NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A defense attorney challenged the prosecution’s identification evidence during a probable cause hearing Friday in Orange County Superior Court, arguing there was insufficient evidence to establish that her client was one of two people involved in the alleged vandalism of a car wash.
Defense Attorney Kate Robinson contended that the case against the accused rested largely on a co-accused’s statements and a disputed identification based on grainy surveillance footage.
The accused, along with a co-accused, was suspected of vandalizing a car wash. The two men allegedly attempted to extract a pay station using a hook.
The co-accused admitted to prior car wash vandalism charges and named the accused as his accomplice in this case.
The witness on the stand was an officer who identified the accused for the first time Thursday in court.
According to an interview of the co-accused conducted by the officer on Sept. 30, 2024, the witness had inquired about the accused’s ears. The officer noted that the accused allegedly had “ears a little larger than average” and that they “stood out” in the surveillance footage obtained from the car wash at the time the crime allegedly took place.
Referring to the officer’s written report, Robinson asked if he could confirm that the co-accused had met the accused through an ex-girlfriend. The officer could not recall.
Robinson asked if he could confirm that the co-accused and the accused went to a casino before the car wash incident, and whether there was an investigation into the co-accused’s presence at the scene. The officer could not recall that information either.
Robinson questioned the officer about whether he had asked the co-accused if he acted alone in the Chino incident. The officer could not recall.
Robinson further specified by asking whether he had asked the co-accused if he had acted with anyone other than the accused, and the officer replied that he had not posed that question.
About 20 minutes of surveillance footage was submitted into evidence as Defense A.
After the video’s introduction, the officer was instructed to indicate which moments were captured and used as the still images that were utilized to identify the accused.
Robinson indicated that the still images had yet to be provided to her. The prosecution did not have them, and neither did the witness.
As the grainy, unenhanced footage played, the officer asked to stop the video because the image on the screen potentially looked like a still image he had used.
The officer pointed out a black hat with a Nike swoosh that the accused was wearing.
Robinson asked the witness to confirm whether the accused had worn that hat during a prior arrest, and the officer replied that he had.
The officer noted that the pixelated image was “as good as it gets.”
In an effort to further express his certainty in identifying the accused, the officer commented regarding the paused video, “I hate to say it, [but I] can see the dopey ears.”
Robinson asked the officer to confirm that he was unable to identify the accused until he saw him in court Thursday, and the witness affirmed that was the case.
While detained in jail, the co-accused named the accused as his accomplice.
Robinson asked the officer whether he had done anything to confirm the accused’s identity, such as checking with the DMV. The officer said no.
Robinson noted that the officer had contacted Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Watley on Oct. 1, 2024.
The officer contacted Deputy Watley to check the accused’s record and found that he had been involved in a traffic stop Watley conducted on Feb. 28.
Watley told the officer he could identify the accused based on that brief interaction, which had not resulted in an arrest, to the best of the officer’s knowledge.
The officer did not ask Watley about the extent of the traffic stop and did not obtain any reports or video recordings.
Robinson confirmed that Deputy Watley had not seen the accused at any other time besides the traffic stop.
She asked whether the officer had requested a physical description of the accused from Watley. The officer could not recall.
Robinson asked whether the officer had inquired about tattoos, noting that the accused bore distinctive tattoos. The officer said he did not recall.
The prosecution indicated that three different forms of identification had been made: the co-accused naming the accused, Deputy Watley identifying the accused based on the traffic stop, and the officer identifying the accused through the surveillance footage.
The prosecution argued that all elements necessary to establish probable cause had been met.
Robinson argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish identity, noting that the first official identification was made only the previous day.
She remarked that the evidence ultimately traced back to the co-accused and that the individual identified as the accused in the surveillance footage did not appear to have tattoos, despite the accused having tattoos.
Robinson also requested that the charges be reduced to misdemeanors.
Judge Carlton P. Biggs denied the defense attorney’s request.
He also maintained the accused’s bail and conditions, disregarding the California Supreme Court’s reasonable bail ruling in In re Kowalczyk.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
