Page One

Lawyer argues charges should stand against Berkeley landlord

By Judith Scherr Daily Planet Staff
Tuesday August 29, 2000

 

The case of wealthy landlord Lakireddy Bali Reddy accused of bringing minors into the country for sex and for bringing workers to the country under false pretenses is plodding ahead, with Reddy’s attorney attempting to get some of the charges against his client dropped and the U.S. Attorney’s Office is arguing that the charges are valid. 

In a motion to dismiss several charges filed with the court two weeks ago, Reddy’s attorney, Ted Cassman, argued that the laws under which Reddy is charged are obsolete and vague. 

“The term ‘immoral purposes’ is a boundless and essentially meaningless concept,” Cassman wrote, arguing that the law is not clear about what conduct it forbids. Many references in the criminal code to “immoral purposes” were long ago replaced with more precise language forbidding prostitution and sex with minors, he said. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney John Kennedy, in a response filed just before midnight on Friday, argued that the statute in question had been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court.  

“He utterly fails to address the fact that the Supreme Court has expressly held that the “immoral purposes” language...does in fact constitutionally apply to a variety of factual scenarios,” Kennedy wrote. 

These scenarios include polygamy and concubinage and lower courts have said immoral purposes applies to rape. 

The U.S. attorney has charged Reddy with violations of law stemming from allegations that he brought at least two young women – both said to be minors – to the U.S. for the purpose of having sexual relations with them and that, in complicity with his adult son Vijay Lakireddy, also charged in the case, brought other people to the U.S. under false pretenses to work in his businesses. 

Reddy, whose properties are worth more than $70 million, is free on a $10 million bond. Lakireddy is free on a $500,000 bond. 

Also in his brief, Reddy’s attorney argued that sex between Reddy and the young women was consensual, therefore not rape. 

“There is no suggestion that any alleged sexual contact was forced or non-consensual,” Cassman wrote, further arguing that the law, was invalid because of its vagueness. 

Quoting a U.S. Supreme Court case, Cassman wrote in his brief that “vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.”  

Kennedy argued sexual contact between adults and minors is well-founded as statutory rape.  

“Statutory rape has long been outlawed in our society,” Kennedy wrote. “Virtually every state in the country outlaws sexual relations between an adult and a minor. The defendant, who has lived in the United States for over 30 years, can hardly claim he had no idea that his conduct was against the laws of the United States.” 

The parties will be in Judge Sandra Armstrong Brown’s courtroom Sept. 12 to hear her ruling on the motion to dismiss some of the charges. Kennedy has said that he plans to file additional charges against Reddy. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said it is not known at this time whether those charges will be filed on that day.