In Summation of Carmona Case, the D.A. Indicts Himself

On the road to doing something noble this week, Dist. Atty. Tony Rackauckas got lost and took a sorry detour.

For my money, he combined two traits you hate to see in a district attorney: He twisted the truth to cover his rear and he showed a lack of grace under pressure.

When Rackauckas finally agreed on Monday that the robbery convictions of teenager Arthur Carmona should be erased--a decision he could have made months and months ago--Orange County’s D.A. had a chance to distinguish himself.

He could have explained to an intelligent community how wrongful convictions can occur. He could have said without apology how the criminal justice system is imperfect and how the only things that should matter are questions of guilt or innocence and safeguarding people’s rights.

Instead, he wilted in the spotlight.

Rackauckas agreed to let Carmona go free because, he said, his office couldn’t win a retrial. He’s right. If someone is found guilty in 1998 (when Carmona was convicted), you should still be able to win a conviction in 2000. If not, he should go free.

So Rackauckas sprung Carmona.

So far so good on his thinking.

Then came his grudging performance at a press conference the same day.

Speaking to reporters but directing his remarks to Carmona, Rackauckas told the young man who had just spent 2 1/2 years behind bars that he was lucky to be getting this “break.” Take advantage of it, Rackauckas said, don’t let your supporters down. “Do not--I repeat, not--commit any crimes.”

Take your pick: an incredible insult or a veiled threat.

That’s the kind of lecture you’d give a parolee, not someone whose conviction you just expunged.

Obviously, Rackauckas thinks Carmona is guilty of the two robberies for which he was convicted.

That forced him to explain why he endorsed Carmona’s “early” release from his 12-year prison sentence.

To explain that one, Rackauckas had to bend the truth.

Rackauckas said his office couldn’t retry Carmona because pressured questioning from me had gotten unspecified witnesses to recant their testimony in a series of columns the last 15 months.

He said I had an “agenda” in Carmona’s behalf and that I crossed ethical lines in reporting the case.

If by “agenda” he means I had an opinion on the case after scrutinizing all of the records, he’s absolutely right. That’s what newspaper columnists are supposed to do.

Now, about my alleged role with the recanting witnesses.

A few facts:

I’m aware of only one witness who has recanted, and her name is Casey Becerra. She was a cashier in a Costa Mesa restaurant and a crucial witness because she was the only one of two available witnesses who identified Carmona, in court, as the gunman in that robbery. The other witness, who couldn’t identify Carmona in court, did testify at some length that the robber was right-handed.

A right-handed robber, but no identification of Carmona.

Becerra, however, did identify Carmona in court. And, unlike her fellow cashier, she said the gunman was left-handed, as is Carmona.

Flash forward to an afternoon in May last year when Becerra telephoned me. She identified herself and asked if I knew who she was. I did, but only because I had reviewed the Carmona court case in excruciating detail and knew of her role in it.

It was the first time we’d ever spoken or met.

She said a friend had directed her to a column I’d written about the case a couple of weeks before. For the first time, Becerra said, she learned in the column that none of the physical evidence linked Carmona to the crime--a fact not even Rackauckas disputes.

Before I’d asked a single question, a clearly agitated Becerra said the prosecutor in the case had told her before she testified that a lot of evidence had been linked to Carmona, including the gun and clothing worn by the gunman. With that information, Becerra said, she testified strongly about Carmona.

After learning that not a shred of the recovered evidence had been linked to Carmona, she told me she wasn’t sure that Carmona was the gunman and that she had, in effect, testified to more than she actually saw. She said later, when we met in person for the first time, she was so frightened she wasn’t sure she got a good look at the robber’s face.

Becerra told me this week that she was prepared to testify to all of this in the hearing that was supposed to take place this week on Carmona’s request for a retrial. She is more certain than ever, she said, that the prosecutor in the case informed her of the evidence before she testified, rather than afterward, as the prosecutor has insisted.

Do you think Rackauckas wanted to hear Becerra on the stand this week? Any chance that’s why he pulled the plug?

As for other “recanting witnesses” I allegedly swayed, I’d first like to know who they are.

Maybe Rackauckas means Joseph Kim, one of two people in an Irvine juice club that Carmona allegedly robbed. In his trial testimony in 1998, Kim gave, at best, a lukewarm identification of Carmona.

In a post-trial affidavit for Carmona’s appellate lawyers, however, Kim elaborated. He said he was driven after the robbery to a Costa Mesa residence that police led him to believe--falsely--was Carmona’s house. They then put the robber’s hat on Carmona, although police knew the hat hadn’t been linked in any way to Carmona.

“I recognized the Lakers hat from the robbery,” Kim said in his sworn statement. “Even after they put the hat on his head, I still wasn’t sure that Arthur was the robber. . . . With the hat on, Arthur did kind of look like the robber, and since I thought we were standing in front of Arthur’s house and the police said they found the hat in his house, I thought, ‘What a coincidence,’ and figured he was probably the robber.”

Did my pressured questioning sway Kim to say that? Well, at the time Kim gave this statement, I’d never met nor spoken to him. Ever.

Carmona’s lawyers say Kim also was prepared to testify at the hearing this week.

You think Rackauckas wanted to hear Kim on the witness stand this week? Any chance that’s part of the reason Rackauckas pulled the plug?

Becerra and Kim represent the reasons the Carmona verdict was wrong. They symbolize the verdict Rackauckas once seemed so intent on preserving.

Only when faced with the imminent prospect of public embarrassment did he finally drop his opposition to Carmona’s appeal.

But, with a bogus conviction and no chance of winning a retrial, the district attorney still couldn’t bow out with grace.

In exchange for dropping the charges, Rackauckas insisted Carmona stipulate that neither police nor prosecutors committed misconduct in the case.

With his freedom on the line, Carmona signed.

Right to the end, Rackauckas played the pol.

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers can reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by e-mail to dana.parsons@latimes.com.