VAN NUYS, CA – A preliminary hearing here this week in a Los Angeles Superior Court Van Nuys courtroom for a man accused of armed robbery at a local convenience store led to defense concerns about the reliance on circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony in the absence of concrete forensic proof.
According to court records, the accused allegedly entered a convenience store armed with a firearm and stole $2,500 from the cash register before fleeing.
The accused is charged with armed robbery, possession of a firearm during a felony, and conspiracy. The prosecution presented security footage and eyewitness accounts as key evidence against the accused.
Deputy District Attorney Sarah Kensington argued the security footage clearly implicated the accused, noting clothing matching the suspect’s attire in the footage was recovered at the accused’s home.
Additionally, a store clerk and a bystander identified the accused as the perpetrator, leading the prosecutor to argue, “The surveillance footage provides a compelling narrative, and eyewitness accounts further corroborate the accused’s involvement.”
The defense, led by attorney Michael R. Lanning, challenged the strength of the evidence, pointing out that there was no forensic proof such as fingerprints or DNA connecting the accused to the scene or the weapon.
The defense attorney also questioned the reliability of the eyewitnesses, suggesting their memories could have been influenced by stress or external factors.
“Identifying someone based solely on circumstantial evidence is risky and prone to errors,” the defense argued and requested the judge consider the lack of direct evidence in deciding whether the case should proceed to trial.
Commissioner Sarah J. Ellenberg acknowledged the defense concerns, but ruled that there was sufficient probable cause—it’s a low bar—to move the case forward, adding, “While there may be gaps in the forensic evidence, the totality of the circumstances presented by the prosecution meets the threshold for probable cause.”
The next step for the case will be a formal trial, where the prosecution and defense will present more detailed arguments and evidence. The accused remains in custody without bail as the trial date is set.
