COLUMN RIGHT : The Jury Saw All of the Evidence : System overcame political hysteria and media hype.

On Wednesday, the city of Los Angeles stood silent as the jury in the Rodney King trial handed down not-guilty verdicts. These verdicts, which are sure to inflame the passions of the city, raise many important questions. Was this decision by a jury without a single black juror in Simi Valley simply another sign of deep-seated racial animosity, a darkening of the cloud that has hung over the city for more than a year? Or is there a reason to commend the judicial process?

Beyond the deafening clamor that is certain to come from virtually every political corner, the verdicts tell a story of a criminal justice system that is functioning adequately in the face of a changing society, a society in which television is increasingly becoming the ultimate and exclusive focus. These verdicts show how, when pushed, the criminal justice system can successfully perform a critical task: It can seal the courtroom from the pervasive effects of political hysteria and media hype so that justice can be administered.

On March 5, 1991, two days after Rodney King was beaten by members of the Los Angeles Police Department, the unofficial trial of the department began, the trial by media. It was on that day that George Holliday’s startling video was first aired, depicting a seemingly helpless man being beaten by several of L.A.’s finest, while a larger crowd of officers looked on. From that day forward, the grainy video would be etched into the collective mind of the public.

Within a day and a half of Holliday’s video hitting the airwaves, the first verdict was in: The armchair jurors in virtually every American home equipped with a television had found the officers guilty. A few days later the second verdict was handed down: the man on top, Police Chief Daryl Gates, was also found guilty in the media trial, guilty of creating the environment that would permit and foster such atrocities.

But it would take a year before the second trial would begin, the real trial, the trial by jury. The trial that took place in a Superior Court in Simi Valley was not limited to a single piece of evidence as captured by an amateur cameraman. Rather, in this trial, no fewer than 56 witnesses were called to the stand. Reams of evidence were presented by both sides.

Experts and fellow police officers testified, and three of the four defendants told their account of the events for the first time. And when the video was introduced as evidence, it was analyzed frame-by-frame, with a focus on the actions and participation of each defendant.

Then, on Wednesday afternoon, the verdict was in: with the exception of a single charge against Officer Lawrence Powell upon which a mistrial was declared, the jury of six men and six women found all four officers not guilty on every count. Why did the jury not see what we the public saw so clearly night after night on the evening news?

The answer is that the jury was not subject to the same disadvantages that colored the perspective of the public. For the jury, the videotape was one of many pieces of evidence to evaluate and weigh in a complex case. For the public, the videotape was the sole piece of evidence.

But the videotape alone could not resolve all of the legal issues in the case, the critical issues of authority, participation, training, procedure, perception and credibility. And the media was unable to communicate these issues from the courtroom to the living room, especially where the viewers clearly had preconceived notions of the facts of the case.

The disparity between the verdict in the media trial and the verdict in the jury trial should not be a surprise. This is not the first time we have witnessed the media’s inability to adequately cover the legal issues. The difference between the public’s reaction and the jury’s verdict in the McMartin child molestation trial is a case in point.

In the King case, the disparity between what the public saw on television and what the jury saw in the courtroom will undoubtedly further inflame the political and social tensions that are smoldering just below the city’s surface.

But the jury’s verdict might also give us some confidence in our criminal justice system. It shows a criminal justice system that is capable of sifting through complex facts and issues and insulating itself from the deafening roar of the masses, so as to deliver the due process guaranteed in the Constitution, a task for which the media is ill-equipped.