Jury Selection Begins in King Beating Case : Courts: All of the first 12 panelists called for questioning insist that they could be fair in judging the four officers on trial.

Despite probing questions from lawyers, 12 prospective jurors in the Rodney G. King civil rights trial insisted that they could weigh evidence impartially, even though many said they were surprised that the defendants were not convicted last year in state court. One woman, for instance, acknowledged that she tends to believe police officers are better witnesses than civilians. But she told Ira Salzman, who represents Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, that she would not let that interfere with her obligations as a juror.

“I decided that if I was chosen, I would be as fair and impartial as possible,” said the juror, who, like all members of the panel, was identified only by a number. “Mr. Koon is somebody’s son, and he does deserve a fair trial, as do the other defendants.”

That woman and 11 other prospective jurors were grilled at length on the opening day of oral questioning of jurors in the federal civil rights trial of four Los Angeles police officers charged with violating King’s civil rights. Among other topics, the potential jurors were asked about their attitudes regarding race relations, law enforcement, King and the acquittals of the officers on all but one count during last year’s state trial.

Several of the 12 questioned Monday said they were sympathetic to police officers, and defense lawyers were heartened by the initial round.

“I’m very pleased,” said Salzman, who stressed that the effort is to find a fair jury, not one that is tilted toward acquittal. “I believe we will get a jury by the end of the week.”

Prosecutors declined comment, as they have throughout the case.

Jury selection for the federal trial is being handled with extraordinary care, and prospective jurors have completed a 53-page questionnaire about their attitudes toward the case. Monday, lawyers on both sides followed up on those questionnaire answers, focusing particularly on sections dealing with law enforcement and the riots that swept Los Angeles at the end of last year’s state trial.

“You realize that people died (in the riots)?” Salzman asked one potential juror. “Do you have any feelings whatsoever that if the government failed to prove its case, that you would worry about people dying?”

“I might be worried, but it wouldn’t change my decision,” replied the juror, a young white man.

The 12 men and women questioned Monday represent the first candidates called as potential jurors for the trial. A total of 284 prospective jurors are in the pool, and 73 reported for questioning Monday morning. If some of the initial 12 are removed by the attorneys for either side, they will be replaced by others.

Lawyers are expected to begin removing jurors today, and some of the panelists are likely to be replaced. One prospective juror said he was a former security guard who twice used force on suspects, and another said he believed the federal trial was a “waste of taxpayers’ money.”

Among other prospective jurors was one who said her friends and family would “treat me fairly” if she were part of a jury that found the officers not guilty. But if they were convicted, those same friends and family would “feel that justice had been done,” she added.

For those prospective jurors, the question is whether lawyers for both sides accept their insistence that they can set aside their feelings. Prosecutors are allowed to remove, without explanation, eight jurors they believe are unfit to serve. The four defense lawyers may remove 14 potential jurors between them, and the judge can unseat any prospective juror he believes to be biased.

The panel of 73 prospective jurors who reported Monday was racially mixed, with nine African-Americans, about a dozen Latinos and several Asians. About two-thirds of the prospective jurors were men, and most were middle-aged.

There were no African-American jurors selected during the state trial of the officers, and many community leaders are watching the selection process in this case for evidence that prospective jurors will not be excluded because of their race. Two of the first 12 potential jurors selected for questioning were African-American women.

Although some observers have questioned whether black jurors would care to serve in this case because of its deep resonance in the African-American community, both of those women said they could serve fairly.

“I’m not going to worry about what my friends or my family or anybody says,” one said. “I’m going to do what I feel I need to do based on the evidence.”

The other, a postal worker, said she was surprised by the not-guilty verdicts in the state trial, but did not blame the jurors.

“It made me see you had to be a juror to understand the case,” she said. “It sounds to me like they (the state jurors) had a hard time making that decision.”

“You did feel that justice had been served?” asked Barry F. Kowalski, a Justice Department attorney and a lead prosecutor.

“Yes, I do,” the woman responded forcefully.

She added, however, that she understood the facts of the federal case are different and that the jury might reach a different verdict at the end of this trial.

Kowalski informed jurors that many new facts could emerge in the federal case, and he confirmed speculation that has buzzed for months: King will testify, he said.

Many observers have predicted that King, who did not testify in the state trial, would be called this time--a prediction bolstered by King’s appearance before a federal grand jury last year. But until Monday, prosecutors had never confirmed that.

“Rodney King will be a witness in this case,” Kowalski told prospective jurors.

He also stressed that King is not on trial, and that his actions--which include driving under the influence of alcohol and leading police officers on a high-speed chase to avoid arrest--are not matters about which the jury will be asked to reach verdicts.