Officers’ Indictment Called Political : King case: Prosecutors deny defense attorneys’ charge that they were under pressure from Washington.

Four Los Angeles police officers accused of violating Rodney G. King’s civil rights made their first appearance in federal court Thursday, and afterward several of their lawyers accused prosecutors of filing the new charges for political reasons.

“This is a political case, not a legal case,” said Harland W. Braun, who has been retained to represent Officer Theodore J. Briseno in the federal case. “The legal system is very political. This is a political year.”

Braun’s comments were echoed by Paul DePasquale, who represents former LAPD Officer Timothy E. Wind.

“Sure, it’s a political action,” DePasquale said. “We’ve been hearing that ever since” a Ventura County jury acquitted the officers on all but one count in state court.

Briseno, Wind, Laurence M. Powell and Sgt. Stacey C. Koon were indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday, and the indictments were announced the next day. Briseno, Wind and Powell are charged with beating King and in the process violating his rights to be secure and free from unreasonable force. Koon, who is charged in a separate count of the indictment, is accused of failing to prevent the assault, and therefore violating King’s right to be free from harm while in custody.

Defense lawyers say they believe the White House pressured local prosecutors to indict all four of the officers to demonstrate the federal government’s commitment to prosecuting civil rights charges. Lourdes G. Baird, U.S. attorney for the Central District, vehemently denies that Washington put any pressure on her or her office.

As the officers left court Thursday, Briseno and Powell fielded questions.

“I didn’t commit any criminal act,” said Powell. “I did what I was taught to do.”

On April 29, a Ventura County jury found the four officers not guilty on all counts except one against Powell, who faces a retrial in October on a charge of using excessive force under color of authority. Those verdicts touched off looting and rioting in Los Angeles and in cities across the country.

Briseno, who testified in the state case that he tried to stop the beating, told reporters that he was stunned to be included in the federal indictments. Braun, his lawyer, said he suspected prosecutors wanted Briseno under indictment to pressure him to testify again against the other officers.

“I’m upset and I’m angry,” Briseno said of the new charges. “I don’t understand why they’re putting me through this again.”

While Powell spoke to reporters, Koon stood a few feet away, but would say only one sentence, which he repeated regardless of what he was asked. “Everything’s in the book, and the book comes out in October,” Koon said, referring to a manuscript he has written on the King case and his years in the LAPD.

As the case enters the federal arena for the first time, lawyers said they hope it can come to trial by this fall, although it could take longer because the federal charges may require them to interview new witnesses and review additional evidence.

The most notable difference in this trial may be that King is likely to be called to testify. In fact, lawyer Michael P. Stone, who represents Powell, said that he intends to call King even if prosecutors decide not to.

“The community needs to see that guy for what he is,” Stone said. “He is a felon who was trying to escape custody.”

All four officers surrendered voluntarily Thursday. They appeared in a hushed and overflowing federal courtroom, where they answered a few routine questions from a magistrate judge before he ordered them to post unsecured bonds of $5,000 each.

That is roughly what each posted during their state trial. Although the $5,000 bond was recommended by the federal court’s pretrial services office and was accepted as fair by prosecutors, some critics immediately assailed it as too low.

Three defendants in the beating of truck driver Reginald O. Denny--an attack that some have cast as a mirror-image reprise of the King incident--are being held on bonds ranging from $500,000 to $580,000. Although they are charged with more than just the Denny attack and all have criminal records, some of their supporters contend that the discrepancy in bail amounts reflects an unequal system of justice.

“What it shows to the country is that there are two levels of justice--one white and one black,” said Celes King, a bail bondsman and chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality. “The setting of $5,000 bail is tantamount to no bail at all.”

Earl Broady, a lawyer representing one of the defendants in the Denny attack, agreed. “That’s just terribly unfair,” he said.

Lawyers for the officers, however, noted that all four have made every court appearance since their case began more than a year ago, that none have criminal records and that all have strong ties to the community.

“They’re all going to show up,” Braun said. “There’s no reason to punish them with high bail.”

Before the federal trial of the officers begins, lawyers said that at least two issues will have to be settled: whether there will be a change of venue and whether the federal charges represent double jeopardy, since the officers already have been tried in state court.

Because the federal judicial district that includes Los Angeles spans seven counties, defense lawyers agreed that a change of venue is unlikely because the jury pool is so large. Still, DePasquale said he planned to investigate the issue.

Several legal experts also agreed that there is little likelihood of successfully arguing the double-jeopardy issue, since the state and federal government are different sovereign entities.

Moreover, Kevin Reed, an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the federal counts are markedly different than those filed in state court. This time the officers are charged with intentionally depriving King of federally protected rights, as opposed to merely being charged with beating him.

Nevertheless, DePasquale and Braun said they expect to research the question and determine whether there are legal reasons for dismissing the federal charges on those grounds.