Karlin Defends Probation Term for Shopkeeper : Courts: Judge’s legal brief says the grocer was subjected to a ‘violent attack’ before she fatally shot teen-age girl.

In a legal brief scheduled to be filed today, Superior Court Judge Joyce A. Karlin defends her controversial sentence of probation for a Korean-born grocer convicted of killing a black girl, saying the girl waged “a swift and violent attack” on the shopkeeper before the shooting.

The brief, which contains Karlin’s response to an appeal of the sentence, marks the judge’s first effort to explain her decision since a public furor erupted over the ruling in November. The document sheds light on the judge’s thinking about the case, shifting attention to the events that preceded the shooting of 15-year-old Latasha Harlins by grocer Soon Ja Du.

The appeal is being pressed by Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, who is asking the 2nd District Court of Appeal to overturn Karlin’s decision and sentence Du to state prison. A hearing is set for March 4.

The case has political ramifications for Reiner and for Karlin, both of whom face election in June. It also is being closely watched by members of the legal community; on Monday, the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending Karlin.

Karlin’s response was made public Monday by Assistant County Counsel Fred Bennett, who represents Karlin and wrote the brief. Bennett argues that the judge is permitted wide discretion in sentencing and asserts that she was within the law when she determined that the unusual circumstances of the Du case warranted probation.

The response also chastises Reiner for misinterpreting Karlin’s comments at the time of sentencing and for taking the judge’s words out of context. Reiner, Bennett wrote, “presents his version of the facts from the perspective of 20-20 hindsight.”

But perhaps the most compelling aspect of the brief is its description of the altercation between Du and Latasha, which took place after Du accused the girl of trying to shoplift a $1.79 bottle of orange juice.

The legal papers repeatedly call the events an attack, describing it as brutal, violent and vicious. Latasha is described as Du’s assailant, and the brief notes that the teen-ager, with her athletic build, was much stronger than the 50-year-old grocer.

“This is not a case, as (Reiner) suggests, where defendant was prosecuted as a result of a fight over a bottle of orange juice during which a vulnerable victim was shot,” Bennett wrote. “There was no fight in this case. There was an accusation by defendant that a young woman, the victim, was trying to shoplift. This was followed by a violent attack by the victim on the defendant.”

The remarks in the brief are likely to generate controversy within the black community, where activists are waging a recall campaign against Karlin.

“That is a vicious lie they are telling,” said Gina Rae, spokeswoman for the Harlins family, in an interview Monday. “Soon Ja Du did the vicious attack on a customer in her store, a child. No matter her size, Latasha was a child.”

The Du case turned on a graphic security camera videotape that recorded the altercation. The tape shows Du grabbing Latasha’s sweater as the girl, who had put the orange juice in her backpack, approached the counter. Then Latasha is shown hitting Du in the face four times, knocking Du to the floor behind the counter.

The tape then shows Du throwing a stool at Latasha and getting a handgun from behind the counter. Following that, Latasha places the orange juice on the counter and turns to walk away. On the tape, Du is then seen shooting the girl in the back of the head.

“That’s not a vicious attack on the store owner,” said Mike Botula, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, in response to the Karlin brief. “That’s the killing of a young girl as she was walking away from the scene of an altercation.”

The jury convicted Du, who initially had been charged with murder, of voluntary manslaughter. Karlin, 40, a former prosecutor who is new to the Superior Court bench, gave Du a 10-year suspended prison sentence, five years of probation, a $500 fine and 400 hours of community service.

Reiner’s appeal of the sentence, filed in January, argues that Karlin “defied the jury’s verdict” by issuing a sentence that is more appropriate for someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter than voluntary manslaughter.

The appeal is expected to hinge on a state law that requires a prison sentence for someone who uses a gun to commit a crime, and on whether Karlin applied the law properly. The law offers an exception for “unusual cases where the interest of justice would best be served.” In ordering probation for Du, Karlin said she found the case unusual for several reasons.

She cited Du’s lack of a criminal record, and noted that the grocer had been living in a “state of terror” because her store had been robbed repeatedly. In addition, Karlin said Du kept the gun to protect herself, and said the crime might not have occurred if the trigger of the gun had not been altered to make it fire more easily. She also found that Du killed Latasha under “great provocation.”

Reiner, however, argues that Karlin was not entitled to find the case unusual, and that doing so went “beyond the bounds of reason.” In response, Bennett’s brief said Karlin was “acting in the finest traditions of an independent judiciary.”