Jury Overcame Sharp Divisions to Reach Verdict

They spent 11 days together in intense deliberations and managed to deliver a unanimous verdict: that Rodney G. King would receive no punitive damages from the police officers who beat him. But jurors were sharply divided as they struggled to strike a compromise that would end a case fraught with complex issues.

Those differences became apparent as jurors emerged from the courthouse, some voicing satisfaction while at least one expressed outrage over what they had wrought.

“It was a very tense situation for many of us,” said the jury’s forewoman before driving away in her van. “Although we had differences, we still had to resolve them in some way and come to some consensus.”

The forewoman described herself as having a background in mediation. That helped, but the case was vexing at times, she said.

“I think when (we had) both extremes in terms of positions: One being that the officers were just doing their duty, the other feeling that there was excessive force and reckless disregard.”

The forewoman, whose name was concealed during the trial, as it was for all jurors, identified herself in an interview with The Times as the widow of a former leader of the Black Panther Party, whom the FBI once falsely accused of impregnating actress Jean Seberg. Seberg later committed suicide.

She said that she was not a party member but her decision was influenced by “the fact that I have a wealth of experience in America as a minority. I like the phrase, ‘A black man knows a white person better than a white person knows himself.’ ”

Another juror, the only black member of the racially mixed jury, expressed anger over the decision, which means that King, who is black, will receive no additional money beyond the $3.8 million in compensatory damages he was awarded during an earlier phase of the trial.

“There was no justice here . . . no justice at all,” the juror, a South Pasadena seamstress, said before driving away. “It’s purely black and white.”

Although she did not elaborate on that assertion, the juror summarized her feelings by saying: “It’s very unjust, very, very unjust--the whole judicial system.”

Her comments differed markedly from those of a third juror who said the decision to withhold punitive damages was based, in part, on the feeling that LAPD officers receive inadequate training and are grossly outnumbered on the streets. Emphasizing that police work is a dirty job, that juror said the King beating and its aftermath had been “sad for the police officers.”

Nine jurors heard the milestone case: one Filipino American woman, one Latino woman, one black woman, three white women and three white men. They found that former LAPD Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officer Laurence M. Powell, who were convicted in the 1991 beating on civil rights charges, acted with malice against King, but need not pay him.

Also spared punitive damages were former Officers Theodore J. Briseno and Timothy E. Wind, who were acquitted in the beating, and former Police Chief Daryl F. Gates, who was dismissed by Judge John G. Davies as a defendant in this trial before the case reached the jury.

Asked whether she believed that Gates was responsible for the beating, the South Pasadena juror became agitated and said: “Yes, I do. Definitely.”

She vowed to say more later about the closed-door deliberations. “When I feel it’s time, I will let everyone know how I feel and what was really going on in that jury room.”

Controversy involving the jurors spilled beyond the courtroom.

King’s attorney, Milton Grimes, said he was told that three jurors went together to a weekend barbecue where “a substantial amount of alcohol” was served. The outing could be the basis for an appeal, Grimes said.

“We don’t know the details,” he said outside the courthouse, adding that a juror from another federal trial had invited the King jurors to the cookout.

“We’re going to look into it,” Grimes said.

The issue was important because “you drink too much you get loose tongues.”

Grimes said the judge had been told about the event. “The court is concerned it was a serious situation,” Grimes said. “Tongues may have gotten loose. Things may have been said about the case.”

John Burris, another lawyer for King, said the barbecue allegation was significant enough to “cause the entire judgment to be set aside.”

Burris said he was not surprised to learn that jurors were split. “There were strong feelings in there,” he said, calling it a “Solomon-type decision, awarding King money . . . (without financially punishing) the officers, who have suffered so much economic hardship.”

He and Grimes said the jurors’ actions were strongly influenced by the judge’s decision to dismiss Gates from the case.

Of Gates’ dismissal, and the jurors’ refusal to award punitive damages in the case, Grimes said: “Goddamn it, we got robbed.”

Legal analysts characterized the jury’s stance as one apparently intended to find balance in a case marked by three years of high-profile acrimony. Scholars noted that in considering a countersuit brought by Briseno, the jurors ruled Wednesday that King had battered the officer during the beating incident, but they refused to find King liable for monetary damages.

“The jurors obviously had a difficult time,” said Hugh Manes, a Los Angeles civil rights lawyer who has represented plaintiffs in other police brutality cases.

While criticizing the jury’s failure to assess punitive damages against the former officers, Manes called the jury’s earlier damage award of $3.8 million a fair settlement. He speculated that jurors decided against imposing monetary penalties on Koon and Powell because of their jail sentences.

“They are saying Powell and Koon wound up in prison, their careers are ruined. There wouldn’t be a lot of point to imposing a punitive damage award,” Manes said. “Overall, justice has been done. It could have been done a little better. (But) the jury system has proven once again to be the best in the world.”

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola law professor, said there were several possible explanations for the jury’s action, including the fact that “this jury had already awarded very substantial compensatory damages, and those damages already may have (conveyed) a bit of a message.”

“This jury might have felt that, even though the individual officers did something wrong, the party with the best ability to pay and most responsibility is the city,” Levenson said.

Paul Hoffman, former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and an expert on police misconduct who is now in private practice, said: “The overall message of what the jury did in this case is to send an important signal that police abuse won’t be tolerated.”

But Hoffman also expressed surprise that no punitive damages were awarded.

“It’s a very important thing in a case like this for officers to be personally on the line,” Hoffman said. “That’s the one major problem with the verdict--the taxpayers will pay the $3.8 million and the officers won’t pay anything. Officers who commit this kind of misconduct should pay something personally.”

Harland Braun, a West Los Angeles criminal lawyer who represented Briseno in the federal criminal trial, said Wednesday’s rulings suggested that the city made “a tactical error” by conceding liability in the case.

However, he said the jury’s decision not to assess punitive damages against the four officers, including Powell and Koon, makes “enormous sense. What is the point of giving punitive damages against people who are already being punished by being sent to jail?” Braun asked.

Times staff writer David Ferrell contributed to this story.