Reprisal Seen in Officer’s Prosecution : Dalton case: The captain charged with conspiracy became a target only after he recommended action against others in the police raid, his attorney says.

A defense attorney, responding to conspiracy charges against a Los Angeles Police Department supervisor, argued Thursday that Capt. Thomas Elfmont became a target in the case only after he recommended that other officers be disciplined for the ill-fated drug raid at 39th Street and Dalton Avenue.

Elfmont fully cooperated with the LAPD’s Internal Affairs investigators and the district attorney’s office in the months after the Aug. 1, 1988, raid, attorney Barry Levin told jurors.

But four months after the raid, when Elfmont recommended suspensions for 17 of the nearly 80 LAPD officers who took part, those same officers began trying to pin blame on Elfmont for his instructions to them during a police roll call meeting several days before the incident, Levin said during a lengthy closing argument in the captain’s trial.

“All of a sudden . . . (the officers) start to mention Elfmont,” the attorney said, imploring jurors to consider why. “He is the one that recommended all the penalties. There is your motivation for trying to bring him in (as a suspect) in some way.”

A total of 16 officers testified for the prosecution during the six-week trial.

Elfmont and two subordinates--Sgt. Charles (Ted) Spicer and Officer Todd B. Parrick--face misdemeanor conspiracy and vandalism charges stemming from the so-called 39th and Dalton incident, in which the raid on suspected gang drug-dealing locations resulted in heavy damage to four apartment units and furniture. The action cost the city $3.4 million in civil lawsuit settlements and was considered the LAPD’s most flagrant example of officer misconduct until the more recent police beating of Rodney G. King.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden, who began closing arguments on Wednesday, reacted to Thursday’s defense statements by saying that officers were afraid to name Elfmont earlier.

“These officers feared for their careers,” Darden said. “They feared reprisals from management in terms of transfers to unattractive locations or demotions. They feared their careers would be stymied.”

Elfmont, who is considered the key figure in the trial, emphasized during a courtroom break that he urged his own officers to talk candidly with investigators and to “take the lumps” for any misconduct they might have committed.

“If I was a conspirator, would I have cooperated with the D.A.?” he asked. “I just wouldn’t have done it.”

Elfmont also confirmed that he has agreed to talk about the 39th and Dalton incident next Wednesday in a closed-door session with the Christopher Commission, the citizens panel that is reviewing the LAPD in the wake of the beating of King.

Elfmont is expected to devote most of his testimony to the raid, but questions about matters other than the Dalton raid will also be asked of Elfmont, said commission spokesman Bryce Nelson.

Prosecutors have focused attention on Elfmont for several phrases he allegedly used in telling officers how to handle the suspected drug locations, including the words “uninhabitable” and “leveled.” In earlier testimony, officers also had said Elfmont wanted the apartments “hit hard” and assured his troops that they would receive complete support for their actions, even if a gang member were to be shot.

Levin denied that any of Elfmont’s comments suggested conspiracy and told jurors that it is a captain’s job to motivate officers who might, during a drug raid, have to use force. Reading from transcripts of earlier testimony, Levin cited several instances in which officers were asked whether they took Elfmont’s instructions to mean they should damage the apartments.

In each instance, the officers testified that there seemed to be no such instruction, in spite of Elfmont’s “tough” language. Also, “not a single shot was fired” during the 45-minute search for drugs, the attorney added.

“Maybe you feel (Elfmont’s) words were inappropriate,” Levin told the jury. “Maybe you feel he talked too tough. Maybe it’s obvious he used a poor choice of words. But there was no criminal intent--none.”

Quoting Officer Mike Miskiewic, who testified that there was “no plan to do any damage,” Levin concluded: “That’s (the) whole case for conspiracy, and you just heard it in context. There’s nothing else.”

Attorney Michael Stone, representing Sgt. Spicer, also addressed jurors during a day devoted to defense arguments. He displayed numerous photographs of damage in the apartments and questioned whether all of it was caused by police.

Stone cited the testimony of one black officer, Carlton Lawrence, who said the destruction depicted in the photographs was noticeably worse than what he saw at the scene. That testimony, the lawyer said, suggested that apartment residents caused much of the damage themselves.

“These people were angry,” Stone said. “They were mad when they came home.”

Stone also suggested that some damage was caused by officers who were never charged in the case. One dresser, for example, was punctured by a police ram--but none of the testimony established which officer was to blame, Stone said.

“Now, here is police misconduct,” the attorney said. “If you can tell from the evidence who did this, you ought to convict him.”

Times staff writer Andrea Ford contributed to this story.