Advertisement

Law Professor Turns King Trial Interpreter : Analysis: Attending for scholarly reasons, she often is called upon to explain the nuances of courtroom action for the media. Her views tilt toward the prosecution’s side, but she has also gained the admiration of defense lawyers.

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

From the moment jury selection began in the federal trial of four police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights, there has been no shortage of self-styled analysts.

The defendants and their lawyers regularly interpret the day’s events for the local and national media. Protesters often gather outside the courthouse to shout their views. Even a local rap star has appeared at the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building to mingle with reporters and explain why he believes three of the officers should be convicted and one acquitted.

But through the clamor of conflicting opinions, a local law professor has emerged as the most sought-after commentator in the nation. It is through her eyes that millions of newspaper readers, television viewers and radio listeners have gained insights into the high-profile case.

Advertisement

Laurie L. Levenson, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at Loyola University Law School, has attended the trial almost every day and has been quoted on both coasts and at least two continents. Her views--which admittedly tilt toward the prosecution’s case but which have won her grudging admiration from some of the defense attorneys as well--have appeared in many newspapers and on all four major television networks and have made her a regular interviewee on National Public Radio.

Rare is the lunch break that does not find Levenson conducting an ad hoc seminar for reporters on the intricacies of cross-examination or the complexities of various constitutional rights. She patiently lectures on this principle or that, and she often speaks up for prosecutors in a case where they have chosen to withhold comment outside the courtroom.

Levenson’s recent prominence has resulted largely from the fact that, unlike last year’s state trial in Simi Valley, the federal case is not being telecast live, dramatically reducing the number of knowledgeable commentators. Because Levenson is the only legal scholar to regularly show up at the courthouse, she has forged a bond with reporters eager for a relatively objective analysis of the day’s events.

The impact that Levenson’s analysis may have on public opinion about the emotionally charged trial is not lost on her.

“I have a tremendous sense of the responsibility I have to report truthfully--not only to say what happened but to put it in its proper context,” she said. “I’m sensitive that people out in the community are on edge.”

Bright and unpretentious, Levenson, 36, is skilled at explaining complex topics in simple and terse language, which is not always a trademark of her profession. She said that even though she “sort of inserted myself into the limelight,” becoming a media star is not her motive in attending the trial.

Advertisement

“Frankly, I have an interest in the case. It’s a historical moment in the city,” she said recently. “I have talked to the press when asked questions because I think it’s important that the public receive a balanced view of what’s occurring.”

Levenson said she tries to offer objective critiques of the trial, but she adds that even when her views tend to favor the prosecution, this has the effect of balancing the overall coverage. After all, lawyers for the officers have hardly been shy about expressing their opinions.

“Although there can be times when I would agree with what the defense is saying,” she said, “there are other times when they are spinning the case to help themselves.”

Veteran CBS producer Michael Singer agreed. In the early stages of the trial, “the defense lawyers were . . . trying to spin every bit of the prosecution’s case,” he said. “It was disturbing that there was no voice coming from the other side.”

But Levenson filled the void. “Laurie was available,” Singer said. “She was down there. She was on top of the trial at any moment.”

Levenson, whose legal analyses are rooted in common sense as well as legal scholarship, says she is not paid for her interviews and would be coming to court even if no one asked her opinion about the case.

Advertisement

“From a scholarship point of view,” she said, “there’s only so much you can learn from a book. The rest you have to learn by being there, seeing.”

Faced with limited public seating for the trial, Levenson has hustled her access however she can. Most days she gets in with a pass borrowed from National Public Radio--part of her arrangement to do weekly interviews with the radio network--but occasionally she lines up with the public, sometimes as early as 7:30 a.m.

When she can’t get in, she often uses her NPR credential to listen from the press room, where she has warmed her own welcome by showing up on several days with pastries for the dozens of journalists gathered there.

Loyola’s proximity to the courthouse and a flexible schedule--including some night teaching-- have made it easier for her than for other potential commentators to attend the trial. “A lot of legal experts could do what I’m doing, but they don’t have the flexibility I do,” said Levenson, who has child care for her daughter and son.

UCLA criminal law professor Peter Arenella, who is often quoted by the media, said he declined a tempting offer from NPR to provide regular commentary on the case because he did not have the time to go to court every day.

Still, Arenella praised Levenson for “doing a super job of using ordinary English to focus on central aspects of the case, usually from a perspective that is sympathetic in some manner to the prosecution.” He added, though, that she is “perfectly capable of offering appropriate defense responses and perspective when called upon.”

Advertisement

Levenson’s appearance in the federal courthouse sometimes has the feel of a returning conqueror--hardly a surprise given her highly successful tenure as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Los Angeles office. During her seven years in that office, Levenson lost just one case, her first.

She became a federal prosecutor in 1982 after graduating with honors from UCLA Law School and garnering a prestigious one-year clerkship with a federal appeals court judge in Philadelphia.

Levenson showed an early interest in the law while a Stanford University undergraduate. During her junior year, she slept outside the San Francisco federal courthouse so she would be assured of a seat when Patricia Hearst, the newspaper heiress turned would-be terrorist, testified during her bank robbery trial.

As a federal prosecutor, Levenson handled a wide variety of cases--drugs, stock swindles, immigration fraud and even a murder at Lompoc federal prison. During her last year on the job, Levenson served as head of the office’s training section, showing the ropes to young lawyers, setting the stage for her current job at Loyola where she teaches criminal law, evidence and legal ethics.

“You have to know where she’s coming from,” said one reporter who asked not to be named. “Her instinct is a prosecutorial instinct, (but) when the prosecutors have screwed up, she’ll call it as she sees it, if you’re smart enough to ask the question.”

Predictably, there are times when Levenson’s remarks have irritated defense lawyers. Even as they were hailing their success in eliciting a series of admissions from King about his conflicting accounts of the incident, Levenson was telling reporters that she did not believe King’s credibility was at issue.

Advertisement

“I think the prosecutors called him for emotional impact,” she explained, “not substantive impact.”

Although the defense lawyers and Levenson have expressed conflicting opinions, even the outspoken Harland W. Braun, who represents Officer Timothy E. Wind, says “she’s totally honest”--although he worries that her pro-prosecution opinions carry more weight than those of the defense lawyers because she is viewed as impartial. Still, Braun said, “she’s never tried to mislead anyone.”

That is a particularly telling remark coming from Braun, who more than any other defense lawyer has used his public remarks to attack and infuriate prosecutors. Braun’s comments at one point prompted U.S. District Judge John G. Davies to impose a gag order on him, but when Braun fought it, a team of American Civil Liberties Union attorneys came to his rescue. Among them was Levenson’s husband, Douglas Mirell, a prominent Los Angeles lawyer.

Braun, also a former prosecutor, relishes the irony of being criticized by Levenson in the press while her husband successfully defends his right to strike back. He and Levenson often tease each other at the courthouse.

Take the day that Braun asked Davies to acquit Briseno because, he contended, the prosecution had failed to present a strong enough case to allow the jury to even consider convicting him. Braun was preparing his argument during a lunch break, and Levenson used the opportunity to tweak him.

Reporter after reporter approached Levenson for her view on whether Briseno would win his motion for acquittal, and she answered that she believed he had a good case for it.

Advertisement

“In fact, if he doesn’t get it, it’s because his lawyer’s no good,” she said within earshot of Braun.

“Can you believe her?” he responded in mock outrage. “She’s just a prosecution hack.”

Advertisement