Plea to Move King Case Is Unlikely, Defense Says : Courts: Attorneys for four LAPD officers facing federal civil rights charges reveal a tentative agreement. Holding trial in L.A. may have benefits, they say.

Defense lawyers for the four police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights have tentatively agreed not to seek a transfer of the case from Los Angeles, despite fears that a local jury might be tainted by the riots that erupted last spring.

“It’s my feeling that a knee-jerk change of venue motion would be premature and would not be well-received by the court,” said Michael P. Stone, who represents Officer Laurence M. Powell. “We’ll try to seat a jury here.”

That decision was tentatively reached by the four lawyers for the defendants during a strategy session Thursday night, Stone and other attorneys said. Although they could change their minds in the next month--the court-imposed deadline for filing motions is Oct. 5--three of the defense attorneys said Friday that they expect to try to impanel a jury in Los Angeles.

The fourth lawyer, Ira Salzman, who represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, was unavailable for comment.

When the four defendants were tried in state court earlier this year, the case was moved to Ventura County at the request of their attorneys. But if the lawyers stick to their new strategy, the case would come back to the city, where it would be tried in a community still struggling to recover from the riots that erupted after the officers were found not guilty April 29.

In that trial, the jury acquitted Los Angeles Police Officer Theodore J. Briseno, former Officer Timothy E. Wind and Koon on all counts. Powell was found not guilty on all but one charge, on which the jury could not react a verdict. The remaining count will be dismissed once the federal charges go to trial.

“This is a very complicated decision,” lawyer Paul DePasquale, who represents Wind, said of the change of venue. “To some extent we’d probably benefit from trying the case here because I believe there is considerably more sympathy for our clients than there was before the state trial.”

At the same time, DePasquale said, the riots may have created widespread fear among potential jurors about the consequences of voting to acquit.

DePasquale said he is still weighing the change of venue issue and might yet propose moving the trial. But “that’s not the way we’re leaning,” he said.

Harland W. Braun, who represents Briseno, agreed that there are risks for the defendants in trying the case in Los Angeles in the wake of the riots. Jurors, he said, might be afraid to acquit the four because such an outcome could set off new riots or threats against them.

But the news of the violence was so widespread throughout the country that potential jurors in other areas might be just as tainted as those here, he said.

Braun is considering whether to file a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that a fair trial is impossible anywhere.

Moving the case out of Los Angeles has other potential disadvantages for the defendants, Braun said. The officers and their lawyers are convinced that the case against them is politically motivated, and they worry about giving the judiciary the authority to pick an alternative location for the trial.

Braun said pressure from Washington could prompt a transfer to “whatever place in the United States they think would most likely return a conviction.”

“Our feeling is that it’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t,” Braun added.

In addition, defense lawyers were pleased that U.S. District Judge John G. Davies was assigned to the case, and changing the venue might mean that a new judge would be selected.

U.S. Atty. Lourdes G. Baird already has indicated her strong preference to have the case tried in Los Angeles. The Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles, spans seven counties and encompasses a jury pool of 16 million people.

Instead of seeking a change of venue for the case, Stone said, the defense intends to develop a comprehensive survey for jurors that will help determine whether they can be impartial. In addition, the defense lawyers are preparing a motion to protect the anonymity of jurors so that they will not fear retribution if they vote for acquittal.

If it still proves impossible to find 12 unbiased jurors, defense lawyers say, they might at that point try to have the case moved.