unfortunately, not every
sannyasin has lost his attachment to maya and its effects.’”
— Vidyasankar
“What it lies in our power to do,
It lies in our power not to do.”
— Aristotle, 384-322 BC
103
His Day(s) in Court
The Guru Has Entered the Building
WHEN YOU HIRE HIGH-PRICED ATTORNEYS to defend you, they don’t just put on a minimal defense, they shoot for the moon.
Cathy had told the judge the prosecution would need two or three days for its part of the trial. The defense lawyers said they would need two to three weeks. Cathy’s witness list had about a couple of dozen people. The defense had over one hundred. The girls had only a few peole in the courtroom on their side. The devotees were spilling out into the hallway everyday.
I held my breath for a last-ditch stunt—like another faked surgery or a heart attack. When I mentioned my fears to Cathy, she assured me: “Then he better produce a confirmable doctor’s excuse.”
The night before the trail, I dreamt that we were in the courtroom on the first day of the trial. It was 9:00 a.m. and no one from the defense side had arrived yet. Sixty minutes ticked by as we waited for them to show up. At 10:00 a.m., just as the judge was about to dismiss everyone, Prakash entered the room with all his preachers and devotees. They set up an altar at the front of the courtroom and proceeded to do arti. Then they passed out raisin and nuts for prasad to the stunned jury and prosecution.
While Barsana Dham’s people did not perform arti at the trial, they did impose their will on the courtroom, taking up the majority of chairs, ignoring the rule barring cell phone use, and even bringing a special reclining chair for the defendant, citing “doctor’s orders.” To add insult to injury, Prakash often reclined a
ll the way back until he was almost horizontal. He even fell asleep a few times. And to make sure he was good and comfy, he took off his shoes—while court was in session.
The ridiculous special seating arrangement was bad enough, but he’d also been granted permission to take breaks whenever his “back pain” was too much to bear. He abused this leniency on the first couple of days by taking ten-minute breaks about every hour. It was clear he was going to make damn sure everyone knew he was the most important person in the room. However, the breaks stopped as soon as his jury specialist said he was irritating the jury members, who had to be excused from the courtroom every time.
Cathy described later the scene when Prakash entered his plea. She said he stood up, turned around, looked at the room full of devotees, waved to them with both hands, grinned, and pled “not guilty” in a singsong voice. All the while, the devotees in attendance giggled or smiled lovingly at their lord and master. I’m sure his faithful flock believed he would be found innocent of all charges. They no doubt believed this was just another leela Prakash needed to perform to fulfill his divine destiny.
Of course, they would never admit that in a court of law.
104
Day One
A Jury of His Peers
TUESDAY, 22 FEBRUARY 2011.
Every person accused of a crime in the United States is entitled to a fair trial with an impartial jury—and Prakash was no exception.
The first component of any trial is jury selection. Lawyers for both sides sort through a random pool of citizens to select a final panel of twelve jurors. After hearing testimony from both sides, these men and women ultimately determine the defendant’s fate.
