Witness Doubt Arises in Holdup

The sole eyewitness who identified a Garden Grove teenager later convicted of robbing a commercial loan business now says in court papers that he’s not sure he picked out the right person.

The witness’ statement is a key part of the appeal filed on behalf of 18-year-old George Arnulfo Lopez, who was sentenced in February to 13 years in prison for the crime. The appeal includes a letter the witness wrote to the judge in the case stating his misgivings.

“After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that I could not in good faith be 100% sure that [Lopez] is the same person who was present at the crime scene,” wrote Hector Patino, an employee at the loan business.

Prosecutors, however, maintain that Lopez received a fair trial and that it is not uncommon for witnesses to become less sure about their identification over time.

“We vigorously litigated this case in front of a jury, and a very competent defense was put on,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Joe D’Agostino. “We stand by the verdict.”

Authorities said Lopez, armed with a sawed-off shotgun and joined by an accomplice, robbed Citi Financial in Anaheim a year ago. The pair allegedly forced three employees to lie face down and demanded that the victims turn over their personal belongings and the business’ safe.

Lopez became a suspect four days after the May 17 robbery when Orange police stopped him and three other young men in a mall parking lot. One of his companions was wanted for parole violation, court transcripts said.

In the foursome’s car, police found a sawed-off shotgun that matched the description of the weapon used in a recent string of robberies in Orange, Tustin and Anaheim. One of Lopez’s companions, a 16-year-old, pleaded guilty to a robbery in Orange and is now serving time under the California Youth Authority.

Lopez, a minor at the time, was not implicated in that robbery. But Patino later identified him as the gunman in the loan business robbery. The other employees could not positively identify Lopez.

Lopez’s attorney, Charles Stoddard, argued during trial that his client was working in his father’s frame shop in Santa Ana the day of the robbery and could not have committed the crime. Stoddard contends that the witness identification “put him in prison.”

But prosecutor D’Agostino said the fact that Patino has doubts does not change the fact that he positively picked Lopez out of the photos and later at a police lineup.

“After the fact, you can always find witnesses that if you confront them again they might be a little inconsistent, or a little unsure,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean that their original testimony is inaccurate.”

Patino declined Thursday to elaborate on his statement, which he wrote after meeting with a private investigator working for the defense. Patino told the jury in the case that while he did identify Lopez in the police lineup, he could not be sure it was the same person sitting in the defendant’s chair in court.

Prosecutors argued, however, that Patino’s earlier identifications were adequate.

Legal experts have raised concerns about the reliability of eyewitness identification in criminal cases. Earlier this year in Orange County, DeWayne McKinney, who had spent 19 years in prison for murder, was freed after witnesses in his case said they may have misidentified him.

“People have known for years that eyewitnesses can make mistakes,” said William C. Thompson, professor of criminology, law and society at UC Irvine.