Preparation for King Verdicts Gains Urgency

As Los Angeles’ most volatile trial speeds to its conclusion, a heightened sense of urgency hangs over proposals to cope with a potentially explosive outcome. Officials are grappling with the possibility of delaying the reading of the verdicts, launching a massive show of force on the streets or even postponing the spring elections if unrest breaks out.

Planning for the aftermath of the trial of four police officers accused in the beating of Rodney G. King has been under way for months, but the abrupt conclusion of the defense case Thursday highlighted a flurry of activity:

* A spokeswoman for Mayor Tom Bradley disclosed Thursday that the mayor, Police Chief Willie L. Williams and Gov. Pete Wilson have repeatedly called the office of U.S. District Judge John G. Davies to discuss postponing the reading of verdicts.

* City councilman and mayoral candidate Joel Wachs called for a declaration of a state of emergency “several days before the verdicts,” so that National Guard forces can be deployed. “These are extraordinary times, and extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary responses,” said Wachs, who was promptly branded a demagogue by one mayoral rival and chastised by city officials for meddling in a highly sensitive matter.

* National Guard officials said they will be in the region this weekend for regular training exercises, with a particular emphasis on tactics for putting down urban unrest. Lt. Col. Bruce Roy, a Guard spokesman, said the guard has also moved four armored personnel vehicles into a local armory to protect soldiers in a “high-threat environment,” if needed.

* City officials revealed that they have begun to plan for how unrest could affect the April 20 municipal election. The head of the city’s elections division has requested an opinion from the city attorney’s office about Bradley’s power to postpone the election, if trouble could interrupt voting.

* Wilson requested $1 million in federal aid to pay for law enforcement after the verdicts. But that money would not go far; the Los Angeles Police Department estimates that it would cost $1.5 million a day to deploy extra forces. The federal government had earlier said as much as $1.7 million would be available from a Justice Department emergency fund, but part of the money has since been given to other states.

Some of the most intense interest Thursday centered around the question of delaying the reading of the verdicts. That decision is in the hands of Judge Davies, but he has yet to rule on a postponement request that defense attorney Ira Salzman made more than six weeks ago.

Since then, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony has also called for a delay, asking that the verdicts not be issued during the upcoming spring breaks for public and private schools so that educators can discuss the outcome with students and help vent any hostile feelings. City Councilman Nate Holden has called for a reading of the verdicts at 3 a.m., when instigators would find it more difficult to mobilize forces for an insurrection.

And the mayor, police chief and governor have made repeated calls to the judge’s office to discuss a delay of unspecified length, Bradley spokeswoman Vallee Bunting said.

Short delays are common in trials, usually because it takes time for the parties to get to the courthouse for the reading of the verdicts. And one federal judge, speaking anonymously, said it was his understanding that Davies would delay announcement of the verdict for just three hours.

But a substantially longer delay would be highly unusual, and community activists and legal experts questioned the wisdom of imposing such a wait.

“The people in the community can get edgy hypothesizing what’s happening. It’s like the unknown is worse than the known,” said Loyola University law professor Laurie Levinson, who has been an observer throughout the trial.

A substantial delay might just “feed the rumor mill,” said Gerald F. Uelmen, dean of the Santa Clara University Law School. The rationale for requesting a delay would be to allow police time to deploy for what is expected to be a massive show of force. While some preparation is called for, Uelmen worried that “rolling out squad cars will give the impression of a not guilty verdict.”

Despite the strong government interest in the timing of the verdicts, there is no accepted procedure for officials to formally request a delay, said Assistant City Atty. Byron Boeckman. Because of that, the city has not made a formal legal request for a postponement.

“The federal judges run their own shop,” Boeckman said, “and they may listen to political requests, but it’s their call. . . . It is one of those quirky little things: a political consideration for a judge to decide.”

As officials learned Thursday that the case may go the jury by next week, Bradley was on a four-nation European tour. He had not altered his plans to return to the city on Saturday, which aides said will put him back in City Hall in plenty of time for the outcome of the civil rights case.

Meanwhile, despite calls from leaders to keep the trial out of the political theater, the proximity of the verdicts to the April 20 municipal election dragged the case into the mayoral debate.

Wachs, calling for an early deployment of National Guard forces, said: “We cannot afford to wait for trouble to break. We have to send a clear and unambiguous message.”

But an array of other officials--including Bradley’s top aide and the head of the Police Commission--derided Wachs’ proposal.

“It’s the kind of proposal that encourages violence because it predicts it,” said Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar), one of a host of mayoral rivals slamming Wachs. “This crosses the line from decency to demagoguery. He’s trying to tap into the people’s basic fear, and exploit it to the nth degree.”

Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani and Police Commission President Jesse A. Brewer said a comprehensive response to the King case verdicts has been in the works for months and that eleventh-hour posturing by others will do nothing to enhance preparations or to calm the city.

“The mayor would prefer to have (Police Chief) Willie Williams, not Joel Wachs, in charge of the city’s emergency planning,” Fabiani said. “Chief Williams has already worked extensively with the National Guard and the National Guard forces and equipment will be within easy reach of the city, if needed.”

Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, who represents a South Los Angeles district heavily damaged in last year’s riots, called Wachs’ plan “headline-hunting.”

The key to the Police Department’s plan will be to have a large number of uniformed officers on the streets from the moment the federal court jury begins its deliberations. Stepped-up patrols will continue through the jury’s delivery of a verdict, Fabiani said.

Police officials have declined to release more specifics about the number or location of officers to be deployed.

Last spring’s riots erupted after the four officers were acquitted in state court of all but one count in the King beating. The police and National Guard were roundly criticized for a delayed response.

But former Police Chief Daryl F. Gates claimed that statements by politicians, including Ridley-Thomas, contributed to an overly timid police reaction to the early rioting.

Ridley-Thomas maintains that his admonitions for a restrained police response applied only until trouble broke out. He is taking a similar stand now.

“There is a line between repression and responsible preparedness,” he said. “This armed-to-the-teeth orientation is unsettling. I think it has more of a destabilizing effect than the effect of imposing calm.”

One hint of the extent of city officials’ planning came on Wednesday, when the city’s emergency operations officials contacted the Los Angeles Convention and Visitors’ Bureau to make sure that a sufficient number of hotel rooms would be available for law enforcement personnel in the event of a protracted deployment.

Large employers were also laying plans.

At Arco, for example, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lodwrick M. Cook recently sent a letter to more than 1,500 employees outlining the company’s plans if verdicts spark violence. While Arco declined to release a copy of the letter, company spokesman Al Greenstein said the communication was aimed at assuring employees the company is ready with security measures.

“We don’t anticipate a riot. We are not telling employees there will be a riot,” Greenstein said of the March 25 letter. “We are simply telling employees the steps we are taking to ensure their safety. It is simply emergency planning just as we do with earthquakes or other emergencies.”

Times staff writers John Schwada, Greg Krikorian and Patrick J. McDonnell contributed to this story.