Sergeant Defends Use of Force in King’s Arrest : Trial: The lead prosecutor attacks the witness’s assertion that it could take many blows to subdue a suspect. The testimony contradicts earlier statements and could raise jurors’ doubts.

An aggressive young prosecutor and a veteran Los Angeles police sergeant squared off in the Rodney G. King civil rights trial Monday, dramatically disagreeing about how much force police officers were entitled to use in arresting King.

Sgt. Charles L. Duke testified for the police officers accused of violating King’s rights and vigorously defended their actions. He told jurors, for instance, that King continued to pose a threat even after he had been knocked to the pavement with a series of baton blows because his movements continued to suggest that he was defying police orders to stay down.

But Duke’s position came under attack by Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven D. Clymer, one of two lead prosecutors in the case.

Pacing behind the lectern as he fired question after question at the sergeant, Clymer challenged Duke to produce documents backing his claims about police training, and, in one particularly charged moment, mocked Duke’s assertion that police officers have a right to beat a suspect into submission if that is what is required to take him into custody.

“Is there any document anywhere in the history of the Los Angeles Police Department that says officers can beat a suspect into submission?” Clymer asked.

Duke conceded that he knew of no documents stating that position but said officers are entitled to use force to overcome a suspect’s resistance.

“You, in your mind as an expert, equate overcoming resistance with beating into submission?” Clymer asked, his tone reflecting his disbelief.

“If that’s what it takes,” Duke responded. “If it takes one blow . . . or if it takes 8,000 blows to overcome resistance, then that’s what it takes.”

Duke took the stand Friday, and his testimony has contradicted that of the prosecution’s use-of-force expert, Sgt. Mark John Conta, in almost every respect. Conta said the three officers--Laurence M. Powell, Timothy E. Wind and Theodore J. Briseno--violated police policy by hitting, kicking and stomping King after he had been knocked to the ground. The fourth defendant, Stacey C. Koon, violated policy by allowing the beating to continue, Conta testified.

Duke, a highly decorated officer with impressive credentials, vehemently disagreed, and lawyers for the officers believe his testimony will raise reasonable doubts in the jurors’ minds about what the proper level of force should have been. “If the experts can’t agree on what the policy is, then how was Sgt. Koon supposed to know what the policy was?” Ira Salzman, Koon’s lawyer, asked outside court.

Under questioning from Michael P. Stone, the lawyer representing Powell, Duke stressed that the officers should not have tried to use a technique known as the swarm because it was not part of their training and because it never should be used against a person suspected of committing a felony who has not been searched for a weapon.

Duke said officers have been killed when trying to wrestle suspects to the ground, but when he began detailing such incidents, Clymer furiously objected. He jumped to his feet time and time again, accusing Stone of trying to use his line of questioning to argue his case before the jury.

“Try to relax, Mr. Clymer,” U.S. District Judge John G. Davies said at one point. “Everything will be OK.”

In response to another question from Stone, Duke reminded jurors that department policy requires officers to give their “unquestioned obedience” to the lawful order of a superior. Powell and co-defendant Wind were under Koon’s supervision during the incident.

Duke also meticulously reviewed the videotape of the beating for the second time Monday, this time at the urging of Paul R. DePasquale, who represents Wind. Duke analyzed the tape in segments, and he told jurors that none of Wind’s actions appeared to violate police policy.

In his cross-examination, however, Clymer sought to portray Duke as evasive and willing to tailor his interpretation of the incident to favor the defendants. Duke often gave long-winded responses to yes or no questions, and Clymer reacted by repeating the questions until Duke answered them directly.

Reminding Duke that several witnesses had disagreed about aspects of the incident, Clymer asked how the sergeant had decided that Powell’s version was the right one.

“You took all the information and construed it in the light most favorable to defendant Powell, correct?” Clymer asked.

“That’s absolutely incorrect,” Duke answered brusquely.

Clymer also displayed reports written by Powell and Koon in which prosecutors allege that the officers intentionally downplayed the seriousness of the incident. One report, for instance, does not mention that King was kicked or that many of the blows were delivered while he was on the ground.

“There are a couple of things that probably should have been put in, but I don’t see evidence of a cover-up here,” Duke responded.

Duke testified last week that the swarm technique was only appropriate on misdemeanor suspects who were nude or partially nude because it could not be used in situations where the suspect might have a gun. But Clymer attacked that argument as well.

To make his point, Clymer asked Duke to review lesson plans for Police Academy classes in the technique and demanded that he point out where the plans indicated that the swarm was not to be used on fully clothed, felony suspects.

“It’s not written in this, but it was taught that way,” Duke said after reading the documents.

Lawyers for the officers have argued that the swarm technique was not widely taught or used in the Police Department before King’s arrest on March 3, 1991, but they appeared surprised Monday when Clymer produced a March 20, 1993, report prepared by the department’s human relations office. That study found roughly 840 incidents in which officers said they used the technique in apprehending suspects between January, 1987, and March, 1991.

That appeared to contradict the contention that the swarm was not widely practiced within the department, but Duke and defense attorneys said the report was misleading.