Kamins Asks New Hearing on Removal : King case: He says appellate justices may have been duped into believing he had made improper attempts to contact them while they considered the petition against him.

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge asked an appeals court Thursday to reconsider its decision to remove him from the Rodney G. King case, saying the four appellate justices may have been duped into believing that he had made improper attempts to contact them.

An attorney for Judge Bernard J. Kamins said a harshly-worded legal opinion issued by the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Wednesday was “tainted” by a false report that the judge had repeatedly tried to telephone the justices while they were considering whether to move the King case out of Los Angeles County.

“I unequivocally deny that I, at any time, called or attempted to call the court of appeal or any justice . . . or the clerk to any justice . . . concerning this matter,” Kamins said in a tersely-worded affidavit filed with the appeals court.

Meanwhile, a lawyer for Kamins intimated that someone posing as the judge may have left messages with the court in an attempt to discredit Kamins.

“Such events were fabricated or done by others to prejudice this panel against Judge Kamins,” wrote Assistant County Counsel Frederick R. Bennett in a request for a new hearing filed with the appeals court Thursday. In a later interview, Bennett said he had no idea who was responsible, but he refused to point fingers at the appeals court or lawyers for the accused LAPD officers.

“The Court of Appeal is as much a victim in this as Judge Kamins is,” Bennett said. “Somehow, however this was done, somebody has fabricated something that has misled the Court of Appeal. I think they would find this as serious as Judge Kamins does.”

The discrepancy is yet another bizarre twist in what has been an extraordinary battle by Kamins to retain his supervision of the trial of four LAPD officers indicted in the police beating of King.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers said Thursday they were mystified by this latest turn of events.

“I’m as caught off guard by this news (about Kamins’ request for a new hearing) as I was by the news that he had been communicating with the court of appeal by telephone and messages,” said defense lawyer Michael Stone, who represents Officer Laurence M. Powell. “None of us knew that. . . . I really don’t know what to say. I don’t know if it’s true or not.”

Darryl Mounger, the attorney for Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, added: “I’m amazed. I am amazed.”

The only people who could shed any light on what did--or did not--transpire were staying mum.

The appeals court judges were in their chambers and refused to come out to discuss the matter with reporters. A secretary for Presiding Justice Joan Dempsey Klein said there would be no comment from Klein or from Justices Walter H. Croskey, George E. Danielson and Edward A. Hinz Jr. The four composed the panel that disqualified Kamins.

Clerks at the appeals court also declined comment Thursday, as did Kamins. The judge was not on the bench Thursday and had a sheriff’s deputy refer calls to his law clerk, Duane Livingston.

“I don’t know who he thinks did it,” Livingston said. “I spoke to him just this morning. He told me that he has no comments to make. I know I never communicated with the Court of Appeal. None of the other law clerks did, or Judge Kamins.”

Livingston, who is an attorney and has been assisting Kamins on the King case, described Wednesday’s appeals court opinion as “a bombshell.”

The appeals court said that Kamins “made futile attempts to communicate directly by telephone with members of this panel. When these attempts were repulsed, Judge Kamins proceeded to leave telephone messages with our court clerks to be communicated to this court.”

The justices implied that whoever left the messages was familiar with the case, noting that the caller “commented on the substance of the matter then pending and even included citations to legal authority.”

The appeals court opinion grew out of a motion by defense lawyers to have Kamins removed on the grounds that he was biased for the prosecution. Kamins has said he is impartial and has fought to stay on the case.

The appellate ruling was a stinging rebuke to Kamins. The court found that the 48-year-old judge acted improperly and was “constitutionally unacceptable” to preside over the trial. The decision overturned a ruling by an Orange County judge, who had earlier sided with Kamins.

What effect, if any, Kamins’ request for a new hearing will have on the progress of the criminal trial remains unclear.

Thursday morning, after the appeals court had issued its decision removing Kamins, a presiding judge of the Superior Court postponed further action in the case until Sept. 5, and said he hoped to appoint a new trial judge by that time.

Judge Gary Klausner also said he wanted to wait until a new trial judge was selected before picking another site for the trial.

According to a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, if the appeals court denies Kamins’ request for a new hearing, the judge could appeal the matter to the state Supreme Court. Sandi Gibbons said the King case can proceed unless the appeals court says otherwise.

Defense lawyers said that even if the court finds that Kamins did not leave the damaging telephone messages, the judge ought to remain off the case.

“I don’t think that is essential or central to their ruling,” said lawyer William Kopeny, who represents Officer Theodore J. Briseno. “They have said unequivocally that they believe the entire course of events demonstrates the appearance of bias.”

But Bennett, the county lawyer representing Kamins, noted that when Orange County Superior Court Judge James Smith ruled on the case, he found that Kamins was not biased.

“The only judge who has considered this matter without that evidence concluded that Judge Kamins was not disqualified,” Bennett said.

Times staff writer Laurie Becklund contributed to this story.