Trial’s TV Ban Won’t Let Us See for Ourselves

“This case has two audiences,” Ted Koppel said on ABC’s “Nightline” about the Rodney G. King civil rights trial unfolding in a downtown Los Angeles federal courtroom.

Identifying those audiences as the jury and the public, Koppel was one for two.

He was right about the jury.

He was wrong about the public, which--in contrast to last year’s Simi Valley trial of these same four Los Angeles police officers in the beating of fleeing motorist King--has been denied the opportunity to see all or portions of this second King trial for itself.

Instead, the public is receiving its view of the present trial entirely through the filtered prisms of the media and, to a lesser extent, attorneys, most of them representing the LAPD defendants.

Leading that charge has been Michael P. Stone, attorney for defendant Laurence M. Powell. As he did in the earlier trial, Stone has been convening his own court in front of cameras when the trial is not in session, aggressively promoting his client’s cause and demeaning the prosecution.

Stone’s biased observations are probably seen as predictable by most viewers. And his voice was relatively tiny in the greater noise of media coverage that accompanied this week’s testimony by King, a din that assumes even greater significance now than it did in the first trial.

The state’s Simi Valley trial was televised live gavel-to-gavel by KTTV-TV Channel 11 and cable’s Court TV network, and substantial chunks also appeared on other local stations and CNN. In addition, trial blips of various sizes were available via sound bites on TV and radio newscasts.

Not everyone could watch the unobtrusive, fascinating, enormously valuable full coverage, of course. And that full-blown coverage--despite providing insights into the strategies employed by both sides--did not forestall the shock or destructive riots of ’92 that greeted the acquittals. But at least the opportunity was present via TV to observe the trial’s shadings as well as to hear the shrillness.

The King civil rights trial also cries out for public accessibility. Yet because cameras are foolishly barred from federal courtrooms, the present trial is off-limits to the public except for a few spots in the courtroom reserved for ordinary citizens. Consequently, there is nothing to complement--or counter--coverage of this momentous event in newspapers and on the airwaves.

So . . . what has Los Angeles seen this week, as reporters have offered viewers their own takes on two days of the long-awaited King testimony? Coverage in some instances that inadvertently may have raised false expectations, that could lead anew to frustration and anger when the verdicts are announced, followed by--grab your flak jacket--You Know What.

It was easy to conclude that King’s time on the stand was critical, especially since this week’s TV coverage of the trial fell off dramatically after his testimony. (Abandoning its half-hourly trial updates, for example, KCBS-TV Channel 2 on Thursday morning resumed old habits, giving live chopper coverage to police pursuing a truck at high speeds and arresting a suspect. And KNBC-TV Channel 4, KCAL-TV Channel 9 and KABC-TV Channel 7 followed suit.)

“I think the brother spoke from his heart,” an African-American told a Channel 9 reporter Wednesday about King. “This testimony is going to help, and the police officers are not going to prevail. This time justice will prevail.”

Obviously, he was equating justice with convictions. And it was reasonable to conclude from much of this week’s coverage--which largely ignored the different standards of proof distinguishing the federal trial from the Simi Valley trial--that King’s testimony was a catalyst for conviction.

While noting King’s inconsistent testimony, admissions of lying and alleged memory lapses, nearly everyone covering his testimony gave him positive reviews as an effective witness. The assessments ranged from “pretty good” by Bob Jiminez on Channel 2 to “excellent” by George Lewis on NBC’s “Today” program to “incredible” by David Goldstein on Channel 9.

Viewers could easily infer from this that these two days of testimony could win the case for the prosecution.

All the more so, in fact, if they heeded the sound bites of the media’s latest favorite legal expert, Laurie Levenson, a Loyola University Law School professor who has been attending the trial as an observer. How could news viewers have not heard Levenson, who has surfaced on newscast after newscast, giving her assessment of King?

“He was there,” she said on Channel 9. “He remembers the pain. He remembers the injury. He’s giving it from the heart. That’s probably what will hurt the defense the most.”

On “Today” Thursday, Levenson found King to be a witness who “came across as somebody very docile, as someone who does not easily lose his temper.” She added that King “just doesn’t come across . . . as a slick witness.”

Perhaps she was right. If a camera had been in the courtroom, however, viewers could have drawn their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, TV’s instantaneous daily scorecard was out, as reporters covering the trial were asked by anchors to put themselves inside the heads of the jury and say which side was winning.

Channel 2’s Hosea Sanders to Jiminez: “What’s the consensus today on the way Rodney King’s testimony played for the jury?”

Channel 4’s Wendy Tokuda to Phil Shuman: “Who is coming out on top?”

Channel 9’s David Jackson to Goldstein and two print reporters covering the King trial: “Is he forgetting certain things . . . or is he lying?” And later: “Is there talk in the courtroom that this seems to be leaning toward a conviction or an acquittal?”

The above reporters wisely refused to play psychic. However, Channel 7’s mind-reading John Long said the jury “did appear to be sympathetic” to King. “They seem to be going with him,” said anchor Ann Martin, echoing Long. And on Channel 4, NBC legal specialist Star Jones determined that jury members were “getting a little tired of all the harping on (King’s) inconsistencies.”

To say nothing of viewers possibly tiring of knee-jerk analysis of a trial that the public has been deprived of seeing for itself.