Attorneys for 2 Officers Clash at Trial in King Case : Courts: Lawyers for Officers Powell and Briseno try to make each other’s clients look bad over the way they behaved during the beating of the motorist.

Hostilities between lawyers for two Los Angeles police officers accused of assaulting Rodney G. King broke into the open in Simi Valley Thursday when they took turns trying to make each other’s clients look bad.

The unusual clash occurred between the attorney for Officer Laurence M. Powell--who delivered the most blows to King--and the attorney for Officer Theodore J. Briseno, who kicked the motorist once in the head.

The fireworks began during the testimony of veteran LAPD Officer Jerry L. Mulford, who had been called to the witness stand as an expert on police training procedures.

Powell’s attorney, Michael Stone, asked a question that seemed designed to harm Briseno’s defense. Briseno hopes to persuade the jury that he kicked King in an effort to get him to lie on the ground and protect him from the other officers, who were “out of control.”

Somewhat rhetorically, Stone asked the witness whether stomping on a suspect’s neck was a dangerous action. Mulford respond that, yes, “it’s something we avoid at all costs because it can cause serious bodily injury.”

That Stone had sought to sully Briseno clearly angered his attorney, John Barnett, who retaliated with his own series of questions.

He reminded the jury of previous testimony that Powell had sent an allegedly racist message on his police computer shortly before apprehending King, that he had laughed after the beating, that he had taunted King at the hospital and that he had bragged about the amount of force the officers had used.

“Do you teach recruits to giggle after beating someone?” Barnett asked. “No,” the witness responded.

“Do you teach recruits it’s OK to beat someone of a different race?” Barnett asked. Again, the witness said no.

“Would you be concerned about someone who bragged about” the amount of force used, Barnett asked. “That’s not normal,” the witness answered.

Finally, Barnett asked Mulford if he would question the motives of an officer who bragged about the amount of force he used. Mulford responded: “I might think they enjoy it too much and shouldn’t be out there.”

Mulford had not been called to the stand by either of the two attorneys who traded swipes. He was one of the first witnesses called by former Officer Timothy E. Wind, who began the presentation of his case late Wednesday.

On Thursday, his attorney, Paul DePasquale, announced in court that Wind will not be testifying on his own behalf, apparently trying to protect him from the sort of tough questioning by prosecutors that Powell and Sgt. Stacey C. Koon had experienced in recent days.

Although DePasquale gave no reason why his client will not testify, he did say the decision was made “only in the last 24 hours.” DePasquale said it is possible that he might call Wind to the witness stand as a rebuttal witness.

In another key development, Superior Court Judge Stanley Weisberg rejected an attempt by DePasquale to present evidence about King’s criminal record. The judge said he will allow DePasquale to tell the jury that King was on parole at the time he was beaten by four Los Angeles police officers on March 3, 1991.

Wind, 31, has had perhaps the lowest profile of the four defendants, all of whom have pleaded not guilty to charges of excessive use of force. He was a rookie probationary officer at the time of the King beating and was dismissed from the force two months later.

DePasquale argued vigorously that the jury should be informed of King’s conviction on a 1989 robbery and other accusations on which he was never prosecuted. The attorney asserted that King’s record explained why he refused to comply with the orders officers gave him after he was stopped by the police and California Highway Patrol officers in Lake View Terrace after a high-speed chase. DePasquale contended that King knew he would be going back to prison because of his conduct that evening.

“He had a motive to escape,” DePasquale said. “He knows he’s going back to the joint if he’s caught with alcohol and marijuana in his blood,” the attorney declared. Tests revealed that King was legally drunk at the time of his arrest but no drugs were found in his system.

Both Deputy Dist. Atty. Terry White and defense lawyer Barnett successfully argued against allowing the jury to hear that King had pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery of a grocery store in 1989.

The judge said the possible value of this evidence was clearly outweighed by the potential that it could unduly influence the jury against King.

“This would invite” the jury to conclude “that the victim should be regarded as an individual who can be treated differently and that would be wrong,” the judge concluded.

But he said that it was proper and relevant for the jury to be told that King was on parole at the time of the beating and that the conditions of his parole included obeying all laws, refraining from use of alcoholic beverages and not associating with felons.