State’s Appeal to Add More Time and Expense to Trial of Bryants : Law: Experts say it will take at least six months for the court to decide whether to uphold the ruling shifting the case from the D.A.’s office to the attorney general’s.

The Bryant Family drug and murder case, which already has lasted four years and has cost taxpayers $2.5 million, is about to get a lot longer and more expensive, state prosecutors and legal experts said Monday.

Prosecutors from the state attorney general’s office, who were given the case against their will Friday, said it would be at least six months--and possibly longer than a year--before the nine defendants get to trial.

The reason: The state plans to appeal a ruling by Superior Court Judge J.D. Smith, who held last week that the district attorney’s office had botched the case

so badly that the attorney general’s office needed to take over the prosecution.

Once the appeal is filed within the next several weeks, the California Court of Appeal in Los Angeles will begin the arduous task of sifting through mounds of court transcripts, and taking testimony from all sides, before deciding whether to uphold Smith’s ruling or give the case back to the district attorney’s office.

Defense lawyers had asked that the state take over prosecution of the case, alleging that county prosecutors had coerced a witness into changing her story and then withheld critical information regarding the witness tampering for two years. Saying “the damage is done,” Smith granted their request.

State prosecutors immediately filed notice of appeal, saying there were no improprieties and that the district attorney’s office was fully qualified to handle the case.

Four persons alleged to be members of the Bryant Family crime syndicate are charged with killing four people in Lake View Terrace in 1988, including two alleged rivals to their drug-dealing empire. They face the death penalty.

Five other defendants have been charged with lesser murder or conspiracy and drug charges. Most are represented by two court-appointed attorneys paid $100 an hour from public funds.

The attorney general’s office blamed defense lawyers for the expected delay, saying their unfounded requests for the state to take over the case forced the state to appeal as a matter of principle.

“This is delaying the case; everyone was ready to go to trial tomorrow,” said Senior Assistant Atty. Gen. Carol W. Pollack, who heads the office’s criminal division in Los Angeles. “Now we have to sort out the appellate questions. You can draw your own conclusion to taxpayer costs.”

The state attorney general’s office said it would appeal on the basis that Smith overstepped his authority, and should have opted for a less drastic measure than switching prosecutorial agencies. The state penal code provides several remedies for settling such matters short of recusal, said Deputy Atty. Gen. Tricia Bigelow. Among them: delaying the proceedings, holding prosecutors in contempt, and dismissing any of the prosecutors who had any connection to the case in favor of a new prosecution team--something newly elected Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti already has done.

“We were urging the judge to remove any problem he may have had with a scalpel, but he used an ax,” Bigelow said. “Our office’s position is that Judge Smith definitely abused his discretion.”

Bigelow said a decision by the appeals court is not expected for at least six to 12 months. Harry Sondheim, chief deputy district attorney in the appellate division, also said the state court of appeal could take a year to decide the matter.

Prosecutors and defense lawyers refused to speculate Monday on whether the state’s appeal would be successful. But they said that whatever the outcome, there would be other delays that are sure to add to the mounting court costs and the $2.5-million price tag already cited by the judge.

Prof. Gerald Uelmen, a criminal law specialist and dean of the Santa Clara University Law School near San Jose, said there have been several cases where local district attorneys have been disqualified because of conflicts of interest or alleged improprieties. “It’s certainly not unprecedented,” Uelmen said.

If Smith’s ruling is upheld, Uelmen said, state prosecutors would not have to start the case all over again. But they would have to carefully review the county prosecutors’ complicated legal strategy, which was carefully drafted and revised during the past four years.

“I would think the first thing they would want to do is review all allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and make sure they’ve got a clean case,” Uelmen said.

State prosecutors said they already have done so, and that a preliminary review indicates that at least four deputy attorneys general will be required to handle the case. Pollack said that her office only has 75 prosecutors, compared with the 900 county prosecutors in the district attorney’s office, and that being forced to handle such a complex case would strain her already overworked staff.

“We’ve been in an under-staffing situation, and a case of this magnitude will impact our resources,” Pollack said. “To do all our constitutionally required work, and this on top of it, would have an impact because it’s a large case. But this case will be vigorously prosecuted, whoever ends up with it.”