Appeals Court Polls Defense, Prosecution in Powell Retrial : King beating: Attorneys are ordered to answer provocative questions regarding officer’s petition for change of venue. A ruling is expected soon.

A state appeals court, indicating that it will rule quickly on Officer Laurence M. Powell’s request for a retrial outside Los Angeles County, on Friday ordered attorneys to respond to a series of provocative questions, including whether the riots left “an atmosphere of fear and apprehension in potential jurors in Los Angeles.”

Though the court has yet to issue a final decision, Powell’s attorney and two legal experts said the order bodes well for the officer, the only one of four Los Angeles police officers not acquitted on all counts in the Rodney G. King beating. Had the court been inclined to reject Powell’s request, it would have done so, defense attorney Michael P. Stone said.

“I’m never confident about this case,” Stone said, “but this is what I was waiting to hear, rather than just to get to the denial.

“The only reason I can think of to leave the case in L.A. is if the Court of Appeal has somehow come to the conclusion that the atmosphere is more positive for Larry Powell than in 1991, and that’s ridiculous,” Stone said. “It’s definitely more hostile now.”

Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner, denied that the court’s order signaled a setback for the prosecution, which wants the case to be heard in racially diverse Los Angeles.

The justices want “to see some legal briefs to aid them in making a decision,” Gibbons said. “I don’t think it means anything other than that.”

During Powell’s first trial in predominantly white Ventura County, he and three other Los Angeles police officers--Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officers Theodore J. Briseno and Timothy E. Wind--were acquitted on 10 of 11 counts in the March 3, 1991, beating of King, who is black. The jury of 10 whites, a Latina and an Asian-American deadlocked 8 to 4 in favor of acquittal on the remaining charge against Powell.

The 29-year-old Powell, who remains suspended from duty without pay, faces a single count of excessive force under the color of authority. His retrial is scheduled for Oct. 19.

Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg, who presided over the first trial, ruled in May that the retrial should occur in Los Angeles County. Siding with prosecutors, Weisberg found that the trial and subsequent riots received such widespread publicity that a change of venue would be meaningless.

In its order issued Friday, the appeals court questioned the effect that the riots, publicity and politics had on Powell’s chances for a fair retrial.

The court ordered attorneys to address a series of 16 detailed questions in their written arguments. Prosecutors are supposed to submit their legal briefs no later than Aug. 10, and Powell’s defense team is to submit its briefs by Aug. 20.

The questions include whether potential jurors in Los Angeles County might be affected by:

* The selection of a new police chief, voters’ adoption of a police reform measure, and criticism of the Police Department’s response to the riots.

* Discussion of the case during the campaign for the district attorney’s office, which is on the November ballot, and preceding the Los Angeles mayoral election, to be held in April.

* Possible federal indictments of Powell and the other officers in the King case.

One expert in criminal appeals, Santa Monica attorney Dennis A. Fischer, called the list of questions extraordinary because of its length and detail. He agreed with Stone that the questions--many of which were raised in Powell’s petition to the court--signaled the justices’ inclination to move the retrial out of Los Angeles.

Mark Epstein, a Los Angeles attorney who clerked for the California and U.S. supreme courts, agreed, though more cautiously.

“It’s always like reading tea leaves, but to the extent you can read anything into it, it probably bodes better for the defense than the prosecution,” said Epstein, who also served on the Christopher Commission’s legal staff. “It could also be the court just wants to resolve this very fast.”