Despite Emotions, Denny Case Involves Routine Law : Crime: Regardless of intense scrutiny and symbolism, trial will boil down to two factors: identity and intent.

Despite the enormous emotion and symbolism enveloping the trials of two men accused of attempting to murder Reginald O. Denny, the fate of the defendants hinges on relatively routine issues of criminal law.

There are no precedent-setting legal theories at issue, no unique strategies for the defense or prosecution.

Instead, as the trials of defendants Henry Keith Watson and Damian Monroe Williams begin in earnest today with the presentation of opening arguments, attorneys are expected to focus on two basic issues in criminal trials: identity and intent. In addition to the assault on Denny, Williams faces charges in connection with attacks on four other motorists and two firefighters. Watson is also accused of throwing a rock at a car and pulling a man from his vehicle.

The case is distinguished by a compendium of videotape, photographs and witnesses’ accounts, making the attack on Denny one of the best documented in history.

Video cameras from the air and the ground recorded much of the attack, providing a multi-angled view of the trucker’s plight. Hundreds of rioters, journalists and bystanders saw the attack firsthand.

Prosecutors maintain that the identification of Watson and Williams is clearly established through the various accounts, removing it as an issue in the case.

The choice of weapons--in this case, a brick--and the severity of Denny’s injuries leave little doubt that the defendants intended to kill rather than injure, prosecutors contend. The distinction is an important one, defining the difference between attempted murder and assault.

The scope of the photographs and witnesses’ accounts pose a daunting hurdle for the defendants. But as prosecutors in the state trial of the Rodney G. King beating case discovered, videotape and witnesses do not necessarily guarantee proof.

Defense attorneys are prepared to argue that there are gaps in the videotaped record that, at times, cloud the identity of the attackers.

In addition, they say that videotapes only indirectly address the critical issue of whether Denny’s attackers wanted to kill him.

Williams’ attorney, Edi M.O. Faal, said that even if Watson and Williams attacked Denny, that alone does not establish an intent to kill.

“That was not a killing field out there,” Faal said. “If (Denny’s attackers) wanted to kill him, they could have killed him.”

The Denny beating case has been seen by many residents as the symbolic twin of the King case.

Although there are vast factual differences between them, the two beating trials have become for many an intertwined symbol of racism and injustice.

Within the confines of the courtroom, however, the symbolic aspects of the Denny beating become irrelevant, UCLA law professor Peter Arenella said.

“Absent the political symbolism, this is a garden variety criminal case, period,” Arenella said.

Defense attorneys disagree, saying that Williams’ $580,000 bail is real--not symbolic--and the aggravated mayhem charge he faces rarely has been filed against other defendants in Los Angeles County.

Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti countered: “There are two Latinos charged with attempted murder” as a result of an attack on another man during the riots. “No bail was ever set. Mr. Williams has a bail set. It’s a high bail but there is a tremendous difference between a high bail and no bail.”

The charges against Watson and Williams stem from attacks on motorists and firefighters passing through the intersection April 29, 1992.

But the most serious allegation against the pair is attempted murder of Denny. Prosecutors maintain that Williams threw a brick at Denny’s head and then did a dance of celebration in front of the injured trucker.

Williams, a 20-year-old resident of the neighborhood near Florence and Normandie avenues, also has been charged with assault with a deadly weapon in connection with attacks against motorists Alicia Maldonado, Takao Hirata, Jorge Gonzalez and Fidel Lopez, along with assaults on Firefighters Terrance Manning and Fred Mathis.

Although Watson, 29, did not strike Denny, he is charged with attempted murder because prosecutors allege that he is legally just as liable as Williams because he “aided and abetted” in the attacks.

Watson also is accused of throwing a rock at Maldonado’s car and of pulling motorist Larry Tarvin from his vehicle.

Despite the numerous videotapes of attacks at Florence and Normandie, attorneys for Watson and Williams maintain that identification of their clients is not always clear.

Prosecutors are relying on two major videotapes--one shot by newsman Bob Tur from a helicopter circling about 70 feet above the intersection and another taken by Timothy Allen Goldman, a Los Angeles resident who, with his brother and a third person, made several street-level videotapes of the attacks.

Faal, Williams’ attorney, said there are enough gaps in the two videotapes to question certain identifications by police. For example, he said, the only video record of the rock thrown at Denny is on Tur’s videotape from the air.

Speaking out this week for the first time since his arrest last year, Williams denied that he threw the brick at Denny.

“You cannot base an identification on the aerial shot alone,” Faal said. “The prosecutors think identification is easy. I disagree.”

Mike Botula, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said Wednesday that prosecutors “will be presenting videotape, eyewitnesses, expert witnesses and physical evidence. Identification never has been an issue. We feel very confident about our case.”

A more difficult issue for both prosecutors and defense attorneys is determining the intent of Denny’s attackers.

The crime of first-degree attempted murder requires that prosecutors prove that the defendants demonstrated a “willful, deliberate and premeditated” intent to kill.

The distinction is critical because of the vastly different punishments for the two crimes: a possible life sentence for attempted murder, a maximum sentence of seven years for assault.

“Intent is always the hardest part to show because you can’t open someone’s mind,” said Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law professor and former federal prosecutor. “The only one who knows what is going on in someone’s head is the defendant himself.”

Prosecutors have written in court filings that the use of the brick is a clear indication of Williams’ intent to kill. In addition, they point to the series of attacks in which Williams is alleged to have participated to show that he was aware of the severity of his actions.

Defense attorneys are preparing to argue that Denny’s attackers did not intend to kill the trucker since there was ample opportunity to finish him off.

“Prosecutors cannot show intent to kill and premeditation to commit murder on the part of any individual at the intersection,” Faal said. “There was chaos and spontaneous eruption of violence which did not leave room for any premeditation.”

The issue of intent is key in judging several other charges against Watson and Williams in which they are accused of aiding and abetting an attack. Under the law, they could be found just as liable for the crimes as the actual perpetrators.

To be convicted of aiding and abetting, a defendant must have been aware of the perpetrator’s unlawful purpose and intentionally helped in the commission of the crime.

In Watson’s case, prosecutors have said that when he put his foot on Denny’s neck, he became an accomplice in an attempted murder.

But one of Watson’s attorneys, Karen Ackerson, said this week that she will concede no legal points. “Identity is part of this case, and prosecutors will have to prove it,” she said.

The defense and prosecution sought a racially mixed jury, and the panel of 12 seated last Thursday consists of three African-Americans, three Latinos, one Asian-American and five whites.

Superior Court Judge John W. Ouderkirk cautioned prospective jurors that they should not reach verdicts “because you think that events in another case were fair or unfair and this is some way to even the score.”

* TRIAL ON TV: Panel discussions and replays will be a part of cable network Court TV’s coverage. F11