Beating of Downed King Broke Policy, Expert Says : Trial: The head of LAPD’s self-defense training says baton blows early in confrontation were justified, but should have stopped once the suspect was on the ground.

Four officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights clearly violated Los Angeles Police Department policy when they struck and kicked King after he was knocked to the ground, a police sergeant and use-of-force expert testified Wednesday.

Three of the defendants--Laurence M. Powell, Timothy E. Wind and Theodore J. Briseno--violated policy by unnecessarily kicking King or by hitting him with their batons, said Sgt. Mark John Conta, the officer in charge of the LAPD’s physical training and self-defense unit. The fourth defendant, Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, violated policy by allowing those officers to continue the beating and by failing to intervene, he added.

Conta, the main police policy expert to testify for the prosecution in the federal trial of the officers, spent nearly six hours on the stand, methodically spelling out ways that each of the four defendants violated police policy March 3, 1991.

At one point, Conta, dressed in his blue police uniform, stepped in front of the jury box to deliver a short lecture on the proper use of the weapon. As he did, jurors sat forward attentively.

Conta said during a break that it was extremely difficult to testify against fellow officers, but he nevertheless delivered the most devastating testimony of the prosecution’s case so far. He will return to the stand today to be cross-examined by lawyers for the officers.

“It is my opinion that there was a clear violation of Los Angeles police policy,” he said in response to a question from Barry F. Kowalski, one of the two lead prosecutors in the case. After a few moments at the beginning of the incident, King “did not demonstrate combative or aggressive behavior that would constitute an objective threat to the officers,” Conta said.

Even if jurors find that the officers violated police policy, that does not necessarily mean that the defendants abridged King’s civil rights. Police guidelines on the use of force prohibit officers from using any more force than is “reasonable or necessary” to subdue a suspect. The officers are not charged criminally with breaking that standard but rather are accused of violating King’s right to be safe from the intentional use of unreasonable force.

Because police guidelines are stricter than the constitutional protection, it is possible to exceed the LAPD policy without violating a suspect’s civil rights. The defendants have argued that their actions were acceptable by both standards.

Conta disagreed, and using the videotape of the beating as his guide, he detailed the actions of each defendant and pointed out areas where he believed they went beyond departmental rules.

He said Powell was justified in striking King early in the incident, after King charged in his direction. Conta also did not blame Powell or Wind for hitting and kicking King during the first 32 seconds of the tape because King was standing or trying to stand and therefore continued to pose a threat.

But from that point on, Conta said, every baton blow and kick violated the department’s policy.

He was particularly critical of Powell, shown in one section of the tape striking King in the upper body as King lay on his back. “To me, that was the most flagrant violation,” Conta said.

Conta also blamed Koon, the senior officer at the scene of the arrest, for letting officers under his supervision beat King long after King ceased to be a threat to them.

“Sgt. Koon should have intervened,” Conta said. “He should have stopped this and helped his people when they needed him most. . . . He failed to do so.”

Conta’s only praise for any of the defendants went to Briseno, pictured near the beginning of the videotape grabbing Powell’s baton and apparently blocking one blow.

“Officer Briseno should be commended for that conduct,” Conta said. “He stopped the use of the baton. . . . I liked what I saw.”

Conta went on to say, however, that when Briseno later stomped on King’s back or neck, he violated policy. “There’s no justification for that stomp,” he said.

Conta did not testify during last year’s state trial, and he appears to have been handpicked to satisfy some of the criticisms that jurors registered of the prosecution’s use-of-force expert in that case, LAPD Cmdr. Michael Bostic.

Bostic was a high-ranking officer with little street experience, while Conta spent 17 years as a patrol officer and later as a sergeant. He testified that he has witnessed the use of force on about 100 occasions.

Conta stressed that strict rules govern the use of force and that officers are required to escalate and de-escalate their force in response to a suspect’s actions. “Intermediate” force, such as baton blows or kicks, may only be used if a suspect is aggressive or combative toward officers, Conta said.

“Under Los Angeles Police Department policy, could an officer use intermediate force against a suspect because he was unruly or uncooperative?” Kowalski asked.

“No,” Conta responded.

“Could an officer use intermediate force to get a suspect to obey a command?” Kowalski asked.

“Absolutely not,” Conta said.

Kowalski concluded his questioning late Wednesday afternoon, and defense lawyers began cross-examination of the sergeant. Ira Salzman, who represents Koon, questioned Conta for more than an hour, trying to build a case that he was not in a position to judge the defendants’ actions.

Conta, however, vigorously defended his views. “I know the policy,” Conta said. “I know when to kick.”

Meanwhile, Harland W. Braun, who represents Briseno, released copies of a lie-detector test showing that his client was telling the truth when he said that he stepped on King’s back to protect him. The test was administered by Edward I. Gelb, a Los Angeles forensic psychophysiologist.

Braun said he will try to have the lie-detector results included as evidence in this case, though experts said it was unlikely that the judge would allow it.