Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 11, 1993 TAG: 9304110068
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Knight-Ridder/Tribune
DATELINE: LOS ANGELES LENGTH: Medium
LA TRIAL GOES TO JURY
Jurors in the federal trial of four police officers accused of beating Rodney King began the task Saturday of deciding whether the black motorist was a helpless victim of thugs in uniform, or an aggressive felon who threatened police and later lied about his infamous arrest.The case went to the jury at 3:05 p.m., almost two months after testimony began and a few hours after emotional final arguments. Deliberations ended for the day about 2 1/2 hours later and were to resume at noon today so jurors could attend Easter services.
Meanwhile, law enforcement authorities outside the courtroom are preparing the largest show of force in this city's history.
The four officers - Laurence Powell, Theodore Briseno, Timothy Wind and Sgt. Stacey Koon - were found not guilty of all but one of a series of excessive force charges last year by a mostly white jury at a state trial. The verdict set off a wave of rioting that claimed 53 lives and resulted in nearly $1 billion in property damage.
Saturday, in an effort to deter jurors from allowing the threat of more rioting to color their deliberations, defense lawyer Harlan Braun fell back on the symbolism of the Easter holiday, likening the trial of the four officers to the condemnation of Jesus Christ, who faced Pontius Pilate amid the threat of rioting in the streets.
"I don't think anyone should be condemned because of the threat of a riot," Braun said. "What's at stake here is whether or not people can have a trial when public opinion and the politicians do not care about whether the prisoner is guilty or innocent."
Prosecutors, in their final rebuttal offered just before the case went to the jury, struck at one of the central notions underlying the officers' defense: that the events recorded on the videotape of King's arrest should be judged only from the point of view of police officers familiar with the unique pressures borne by officers who face violent criminals on a daily basis.
"What they're saying is that civilians can't judge police officers," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Barry Kowalski. "If that's so, that's a police state. . . . If you should not judge police officers, who should?"
In the federal trial now drawing to a close, the four officers are charged with violating King's constitutional rights by using unreasonable force to arrest him. To convict the officers, a panel of nine whites, two blacks and one Hispanic must find that the officers not only used unreasonable force when they stopped King after a high-speed chase in the early morning of March 3, 1991, but did so intentionally.
Despite the racial overtones of the case - the verdicts in the state trial were viewed widely as a product of a double standard of justice, one for whites and one for blacks - prosecutors in the federal trial have not attempted to prove that the officers beat King into submission because he is black.
Instead, they have argued that the four officers tried, convicted and punished King at the corner of Foothill and Osborne boulevards because he disobeyed their orders and showed disrespect.
For the four police officers on trial, convictions could lead to fines of up to $250,000 and as many as 10 years in prison.