NEWS ANALYSIS : Video Fell Short in Key Area--Intent of Attacks : Evidence: The tape established defendants’ identity. But Denny jury apparently was unconvinced of premeditation.

In the end, the powerful videotape of the violence at Florence and Normandie avenues--the most compelling evidence of the case against two men charged in the Reginald O. Denny beating--was a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, the often-detailed account of the chaos and brutality gave the jury a multifaceted view of the attacks and established the identities of defendants Henry Keith Watson and Damian Monroe Williams.

But at the same time, the tape was far less compelling in addressing a critical issue about the most serious charges against the defendants--their state of mind as they participated in the attacks on the first day of the riots.

Did the defendants premeditate to murder Denny? Did Williams intend to leave Denny permanently disfigured? Did Watson plan to help others rob trucker Larry Tarvin?

Although the jury was still deliberating on two charges, including attempted murder, the pattern of its decisions was made clear in the 13 verdicts released Monday.

In charge after charge, the jury in the Denny beating trial either came back with a not guilty verdict, with guilty verdicts on lesser charges, or was unable to resolve a count that required a glimpse into the thoughts of the perpetrators and their specific intent.

“The prosecution lost heavily on intent,” said Robert Pugsley, a Southwestern University Law School professor. “Either the jury didn’t grasp the theory or they did not see enough there.”

From the beginning of the trial, one of the cornerstones of the prosecution’s case was showing that even if the defendants were not directly involved in committing a crime, they were still liable as “aiders and abettors” to those who did.

The charges related to aiding and abetting, which included assault with a deadly weapon and robbery, also required showing that Watson and Williams had specific awareness of the intent of the actual perpetrators.

Again, the jury was either unable or unwilling to convict the defendants, even though the defendants were present during some of the attacks.

“I think this is a substantial defeat for the prosecution and a substantial victory for the defense,” said USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

The conviction of Watson and Williams on lesser charges bolstered arguments by the defense that their clients had been overcharged from the beginning as part of an effort by prosecutors to make Watson and Williams scapegoats for the riots.

But some legal scholars said that despite the lesser convictions announced Monday, the charges filed against Watson and Williams were valid issues for a jury to debate.

For example, Pugsley said, it was appropriate to charge Williams with assault with a deadly weapon because jurors would automatically have the option to consider the lesser charge of simple assault. In the case of an attack against motorist Fidel Lopez--in which the weapon was spray-paint--Williams was convicted of simple assault.

Laurie L. Levenson, a Loyola University law professor, defended the prosecution’s filing of one of the most controversial charges--attempted murder--by noting the jury’s deadlock on the count.

“The jury is hung up on it,” she said. “They apparently believe it was an appropriate charge.”

The problem with the charges, Levenson said, was not their political propriety, but their strategic value.

Levenson said the number and variety of charges raised the possibility of confusing and distracting the jury. “You are distracting the jury from focusing on aspects that are the heart of the case--attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon,” she said.

She added that the number of charges also could appear to the jury as something akin to throwing the kitchen sink at the defendants. “You lose credibility,” she said.

In the end, she said, “there was a legal and factual basis for the charges. The question is whether it was strategically right.”

The one major issue of the trial that apparently was easy to resolve was establishing the identity of Williams and Watson in the videotape taken at Florence and Normandie. The jury found in almost every case that the defendants were the ones prosecutors identified on the tape.

Watson’s attorney, Earl C. Broady Jr., simplified the issue of identity at the end of the trial by conceding that the man identified in the videotape was indeed his client.

But Edi M. O. Faal, who represented Williams, maintained throughout the trial that prosecutors had failed to identify his client beyond a reasonable doubt.

Faal pointed to what he believed were inconsistencies in the videotaped identification of Williams. For example, in some segments the man is shown with a stain on his T-shirt. On other segments, the stain is gone.

But what was conspicuously missing from Faal’s defense was any sort of alibi that would have proved Williams was not the man in the videotape.

“It’s a significant omission,” Pugsley said. “Where were you? What were you doing? If they had an alibi, they would have used it.”

The prosecution and defense together wheeled out 48 witnesses--40 of them called by the prosecution.

The cast of characters included 11 victims, six rescuers, five medical doctors, five who videotaped the incidents and even the assistant principal at Williams’ old high school in Vicksburg, Miss., called to help identify Williams from the videotape.

Of all the witnesses, only one was present at Florence and Normandie when the attacks occurred and said he could identify Williams.

Gabriel Quintana was a cashier at the Unocal gas station at the corner. He knew Williams from before, saying the defendant would demand free cigarettes or gas from him.

Quintana testified that after the King verdicts were announced, Williams said to him: “Today, I’m going to hit and kill people.”

Quintana said he was beaten by Williams later that day and also saw the defendant throw an object at Denny.

The defense labeled Quintana “a liar,” and noted that the cashier did not tell police of Williams’ alleged threats until 13 months after the riots.

As the verdicts seemed to show, the jury was not persuaded by Quintana’s account, at least concerning the aggravated mayhem charge. Other victims of the attacks at Florence and Normandie could not identify either Williams or Watson.

With few compelling witnesses, the bulk of the case hinged on the power of the videotape.

“The videotape was the biggest witness in this case,” Pugsley said. “Everything else was just to reinforce what the videotape showed.”

But the tape apparently was not up to the task of penetrating the minds of the two defendants and determining their intent.

The issue was critical because the two charges carrying life sentences--attempted murder and aggravated mayhem--required proof of the suspects’ specific intent to kill or maim their victims.

On aggravated mayhem, the jury decided instead to convict Williams of simple mayhem, which requires no showing of specific intent.

Although the charge of attempted murder was still being debated by the jury, most experts believe there is little chance of conviction because the panel could not find the specific intent necessary to convict Williams of aggravated mayhem.

Levenson said that videotape evidence can be problematic. If a human being testifies to the state of mind of an attacker, the primary question for the jury is whether to believe the witness.

But in the case of videotape, there is no explanation or interpretation offered. Although the credibility of the tape is unassailable, the jury is left in the confusing position of making its own interpretation of events.

“With a witness, you only have to decide if they’re telling the truth,” Levenson said. “With a videotape, you have 12 pairs of eyes looking at the video, each with their own perceptions.”

Typically, intent can be established by the conduct of a perpetrator. Prosecutors pointed to a dance of celebration by Williams after he threw an object at Denny’s head. They said the dance showed Williams knew what he was doing and was happy when the task was accomplished.

The defense argued that the chaos and spontaneity of a riot precludes any planning or premeditation.

Levenson speculated that, given the murky issue of determining intent through a videotape, the conflicting arguments from the defense and prosecution may have added more confusion to the deliberations.