Page One

OAKLAND – Two pairs of defendants associated with the Lakireddy Bali Reddy case appeared in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Saundra Armstrong Tuesday charged with assisting Reddy in illegally bringing underage girls into the country for sex. 

Brothers Prasad and Vijay Lakireddy are charged with conspiracy to bring aliens into the United States illegally, importing aliens for immoral purposes and travel to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile. 

Vijay Lakireddy is additionally charged with visa fraud, and Prasad Lakireddy is charged with attempting to intimidate a witness. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

Reddy, a prominent Berkeley landlord and businessman, pleaded guilty to the charges against him in March, and was later sentenced to eight years in prison and fined $2 million. 

The case against the brothers now hinges on the question of the translators employed to convey the victims’ testimony in English.  

Last month, the federal government admitted that one of the translators, Uma Rao, encouraged four of the six victims to lie in their testimony against Prasad and Vijay Lakireddy, and that Rao had a relationship with the victims that was “separate and apart” from her professional role as a translator. 

The implication was that the translators took a familial interest in the victims, and coached them on their testimony in order to punish the Reddy family. Two of the victims say now that because of Rao, they did not tell the truth to investigators 

Attorneys for the Lakireddy brothers won major victories on Tuesday. Armstrong ruled that the federal government must interview the victims to determine the nature of the relationship, and determined that the defendants had evidence that suggested that another translator employed by the government, Nalini Shekhar, may have been biased against the Lakireddys. 

Attorney George Cotsirilos, who is representing Vijay Lakireddy, asked Judge Armstrong to hold a hearing in which the defendants could question the victims directly about their relationships with the translators in question. 

“We need to know: how many times did these people meet with the complainants?” he said. “Did they make telephone calls on their behalf, and to who? What was the nature of their relationship?” 

“If she was with them for four hours, that’s one thing. If she spent 400 with them, that’s something else.” 

Cotsirilos repeatedly charged the prosecution with “playing a shell game” with his requests for information regarding the translators. He said that an evidentiary hearing would assure that the defense would have access to the victims. 

U.S. Attorney Steven Corrigan, lead prosecutor, vehemently denied the charges. 

“We don’t have this information,” he said. “We can’t provide information we don’t have.” 

But while Armstrong agreed that the prosecution had no control over Rao, she said the victims could provide information on the nature of their relationship to them. She ordered the federal government to question them about specifics of the relationship and share that information with the defense. The prosecution and the defense were ordered to consult and reach agreement on a list of questions. 

Cotsirilos then said that he wanted the questions to also be directed to Shekhar, another translator employed in the case. He produced what he said were photographs of Shekhar at a demonstration outside Pasand Restaurant, owned by the Reddy family, in December 2000.  

“An interpreter is supposed to be someone who transmits information without bias,” he said. 

Corrigan again objected. 

“This is a fishing expedition,” he said. He said that even if she had a bias against the Lakireddys, whom he called “individuals that have committed crimes against minors,” it did not follow that she would have done anything improper in her role as translator. 

Armstrong eventually granted Cotsirilos’ motion to include Shekhar in the questioning. 

In another development, it was revealed that Rao had recently gone to India, and planned to be there for the immediate future – in order “to take care of her ailing mother and promote solar technology,” according to an attorney who appeared on her behalf. 

The attorney further said Rao was “at peril.” 

“If she is questioned, I have counseled her to assert her Fifth Amendment privilege unless she is offered immunity,” he said. 

Corrigan said that he was shocked to hear that Rao was no longer in the country. 

“This is the first that the government has heard that Ms. Rao has left for India,” he said. 

The next hearing in the case against the brothers will be held on Nov. 27, in Judge Armstrong’s courtroom. 

Two other members of the family, Jayaprakash Lakireddy, Reddy’s brother, and Annapurna Lakireddy, Jayaprakash’s wife, have pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud. They appeared in court Tuesday to iron out details of their plea-bargain agreement before their sentencing.  

Their attorney requested that some details in the plea-bargain be struck, as they were denied by the defendants and would not be challenged in court.  

Corrigan, who also appeared for the prosecution in this case, agreed to the changes. Jayaprakash and Annapurna Lakireddy are scheduled to be sentenced on Jan. 29, 2002. 

Before the hearing, a few Berkeley residents picketed at the entrance to the courthouse with signs that read “The Lakireddys are the criminals, not the interpreters” and “How many Lakireddys does it take to screw Berkeley?” Among them were Marcia Poole, the Berkeley woman who first reported the elder Reddy to police, after an incident in one of his apartment buildings in which one of the victims in the case died of carbon monoxide poisoning. (The death was ruled accidental.) Diana Russell, a Mills College professor emeritus who has written widely on the sexual abuse of children, also demonstrated.