Calling D.A. to Stand in Carmona Case

New Orange County Dist. Atty. Anthony J. Rackauckas says, through a spokeswoman, that he has reviewed the Arthur Carmona case, and has complete confidence in Deputy Dist. Atty. Jana Hoffman, who prosecuted the now-convicted teenage robber.

Beyond that, his spokeswoman told me, Rackauckas won’t comment.

He could--and should--do better than that.

Defense attorneys don’t work for you and me. Police and prosecutors, however, do. They act in our name. We pay them to protect us by keeping

dangerous people off the streets. They say they’re as interested in protecting the innocent as nailing the guilty.

Let the defense attorneys play games, they say. We the People are interested only in the truth.

Where, then, is the concern from the district attorney’s office after a key eyewitness against Carmona stepped forward last week and said she has serious doubts about whether her identification of him was correct?

Where is the concern over that witness, Casey Becerra, saying her trial testimony may have been influenced by police and prosecutors telling her that they had incriminating physical evidence against Carmona--when, in fact, they did not?

Why, as Carmona sits in the Santa Ana city jail awaiting a possible lengthy prison sentence, don’t prosecutors say something like, “This is upsetting news. We’ll at least talk to Ms. Becerra to see what she has to say”?

Instead, they dismissed Becerra as someone having second thoughts only because of my recent series of columns supporting Carmona’s bid for a new trial. The same woman hailed seven months ago as a model witness now is seen as someone easily swayed by what she reads.

“A trial is a search for the truth,” Hoffman told the jury before it convicted Carmona last October of robbing, two days apart, the Denny’s restaurant in Costa Mesa where Becerra worked and a juice bar in Irvine.

I wasn’t born yesterday. I know that trials are adversary proceedings and that truth often is in the eye of the beholder.

Why doesn’t everyone just say that, then? Why don’t prosecutors and police cleanse their souls and admit they’re just as willing to shade the “truth” as the defense bar they’re often so eager to condemn?

Police and prosecutors love to say they’re just as willing to exonerate someone as implicate them.

I’m sure they often do that.

But what about in the case against Carmona, a soft-spoken young man whose only prior violation was not wearing a bike helmet?

Prosecutor Hoffman points out, for example, that two of the robbery victims identified the gunman as being left-handed, as is Carmona. That, obviously, is incriminating.

What she doesn’t say is that the other three witnesses to the robberies all testified with certainty that the robber was right-handed.

Prosecutors and police know the same things others in law enforcement know: that eyewitness accounts can be unreliable.

So, when faced with a case built completely on eyewitness testimony (keep in mind that no one was more forceful at trial than the now-doubting Becerra), what other evidence did they develop?

The answer is none.

They never linked Carmona, who just turned 16 days before the robberies, to the physical evidence used in the crime. When arrested within an hour of the juice bar holdup, Carmona had neither money from the robbery nor the hat or jacket worn by the gunman.

Did they have any other evidence pointing away from Carmona?

What about Carmona’s alleged “escape” route after the getaway truck traveled from the Irvine juice bar to Costa Mesa?

A colleague and I tried to duplicate a portion of it mid-afternoon Friday.

According to police, Carmona parted from his accomplice near the accomplice’s residence at the South Coast Drive exit ramp off the 405 Freeway. Given the time of the robbery and the estimated driving distance to Costa Mesa, police believe Carmona began his on-foot trek around 3:40 p.m. on Feb. 12, 1998.

Because Carmona was allegedly seen climbing a wall on the 73 Freeway at 3:48 p.m. (according to a call received by police), he had roughly 10 minutes to make his trek.

To do so, police contend, Carmona climbed an embankment at the South Coast Drive exit, then walked along the shoulder of the northbound 73 before crossing three lanes of traffic. He then would have climbed over a median and crossed the two southbound 73 lanes. That would put him in the proximity of the wall where he was allegedly seen.

Can it be done? I won’t call it a preposterous theory. But my buddy and I had to call off the attempt because we couldn’t cross the freeway without stopping traffic or being killed. Neither of us was about to risk that.

Maybe traffic was especially light that particular Thursday afternoon--if so, he could have covered the distance in the presumed time frame. But we found ourselves asking: What is the likelihood that someone, having just committed a robbery, would choose this kind of escape route? With the relative security of a shopping center just a couple blocks away in one direction off the exit or the relative anonymity of major streets the other way, why expose yourself to the maximum risk of being seen on the freeway?

I spent our entire walk fearing that a police car or CHP officer would stop and give us a ticket. It’s inconceivable to me that I’d risk it if I had just held up a store at gunpoint in broad daylight.

Proof of Carmona’s innocence? Nope.

Just as it isn’t proof that three of five witnesses say the gunman was right-handed.

Just as it isn’t proof that Carmona wasn’t linked to any of the physical evidence recovered in the case, including a gun and backpack, both believed used by the robber.

Just as it isn’t proof that he wasn’t wearing either the robber’s hat or jacket or carrying any of the cash when he was arrested.

Just as it isn’t proof that they found not a single fingerprint of his in the getaway truck or established any previous connection between him and a confessed accomplice twice his age.

Just as it isn’t proof that three of the eyewitnesses indicated certainty that Carmona was the robber only after police placed on him a hat that the gunman wore--a hat never linked to him.

A case without proof. A case with eyewitnesses, the strongest of which now says she’s racked with doubt.

Hoffman’s boss, Rackauckas, has shown his mettle before--as a trial judge--by throwing out a murder conviction in 1997 when he mistrusted evidence. It’s also worth pointing out that the Carmona case predates Rackauckas’ tenure in office.

Mr. Rackauckas: Don’t take my word for any of this.

Please. Read the Carmona transcript.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by writing to him at the Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.