NEWS ANALYSIS : Convictions in Rights Case Could Be Difficult to Win : Courts: Main issues are the same as in state trial, but U.S. prosecutors must expand proof of officers’ intent.

Obtaining convictions against four Los Angeles police officers charged in the beating of Rodney G. King may be even more difficult for the federal government than it was for state prosecutors, whose failure to do so sparked a public uproar and widespread rioting this spring.

The fundamental question remains the same as during the first trial, which resulted in outright acquittals for three officers and a hung jury for the fourth: Were the police justified as they wielded their batons against King, a black motorist who had led them on a high-speed chase?

A wide array of legal experts and scholars--even the federal prosecutors--say the federal case will pose special obstacles for prosecutors that the state did not face.

Although the federal government has a good track record in winning civil rights prosecutions, the charges are difficult to prove. In the King case, the officers are accused of violating King’s civil rights--an allegation that requires the prosecution to show that the police intended to deprive King of his constitutional rights by using excessive force against him.

In contrast, the state was only required to prove that the officers intended to use excessive force. It is an important, if subtle, legal distinction.

“The federal prosecutors ought to have some pause in thinking about going in again in light of the state prosecutor’s failure to get convictions,” said Drew Days, a Yale University law professor who headed the U.S. Justice Department’s civil rights division during the Jimmy Carter Administration. “All other things being equal, the federal case is a harder case to try than the state case.”

Moreover, the federal case is a so-called “dual prosecution”--meaning that the officers already have been tried by the state for the same offenses. While laws governing double jeopardy do not prevent dual prosecutions, such cases are rare. That the four already have been found not guilty in state court could create a backlash among jurors, who might be reluctant to convict the officers because they feel the defendants are being persecuted.

“The fact that the federal government is permitted to prosecute when there have been state acquittals is not the typical scenario,” UCLA law professor Peter Arenella said. “It happens, but it only happens in extremely unusual circumstances where there is concern that justice has not occurred. . . . There is a possibility that jurors will have a sense that there is some unfairness here, in giving the government a second bite at the apple.”

To win, the federal prosecutors must persuade jurors that Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officers Theodore J. Briseno, Laurence M. Powell and Timothy W. Wind used excessive force not simply to subdue King and to protect themselves, but rather to strip King of his constitutional right to due process. In effect, the government must show that the officers engaged in “street justice”--that they took it upon themselves to punish King upon his arrest, regardless of his right to have his case heard before a judge and jury.

One important element in proving that the officers went beyond the bounds of their authority, according to Days, will be the extent and seriousness of the injuries King received in the beating. That was a major point of contention during the state trial, in which the prosecution asserted that King had suffered severe head injuries from being struck with a baton and the defense maintained he had injured himself when he fell to the ground. Jurors indicated afterward that they believed the defense.

“Federal civil rights convictions are very difficult to obtain, except in cases where the violation is egregious, where there is death or serious bodily injury resulting,” Days said.

The cases also are difficult to prove because encounters between police and suspects often are highly charged, emotional events. As a result, prosecutors sometimes have trouble proving that officers thought about their actions ahead of time--a requirement to show intent.

Because these cases are so difficult to win, the government rarely brings them. But when it does, statistics show, it often succeeds.

Last year, for example, the U.S Justice Department received more than 9,800 civil rights complaints, investigated more than 3,500 cases and prosecuted 129 people, 64 of them police officers. The majority of the defendants--108--were convicted, either through jury trials or guilty pleas, according to Justice Department statistics. Figures for police officer convictions are not available.

In Los Angeles, these prosecutions have been extremely rare, according to statistics compiled by a congressional subcommittee on civil rights. Over the last 10 years, the numbers show, federal authorities have investigated 720 cases. Four resulted in indictments; there were convictions in three of the cases.

The government’s winning record, however, does not assure convictions in the case of Koon, Briseno, Powell and Wind.

Some observers say the case may not be as strong as others brought by the Justice Department, contending political considerations played a role in the decision to prosecute. The not guilty verdicts in the state case prompted extraordinary denunciations from citizens and public officials in Los Angeles and across the nation. Even President Bush criticized the verdicts and asked the Justice Department to step up its investigation of the case.

Federal prosecutors are under intense political pressure to deliver guilty verdicts--at a time when they may not be able to do so, said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University law professor. “They’re on the line,” Levenson said. “The President has put them on the line. . . . The eye of the nation will be on this prosecution. That’s a heavy load.”

