AFTER THE RIOTS : Law, Not Unrest, Seen Guiding Weisberg on Powell Retrial Ruling

Now, the spotlight shifts to Stanley M. Weisberg.

From March to April, Weisberg served as the Superior Court judge in the Rodney G. King beating case. The balding, bespectacled jurist presided over the sometimes heated proceedings with a sense of cool detachment, like an owl peering out from the limbs of a distant tree.

Today, with the city still reeling from the riots sparked by the outright acquittal of three of the four Los Angeles police officers accused in the beating, Weisberg takes center stage.

It will be up to him to decide whether to grant a request from prosecutors to retry Laurence M. Powell, the 29-year-old officer who is shown on an amateur videotape delivering the most blows to the black motorist. The jury deadlocked on one count against Powell, voting 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal.

In ordinary times, Weisberg’s task would be an easy one. A prosecutor asks for a retrial; the judge--unless he feels strongly that it is not in the interest of justice to go forward--says yes. But these are hardly ordinary times.

Instead, Weisberg must make his ruling against the backdrop of the riots. He will no doubt consider, as Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner noted Wednesday, that to retry Powell in post-riot Los Angeles “would reopen some very painful wounds.”

And he must also know that some consider him partly responsible for the outcome of the first case because of his decision to transfer the trial to largely white Ventura County. There, a jury of 10 whites, an Asian-American and a Latina rendered not guilty verdicts on 10 of 11 counts.

Yet if past performance is any guide, Weisberg will rule by the law and the law alone. He will act cautiously, conservatively and in a manner unlikely to get him wrapped up in the political fray.

“He’s not going to aggravate a delicate situation,” said Bradley Brunon, a prominent Los Angeles defense attorney. “He is a very thoughtful man. He is very intelligent and he will follow the law, but he’ll do it in such a way that it will be understood that it is the law that is compelling whatever actions he takes, and not any public outcry or political correctness.”

Although there is no way to predict how--or when--the judge might rule, several lawyers interviewed said that it is likely he will permit the retrial based on the district attorney’s argument that there is “compelling” evidence against Powell.

Powell’s defense lawyer, Michael Stone, would not comment. And as he has throughout the trial, Weisberg declined to be interviewed.

During his four-year career on the Superior Court bench, Weisberg has handled a series of high-profile cases, including the sensational Laurel Canyon murders, the trial of an LAPD officer once dubbed “the most corrupt cop in L.A.,” the retrial of the long-running McMartin Pre-School molestation case and the King case.

Lawyers and judges say he has distinguished himself as an independent, dignified jurist who can make difficult calls without offending anyone, and--perhaps more important--without putting himself at the center of attention.

“It’s a real tough position to be in, and particularly tough with all the pressure that is exerted. And it’s not over. But I can’t think of any judge that I would have any more confidence in,” said Superior Court Judge Gary Klausner, who as a supervising judge selected Weisberg to handle the King case.

With his serious, businesslike demeanor, Weisberg unexpectedly won many fans among the viewing public during the King case, which was televised gavel to gavel. One viewer phoned the network carrying the trial to say she thought Weisberg should serve on the Supreme Court. And on one day late in the trial, a gaggle of court watchers offered their favorable assessments.

“Oooh, he’s lovely,” cooed one fan, Mary from Encino, who would not give her last name. “He looks very quiet, but boy, he’s thinking up there.”

Whether the public opinion of Weisberg has diminished since the verdicts were issued April 29 is unclear. Weisberg’s decision to move the case to Ventura County, over the objection of prosecutors who sought a more racially mixed, urban location, has since come under scrutiny.

Some critics say Weisberg must bear at least partial responsibility for the verdicts. As a result of the King case, legislators in two states--California and New Jersey--are proposing laws that would require demographics to be considered in cases involving a change of venue.

“Talk about looking for scapegoats!” Klausner said. “People now say maybe he’s to blame. . . . But I can’t see how you can say he bears any responsibility.”

Lawyers such as Brunon and Cynthia McClain-Hill, an attorney who served as a television commentator during the King case, say Weisberg emerged from the trial with his reputation intact. McClain-Hill, who publishes a political newsletter geared to the black community, had glowing praise for the jurist.

“He was exemplary,” she said. “It was a shining moment for the state judiciary. . . . I think he comes out of this pretty much unscathed, and rightly so. He is one part of this case that worked flawlessly.”

The son of an East Los Angeles sheet-metal worker, Weisberg spent 18 years as a Los Angeles County prosecutor, handling such high-powered cases as the successful prosecution of Marvin Pancoast for murder in the slaying of Vicki Morgan, mistress of the late business tycoon Alfred Bloomingdale. The 48-year-old jurist was appointed to the Municipal Court in 1986, and was elevated to the Superior Court in 1988.

He has a reputation as a no-nonsense judge who runs an efficient court. That is one reason Klausner selected him to handle the King case.

When Weisberg took over, the case was in disarray. The previous trial judge, Bernard J. Kamins, had been thrown off the case by an appeals court, which criticized Kamins for giving the appearance of bias and for drawing too much attention to himself. Although a change of venue had been granted, nobody knew where--or when--the trial would be held.

Once in charge, Weisberg moved with dispatch. Within hours of his appointment, he met in closed chambers with prosecutors and defense lawyers, and announced in open court that the trial would either be held in Orange, Alameda or Ventura counties. That was on a Friday. By the next Tuesday, a trial date was set and Ventura was picked as the site.

Controlling the courtroom is a hallmark of Weisberg’s judicial style. When he agreed that the trial could be televised, he insisted on a 15-second delay button so that he could bleep out anything he deemed inappropriate for the viewers, such as shots of the jurors. He did not use the button, however, when one of the defendants uttered a four-letter word during his testimony.

And when Weisberg noticed spectators nodding off in the back of the courtroom, he ordered that the temperature be turned down so that the jury would stay awake. It was so cold that spectators began wearing hats and gloves and some people--including the judge--got sick.

On the bench, Weisberg is somber and reserved. Although some lawyers complain that he is cold and humorless, he has a dry wit that emerges infrequently, more often outside the presence of juries.

But Weisberg shows little tolerance for flamboyant sideshows and less for attorneys whom he believes have stepped out of line. During the retrial of McMartin Pre-School teacher Ray Buckey, Weisberg issued an angry rebuke to Reiner, declaring in open court that Reiner had improperly attempted to talk privately with the judge. Reiner said later that the judge had misinterpreted his actions.

Weisberg’s no-nonsense sensibility also emerged before the start of the McMartin retrial, when defense lawyer Danny Davis told the judge that he required back surgery that would delay the proceedings. In a move that many lawyers would have found insulting, Weisberg refused to take Davis’ word and ordered the attorney to undergo an independent medical examination. The result: Davis began physical therapy, and the trial went on as scheduled.

And when the McMartin case--the largest, longest and costliest criminal trial in U.S. history--was finally over, Weisberg resisted the temptation to pontificate. “All right, that’s it,” he said. “That completes this case.”

At the end of the King trial, Weisberg was equally--and characteristically--straight. He thanked the jurors for their time, asked prosecutors to make a decision on whether to retry Powell, and scheduled a hearing for today.