King Case Judge Asked to Step Aside Over His Secret Message

Charging that the judge has created “the appearance of bias,” lawyers for four LAPD officers accused in the Rodney G. King beating case on Monday filed a formal request that he disqualify himself or be removed from the case.

They said that Superior Court Judge Bernard Kamins acted improperly when he secretly sent his law clerk to the district attorney’s office last month with a message.

An offer by the judge to transfer the trial to another county had been made outside the courtroom, and he wanted “to assure them (prosecutors) that everything would turn out all right and to tell them ‘not to panic,’ ” defense attorneys John D. Barnett and William J. Kopeny wrote in a 24-page brief.

They depicted Kamins as a publicity-hungry judge who is sacrificing legal principles in his rush to get the case to trial.

The action, filed with Kamins’ clerk, comes in the wake of the release of the Christopher Commission report, which defense attorneys say underscores their belief that their clients cannot get a fair trial either in Los Angeles County or before this particular judge.

The bulk of the defense argument for Kamins’ removal centers on the secret message, which the judge did not disclose until prosecutors--concerned about avoiding any appearance of impropriety--insisted that it be put on the record during a bench conference.

The message came amid legal battles over whether the trial should be moved out of Los Angeles County.

Kamins had repeatedly said no, but when a state appeals court halted all proceedings on the eve of trial pending a review of the matter, the judge reversed his position. In an unusual letter to the appeals court, he said he would be willing to move the trial after all--not because he thought it was necessary but because he wanted to avoid further delay--if the higher court would return control of the case to him. He said he had consulted with the supervising judge.

Kamins heard the district attorney’s outraged reaction to his turnabout over the radio the next day, as he waited in his doctor’s office for a physical exam. The news report prompted him to dispatch his law clerk to reassure prosecutors “because this came out of left field for them.”

“I said (to prosecutors), ‘Wait until tomorrow. Don’t panic. You can trust me,’ ” Kamins said when the message was disclosed.

“I would have said it to you fellows too,” he told defense attorneys. “But you had no reason to panic, because you were in a favorable position.”

The judge said he “didn’t think that was improper.”

Kamins declined comment Monday when the defense demanded his removal from the case. He has 10 days to respond to the allegations, and if he does not disqualify himself, the matter will be ruled on by a Los Angeles County judge agreeable to both sides, or be sent by Criminal Courts Supervising Judge Gary Klausner to a judge in Orange County, Klausner’s clerk said late Monday.

“The entire community is watching this case,” the brief states. “And it is seeing Judge Kamins send his personal envoy to the prosecutor. . . . “

The judge was “perfectly aware that any ex parte (without both sides present) communication with a party on the case was improper, in part, because of the appearance of bias,” the defense writes. “He flouted the rule in sending a secret messenger to the district attorney to curry favor with them or in hopes of avoiding further press releases criticizing his stated intention to change venue.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Terry White gave a slightly different version of the communication. “The message,” he said, “was basically, ‘Don’t stay up all night, that the judge says trust him, he knows what he is doing.’ It was also my information that the law clerk said he felt strange delivering this message.”

A spokesman for the district attorney declined comment Monday, saying that the matter is “between the judge and the defense.”

The day after the message, when the appeals court did not lift its stay, Kamins reversed himself again, saying “to heck with the letter . . . the case will stay here.” Defense attorneys said Kamins has made many moves that call his impartiality into question--even though the trial has not yet begun. They said that he frequently makes comments about press coverage and outside political developments, that he has admitted relying on information garnered outside the courtroom but refused to identify his sources or allow them to be cross-examined, and that he did not permit the defense to call witnesses on its change-of-venue motion.

Kamins has denied nearly all defense motions.

Final defense arguments on the change-of-venue motion are before the appellate court, which could take months to render a decision.

The defense argues that massive publicity alone might not be reason enough to move the trial, that jurors here have interests in local political and police-related issues swirling around the case that are not shared by jurors from other areas. The lawyers cited not only the unprecedented publicity given the King case, but also the current political climate in Los Angeles County, the questions being raised about the credibility and alleged misconduct of the Los Angeles Police Department and a survey of prospective jurors that showed most had already concluded that the officers are guilty.

Moving the trial may not result in jury candidates who have never seen the videotaped beating, but it would at least avoid selecting a panel with ties to and opinions about Los Angeles police and public officials, they argued.

“A juror in another location would not have voted for or against Mayor Bradley, and would not be affected by the local racial tension resulting from . . . reactions to this case, or to the removal or retention of Chief Gates,” Kopeny’s brief stated.

“Such a juror would not be personally affected by the dispute involving the Police Commission, the independent commission, the battle between the mayor and police chief, or by the effect of a local violent, minority reaction to their verdict.”