Attempt to Blunt Effect of Video Seen as Key to Trial : Defense: Court documents indicate officers’ strategy.

The four Los Angeles police officers charged in the Rodney G. King beating will face a rugged challenge when they stand trial next month--how to blunt the damage from a shocking, widely aired videotape that shows the black motorist being ferociously kicked and clubbed.

Their strategy, according to confidential court documents, is to build their case around the crucial moments between when King stepped from his car on a darkened San Fernando Valley street and when an amateur cameraman began recording what was to become the nation’s most notorious police beating.

What they hope to show is that during that brief unrecorded passage of time, King was confrontational, fought with the officers, appeared to be reaching for a weapon and acted so strangely that the officers believed he was severely intoxicated and drugged.

As one officer’s attorneys said in a legal motion: “Mr. King was a drunk, dangerous, fleeing felon on parole with a history of violence and a motive to escape police custody. . . . “(He) appeared to go after one of the officers with clenched fists, ready to fight.”

Lawyers for the accused officers have refused to publicly discuss their defense strategy. But key elements of the case they are building are revealed in about 2,000 pages of court papers. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the confidential documents include affidavits and defense motions containing, among other things, excerpts from police and district attorney interviews.

The documents, recently obtained by The Times, show that:

* The officers will attempt to justify the level of force shown in the videotape with statements by several witnesses who contend that King provoked the attack. There are, however, problems in some of the witness accounts, and prosecutors are armed with statements from many more witnesses who say the beating was unwarranted.

* An expert toxicologist is prepared to testify that King’s actions were “consistent” with those of an agitated and potentially violent person under the excessive influence of alcohol or PCP. Among other things, King laughed, grabbed his buttocks and waved at a police helicopter when he exited his car.

* Several of the accused officers may attempt to separate themselves from the actions of their co-defendants. For instance, Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, the supervising officer at the King incident, believes his chances of acquittal may be hurt by the fact that two of the other officers had previously been accused of brutality.

Key Witnesses

Among the defense’s key witnesses is Dawn Davis, who lived in an apartment near the scene of the beating in Lake View Terrace. According to defense exhibits, she told district attorney investigators that she heard the commotion and went to her window.

“Ms. Davis saw three to four officers pulling Mr. King out of the driver’s opened door,” a prosecutor’s report of her statement says. “She could not see Mr. King’s hands but it appeared to Ms. Davis that he may have been struggling with the officers. But she is not sure. It appeared that Mr. King was resisting getting out of the car.”

Once out, she said, King was surrounded by “many officers.”

“Someone then began yelling and Mr. King was moving his hands around and it appeared he was ‘going after’ one of the officers or fighting with him,” the report said. “Mr. King’s fists were clenched and he had his hands at shoulder height and was getting ready to fight with an officer.

“Two officers were telling Mr. King to put his hands down. Ms. Davis then saw Mr. King fighting with one of the officers.”

At that point, Davis said, King was shot with a Taser electric dart gun and several officers began hitting and kicking him. Once he was on the ground, Davis said, “Mr. King did not struggle any further.”

Davis said she was bothered, however, by what came next.

“Ms. Davis felt the officers acted appropriately up to the point Mr. King went down on the ground,” according the prosecutor’s report. “She felt the officers’ actions were justified since he was a large man and was resistive. Once Mr. King was on the ground he appeared to be hurt. Ms. Davis felt it was wrong for the officers to continue to strike Mr. King with their batons and kick him.”

A second witness for the defense is Larry Johnson of Arleta. According to a defense motion for dismissal of the case, Johnson told investigators that he was in front of a liquor store about 65 or 70 feet from King’s white Hyundai when King got out.

Johnson said that the officers kept saying, “Let’s see your hands! Put them were we can see them!” but that King would not comply. Instead, Johnson said, King hid one hand behind his back and “stumbled” toward the police. King’s movements were “slow, as if drunk,” Johnson said, adding that it seemed “King knew what he was doing.”

After stumbling toward the policemen, according to Johnson, King tried to seize one officer’s gun.

“King used his right hand to grab the left wrist of the LAPD officer,” Johnson told investigators. “The officer responded by hitting King with a billy club three to four times about King’s head. King appeared to struggle over the officer’s gun. The struggle resulted in King falling to the ground and pulling the officer with him.”

An attorney for one of the accused officers, Theodore J. Briseno, argued in court papers that because King appeared to be hiding a hand behind his back, the officers believed he may have been “reaching for a weapon” and that the use of force was justified.

King, however, was not carrying a firearm--and the 26-year-old motorist has told authorities that the police never searched his car for one.

Expert Testimony

Johnson’s statements are expected to come under sharp attack by prosecutors. They say Johnson’s girlfriend, who was with him that night, has offered a far different version of events.

“She states unequivocally that they were not at the (liquor store) location when Mr. Johnson claimed to have made his ‘important’ observations,” the prosecutors said in a legal brief, citing her interview with investigators.

