U.S. Opposes New Trial in King Case : Civil rights: Lawyers for the two officers convicted of violating motorist Rodney King’s rights raise an interesting legal question, analysts say.

The two police officers who were convicted of violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights should not be granted a new trial as their lawyers have requested, federal prosecutors argued Monday.

The government’s position, outlined in a 39-page document, rejects five arguments by lawyers for Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officer Laurence M. Powell, who were convicted April 17.

Legal analysts say one of the defense issues raises interesting questions, while several others are unlikely to carry much weight with U.S. District Judge John G. Davies, who presided over the trial and who will rule on the motions for a new trial.

Among the arguments that analysts rate as having little chance of success is one by Ira Salzman, Koon’s lawyer, that his client was improperly charged because King was not in official custody at the time of the beating. Davies already has rejected that claim once, and prosecutors, in their pleading, call the position “unsupported by the law and erroneous.”

Lawyers for the officers also fault one of the prosecutors, Barry F. Kowalski, for telling jurors that they were the “conscience of the community.” That statement, according to the defense attorneys, misstated the jurors’ obligations, since they were instructed to view the incident through the eyes of a reasonable police officer, not by any other standard. Prosecutors disagree, and note that the lawyers for the officers did not object to the remark when Kowalski made it during his closing argument.

Peter Arenella, a law professor at UCLA, said those defense arguments probably will fail, but he and other analysts said the officers’ strongest case for a new trial surrounds the use of videotaped testimony from Officer Theodore J. Briseno.

“I think that’s our strongest point,” agreed Michael P. Stone, Powell’s lawyer. “I think there are some substantive issues here either for a new trial or for appeal.”

Briseno testified during last year’s state trial in Simi Valley and accused his colleagues of wrongdoing. But Briseno, who was acquitted along with former Officer Timothy E. Wind on April 17, did not take the stand in the federal trial, so prosecutors instead moved to play a videotape of the state court testimony for jurors. After a long legal battle, Davies allowed an edited version of the tape to be admitted into evidence in the federal case.

Among other things, the defendants maintain that the prosecution should not have been allowed to use Briseno’s testimony because government lawyers believe that he perjured himself in state court. Prosecutors said Briseno lied when he testified that he intended to report the use of force against King but had not done so because he had returned to the police station and seen what he thought was a report made by Koon.

Lawyers for the officers argue that it was improper for the prosecution to introduce testimony they suspected was false. But prosecutors say they used that part of the testimony only to support their charges against Briseno--not those against Powell and Koon. Moreover, prosecutors add that because they argued in court that some of Briseno’s statements were false, there was no effort to hide anything from the jury.

Defense lawyers also say the prosecutors should not have been allowed to save the videotape until after the defense had rested its case. That called undue attention to it, they said. And they claim that Briseno’s testimony was tainted because he had been allowed to read statements that his co-defendants made to the LAPD’s Internal Affairs Division.

Davies is scheduled to consider the requests for a new trial on Aug. 4.