Wind Given Counsel on Beating : King case: Officer says he advised rookie on the use of force and says Wind told him that he ‘didn’t enjoy’ using it on King.

One of the Los Angeles police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights said hours after the beating that he “didn’t enjoy” using force to subdue King, a fellow officer testified Wednesday.

Officer Joseph Napolitano, who witnessed the March 3, 1991, arrest, testified that he saw Officer Timothy E. Wind at a restaurant on the morning after the beating, and that Napolitano raised the topic of the incident.

According to Napolitano, Wind said: “I didn’t enjoy it.”

“There are going to be times when you’re going to have to use force,” Napolitano said he then told his younger colleague. “But don’t ever get to the point where you enjoy it.”

Napolitano’s testimony came on the second day of the defense’s case as Ira Salzman, Sgt. Stacey C. Koon’s attorney, was presenting evidence on his client’s behalf.

Wednesday’s testimony by two police officers and one former officer appeared to be a rebound for the defense’s effort, which got off to a rough start the day before when Napolitano and another police witness saw their credibility and competence sharply challenged by prosecutors.

“I think we got some momentum back that we lost yesterday,” Harland W. Braun, the lawyer for Officer Theodore J. Briseno, said at the end of the day. “We made up for yesterday.”

The intense cross-examination of defense witnesses showed no signs of abating, however. Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven D. Clymer probed Napolitano, for instance, about how he could have failed to see six kicks that Wind delivered to King while Napolitano stood about 10 feet away.

Napolitano never reported any of the kicks to Internal Affairs investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department, and he acknowledged Wednesday that on the videotape of the incident, he appears to be watching as the kicks are delivered.

Prosecutors have used their cross-examination to sharply and sometimes sarcastically attack defense witnesses, and attorneys for the officers said outside of court that the vehemence is merely the most public display of a concerted government attempt to intimidate police officers who agree to testify for the defendants.

Braun said he knows of 10 to 12 police officers who have been threatened with perjury charges, and he added that some were told by prosecutors that they would be arrested on the spot if they lied to the grand jury that ultimately indicted the four defendants.

“These prosecutors told police officers: ‘We know there’s this code of silence. We know you’re scum. We’re going to charge you with perjury and arrest you unless you change your story,”’ Braun said. “Our argument is that this whole thing stinks.”

The jury in the federal case has only heard snatches of that argument. Early in the case, Officer Rolando Solano testified that he had been threatened with a perjury charge, but U.S. District Judge John G. Davies has not allowed defense lawyers to raise that point in questioning other officers.

Defense lawyers also argued that they have been unfairly disadvantaged by federal rules that do not require prosecutors to share full transcripts of witnesses’ grand jury testimony unless they call those witnesses as part of their own case. Prosecutors have effectively used grand jury testimony by some of the police officers testifying for the defense to undermine their credibility.

Davies agreed with defense lawyers that the process appeared to unfairly handicap their efforts. After hearing hours of arguments on the point, he ruled that prosecutors must turn over copies of any questions and answers that they use to impeach the credibility of defense witnesses. In addition, he directed government lawyers to give him a full transcript so that he could make sure that they do not withhold information that defense lawyers are entitled to receive.

Attorneys for the officers were satisfied with the compromise. Michael P. Stone, who represents Laurence M. Powell, said the new process showed results immediately when another police officer took the stand Wednesday afternoon on behalf of the defendants.

That officer, Paul R. Gebhardt, told jurors that he had heard no taunts or racial epithets directed at King during the incident. He also testified that King appeared to be trying to get up as he was being struck and that he appeared to be under the influence of PCP, a central defense contention.

Gebhardt also said that at one point he heard Powell yell: “Watch out. This guy’s dusted,” a reference to PCP.

Barry F. Kowalski, one of the lead prosecutors, aggressively challenged that statement, suggesting in his cross-examination that Gebhardt was lying in order to protect Powell. The exchange between the police officer and prosecutor grew testy as the two men sparred over the exact words that Gebhardt used during his testimony in court and during a federal grand jury appearance last year.

But Gebhardt never yielded on that point, and defense lawyers used their copy of a statement he made to the grand jury to back up his credibility.

When Kowalski pressed Gebhardt about why the officer did not assertively offer his assistance to other officers at the scene, Gebhardt exploded in anger: “Two and a half weeks before this, a police officer got shot in the face,” he said. “I wasn’t about to distract them.”

Salzman said Gebhardt’s testimony had strengthened the defense case.

“Gebhardt is another brick in the foundation of what we’re trying to do,” Salzman said. “We’re going to show that these officers acted reasonably in response to the threat that they perceived.”