King Case Rulings Seen as Prosecution Setback : Trial: Judge says evidence about previous misconduct incidents involving three officers may not be used.

Jurors who deliberate the case of four police officers charged with violating the civil rights of Rodney G. King will not be allowed to hear evidence that three of the defendants were implicated in several other police abuse cases, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. Dist. Judge John G. Davies also prohibited a computer message from Officer Laurence M. Powell--in which Powell described a domestic dispute involving a black couple as being “right out of ‘Gorillas in the Mist’ “--from being introduced into evidence. Davies said the message was “clearly a statement with racist content” but did not bear directly on the King beating and therefore should not be offered to the jury.

Davies did allow prosecutors to introduce a second set of computer messages in which Powell wrote: “I haven’t beaten anyone this bad in a long time.” But those messages are not considered as potentially damaging to Powell because one of them also suggests that Powell believed King was “dusted,” or under the influence of PCP.

Together, Thursday’s rulings appear to represent a significant setback for prosecutors, who have the difficult task of proving that the March 3, 1991, beating was a willful deprivation of King’s civil rights. The government faces what Davies called a “high and heavy burden” to show that the officers not only used unreasonable force, but did so willfully with the intent to deny King those rights.

Prosecutors declined to comment on the rulings, but the officers and their attorneys were jubilant.

“I’ve died and gone to heaven!” lawyer Harland W. Braun exclaimed during a break in the proceedings. “This could not be going any better for us.”

Powell agreed. “I’m glad the trial will be kept close to the issue and not all the other baggage,” he said as he left the courthouse. “I’m pleased with that.”

In addition to Powell, Officer Theodore J. Briseno and former Officer Timothy E. Wind are charged with willfully violating King’s constitutional rights to be secure in his person and free from the intentional use of unreasonable force. Sgt. Stacey C. Koon is charged separately in a second count of the federal grand jury indictment. He is accused of willfully allowing officers under his supervision to beat King.

If convicted, the four men could be sentenced to 10 years in prison and fined up to $250,000 each.

To bolster its contention that the officers acted willfully, the government had hoped to present evidence to the jury regarding three instances in which Koon, Briseno and Powell were accused of misconduct.

In Briseno’s case, prosecutors had hoped to show that the officer stomped a suspect in custody in 1987 and that the stomping paralleled a blow that he delivered to King in 1991. Briseno was suspended for the 1987 incident. He said that in the King beating he used his foot to force King to the pavement in an effort to protect the motorist, not hurt him.

Government lawyers also wanted to tell jurors about an altercation involving Powell five months before the King beating. That incident allegedly involved Powell beating a juvenile suspect who had been handcuffed and put in the rear seat of a police car.

The suspect was “unruly and disrespectful,” prosecutor Barry F. Kowalski said, adding that Powell’s behavior in that instance illustrates the way he has been known to treat difficult suspects. Kowalski said the evidence during trial will show that King also was disrespectful, but that Powell’s response was unreasonable.

Finally, prosecutors sought to introduce evidence that Koon falsified a police report in 1986, intentionally omitting information about an excessive use of force. Prosecutors believe that Koon did the same thing after the King beating.

In each instance, prosecutors said the conduct of the officers cast light on the new charges and would help jurors assess the intent of the defendants.

Judge Davies disagreed.

“None of these prior acts are things to be proud of,” Davies said. But he accused the government of “reaching” and said the other allegations were too remote from the current charges to be introduced.

Davies ruled on roughly two dozen motions Thursday. Among other things, he overruled requests by several defendants to dismiss the case on the grounds that the new charges violate the officers’ right to be protected from “double jeopardy”--being tried twice for the same alleged offense.

All four officers were previously tried in state court for their role in the King beating, and three were acquitted of all charges. The jury did not reach a verdict on one count against Powell.

Despite the previous trial, state and federal governments generally are considered sovereign entities, and double jeopardy rules do not usually prevent the federal government from prosecuting a case once state proceedings have concluded. In addition, the charges in federal court are different, even though they also grow out of the King beating.

Defense lawyers urged Davies to take a broader view of the double jeopardy issue. But Davies said that although there were “equitable reasons why the case should not be tried,” he would not dismiss it.

“I’m not going to grant these motions,” he said. “The case would soon be returned by the appellate court if I did.”

Prosecutors and defense lawyers clashed on nearly every issue during Thursday’s four-hour hearing, but both sides did agree to take special steps to protect the jury. Davies agreed to sequester jurors and to protect their identities in order to ensure that they are not intimidated.

Some jurors in the state case were threatened after they returned their verdicts, and defense lawyers worry that jurors in this trial might be reluctant to find the officers not guilty if they fear retaliation. Prosecutors say they too want jurors to be free from any intimidation.

“I think that confidentiality and protection of the jury in this case is paramount,” Davies said.

By day’s end, Davies had disposed of nearly all issues that were before him, but a few potentially thorny questions remain to be decided before Feb. 2, when the trial is scheduled to begin.

Lawyers for Koon and Briseno each have raised a challenge to Powell’s attorney, Michael P. Stone, saying that he has a potential conflict of interest and should not be allowed to stay on the case. Braun, who represents Briseno, charged that Stone was part of a conspiracy against Briseno during the state case. But Davies refused to hold a hearing on that allegation because he said there was not enough evidence to support it.

Davies did concede that Koon or Wind may have the right to challenge Stone’s participation in the case. Stone’s law firm represents Koon in a civil matter, possibly giving Stone access to confidential material about Koon and potentially creating the grounds for a conflict.

Davies asked defense lawyers to submit documents to him outlining their views about whether Stone should be allowed to remain on the case. Koon’s lawyer, Ira Salzman, has indicated that he intends to challenge Stone and hopes to have him removed.

If Stone is removed, the trial would be delayed.

In addition, Davies scheduled another pretrial hearing for early January in which he will consider the question of whether the defendants can receive a fair trial so soon after last spring’s riots. Salzman is planning to hire a professional pollster to determine if public sentiment in Los Angeles remains too one-sided or volatile for a fair trial to be held here.

Neither defense lawyers nor prosecutors are seeking to move the case out of Los Angeles, but Salzman said that if pollsters find that a fair trial is not possible now, he may ask for the trial to be delayed until late next year.