Although they decline to discuss specifics, federal authorities already are hinting that their case will not be a repeat of the state trial. “The federal case is a different case,” U.S. Atty. Lourdes G. Baird said in announcing the indictments Wednesday, although she would not elaborate.

Perhaps the most important difference will be the character of the jury--a crucial factor in any criminal proceeding.

The state case was made to a predominantly white jury from suburban Ventura County--a group seen as more likely to sympathize with police officers than with the people they arrest. But experts say the federal case is likely to remain in Los Angeles for two reasons: the federal court draws jurors from a huge, seven-county region and publicity about the case has been so widespread that moving it to another city would do little good.

Thus the jury in the federal case is likely to reflect the diverse ethnic mix of urban Los Angeles. Experts say that even if the same evidence is presented in exactly the same way, a different jury could change the outcome of the case.

“A trial is very much a piece of theater,” said Arenella, the UCLA professor. “You are playing to a very different audience if it is here in Los Angeles.”

But selecting a jury--a difficult task during the first trial because of the publicity generated by the King beating--is likely to be even more difficult the second time around, experts say.

Defense lawyers may make a plausible argument that any juror will be afraid to acquit the officers, for fear that doing so would spark another outbreak of violence. Jurors may also fear for their personal safety in the wake of news reports that members of the Ventura County panel were threatened after they issued their decision.

“Any potential jurors who are not completely blind to the world are aware that these people have been tried before and let off, and their being let off prompted an enormous public disturbance,” said William Stuntz, a law professor at the University of Virginia. “While we do ask jurors to put aside preconceptions and prior knowledge . . . we very rarely have a problem of this magnitude.”

At its core, the federal trial will turn on the same questions raised in the state trial. But there may be dramatic differences in the way the case is presented. For example:

* Evidence. While government lawyers will not discuss the case, observers say the fact that the Justice Department did not rush to indict the officers as soon as they were acquitted in state court indicates that it is conducting a thorough re-investigation of the King beating. It is possible, experts say, that new evidence has come to light.

* Witnesses. The state prosecution relied heavily on police officers as witnesses. But more than a dozen civilians also saw the beatings--some from a nearby apartment complex, others from a passing bus. Aside from George Holliday, the plumber who captured the beating on his video camera, these witnesses were not called in the state case. Federal prosecutors, however, may choose to use them.

* Testimony of Rodney G. King. This will be a key issue for the federal government. State prosecutors did not ask King to testify and were roundly criticized for it--especially after he made his poignant “Can we all get along?” speech calling for an end to the riots.

* The videotape. Holliday’s 81-second videotape was the centerpiece of the state’s case. But experts say that federal prosecutors may have learned a lesson from the loss in state court: the videotape may have been compelling enough to spark nationwide outrage and a move toward police reform, but it was not enough to persuade 12 jurors that the officers were guilty of a crime.

One thing is certain, according to Levenson, the Loyola professor: The federal government will wage an extremely vigorous prosecution.

“They realize the challenge they are up against and they will load up their arsenal ahead of time,” Levenson said. “There will be no assumption that this is a walkover. To the contrary, the assumption will be that unless they do things differently and better they will wind up with the same verdicts as the state prosecutors.”

Reactions to the Indictments

Here are some reactions to the federal indictments of four Los Angeles police officers in the Rodney G. King beating:

Retired Police Chief Daryl F. Gates: “It’s dumb, dumb, dumb. I can’t tell you how dumb it is for the federal government to go forward with this.”

U.S. Atty. Lourdes G. Baird: When asked if acquittals in the federal case could spark new rioting: “I’m not thinking about an acquittal.”

Officer Laurence M. Powell: “My life is at a standstill . . . until this is all done, what can I do?”

Mayor Tom Bradley: “I share the reaction of Lourdes Baird. She said that we felt we had enough evidence to get a grand jury indictment, and obviously when the jury agreed with us, we were happy that our feelings were borne out. I share that view. This is a part of our judicial process, our justice system, and I think that it is working.”

Eric Rose, City Hall lobbyist, former political consultant to Daryl Gates: “Given the acquittal of the officers in the Simi Valley trial, if the U.S. attorney doesn’t have an airtight case, she can be committing political suicide as well as possibly contributing to another riot.”

Danny Bakewell, leader of the Brotherhood Crusade: “It’s not enough to indict someone. I hope we’re not just participating in a dog and pony show.”