Potential King Case Jurors Sense Trial’s Significance : Courts: Under close questioning, several panelists describe plans to keep a diary or collect notes.

One prospective juror in the trial of four police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights said Wednesday that he considers the chance to serve on the panel a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” while another said she believes three of the defendants should have been found guilty in state court.

Those potential jurors came under close scrutiny on the second day of oral questioning in the case as lawyers searched for signs that some of the panelists may have biases or preconceptions that make it impossible for them to serve impartially. Starting this morning, prosecutors and defense lawyers will begin exercising their right to remove jurors.

Although all of the 12 prospective jurors who have been questioned insist that they can be fair, some of their answers suggested otherwise. The group’s only Asian-American, for instance, told defense lawyer Ira Salzman that she watched last year’s state trial of the officers and came to the conclusion that three of the defendants--Stacey C. Koon, Laurence M. Powell and Timothy E. Wind--should have been convicted.

When asked what word or phrase came to mind when she heard the name Rodney King , she responded: “Victim. Abuse of power.”

That woman--who also said she believes Koon and Powell lied during their state trial testimony--is almost certain to be dismissed, as are at least a few of the other 12 panelists who are the first to be questioned in the case.

As they are removed, they will be replaced by other members of a 73-member panel. If 12 jurors cannot be found among the 73, two other panels of 75 people each are waiting to be called.

Although gruelingly repetitive at times, the jury selection process is moving quickly enough that U.S. District Judge John G. Davies predicted that a jury will be picked today. Some defense lawyers were more cautious but agreed that the process probably can conclude by Friday.

Jurors seemed to grow restless at times Wednesday, and some candidates who were not among those being questioned read paperback books or knitted.

But a series of questions by Michael P. Stone, who represents Powell, brought the panel to life. Stone had said he wanted to flush out any potential jurors who had personal reasons for wanting to participate in the case, and he started by posing a number of questions on that topic.

One member of the panel, a white former security guard, said he was eager to serve. “It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” he said. “This is one of the biggest criminal cases in history.”

Another white male juror said he planned to take notes during the trial and was considering writing a magazine article once it is over.

A woman panelist said she keeps a diary and planned to continue doing so throughout the trial. Although she said she did not have plans to sell her story, she admitted that the idea did have some appeal: “I’m a capitalist, of course, being an American.”

Several prospective jurors also said they believe King should have been called as a witness during the state trial. Prosecutors disclosed Tuesday that he will testify this time, and one prospective juror said he appreciated that decision.

As defense lawyers have posed their questions, they have gingerly handled the topic of how race could play in a verdict. Near the end of Wednesday’s session, Harland W. Braun, who represents Briseno, tackled the subject head-on, asking two prospective jurors who are black about their feelings toward the officers and King.

Braun asked both women whether they could withstand pressure from friends and family if they vote to find the officers not guilty. Both said they could.

“Given the publicity this case has generated, do you recognize that will take an awful lot of courage?” he asked one of those jurors.

“I have courage,” she responded firmly.

In his brief questioning, Braun drew sharp fire from the judge and prosecutors, particularly when he tried to question one prospective juror about the “fairness” of trying the officers after they were found not guilty in state court. Davies interrupted, saying that the federal government had the right to bring charges and that the fairness of that decision was not an issue.

“Do you understand that the judge is saying that fairness is not an issue?” Braun asked. An angry Davies intervened again, and Braun agreed to move on to another question.