Instead, Kelly Garrett told authorities that she and her boyfriend were driving by the scene and that she “thought the police activity was routine and observed nothing unusual.” She said she saw nothing “inappropriate.”

Two more witnesses that the defense hopes to use are paramedics summoned to the King beating. One is Victor Cruz, who has since left his job because of ill health. He has told police investigators that King “spit blood at him and was fighting his restraints.” The other paramedic, Kathy Bosak, said King spit blood at her, too.

Attorneys for the accused officers have said in court papers that the paramedics’ statements “corroborate evidence that King was acting aggressively and resisting the actions of authorities.”

Beyond witnesses, the voluminous court documents suggest that the defense will rely heavily on expert testimony to establish that King was dangerous because of alcohol and drug usage.

Tests taken after King’s arrest showed that he was probably legally drunk, and he has acknowledged drinking malt liquor that night. Although he was not shown to be under the influence of PCP, the defense attorneys are expected to argue that the drug can trigger odd behavior long after it has been taken.

The lawyers have enlisted the help of Darrell O. Clardy, a Fullerton chemist and former supervising criminalist for the Orange County sheriff’s and coroner’s offices for 10 years.

According to a declaration by Clardy submitted with the court file, he stated that he has analyzed about 10,000 biological samples for alcohol and has been involved in writing procedures used by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department for measuring alcohol in blood, breath and urine samples. He also said he has testified as an expert witness more than 1,100 times on the effects of alcohol.

In his declaration, Clardy said that people with high blood levels of alcohol “may act unpredictably and irrationally.”

“Speeding, failure to respond to police lights and siren, smiling inappropriately at arresting officers, waving at a police helicopter after a high-speed chase, grabbing and shaking one’s buttocks at police officers and resisting arrest are activities that are consistent with such a blood level.”

Furthermore, Clardy said, “when one does not respond to commands, has a blank stare, is laughing inappropriately, an officer should also suspect that this individual could be under the influence of PCP.”

Shared Strategy

A number of officers who observed King on the night of the beating said he acted oddly, bolstering the defense theory that he was under the influence of drugs or liquor. Officer Sue Clemmer, for one, said she saw King “laughing constantly.” At the hospital, she said, King “twice smiled at and said to Sgt. Koon, ‘I love you.’ ”

Although court documents suggest that the officers are sharing a common defense strategy, the papers also hint that, if the going gets rough, the accused men may try to distance themselves from each other and implicate other officers.

Briseno’s lawyer, for example, questioned in a legal filing why Officer David Love was not criminally charged in the beating. The lawyer stated that his client and Love each simply placed a foot on King’s shoulder to control him.

“This evidence,” attorney William J. Kopeny said, “shows that another officer used the same technique in the same situation.”

Prosecutors have maintained, however, that Briseno viciously kicked King, while Love did not.

Koon, in his court papers, has said he fears that when the prosecution enters evidence of prior alleged misconduct by Briseno and Officer Laurence M. Powell, it could sway a jury against him.

According to Koon’s brief, the prosecution will try to submit evidence that Briseno was once suspended for 66 days for brutality and that Powell had been involved in numerous incidents in which he used his baton under questionable circumstances.

“In contrast, no prior bad act evidence would be introduced against defendant Koon of this nature. . . . It is probable that a prejudicial spillover effect will occur and thereby deprive defendant Koon of his constitutional right to a fair trial.”

Powell, in his court papers, has denied any “prior history of administrative or criminal misconduct relating to prior use of force.”

Koon also speculated that he could be further damaged if his three co-defendants assert they were following orders issued by Koon, their superior at the scene. Anticipating that scenario, Koon has argued in court papers that at one point during the beating, he told Powell, “That’s enough.”

But prosecutors alleged in their court papers that Koon was not a voice of restraint: “He fires the Taser darts into the victim. And the assault terminates only when defendant Koon gives the command to stop. This evidence graphically shows that he had knowledge of the crimes being committed by the others and assisted them with his own conduct.”

The fourth officer charged, Timothy E. Wind, has expressed concern in documents that his credibility may be hurt by testimony about computer messages sent earlier that evening between Powell and Officer Corina Smith.

Some of the messages, later released by authorities, have been characterized as racist, such as one message from Powell’s patrol car about “Gorillas in the Mist.”

These transmissions, Wind said, “have been reported so sensationally in this case (but) were apparently never sent by nor directed” to Wind. “As a matter of fact, Officer Smith does not even know this defendant! (Wind)”

Despite the potential conflicts between the accused officers, all four agree with the words of Briseno’s lawyer: “This case is among the most notorious criminal trial cases in the United States. The unanimous response to a viewing of the . . . videotape has been to condemn the defendants.”

HELP WANTED: Police Commission wants to expand its staff, asks exemption from hiring freeze. B3.