Prosecutors Say Carmona Trial Was Fair

Prosecutors on Friday countered charges that Costa Mesa teenager Arthur Carmona was wrongly convicted of a 1998 robbery, saying the testimony of several witnesses who were not interviewed by the boy’s lawyer during the trial would not have changed the outcome of the case.

In a 63-page response to Carmona’s appeal for a new trial, prosecutors also deny allegations that they misled a key witness into identifying Carmona and that the teenager received ineffective legal counsel.

Prosecutors maintain in the response, filed in Orange County Superior Court, that none of the witnesses Carmona’s attorneys say should have testified would have provided him an effective alibi. Furthermore, two eyewitnesses who allegedly identified someone other than Carmona didn’t get a good look at the robber, they say.

The performance of Carmona’s attorney, Kenneth A. Reed, was adequate and Carmona received a fair trial, prosecutors said.

“Our contention is that Carmona was represented by effective counsel who made reasonable, tactical decisions based on the information that he had,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Pear said.

Carmona, who had no criminal record, was arrested nearly two years ago and charged with the robbery of an Irvine juice bar and also for the robbery of a Costa Mesa restaurant two days before the Irvine incident. He was later convicted of both crimes at a single trial.

*

Since his conviction, two jurors and a key witness in the case have publicly expressed doubts about Carmona’s guilt. His cause has drawn attention from many community leaders who believe that he is innocent and that he was convicted on the basis of faulty eyewitness testimony.

Carmona’s new attorneys say Reed failed to interview several witnesses, including a former girlfriend who said she saw Carmona at his house around the time of the Irvine incident. They also say Reed didn’t question two eyewitnesses who reportedly identified people other than Carmona.

But prosecutors said both eyewitnesses in the juice bar dove under the counter and never got a good look at the robber. In an affidavit filed with the response, Reed said he concluded that neither witness “helped or really hurt the case.”

As for the alibi witnesses, prosecutors said, none would have provided testimony regarding Carmona’s whereabouts during the robbery. At best, the testimony would have shed light only on where Carmona said he was going to be.

They also defended Reed’s decision not to call an expert on eyewitness identification, saying it was a tactical decision. Reed’s courtroom strategy should not be second-guessed, prosecutors said.

Carmona’s lawyers, who have until May 19 to file a response, stood by their position.

“Arthur was wrongly convicted, and we’re hopeful he will soon be released,” attorney Deborah Muns said.