Judge Rejects Talk of New Riots, Refuses to Delay Trial of Officers : King beating: Defense had cited poll in which 75% said acquittals will cause unrest. Jury selection begins today.

The judge presiding over the case of four police officers accused of violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights refused an eleventh-hour request to delay the trial Tuesday, saying he remains optimistic that new riots will not accompany verdicts in the case.

“I have an intuitive feeling of optimism,” U.S. District Judge John G. Davies said. “There have been changes in Los Angeles since the state trial. I hope they have been changes for the better. I believe they have been.”

Davies’ ruling clears the way for jury selection in the trial, scheduled to begin today, and hundreds of prospective jurors are to report to the federal courthouse this morning. In ruling as he did, Davies turned down a plea for a delay by attorney Ira Salzman, who represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon.

Salzman had argued that a recent CBS News poll--in which 75% of Los Angeles residents said that riots are likely if the four defendants are acquitted in federal court--showed the depth of anger that remains in the city. Salzman, with other defense lawyers joining his motion, requested that the trial be postponed, giving residents more time to cool down.

The poll also found that nearly two-thirds of those interviewed said they believe the officers should be found guilty in the federal trial. More than eight of 10 African-Americans polled said they believed the officers should be found guilty.

Salzman said the findings about another riot “jolted me out of my chair” when they were aired Thursday.

Davies called the poll “interesting and illuminating” but refused to grant the request. Davies previously has rejected other efforts to delay the proceedings, and Tuesday’s ruling did not surprise attorneys in the case.

“The time is ripe,” the judge said. “We must go ahead.”

Davies also struck a compromise on issues raised by news organizations seeking greater access to the court proceedings.

He authorized release of blank questionnaires that will be given to jurors to probe their attitudes about the case, and he allowed limited media access to the oral questioning of jurors. But he refused to release copies of the completed questionnaires.

Lawyers for the Associated Press, the Daily News of Los Angeles, Capital Cities-ABC and the Los Angeles Times were weighing their options in light of Davies’ ruling. John A. Karaczynski, who represents the Associated Press, said an appeal is under consideration, but he doubted whether lawyers could get a ruling before jurors reported for duty this morning.

In court, Karaczynski told Davies that opening the courtroom throughout the proceedings would bolster the public’s confidence that justice is being fairly administered.

“This is one of the most important criminal proceedings in this city in recent times,” Karaczynski said. “It should showcase the presumption of openness that is the hallmark of our justice system.”

That argument was joined by Beth F. Dumas, a lawyer for the Daily News, and by Glen A. Smith, who represents The Times.

“Secrecy obscures the truth and breeds conjecture, speculation and suspicion,” Smith said in a motion submitted to the judge. “The broader impact that this case could have on the community is a powerful argument for opening the entire process to the public so that all the facts can become known, and no one is left to guess as to what might have occurred behind closed doors.”

Defense lawyers objected, saying that prospective jurors might be afraid to answer some questions candidly if they know reporters are listening.

Davies agreed with the news organizations that closing any aspect of a trial, including jury selection, is “to be avoided in most circumstances.” He also approvingly quoted a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which he said the justices noted that “justice in our system cannot survive behind closed doors.”

To ensure some public access to the proceedings, Davies agreed to release copies of the 55-page questionnaire that prospective jurors are to be given today, and he tentatively ruled that a pool of reporters could attend the oral questioning of prospective jurors. Other journalists will be allowed to listen to the questioning from a pressroom set up in the federal courthouse.

But Davies added: “We have here a case that is truly unprecedented and truly extraordinary and unusual in all of its circumstances.”

Because of that, he declined to release the completed copies of juror questionnaires, even though jurors will be identified by number, not name. The questionnaires, he said, could include confidential information.

“It will take an order of another court” to force release of the completed questionnaires, he said. “I will not do it.”

With 350 to 400 prospective jurors expected to report this morning, lawyers are girding for the task of reviewing the questionnaires to weed out those who seem to be biased.

Davies previously had suggested an ambitious schedule that called for oral questioning to begin next week, but he relented Tuesday. Prosecutors and defense lawyers will meet with the judge Feb. 10 to dismiss those jurors whose questionnaire answers render them unfit to serve. Oral questioning is scheduled to begin Feb. 16.

Davies also broke from custom in federal court and said he would allow lawyers for both sides to question jurors. Typically, federal judges conduct the process themselves, but Davies said the “extraordinary circumstances that exist here” justify the departure from custom.

As the trial draws near, Davies has been deluged with last-minute motions, and prosecutors Steven D. Clymer and Barry F. Kowalski filed several more Tuesday.

They asked that Davies prevent officers other than the defendants from testifying that King appeared to be under the influence of PCP during the arrest--an impression that was not borne out by drug tests. In other motions, prosecutors asked the judge to block defense lawyers from interpreting videotaped evidence during opening statements and from defending their clients by arguing that they were acting with Police Department authorization.

Davies did not consider any of those proposals Tuesday, but he did grant a government motion to prevent defense lawyers from telling jurors that they believe the prosecution is “politically motivated” and from pointing out that some of the prosecutors in the case are Justice Department lawyers from Washington.

“There will be no reference to ‘lawyers from Washington,’ ” Davies said. “That’s a stigma that cannot be tolerated.”