Court OKs Briseno Tape at King Trial : Ruling: But prosecution victory is blunted by defense move that could bar part of officer’s testimony given during state trial. Case could go to jury this weekend.

A federal appellate court Monday rejected an emergency appeal brought by four Los Angeles police officers charged with violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights, clearing away a major obstacle preventing jurors from seeing videotaped state court testimony given last year by Officer Theodore J. Briseno.

But before prosecutors had a chance to play the tape for the jury, a second legal tussle erupted that could block admission of large portions of Briseno’s testimony. That issue involves Briseno’s access to the Los Angeles Police Department’s internal affairs statements made by his co-defendants.

During last year’s state trial of the officers, Briseno was the only defendant to break ranks and testify against the others.

The extraordinary eleventh-hour legal battle over his videotaped testimony reflects the intense importance that both sides place on it. Prosecutors have called it “critical evidence,” and attorneys for the officers concede that it contains statements that could badly hurt at least two defendants, Officer Laurence M. Powell and Sgt. Stacey C. Koon.

In the state case, Briseno told jurors that Powell had appeared to strike King in the head several times and that King was not resisting during much of the beating. Koon was the only officer to testify in the federal trial and Briseno’s account contradicts the sergeant’s on several points.

Koon is charged with allowing officers under his supervision to administer an unreasonable beating. The other defendants--Briseno, Powell and Timothy E. Wind--are accused of kicking, stomping and beating King with batons, depriving him of his right to be safe from the intentional use of unreasonable force. All four men face up to 10 years in prison and fines of as much as $250,000 each if convicted.

The videotaped testimony is the last major piece of evidence that either side is expected to present in the case. U.S. District Judge John G. Davies predicted that the case would go to the jury this weekend, and he told lawyers that he would hold court Saturday if that time is needed to conclude closing arguments and instruct the jury.

Davies also said he hoped that jurors would deliberate Easter Sunday if they have the case by then.

First, Davies must resolve the debate over admitting Briseno’s state court testimony. Attorneys for the officers argued that Briseno had read statements by his co-defendants before testifying in the state trial, and they said those statements--made to investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department’s internal affairs division--may have affected the version of events that Briseno presented.

Because those statements were made under the threat of firing, they may not be admitted as evidence. Also, prosecutors must show that the testimony of any witness who has read those statements is unaffected by their contents.

As he wrestled with the issue of Briseno’s state court testimony, Davies appeared first to favor one side and then the other before ending the day undecided. He initially dismissed the issue of Briseno’s access to the other officers’ statements, and was unimpressed by defense efforts to keep jurors from hearing the tape.

“It appears to me that the tape is destined to be played,” Davies said during the trial’s morning session.

Lawyers for the officers were dismayed. Harland W. Braun, the lawyer for Briseno, objected fiercely to the admission of evidence challenging Briseno’s explanation of why he did not report the use of force against King. Braun accused Davies of “siding with the prosecution and throwing a stink bomb in the middle of the defense.”

Braun moved for a mistrial, a motion that Davies brusquely rejected.

But Davies allowed lawyers to continue arguing the point, and after hearing the arguments about Briseno’s access to the internal affairs documents, he backed away from his position. Davies agreed to consider the matter overnight, and ordered the lawyers to report back to his courtroom this morning for a ruling on the issue.

Lawyers for the officers were cautiously heartened by Davies’ willingness to rethink the issue, but declined to predict how the judge would rule.

“I’m exceedingly pleased,” said Ira Salzman, who is Koon’s lawyer. “We’ll see what happens tomorrow.”

If Briseno’s testimony is allowed into evidence, any of the officers would have the right to take the stand to respond. That would subject them to cross-examination by prosecutors, however. Lawyers for the officers said they are unlikely to allow their clients to be placed in that position.

While Davies’ reversal at least temporarily left the issue of Briseno’s testimony unresolved, the appellate ruling marked a major victory for prosecutors. If the appellate court had sided with the defense, it would have taken the matter out of Davies’ hands and probably would have prevented the tape from being introduced.

That would have been a significant setback to the prosecution’s case. Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven D. Clymer, one of two lead prosecutors, has said that Briseno’s version contradicts Koon on “eight or nine critical points.”

Although edited to exclude his opinions about the conduct of his fellow officers, Briseno’s videotaped testimony still includes vivid, hotly contested descriptions of the beating. That includes his statements that Powell appeared to strike King in the head and that King did not pose a threat to the officers during the time that many of the blows were administered.

Both comments contradict defense testimony by Koon and by Sgt. Charles L. Duke Jr., a use-of-force expert.

Davies ruled last week that the tape could be played, but lawyers for the officers were deeply concerned about the impact on jurors hearing those statements. On Saturday, the officers filed their emergency appeal with the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

That motion, drafted by Santa Ana lawyer William J. Kopeny, asked the judges to block admission of the tape. It also asked for a delay in the trial while the judges considered that request.

But a three-judge panel of the circuit quickly rejected the officers’ request.

“The emergency petition . . . is denied,” the judges wrote.

Although the issue of Briseno’s state testimony has bogged down the proceeding for several days, Davies told jurors that he expects them to begin deliberating this weekend. In a conversation with lawyers outside the presence of the jury, Davies said he will hold court Saturday if that is needed to complete final arguments and read instructions to the jury.

“It is my plan to have you deliberate through the weekend,” Davies told jurors. “The courthouse will be available to you all day Saturday. The courthouse will be available to you all day Sunday.”

Some attorneys consider it unlikely that the case will be concluded so quickly, but the pace of the trial was speeded up when prosecutors presented a pared-down list of witnesses for the government’s rebuttal case against the officers.

The prosecution’s original list included 14 witnesses--counting Briseno’s videotaped testimony--but government lawyers dropped a nationally recognized police expert, James J. Fyfe, and a top LAPD officer, Assistant Chief Bernard C. Parks.

They also excluded a number of other witnesses, for reasons they did not explain.

Among those who remain is LAPD Deputy Chief Matthew V. Hunt, one of the department’s highest-ranking officers. He is expected to testify for the prosecution today, as are three or four other LAPD employees.