The Lakireddy Bali Reddy Case
A Family's Criminal Conspiracy Involving Sexual Slavery & Indentured Servitude In Berkeley
*NOTE: All sections of this story were were transferred from the website Women Against Sexual Slavery
The Lakireddy Bali Reddy Case Lakireddy Bali Reddy Chanti Prattipati
Annapurna & Jayaprakash Lakireddy Vijay & Prasad Lakireddy Further News & Events
About Women Against Sexual Slavery Reddy Case Links Why Did Chanti Die?
ANNAPURNA AND JAYAPRAKASH LAKIREDDY
Reddy's rich and powerful younger brother and sister-in-law, were also charged for their part in the manufacture of false documentation for the importation of illegal aliens from India for sexual and labor exploitation. As with Reddy, the attorneys concluded the plea bargain negotiations by agreeing to absurdly lenient sentences of a maximum of 16 months for Jayaprakash Lakireddy and a maximum of 12 months for Annapurna Lakireddy, Although Jayaprakash was not charged with raping Reddy's sex slaves, he and his wife facilitated the rape and sexual enslavement of young girls by Reddy. This means they are both guilty of pimping for Reddy.
Plea Bargin Reduces Charges
Jayaprakash and Annapurna were scheduled to be sentenced on July 24, however the Judge postponed this to November 6, 2001. After the revelations about the interpreters, the Lakireddy couple considered withdrawing their guilty plea. However, on November 6 they decided against doing so on condition that Corrigan agree to strike two statements in the Lakireddys' pre-sentence report: a) that after the Lakireddys had been arrested, they had arranged for certain victims to return to India; and b) that one of the victims had reported that Jayaprakash "had sex with"(i.e., raped) two of Reddy's victims.
Although Corrigan maintained that the testimony by one of the victims about Jayaprakash "having sex" with two of the victims was consistent with what she had reported before, he said he would prefer to have them struck from the report because he was not prepared to offer testimony from the victims in support of their testimony — presumably because of the trauma involved in so doing. Judge Armstrong then postponed sentencing Jayaprakash and Annapurna until January 29, 2002.
As a result of Jayaprakash and Annapurna Lakireddy's attorney plea bargaining the charges against them down to a single count of immigration fraud, the Prosecutors only recommended a 14-month sentence for Jayaprakash. On April 29, 2002, Judge Wilken sentenced Jayaprakash to one year in a halfway house, probably in Oakland. This would enable him to continue running his businesses. However, "if the Bureau of Prisons can't find room for him at a halfway house, he may be sent to a camp-like institution in Atwater near Merced, where he would not be able to continue his personal business interests." (Fernandez, April 30, 2002, p. 3B). His sentence began on June 17, 2002.
Judge Claudia Wilkin's Treats Lakireddys as Her Peers
Judge Wilken sentenced Annapurna Lakireddy to six months of home detention so that she could continue to take care of her three children. Although she was monitored electronically, she was permitted to "go grocery shopping, attend religious events and doctor appointments, as well as attend her 12-year-old daughter's sports and school activities"(Fernandez, April 30, 2002, p. 3B). The Prosecutors agreed to this pitifully lenient sentence.
According to Lisa Fernandez, "authorities allege the Lakireddys knew about the full extent of Reddy's crimes" (April 30, 2002, p. 3B). Needless to say, rather than intervening in an effort to stop Reddy engaging in his many criminal acts, they colluded with him. Judge Wilken treated them both as peers whose interests she sought to accommodate — rather than as callous, exploitive criminals. Poole, who was present in court on the day of the sentencing, commented as follows on Judge Wilken's demeanor as well as her light sentences:
She seemed to almost be amiable with Jayaprakash and Annapurna. It reminded me that class issues are at the root of the justice system's inequities.... She was more concerned about Annapurna's ability to take her children to games than she was with the fact that their conscious and blatant actions resulted in destroyed lives, death, and servitude. (Personal communication, May 9, 2002).
