King, Officers Now Share Goal: Settlement : Trial: Both sides would benefit if the city consents to foot the bill for punitive damages assessed to individuals. But legal and political issues make a last-minute agreement unlikely.

As Rodney G. King and the former Los Angeles police officers who beat him prepare for the second half of a civil trial to determine individual damages, for the first time they share a common interest: settlement.

In the unlikely event that the city agrees to indemnify those four former officers for any punitive damages, they would be free from the prospect of large judgments that could loom over them for years.

At the same time, a settlement with the city could be the best way for King to get more than the $3.8 million he was awarded Tuesday, since the individual officers have little money to pay court awards.

Yet the chances of settling the case at the last minute, at least for the four principal officers, appear remote because of a number of vexing legal and political questions. Among them:

* Would the City Council agree to foot the bill for punitive damages for former officers Laurence M. Powell and Stacey C. Koon, even though the two of them already have been sent to federal prison for their actions?

* Would the council refuse to pay awards for bystander officers who never used their weapons but who have been sued because they were present at the scene and did not report the incident?

* Would the council abandon its tradition of standing behind former Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, who also is a defendant in the case?

* Would council members make themselves liable for damages if they backed police officers and former officers?

Lawyers for King and for the four officers who were tried for beating him agree that settlement would benefit all involved, but they say the political and legal issues have so far proved insurmountable, blocking progress toward a resolution of the case. The result: No one is optimistic about the chances of a last-minute settlement that would avert the punitive-damages phase of the trial.

“What the city could do now is say: ‘We have on-duty officers and Chief Gates. We take responsibility for them,’ ” said Ira Salzman, Koon’s attorney. “We’re hopeful that the city will do that. They have not come forward.”

The situation is slightly different when it comes to the bystander officers. The city represents those officers and former officers, and legal analysts noted that the city therefore has a responsibility to protect their interests. If those interests appear to demand a settlement, the city would be obliged to explore that option--even if it meant that the city might have to shell out some money to make it happen.

Milton Grimes, the lead attorney representing King, said he spent Wednesday in his office but received no word from the city attorney’s office about possible settlements.

“If they do try to reach me, they are going to have to come with a check in hand,” Grimes said. “I don’t believe they really want to settle this case. When all the expenses are in, they are going to wish they had settled.”

Although he acknowledged that the individual officers may not have much money, Grimes said he would press the case against them partly to demonstrate their personal responsibility for beating King.

“Individual officers should be held accountable so that officers will know that their individual wrongs will be paid for by them personally,” Grimes said. “They can’t hide behind the deep pockets of the city. That doesn’t teach them a lesson. I don’t care if they have to pay $5 every paycheck, they should pay.”

A recent groundbreaking decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals diminishes the chances of the city stepping in to settle the case.

On Feb. 28, a unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit ruled that Los Angeles City Council members do not have “absolute immunity” from lawsuits when they vote to pay punitive damage awards for a police officer found liable for brutality. Council members and aides say the ruling makes it extremely unlikely that the city would agree to pay punitive damages in this case, should any be awarded.

That ruling may effectively remove the city from the second phase of the civil case because no matter how large the jury awards may be, the City Council could simply refuse to pay. If that is the case, King’s chances of recovering a large amount of money are greatly reduced because none of the officers from whom it would come are wealthy. This is particularly true of the four principal defendants, none of whom have worked since the March 3, 1991, incident.

“We’d all like to end it,” said Skip Miller, a private attorney hired by the city as co-counsel. “From an economic standpoint, I don’t understand why the plaintiffs would want to go forward against police officers, who presumably have little or no net worth.”

*

Salzman said Koon is almost destitute. “All of his assets together amount to about $5,000,” Salzman said.

That gives Koon little to bargain with and therefore little chance of settling the case without the city. And since the city has almost no incentive to push for a settlement because it is unlikely to agree to pay no matter what happens, both sides are preparing for a grueling second round in the civil trial.

Before the jury verdict in the first phase of the trial Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John G. Davies met with attorneys to outline how the second phase, assigning punitive damages, will be tried. Davies, who futilely attempted to limit the first part of the trial to five days, is seeking to streamline the second phase. He has given both sides about two weeks to present an estimated 76 witnesses.

Salzman said he expects to present 17 witnesses in the trial’s second phase, focusing largely on the training and tools provided to Los Angeles police officers. Koon always has maintained that the officers at the scene of the 1991 beating in Lake View Terrace performed according to their training, and Salzman has argued that the incident never would have occurred if city leaders had not deprived the officers of certain controversial tools, such as the chokehold.

Some of Salzman’s proposed witnesses are expected to testify about those issues, as they did during last year’s criminal trial.

Michael P. Stone, Powell’s lawyer, is expected to call roughly 20 witnesses. King’s attorneys plan to call 31 people to testify, and lawyers for the other officers also are expected to call witnesses.

Opening arguments are to begin today in the second phase, with the same jury hearing witnesses.