Ruling May Hasten Trial in King Beating : Police: State justices refuse to consider lower court decision that removed Judge Kamins. Case against four officers could begin in February.

In a move likely to hasten the trial of four Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney G. King, the state Supreme Court on Monday refused to review a lower court’s decision to remove Superior Court Judge Bernard J. Kamins from the case.

The justices, in a brief order in San Francisco, rejected a petition by county attorneys seeking a hearing on a state Court of Appeal ruling last August disqualifying Kamins after allegations surfaced that he displayed a lack of impartiality in the case.

Had the high court granted review, the trial could have been delayed for at least several months while the justices received additional briefs, heard oral arguments and issued a decision. But now, the long-awaited trial could begin by February, according to several of the officers’ lawyers.

Darryl Mounger, an attorney representing Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, said his client is eager for the trial to start.

“He wants to be vindicated,” Mounger said. “He hasn’t had the opportunity to speak out. And he wants to get this over with because nobody can feel good with this thing hanging over their head.”

John Barnett, who is defending Officer Theodore J. Briseno, said his client also is eager for the trial to get started. Officers Laurence Powell and Timothy Wind also are charged in the case.

Still unresolved, however, is the selection of a new judge and a site for the trial. The appellate court ruled earlier that highly publicized political infighting in Los Angeles made it impossible for a fair trial to be held in Los Angeles County.

A hearing on these matters had been scheduled for next week. But with Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, the hearing has been tentatively rescheduled for Wednesday.

The trial had been delayed for months over the disqualification of Kamins last summer. The officers’ attorneys accused the judge of improperly conferring privately with the district attorney’s office, unfairly rushing the case to trial and being overly influenced by the news media and concern for his public image.

On Aug. 21, an appeals panel in Los Angeles sharply criticized Kamins’ conduct in the case and declared that he must be replaced. The four-member panel said Kamins “allowed himself to become so embroiled in the case that he abandoned his status as a neutral decision-maker.”

The justices also said Kamins had improperly attempted to communicate with the panel while it was reviewing the case.

County attorneys representing the Los Angeles Superior Court then asked the high court to overturn the panel’s decision and review the issue itself.

Frederick Bennett, an assistant Los Angeles County counsel who had asked for the high court review, said Kamins believes he is somewhat vindicated by Monday’s action because the court also decertified the earlier opinion from the appeals court.

In other words, Bennett said, the harsh language against Kamins in the appeals court ruling will not be included in official legal records, and it cannot be used as a precedent for future such cases.

“Judge Kamins, I’m sure, would have preferred a complete vindication,” Bennett said. “He always felt he was going out of his way to be fair to everybody, and that he was doing what he thought was his job to get this really very simple criminal case to trial.”