Probe Finds It Likely Briseno Lied Under Oath : Courts: Ventura County prosecutors say charges will not be filed because testimony did not affect trial’s outcome. Ex-officer’s lawyer calls the finding ‘slander.’

Former Los Angeles Police Officer Theodore J. Briseno probably lied under oath during the 1992 Simi Valley trial of officers charged in the beating of Rodney G. King, according to the results of a little-known, 10-month investigation released Monday by Ventura County prosecutors.

But perjury charges will not be filed against him because the testimony did not affect the outcome of the trial of Briseno and three fellow officers, prosecutors said. The officers were found not guilty of most charges against them--verdicts that sparked rioting in Los Angeles.

At the request of Los Angeles police, Ventura County prosecutors reviewed the Simi Valley testimony of Briseno, 41, to determine if he had committed perjury.

Chief Deputy Dist. Atty. Ronald C. Janes, who conducted the probe, concluded that Briseno apparently lied on April 3, 1992, when he told the Ventura County jury that he tried to report the beating of King to superiors shortly after it happened.

But prosecutors said they decided against charging Briseno with perjury after reviewing numerous court and administrative documents. For a statement to be considered perjury, it must have the potential to influence the outcome of the case, Janes said.

“Although this evidence tends to indicate that Officer Briseno lied, proving this beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury would be exceedingly difficult,” Janes concluded in his 18-page report.

Harland Braun, Briseno’s attorney, criticized the report, the Los Angeles Police Department and prosecutors in both counties. Ventura County prosecutors conducted the review because Briseno’s testimony was given in Simi Valley.

“What they’ve basically done is use the Ventura County district attorney’s office to slander him,” Braun said of LAPD officials.

LAPD Detective James Miller, the internal affairs sergeant who presented the case to prosecutors, declined to comment, saying the issue is a confidential personnel matter.

Briseno also was acquitted of attacking King in a later federal trial, but he was nevertheless fired by the LAPD for use of excessive force. Some former colleagues have criticized Briseno for saying that officers were “out of control” during the 1991 beating. He acknowledged that he put his foot on King, who later won a $3.8-million civil award from the city of Los Angeles.

Briseno insisted the action was designed to keep King on the ground so the motorist could be arrested.

His testimony was used in the federal civil rights trial that led to the convictions of former Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and former Officer Laurence M. Powell. The fourth officer, Timothy E. Wind, was fired two months after the King beating but later got a job as a community service officer in Culver City.

Braun said that Ventura County prosecutors, by concluding that Briseno probably lied but declining to file charges against him, are appeasing those who believe in an unwritten “code of silence” against police officers testifying against one another.

Briseno has filed a lawsuit seeking his job back, contending that he was wrongfully terminated by the department.

In the testimony that prompted the perjury investigation, Briseno insisted that he drove to a police station and tried to report the incident. Unable to find the lieutenant on duty, Briseno testified that he let the matter go because Koon had filed a computer message indicating that he was making the report.

Other officers on duty that night did not recall Briseno returning to the station, looking for the lieutenant or reading Koon’s message, the report found. A probationary officer riding with Briseno that night told authorities that Briseno apparently headed directly to his next call after the beating, the report said.