Trial of LAPD Officers Ordered Out of County : King case: State appeals court cites media coverage and political fallout in calling for a change of venue.

By RICHARD A. SERRANO and EDWARD J. BOYER

July 24, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITERS

A state appeals court Tuesday ordered the criminal trial of four Los Angeles police officers accused in the beating of Rodney G. King to be moved out of Los Angeles County because of “extensive and pervasive” media coverage and “intense” political fallout that shows no sign of abating.

Acting on a request of defense attorneys, the 2nd District Court of Appeal ordered the trial judge to begin searching for a suitable site where a fair trial can be assured.

“There is a substantial probability Los Angeles County is so saturated with knowledge of the incident, so influenced by the political controversy surrounding the matter and so permeated with preconceived opinions that potential jurors cannot try the case solely upon the evidence presented in the courtroom,” the appellate court said in a 27-page decision.

The four-member appellate panel also said that it saw no end in sight in the avalanche of media publicity and political in-fighting that erupted with the March 3 beating of King in the San Fernando Valley.

“What compels our decision in this case is the high level of political turmoil and controversy which this incident has generated, which continues to this day and appears likely to continue at least until the time when a trial of this matter can be had,” the order said.

“So extensive and pervasive has been the coverage, and so intense has become the political fallout, potential jurors have been infected to the extent there is a reasonable likelihood that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in Los Angeles County.”

In taking the extraordinarily rare position of ordering a change of venue, the appeals court rejected comparisons between this case and other notorious Los Angeles trials--such as Charles Manson, the “Nightstalker” and the “Hillside Strangler.” In the other cases, they said, the crimes did not involve defendants who were local police officers nor was there an ensuing local political controversy.

“The fact that the videotape depicts local officers in such conduct,” the judges wrote, “threatens the community’s ability to rely on its police and has caused a high level of indignation, outrage and anxiety.”

Defense attorneys hailed the ruling. Since the day their clients were indicted in March by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury, they have claimed that the nationally televised videotape of the beating has made it impossible to find an impartial jury in the county.

They also have cited the growing political unrest and community divisiveness--climaxed Monday by Police Chief Daryl F. Gates’ announcement that he plans to retire in April--as another sign that a majority of the county’s citizens have already decided the officers are guilty.

John Barnett, who represents Officer Theodore J. Briseno, called the appellate court’s decision “legally correct” and added: “It’s what we had hoped for.”

Barnett said publicity surrounding the case “wasn’t the focus of our argument” for a change of venue.

“Our argument was that potential jurors in Los Angeles County would be burdened by the political fallout this case might engender,” he said. “Potential jurors have an interest in the outcome of the trial unrelated to the facts of the case. There has been great political turmoil affecting the whole county.”

Officer Laurence M. Powell’s attorney, Patrick Thistle, said the court “made a correct decision, for sure . . . absolutely.”

“I’m pleased by the news,” he said.

Darryl Mounger, who represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, said he was “pleased.”

Paul DePasquale, the attorney for Officer Timothy Wind, could not be reached.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, which has argued strenuously for keeping the trial here, was reviewing the decision. Officials there reiterated their belief that an impartial jury can be selected in Los Angeles County.

“We haven’t really had a chance to study it or go over it,” said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner. “Whatever we have to say on the case we will say in court (today).

“We intend to prosecute this case vigorously, and we intend to present all the evidence in a court of law wherever it may be,” she said. “We intend to prosecute this case all the way through, no matter where we prosecute it.”

The defense attorneys return to Superior Court this morning, where they are asking that Judge Bernard J. Kamins be replaced.

On May 15, Kamins tentatively refused to grant a change of venue after concluding that the officers could get as fair a trial here as anywhere. Later that day, however, he postponed a final decision, saying he was having second thoughts.

The next day, Kamins ruled that the trial would remain here, but postponed it for a month to “let the heat cool a little.” Defense attorneys then went to the Court of Appeal.

After the request for a change of venue was filed, Kamins told the appeals court that he did not object to moving the trial, saying that he wants the case to go to trial in a timely manner. However, he later reversed himself and said he believed a fair trial could be held here.

However, the appeals panel--Judges Joan Dempsey Klein, George E. Danielson, Walter H. Croskey and Edward A. Hinz Jr.--disagreed.

From the outset, the judges said, it was clear that the beating had explosive elements.

“The initial showing (of the videotape) caused shock, revulsion, outrage and disbelief among viewers,” the judges wrote. “A firestorm immediately developed in the Los Angeles area, so intense and pervasive was the reaction to the videotape.”

In summarizing the daily barrage of news stories and political machinations, including moves by the Police Commission to place Gates on administrative leave and the chief’s lawsuit to keep his job--the court said these developments only “polarized the community.”

The appeals court also recalled how the Christopher Commission, after weeks of reviewing the Los Angeles Police Department, found evidence of racism, excessive force and mismanagement. Massive press attention followed each move, the appeals court said, but the amount of press coverage was not the sole reason why the trial should be moved.

“Were this simply a matter of extraordinary publicity we might have reached a different conclusion,” the appeals court said.

The judges disagreed with the prosecutors’ contention that the potential jury pool in Los Angeles County is large enough to accommodate a satisfactory number of nonpartisan jurors.

The appeals court also determined that the publicity about the case was not like the heavy publicity surrounding the Manson murder trial, which was conducted in Los Angeles.

The Manson case, the judges wrote, “was not entangled in local politics, did not focus on local politicians, and did not involve issues unique to Los Angeles County.”

The appeals panel pointed to two polls by The Times gauging the public’s reaction shortly after the tape was broadcast. The judges wrote that the second poll, done March 22, found that 94% of those surveyed were “very upset” by the beating and 70.5% believed the force used was racially motivated.

The percentages cited in the court’s order, however, are different from the actual Times Poll results. The March 22 poll found that 94% of all respondents were upset by the beating, and 75% described themselves as “very upset.” The poll also found that nearly two-thirds of the city’s residents, rather than 70.5%, believed the beating was racially motivated.

“It is impossible,” the judges wrote, “to pick up a copy of the Los Angeles Times and not find at least one related story, including one recent article wherein it is charged that officers who publicly criticized the chief are suffering retaliation within the department.”

Describing radio coverage, the judges wrote “it is impossible to listen to any station without hearing stories relating to the latest developments, including jokes. . . . “

Regarding television coverage, the judges described the broadcast images as “an exposition of brutality.”

“It eventually was seen by viewers all over the world, and the world’s reaction filtered back to a shocked community.”

Times staff writers Dean E. Murphy and Sheryl Stolberg contributed to this story.