Federal Trial of Officers in King Beating Delayed Until February : Courts: New defense lawyers say they need more time to review the evidence. Legal experts say it will provide a greater chance of finding an impartial jury.

A federal judge announced Thursday that he will delay until next year the federal criminal trial of four Los Angeles police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights.

At the request of defense lawyers, U.S. District Judge John G. Davies agreed to postpone the start of the trial from next month to Feb. 2. The extra time is intended to give two new defense lawyers an opportunity to review the evidence and give lawyers on both sides a chance to prepare motions.

Legal experts said the delay will also help bolster the chances of finding an unbiased jury by lengthening the time between the new trial and the state prosecution of the four defendants that sparked the riots that swept Los Angeles last spring hours after the verdicts in that case.

Davies, who is also overseeing King’s civil lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, said he does not believe that his involvement with that case has given him any special knowledge of the criminal matter, and therefore he is qualified to hear the case.

“I’m not privy to any of the facts beyond that which any member of the public who has an interest in current affairs would have,” Davies said.

Los Angeles Police Officers Timothy E. Wind, Theodore J. Briseno and Sgt. Stacey C. Koon were acquitted on all counts in the state trial. The fourth defendant, Officer Laurence M. Powell, was found not guilty on all counts except one on which the jury could not reach a verdict. The remaining state charge will be dropped once the federal trial begins.

Because of the publicity surrounding the riots that followed the verdicts, lawyer Harland W. Braun, who represents Briseno, said he is considering a motion to dismiss the charges against the defendants on the grounds that they cannot receive a fair trial anywhere in the country.

“We feel the extraordinary publicity in this case means that any juror anywhere in the United States would hesitate to vote not guilty,” Braun said.

Davies seemed taken aback by that suggestion, which Braun acknowledged was unprecedented.

“Do you have evidence that there are not 12 (unbiased) people anywhere?” Davies asked.

Braun said he expected to conduct surveys and perform other research to answer that question.

In addition to Braun’s concern, lawyers for the defendants said they are considering motions to move the trial out of Southern California, to dismiss it on the grounds that the defendants were found not guilty in state court, and to conduct separate trials for the four defendants.

Michael Stone, who represents Powell, and Ira Salzman, Koon’s lawyer, said they will file a motion to let jurors serve anonymously.

“The jury verdict in Ventura County was unfairly criticized, and there was a wholesale castigation of that jury,” Salzman said after the hearing. “The new jury may be inhibited by that.”

Although the defense attorneys are cooperating on some issues, there is friction between Briseno and the other three officers. During the state trial, Briseno testified that the beating was out of control and that he tried to stop it.

In a recent interview with The Times, Briseno modified that testimony slightly. Briseno said that although the confrontation with King appeared to be out of control from his vantage point, he believes that it may not have seemed that way to other officers--particularly Powell, who delivered the majority of the blows.

But Braun and Briseno say that Briseno’s role in the incident was limited to trying to protect King, an allegation that rankles Powell and his lawyer.

“There are obvious differences” between the defendants’ cases, Stone said after the hearing. “Their public pronouncements do little to reduce the anxiety.”