Issue of Gates’ Future Now Rests With Judge : Courts: Jurist says he will rule as quickly as possible whether Police Commission has authority over chief. An appeal is expected.

The fate of Police Chief Daryl F. Gates and the issue of who controls the Los Angeles Police Department were placed in the hands of a judge Thursday as a hearing concluded into whether the City Council or the Police Commission has the power to suspend the chief.

Superior Court Judge Ronald Sohigian took the matter under submission after hearing more than 15 hours of complex and, at times, esoteric and bitter arguments from lawyers representing the police chief, the council, the commission and several civil rights groups.

Sohigian, who has 90 days to review the mounds of legal documents in the case, said that he would render a written decision as quickly as possible.

The city has been deeply divided since the March 3 police beating of Rodney G. King. Many of the frustrations and criticisms that citizens and government officials have expressed have spilled over into the courtroom. While protesters have lined the hallways demanding Gates’ resignation, the atmosphere inside Sohigian’s court has been equally tense as opponents have accused one another of betrayals, plots and back room deals.

The legal battle erupted April 4 when the civilian Police Commission, which was appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley, put Gates on a 60-day paid leave, pending an investigation into the beating. The action ignited a firestorm at City Hall, where a City Council majority rushed to Gates’ defense and agreed to settle a lawsuit the chief had threatened to file in an attempt to overturn the commission’s decision.

The issue wound up in Sohigian’s courtroom, and he must now determine whether to approve the settlement forged between the City Council and Gates.

He will also decide the larger issue of whether the City Council or the five-member Police Commission has ultimate authority over the Police Department and its chief.

While the City Council is empowered to settle lawsuits, the City Charter allows the commission to hire, discipline and fire a police chief.

At an earlier session, Sohigian seemed reluctant to thrust the court into these kinds of disputes. “The judicial branch should not be placed in a position of running the government,” he said.

The city attorney’s office and City Council came under fire from the Police Commission and civil rights groups for trying to settle the lawsuit before it was filed. Hillel Chodos, a private attorney representing the commission, called the settlement a sham.

Attempting to see if there was a back room deal, Sohigian asked the attorneys: “Was there a wink, a nod, a super-friendly deal?”

“Absolutely not,” replied Harry Melkonian, Gates’ attorney. “. . . It is not unusual in government matters to settle before a complaint is filed. But the preparation of the suit was done vigorously and in an adversarial manner.”

The city’s lawyers offered new details on how that settlement came about. They said that on April 4, notice was given by Melkonian and co-counsel Jay Grodin that Gates’ lawsuit would be filed. The next day, however, the City Council took up the matter and agreed to settle.

During that meeting, City Atty. James K. Hahn and Grodin talked by phone and concluded that a settlement could be worked out. The next day, a Saturday, Gates’ attorneys delivered a copy of the lawsuit to the home of a deputy city attorney, who then drew up the settlement.

In the midst of it all, the commission voiced anger that the city attorney was offering advice to both the commission and the City Council--an act commissioners described as a conflict of interest. That issue remains unresolved, but Hahn’s office has denied wrongdoing.

The commissioners maintained that they had been stabbed in the back by their own legal advisers. However, Senior Assistant City Atty. Frederick Merkin said: “There was no betrayal by the city attorney of the Police Commission.”

He said that the commissioners had been given a memo from his office on the morning of April 4--before they decided to place Gates on leave--warning them to hold back on any action until they could get private counsel.

Commissioner Melanie Lomax then gave two city attorney memos to a lawyer for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, triggering complaints that she had leaked confidential documents. Lomax denies that what she did was improper.

Whether a ruling by Sohigian will settle all the conflicts is doubtful, attorneys said. The losing side is expected to appeal, and that legal contest could take weeks, if not months to conclude.

Outside the courtroom Thursday, local civil rights leaders said that regardless of what Sohigian does, they want police brutality to stop.

“This issue is not about Gates, or City Atty. Hahn or even Rodney King,” said John Mack, president of the Urban League. “It is about the fundamental rights of Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities who aren’t going to be jacked around any more by the police.”

At another point, after a protester yelled, “We’re going to take to the streets!” Mack told reporters: “The temperature in the community is high. If something is not done, it could invite some people to resort to socially unacceptable tactics. If all hell breaks loose, we place the blame at the doorstep of the leadership of this city.”

Meanwhile, the judge hearing the criminal case against four Los Angeles Police Department officers indicted in the King beating, denied all remaining motions to dismiss the charges and reluctantly announced that the trial would not begin as scheduled Monday.

Superior Court Judge Bernard Kamins said he did not think the task of questioning prospective jurors could start before early June.

The officers were indicted in March by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury on charges of assault and use of excessive force. One officer, rookie Timothy Wind, was fired by Chief Gates this week while the others--Sgt. Stacey Koon and Officers Laurence Powell and Theodore Briseno--face Police Department disciplinary hearings that could lead to their dismissal.

Kamins, who has adamantly opposed any delay in the high-profile case, cited the illness of Koon, who has pneumonia, as one reason for the delay. In addition, Powell’s attorney is in another trial, prosecutors have not yet given all their evidence to the defense, and the judge has expressed concern over whether the defendants can get a fair trial while emotions in the community still run high.

The judge has yet to decide two key pretrial motions: whether to move the trial out of Los Angeles County and whether to give the officers separate trials.

On Monday, Kamins also will hear a motion by the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department--known informally as the Christopher Commission--for release of the officers’ personnel records and the Police Department’s internal investigation of their roles in the King incident.

Kamins said he has ordered 500 prospective jurors to appear in court next Wednesday and Thursday, and plans to ask them to fill out a written questionnaire and then report in several weeks for oral questioning either individually or in small groups.

“If I feel you cannot get a fair trial in this jurisdiction” after hearing from prospective jurors, he told the officers and their attorneys, “I might have more creative ways to make sure you do.”

In denying motions for dismissal Thursday, Kamins said defense attorney John Barnett was persuasive in arguing that prosecutors presented the grand jury with only part of the available evidence.