Officer Powell’s Retrial Ordered : Police: New jury will decide on assault charge in Rodney King beating case. Judge rejects argument that a fair trial is impossible. Venue is undecided.

Laurence M. Powell--the only one of four Los Angeles Police officers not fully exonerated by a Ventura County jury in the beating of Rodney G. King--was ordered Friday to stand trial a second time in the assault of the black motorist.

In granting the prosecution’s request for a retrial, Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg rejected arguments by Powell’s lawyer that in the wake of riots spawned by the acquittals in the first trial, his client could not get a fair trial anywhere in California.

“I find that the interests of justice require that there be a second trial in the case of People vs. Powell,” the judge declared in unusually strong tones.

“A single criminal trial cannot cause or solve the major social and economic and other problems that exist in society,” Weisberg added. “A trial in this case . . . is not addressing those issues and will not deal with those issues. The trial will deal solely with whether or not Mr. Powell is guilty of the charge that remains against him.”

Weisberg’s ruling left open one major question in the case: where the retrial will be held. During a half-hour hearing in a high-security courtroom, the judge hinted strongly that he believes the case could be transferred back to Los Angeles County. Prosecutors said they intend to argue in favor of that, as they did before the first trial.

But defense lawyer Michael Stone, who represented Powell during the first trial, said he would prefer “any other place on Earth” to Los Angeles as the site for a retrial.

“Getting a fair trial in the state of California is going to be problematic,” Stone told reporters at an impromptu news conference in the courthouse hallway. “Getting a fair trial in the county of Los Angeles, I think, is going to be next to impossible.”

Powell will be retried on a single count of assault under color of authority, with a special allegation that he used force likely to produce great bodily injury. If convicted, he faces a maximum of six years in prison.

Friday’s decision was greeted with praise from Mayor Tom Bradley and relief from other black leaders, who say they hope it is the first step toward healing the city after the devastation from the riots and looting of 2 1/2 weeks ago.

But for some, the relief was tempered with anger. They were quick to compare the videotaped beating of King to another, more recent videotaped beating with racial overtones: the assault on white truck driver Reginald O. Denny, which occurred as the riots broke out. This week, four young black men were charged in the Denny case.

“If that medium (videotape) is good enough to arrest four black men,” said state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), “it is certainly good enough to get justice for Rodney King. We’re waiting to see if justice is indeed blind, and not colorblind.”

Others, among them Joe Hicks, executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, said the healing will not begin unless the U.S. Justice Department brings criminal charges in the case. The department is investigating whether Powell and the three other officers violated King’s civil rights.

“We certainly applaud the attempt to bring Mr. Powell to justice,” Hicks said, “but we think that it is only one part of the puzzle around this Rodney King situation. What needs to happen now is the Justice Department needs to step up to the plate. . . . There are still three other officers who the whole world saw beating Mr. King who are walking about on the streets, vindicated.”

Powell’s three co-defendants--Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officers Theodore J. Briseno and Timothy E. Wind--were acquitted April 29 of all counts against them, after a trial in Simi Valley that lasted 2 1/2 months. Powell was acquitted of two counts, but the jury deadlocked 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal on a third count of assault under color of authority.

Friday’s hearing marked the first public appearance by the 29-year-old officer since the verdicts were issued. The proceedings were held under tight security, with four sheriff’s deputies standing guard and bulletproof glass separating Powell, the judge and the attorneys from spectators, who were required to walk through a metal detector before entering.

Camera crews and reporters packed the hallway outside the courtroom, waiting for a glimpse of Powell. But the accused officer--who is suspended from the force and remains free on $30,000 bail--skirted them by entering and leaving through a back door. Looking tired, Powell made no remarks in court except to agree to waive his right to a trial within 60 days.

During Friday’s hearing, Deputy Dist. Atty. Alan Yochelson told Weisberg that the prosecution was ready to proceed with the case against Powell, who is shown on an 81-second amateur videotape delivering the most blows to King. Earlier in the week, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner had announced that his office would seek a retrial because of compelling evidence against Powell--in particular the videotape.

But defense lawyer Stone, who indicated that he might not represent Powell in the second trial, asked the judge to dismiss the case. He argued that there is no reason to believe a second jury would vote to convict Powell and that in any event, no jury could give the officer a fair trial in light of the riots and the threats that have been made against jurors in the first trial.

“Even if a new jury were persuaded that the prosecution had failed in its effort to prove the truth of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” Stone told the judge, “it is probable that they would convict anyway in order to avoid risks to their own personal safety, a great deal of condemnation from the community, and the risk of sparking another series of riots in urban centers across the United States.”

Yochelson replied: “We cannot simply throw up our hands and refrain from prosecuting this matter simply because there is widespread public interest.”

Lawyers for both sides are due back in court Friday to discuss where the trial might be held. The first trial was moved out of Los Angeles County after an appeals court ruled that the officers could not get a fair trial because of pretrial publicity and the political fallout after the King beating.

Weisberg noted that with the extensive television coverage of the first trial, jurors in all parts of the state have been exposed to publicity about the case. And, he said, with the city about to get a new police chief and an election on police reforms two weeks away, the political climate in Los Angeles has changed considerably since the appeals court ruling.

If the judge decides to move the case back to Los Angeles, it is likely the defense would appeal. At a news conference after the hearing, Reiner said prosecutors will argue vigorously to keep the trial in Los Angeles, or in an urban setting if the venue is changed.

But Reiner declined to discuss specifics of the prosecution strategy for the second trial. During the first trial, prosecutors did not call King to the witness stand, a move that has drawn widespread criticism of Reiner, who made the decision. Nor was there any testimony from citizens who witnessed the beating from apartment balconies fronting the Lake View Terrace site.

Reiner on Friday refused to say whether he will tap new prosecution witnesses now available: the acquitted officers. Briseno, testifying in his own defense during the first trial, drew particular attention when he said he tried to stop Powell from beating King and that he “thought the whole thing was out of control.”

Although the district attorney said prosecutors will consider calling additional witnesses, the underlying trial strategy will remain unchanged. “Essentially,” Reiner said, “it will be the same trial, and the fundamental evidence in this case will be that videotape.”

RELATED STORIES, B1, B3