L.A. Chosen for Powell’s Retrial : King case: The judge rejects defense charges that the officer can’t get a fair trial here. But it is unclear whether Weisberg can override appeals court’s change of venue.

Laurence M. Powell--the only one of four Los Angeles police officers not acquitted on all counts in the Rodney G. King beating--will be retried in Los Angeles County, a Superior Court judge ruled Friday.

Tackling the thorniest pretrial issue in the case, Judge Stanley M. Weisberg rejected arguments from Powell’s defense lawyer, who maintained that local jurors could not give his client a fair trial in the wake of riots spawned by a Ventura County jury’s verdicts in the first case.

“This case, these riots, this threat of violence is so much a part of Los Angeles County that I don’t think we can escape it anywhere within the corners of this county,” said defense lawyer Michael Stone, who later said he would probably appeal the judge’s decision.

“There is a significant threat to Officer Powell’s due process rights . . . anywhere we go,” Stone added. “But I don’t think there is any greater threat than is posed by a trial in Los Angeles County.”

Weisberg disagreed. Saying that the political climate in Los Angeles has changed significantly since an appeals court ordered a change of venue last year, the judge declared that jurors throughout the state have been equally affected by the verdicts and the riots that followed.

“No one in the state of California . . . is unaware of the verdict in the first trial and the events that followed the first trial,” the judge said. “In my view at this time, the potential jurors in this case would have the same state of mind whether they are selected from Los Angeles County or another county.”

In reaching his decision, Weisberg sided with prosecutors who had argued vehemently that Los Angeles County, whose 9 million residents constitute the state’s largest jury pool, offers the best hope of seating a fair and impartial jury.

The judge also set an Oct. 19 trial date for the 29-year-old officer, saying that in light of the riots, an “appropriate cooling period” is necessary before the second trial begins.

The judge’s decision was welcomed by a broad spectrum of black leaders, including Mayor Tom Bradley, who were highly critical of the decision to move the first trial to the Simi Valley courthouse in predominantly white Ventura County.

There, on April 29, a jury of 10 whites, a Latina and an Asian-American acquitted Powell, Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officers Timothy E. Wind and Theodore J. Briseno of 10 of 11 counts in the beating of the black motorist. The jury deadlocked 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal on the remaining count against Powell.

But while community leaders said Friday’s ruling may be a step toward healing in the aftermath of the verdicts, they were quick to say that it is only a small step.

“The announcement that Mr. Powell will be brought to trial again simply doesn’t do it, nor does the decision to hold the trial in Los Angeles,” said Joe Hicks, executive director of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. “People are quite cynical at this point and the levels of anger are just below the surface. . . . I’ve been talking to people in the community about this and their feeling is, ‘Like, well, OK. So what?’ ”

City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, one of the earliest critics of moving the trial out of Los Angeles, said: “Look at what it got us! It got us a verdict that baffles the minds of reasonable people. . . . There is no way to rationalize that verdict on April the 29th, and there is no way to compensate for it on May the 22nd.”

Hicks, Ridley-Thomas and others also said that they will not feel justice has been done unless the federal government indicts Powell and his three former co-defendants on criminal charges of violating King’s civil rights. The U.S. Justice Department, at the urging of President Bush, has stepped up its investigation of the March 3, 1991, beating of King.

In a speech before a Boston civil rights group Friday, the department’s No. 3 official said the King case is getting “front burner” treatment. “I can tell you that it is the highest priority,” Associate Atty. Gen. William Budd said.

In Los Angeles, county prosecutors will retry Powell 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.

Like the hearing last week in which Weisberg ordered a second trial, Friday’s session was held under tight security. Eight sheriff’s deputies stood guard and bulletproof glass separated the judge, the attorneys and the officer from spectators, who had to pass through a metal detector.

Powell spoke briefly during the hearing, answering, “Yes, I do,” when Deputy Dist. Atty. Terry White asked him if he would waive his right to a trial within 60 days.

However, the officer’s father, Edwin Powell, spoke to reporters afterward to announce the creation of a legal defense fund for his son. The elder Powell said that the Los Angeles Police Protective League--which paid Powell’s legal expenses during the first trial--has agreed to help pay for the second trial but will not pick up the entire tab.

“Everyone from the President on down is marshaling all their forces against Laurence,” said Edwin Powell, standing in front of a phalanx of television cameras with a handwritten sign giving a post office box number for the fund. “In order for justice to be served on both sides, we need adequate funds to push this case forward.”

The elder Powell would not comment on the judge’s decision--or where his son wants to be retried. But during Friday’s hearing, Stone told the judge he would like the trial to remain in Ventura County.

Weisberg, however, quickly rejected that idea. In a remark that drew chuckles from the courtroom, he said he had spoken with Ventura County court officials and was informed that the county “no longer has an open courtroom for the retrial in this case.” Later, the judge wondered aloud if any county would be willing to accept the case.

Weisberg’s decision to keep the case in Los Angeles was not entirely unexpected. During last week’s hearing, the judge indicated that he believed he had the authority to transfer the case back to Los Angeles County, even though the 2nd District Court of Appeal had ordered a change of venue for the first trial.

The appeals court had based its decision on political fallout in the wake of the videotaped beating of King, which sparked nationwide outrage over police brutality. At the time, Mayor Bradley had called for the resignation of Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, and the blue-ribbon Christopher Commission had been convened to investigate the LAPD.

Now, with Gates about to retire and an election coming up in less than two weeks on reforms proposed by the Christopher Commission, the judge said that the political climate in Los Angeles has changed so dramatically that the appeals court decision no longer applies.

Experts in criminal law say that while the judge may have the authority to ignore the higher court’s change of venue, Stone may also have a good chance of winning on appeal. Dennis A. Fischer, an expert in criminal appeals, said the question will be whether the circumstances have changed enough to warrant the transfer of the case back to Los Angeles.

“While appellate courts aren’t supposed to be responsive to the politics of the day, these are extraordinary times,” Fischer said, “and it would be hard for an appellate court to shut its eyes to the reality of what’s happening here.”

Weisberg, meanwhile, noted that he had little precedent to look to for guidance in making his decision Friday.

“This is a unique case,” the judge said. “We will never have a case like this again, and I think we will all be grateful of that fact.”