Supreme Court Rejects Powell Bail Motion

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied Officer Laurence M. Powell’s motion to remain free on bail while he appeals his conviction for violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights, a move that virtually assures that Powell will begin serving his prison sentence next week.

The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered in a terse, one-sentence order, came as a sharp blow to Powell, who had hoped until the last minute that the court might agree to let him remain free pending the outcome of the appeal, said Powell’s lawyer, Michael P. Stone.

“Larry was counting on it a lot more than was probably the wise thing to do,” Stone said. “He’s pretty low right now.”

Although both Powell and Sgt. Stacey C. Koon, also convicted of violating King’s civil rights, submitted similar bail motions, Powell’s was filed first and was the only one addressed by the court Monday. A ruling on Koon’s request is expected this week.

In light of the court order Monday, however, most analysts say Koon has little chance of prevailing.

The court’s action had been predicted by many legal experts, who noted that it is rare for the Supreme Court to intervene in motions such as those brought by Powell and Koon, the supervising officer during the incident.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor received the emergency motion, but the Supreme Court rejected it out of hand without asking government lawyers to submit a written brief on the bail issue and without hearing arguments.

“The application for release on bail pending appeal presented to Justice O’Connor and by her referred to the court is denied,” the Supreme Court order stated.

Steven D. Clymer, one of two lead prosecutors in the civil rights case, declined to comment on the order.

One of Koon’s lawyers, Ira Salzman, said he remains hopeful that the court might view Koon’s case differently, but he conceded that it is “an uphill struggle.”

“From this distance, it’s hard to see much difference between Stacey and Larry,” Salzman said. He added, however, that while Powell delivered most of the blows shown on the videotape of the beating, Koon never struck King.

According to Salzman, that might make the court more inclined to consider the argument that Koon was not convicted of a violent crime. Federal law requires that violent offenders be locked up while pursuing their appeals unless “exceptional circumstances” suggest that they should be released on bail.

Prosecutors argued that no such circumstances exist in this case, and U.S. District Judge John G. Davies agreed. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Davies’ ruling, but two judges dissented from the decision to deny the officers a rehearing by the appellate court.

Non-legal issues also are involved. Koon is the father of five children, while Powell is unmarried. Legal analysts considered it unlikely, however, that Koon will prevail because of his responsibilities to his children.

Koon and Powell face sentences of 30 months, along with the loss of their jobs. In fact, Powell was formally stripped of his LAPD badge Monday. Koon is expected to be fired sometime this fall.

They are expected to serve their prison time at a minimum-security facility in Northern California, where both had reported last month, only to be released after Davies granted a two-week extension so they could appeal the bail issue to the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court denies Koon’s request as well, the two men must report to prison by noon Oct. 12.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles said prosecutors have no plans to ask the court to move up that date.

Even as that chapter of the case appeared to be closing, however, activity continued to hum in the lawsuit brought by King against the officers, the city and others.

In a motion filed last week and received Monday, King’s attorney, Milton Grimes, notified parties in that case that he intends to ask Davies to recuse himself from hearing the civil case, presumably because of comments he made during the sentencing of the officers.

Grimes declined to comment on the reasons for asking Davies to step aside.

“I really don’t want to comment on the court or the people involved because I don’t want to try this case in the press,” Grimes said.

Other analysts suggested, however, that Grimes’ motion probably would rely on Davies’ comments during the sentencing of Koon and Powell. During that hearing, Davies was sharply critical of King’s behavior, and he made a number of factual findings about the case.

One particularly important one came in Davies’ analysis of the beating, in which he concluded that the officers’ conduct was legal up to about 55 seconds into the videotape of the incident. Only after that did the officers go beyond what was needed to subdue a resisting suspect and violate King’s rights, Davies found.

That issue is central to the civil case because King’s strongest claim for damages is based on the injuries he suffered from illegal or improper blows. Under Davies’ findings, King’s most serious injuries--including 15 facial fractures and a broken leg--were the result of legally inflicted blows. According to Davies, King suffered only minor injuries during the illegal portion of the beating.

Davies’ findings could dramatically reduce the amount of money King could claim in damages. Although a jury would determine the damages, Davies would have the authority to set aside that amount if he considered it excessive.

Peter Arenella, a UCLA law professor, said the issue revolves around not only whether Davies can be impartial but whether a proceeding in front of him might create the appearance of unfairness. Many critics faulted Davies for imposing lenient sentences on the officers, and some have accused him of improperly analyzing the facts of the case.

Although they have declined to comment on Davies’ analysis, prosecutors have announced their intention to appeal the sentences.

It is rare for federal judges to recuse themselves from cases, but Harland W. Braun, who represented Officer Theodore J. Briseno during the federal trial, said he believes Davies should step aside.

“He made basic judgments in his sentencing about Rodney King. He judged Rodney King already,” Braun said. “It seems to me that he would do well to remove himself from the civil case.”