Media Denied Access to King Jury Surveys

A federal appellate panel on Friday effectively denied motions by two news organizations seeking access to completed juror questionnaires in the Rodney G. King civil rights trial, a ruling that clears the way for oral questioning of prospective jurors next week.

Although the three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals technically granted a portion of the appeals filed by the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press, the result of its ruling is that juror questionnaires in the case will remain sealed throughout the trial and possibly forever.

“I’m disappointed,” said John A. Karacyznski, the lawyer representing the Associated Press. “I believe that access during the . . . trial is essential for the public to have a full understanding of the jury selection process.”

An unusual coalition of prosecutors, three of the four defense lawyers and the judge had filed motions opposing the appeals. In his response, U.S. District Judge John G. Davies argued that disclosing the questionnaires, even without information that might identify jurors, could subject members of the jury panel to “threats, harassment and widespread publicity.”

Lawyers for the news organizations said releasing the questionnaires would reassure the public that the jury selection process in the volatile case was being handled fairly. They also argued that allowing prospective jurors to remove identifying or “deeply personal” information would protect them from potential harm.

Ira Salzman, who represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, said he was “very gratified” by the ruling, adding that it would safeguard jurors.

The ruling allows Davies to reconsider releasing the questionnaires after the trial, but does not require him to do so.

Even as the appeals court was backing Davies over the news groups, however, the judge came under fire from another front--again as a result of his attempts to limit publicity. Attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union on Friday filed a challenge to a gag order that Davies imposed on a defense lawyer.

Late Friday the appeals court invited parties to file responses on the gag order next week.

The ACLU is appealing an order that bars Harland W. Braun, the lawyer for Officer Theodore J. Briseno, from impugning the motives of the government or prosecutors. Braun has repeatedly called the prosecution politically motivated, and Davies issued his order after finding that “continued inflammatory comments” by Braun could jeopardize a fair trial.

But ACLU lawyers said the order is an unconstitutional limitation of Braun’s right to express his views, which the organization said is unwarranted given the extensive publicity of the case.

“The passions surrounding this case are known to every person in this nation and to the international community,” Paul L. Hoffman, legal director of the Southern California ACLU, said in a 50-page appeal.

The ACLU said that while Davies’ order prevents Braun from impugning the motives of prosecutors, it does not prevent them from criticizing him.

“It permits the prosecutors to assure the public . . . that their motives are pure, but forbids Braun from replying if he disagrees,” the ACLU wrote.

Ironically, the ACLU has supported the federal prosecution and disagrees with Braun’s comments, but backs his right to state them.

“I’m really happy that they are taking this principled position,” Braun said. “I realize that they don’t agree with my views, but it’s an inspiration to have people who disagree with me nevertheless stand up for me.”