Appeals Court Bars Kamins From King Case : Judiciary: He is harshly criticized for his conduct involving defense efforts to move the trial of four police officers accused of beating motorist.

An appeals court on Wednesday barred Superior Court Judge Bernard J. Kamins from presiding over the highly publicized criminal trial of four Los Angeles police officers accused in the Rodney G. King beating, saying the judge had engaged in improper conduct and appeared biased for the prosecution.

In a harshly worded 26-page opinion, the 2nd District Court of Appeal sided with defense attorneys in declaring that Kamins is “constitutionally unacceptable” to preside over the trial.

“We conclude as a matter of law that the conduct of Judge Kamins was not only improper,” the court wrote, “but that a reasonable person aware of the facts would reasonably entertain a suspicion concerning the judge’s impartiality.”

The decision was a stinging rebuke to Kamins, who had fought to keep control of a case that has generated nationwide publicity. The 48-year-old former public defender had argued that he was not biased against the officers and had treated all sides fairly.

Nonetheless, the appeals court overturned a ruling by an an Orange County judge, who sided with Kamins after being asked by state judicial officials to independently evaluate Kamins’ conduct.

The appellate ruling, issued by a four-judge panel that included Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, marked the second time that the appeal court has taken the extraordinary step of intervening in the case before it goes to trial--both times on behalf of the defense.

Last month, the court ordered that the trial be moved out of Los Angeles County, citing extensive media coverage and the “intense” political fallout from the case. A court hearing to discuss alternative sites for the trial is scheduled for this morning.

Wednesday’s decision was highly critical of Kamins. It centered on two points: a June 17 letter in which Kamins unexpectedly announced he would move the trial out of the county, and a subsequent message the judge sent to prosecutors.

Initially, Kamins had steadfastly refused to move the trial. But when defense lawyers appealed, he changed his mind, saying he would order the trial moved if it helped speed the case along. Afterward, he sent a message to prosecutors--who had opposed moving the trial--through his law clerk, telling them: “Don’t panic. You can trust me.”

Defense attorneys said the message showed that Kamins was biased against their clients. They told the appeals court that the judge would “do judicial back flips” to win public favor.

Kamins, however, vigorously defended himself. “A judge is only human and will make mistakes,” Kamins told the appeals court in a legal brief filed by a county lawyer on his behalf. While acknowledging the message to prosecutors was “ill-advised and misconstrued,” the brief said Kamins “treated all counsel with the utmost respect and impartiality.”

But the appeals court agreed with the defense, calling the message “inexcusable.” It described the letter as an “about-face” that shows that Kamins “is overly concerned with his public image and has allowed media interpretations of his actions to influence his management of the case.”

“The inappropriate conduct of Judge Kamins reveals that he allowed himself to become so embroiled in the case that he abandoned his status as a neutral decision maker and focused the spotlight on himself,” the court wrote. “Such conduct undermines the public perceptions of justice and damages public confidence in the judicial system.”

Kamins declined comment Wednesday, relaying the message to reporters through his law clerk. His lawyer, Assistant County Counsel Frederick R. Bennett, could not be reached. The judge may appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, were elated at the ruling.

“I have been saying for many months that we were entitled to a change of venue to get a new trial, and of late, a new judge to get a fair trial,” said attorney Michael Stone, who represents Officer Laurence M. Powell. “It’s nice to see that finally our collective voices are being heard.”

Attorney William Kopeny, who represents Officer Theodore J. Briseno and who authored the request to have Kamins disqualified, added: “I think this opens the way for these defendants, in combination with the change of venue, to get a fair trial.”

Noting that the move to disqualify Kamins has involved a war of words between the judge and the defense lawyers, Kopeny added: “I’m very pleased that we don’t have to deal with the psychological baggage that would have been left over if Judge Kamins had survived this challenge.”

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, declined comment on the judge’s removal but noted that it cleared the way for the trial to begin.

“Obviously, (Wednesday’s ruling) means that a trial judge will be appointed, and we can go forward,” Gibbons said. “We’re certainly happy that we can proceed.”

The next step in the case is unclear. With the ruling issued, Supervising Judge Gary Klausner--who is to conduct today’s hearing--could appoint a judge for the trial. Or the trial may move to another county without a judge from Los Angeles County. In that event, a judge from that county would preside.

It is also uncertain whether Klausner will be the one to select a new county. Defense lawyers said they believe the decision will be up to Klausner, but Gibbons said the new trial judge might select the site.

Last week, Klausner asked the State Judicial Council to provide him with a list of counties that are available for the trial. Klausner’s clerk said Wednesday that the judge had not yet received the list.

According to the defense lawyers and the district attorney’s spokeswoman, judges are often challenged--especially by defense attorneys--but rarely are they removed. It is even rarer for a defense team to appeal to a higher court when its challenge to a judge is turned down.

In the Kamins case, state judicial officials appointed Orange County Superior Court Judge James Smith to consider the defense claims that Kamins was biased. When Smith found no evidence of bias, the defense appealed.

According to defense lawyers, it is also extremely unusual for an appeals court to intervene in a case before the trial has begun. Stone, the lawyer for Officer Powell, said that generally, cases are decided by lower courts before an appeals court will become involved.

“It is only in the extraordinary cases that a court of appeal will intervene and issue an order that actually affects the litigation as it is occurring,” he said. Wednesday’s ruling “is an extraordinary result, very rare. But this is a rare case.”