Is Judge Seeing Carmona in a New Light?

Trying to read a judge is risky business, even for veteran lawyers. For a layperson, it’s a real crapshoot.

But . . . was that a signal Judge Everett Dickey sent out Friday as he set Aug. 21 to hear new evidence and arguments in the appeal for Costa Mesa teenager and convicted robber Arthur Carmona?

A signal, that is, that could lead to the 18-year-old Carmona’s getting out of prison after nearly 2 1/2 years in custody?

Oh, Dickey didn’t come right out and say he’d spring Carmona. Far from it.

But he said just enough to intrigue and to make you wonder if he’s seeing things somewhat differently than last June when he sentenced Carmona to 12 years on two armed robbery counts.

As someone who has lobbied vigorously that Carmona deserves a new trial, I hope that’s what the judge is doing.

That Dickey set a hearing date wasn’t surprising; a favorable preliminary ruling for Carmona from a state appellate court earlier this year essentially forced the judge’s hand.

What buoyed me, however, was Dickey’s demeanor. Gone was the near-dismissive tone he seemed to have just a year ago when he rejected Carmona’s first attempt at a new trial.

Right out of the box Friday, Dickey referred to Carmona’s learning disability as a solid appeal issue. Outlined in a sworn affidavit from one of his high school teachers, Carmona’s disability was never brought out at trial.

Dickey pointedly said he hadn’t been aware of Carmona’s disability. He went on to say that it might have been significant to jurors because prosecutors “relied so much on [Carmona’s] behavior” in the first few hours after his arrest. The implication was that knowledge of the disability might have explained some of that behavior and given jurors something to think about.

That’s the kind of talk that leads to new-trial orders.

And if Dickey issues that order, Carmona is home free. It’s nearly impossible to imagine, given what has come out since his first trial, that the Orange County district attorney would try Carmona again.

The judge was less committal about other aspects of Carmona’s appeal, but said some of the issues warranted being heard at the August hearing.

Post-Trial Dispute Also in Question

Significantly, one of them represented another example of how the veteran judge, at least as it appears on the surface, may be rethinking some things.

That’s the post-trial dispute between the deputy district attorney who prosecuted Carmona and one of her star witnesses.

The witness, a Denny’s restaurant cashier named Casey Becerra, testified strongly against Carmona at his October 1998 trial. But when she read in The Times several months later that no physical evidence linked Carmona to the crime, Becerra contacted me and claimed the prosecutor misled her about the evidence and that she no longer was certain Carmona was the robber. She filed a sworn affidavit to that effect and later wrote a letter of apology to Carmona, then in jail awaiting his eventual transfer to prison.

Prosecutor Jana Hoffman challenged Becerra’s account, and Dickey sided with Hoffman last June without taking testimony from Becerra.

On Friday, Dickey acknowledged that he needed to “resolve the differences” between the two accounts and would do so at the August hearing.

In a series of columns that began a little more than a year ago, I argued that the eyewitness accounts that sank Carmona were more suspicious than anything he did--especially in light of Becerra’s recantation, and considering that the only other two strong identifications were buttressed after police put a distinctive Lakers hat worn by the robber on Carmona’s head, even though the cap hadn’t been linked to him in any way.

I came to see his conviction as a 16-year-old kid caught in a swirl of circumstances that were sending him to prison for something he may not have done.

In short, the fabric of the case seemed threadbare.

Police found much physical evidence--including a gun, backpack and the hat--but could link none of it to Carmona. Nor could they tie him to the robber’s accomplice, a man more than twice Carmona’s age who confessed to driving the getaway truck at one of the two robberies.

Whether we’re in the countdown to Carmona’s release will soon become clearer.

His mother is afraid to be optimistic, and his appellate team doesn’t want to read too much into Dickey’s remarks Friday.

Meanwhile, since being arrested five days after his 16th birthday, Carmona waits.

His itinerary since being arrested while walking down a Costa Mesa street and subsequently being identified as the robber reads like this: city jail, three California Youth Authority facilities and three state prisons. He’s now in Ironwood State Prison in Blythe. His mother says Carmona, who wasn’t there Friday, will be in court for the August hearing.

Ten days ago, Veronica Carmona went to commencement at Costa Mesa High School, where Arthur would have been a senior this year. She took photos of his former classmates and got a yearbook with their signatures. Someone--she thinks a teacher--paid the extra money to have Arthur’s name embossed on the cover.

My fondest hope is that the district attorney knows deep-down that Carmona’s conviction doesn’t stand legal, logical or moral scrutiny. I trust the D.A.’s office will quietly accept the decision if Judge Dickey finds a way to reverse the verdict.

And that’s why the suspense of the next seven weeks starts with this: Was that a signal in Courtroom 6 last Friday or not?

Let’s hope so.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821 or by e-mail to [email protected]