U.S. Targets Prior Acts of 3 Officers : King case: Prosecutors hope to bolster position by using examples of misconduct by Koon, Powell and Briseno.

Federal prosecutors said in court documents Monday that they will seek to use prior acts of misconduct by three of the four defendants in the Rodney G. King case as evidence to bolster government claims that the officers deprived King of his civil rights.

More than 20 motions were filed in the case by prosecutors and attorneys for Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, Theodore J. Briseno, Laurence M. Powell and Timothy E. Wind. The four officers face trial Feb. 3 in U.S. District Court.

The gulf between Briseno and his co-defendants that was apparent in the state trial in Simi Valley seemed to widen with the filing of the new motions, many of which involved requests that Briseno be tried separately and one in which Briseno accused Powell’s attorney of conflict of interest.

In the government’s motions to include prior acts of misconduct as evidence, prosecutors outlined three incidents, one each involving Powell, Koon and Briseno, that they claim were similar to the March 3, 1991, beating of King and are crucial to proving the officers’ intent to deprive King of his rights.

Powell’s attorney said that he will file a motion today seeking to prevent prior acts of the officers from being introduced at trial.

In the Powell incident, prosecutors said that on Oct. 20, 1990--less than five months before the King beating--Powell repeatedly punched a handcuffed juvenile he had arrested for jaywalking, then lied about the incident.

According to court records, the juvenile had become combative and had spit on Powell’s partner while the officers were driving him in a patrol car.

“Powell stopped the car, opened the rear passenger door and began punching the still-handcuffed juvenile with his fist, cursing him as he did so,” the document says.

After the juvenile’s face was bloodied, Powell’s partner pulled him away, according to the court document. On the way to the station, Powell said the boy deserved the beating and falsely reported to superiors that the injuries resulted from the juvenile’s resistance while being handcuffed.

Powell’s attorney, Michael P. Stone, said he had never heard of the incident, and he would seek to have it disallowed.

In the Koon incident, the documents described a Sept. 28, 1986, arrest after a police pursuit of a stolen car. A juvenile occupant, who fled after the car crashed, was captured at gunpoint by Koon.

“During the arrest one of the officers pushed the juvenile against a wall and punched him in the head,” the court document says. “While that officer was holding the juvenile, defendant Koon kicked the juvenile two times in the chest.”

The court document alleges that Koon then reported to supervisors that no use of force occurred. However, after an investigation prompted by the juvenile’s complaint, Koon was suspended for five days.

The Briseno incident involves a previously reported June 14, 1987, arrest of a man during a child abuse investigation.

After the man was handcuffed, Briseno stomped him on the back and was suspended for 66 days, the court document says.

The document adds that the stomping showed a pattern by Briseno that belies his defense in the current case that he put his foot on King in an effort to protect him from further beating by Powell and Wind.

The court documents refer to an unnamed police officer who witnessed the 1987 incident. Because of that incident, the officer was able to recognize Briseno four years later when watching television news and seeing the amateur videotape taken of the King beating.

“The officer was able instantly to recognize defendant Briseno because, as he remarked, he would ‘know that kick anywhere,’ ” the government’s motion reads.

Attorneys for Briseno, Koon and Wind could not be reached after the government motions were made available to the media. Asst. U.S. Atty. Steven D. Clymer declined to comment.

In other motions filed Monday, Briseno accused Powell’s attorney, Stone, of conflict of interest and asked for a hearing before Judge John G. Davies to ask for Stone’s removal from the case.

Briseno said that at the time of the King beating, Stone was serving as general counsel for the Los Angeles Police Protective League, meaning that, in effect, he represented Briseno, who was a member of the league.

But Stone, according to Briseno, attempted to “eviscerate” Briseno’s defense during the state trial that resulted in not guilty verdicts.

During the trial, Briseno broke from the three other defendants, testifying that he had tried to stop their use of excessive force. Briseno said Stone introduced several police officers as witnesses in the trial who testified against him.

Briseno said Stone “attempted to put together, as part of the trial in Simi Valley, a false defense to silence me as part of the police ‘code of silence.’ ” Briseno’s attorney, Harland W. Braun, who did not represent him during the state trial, said the conflict of interest will prevent Briseno from getting a fair trial unless Stone is removed.

Stone denied that there was any conflict, saying that he never met Briseno until he became Powell’s attorney.

A hearing on Briseno’s request has not been set. If Stone is removed from the case, the trial could be delayed months while a new attorney becomes acquainted with the case, Braun said.

All four officers challenged the federal indictment in motions saying that the officers’ prosecution is double jeopardy because they had been tried in state court. The first trial resulted in not guilty verdicts except for Powell, who was acquitted on all but one charge for which a jury could not agree on a verdict.

Powell and Koon each filed motions seeking to have Briseno’s trial severed from their own. Wind filed a motion seeking to have his case severed from the other three.

Koon and the government also filed motions asking that jurors in the case be sequestered and that their identities be kept secret.

Davies has scheduled a Nov. 12 hearing for discussion of the motions filed.