At Least 26 Potential Jurors in King Case Are Dismissed

At least 26 potential jurors in the Rodney G. King civil rights trial have been dropped from the panel before the process of oral questioning has begun, and others have expressed such strong views that they are likely to be eliminated quickly, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

“This is a situation where people don’t just have opinions, but have very, very strong opinions about the outcome of this case,” said Steven D. Clymer, one of the lead prosecutors. “I think that we should take great care in this case to make sure that we look behind people’s answers.”

On the first day prosecutors and defense lawyers met to discuss jury selection, both sides agreed to eliminate eight potential jurors who they said should not be allowed to serve in the federal trial of the four Los Angeles Police Department officers. Another group of prospective jurors--about a dozen--told court officers that they did not believe that they could serve and were excused before completing the written questionnaire intended to help lawyers weed out those jurors who may be biased.

As a result of those and six other eliminations made by U.S. District Judge John G. Davies, 284 potential jurors are left in the pool. They are all that remain after a process that began with the federal court’s jury commissioner mailing 6,000 letters to Southern California residents, notifying them that they had been selected as candidates for a “very important trial” scheduled to begin Feb. 3.

Those letters warned prospective jurors that they would have to be sequestered for eight weeks. The overwhelming majority of those who received letters said they would be unavailable.

In addition, some of the 284 who remain appear likely to be eliminated if they are called to serve. The questionnaires have not been released to the public, but Davies and prosecutors read excerpts from a few Thursday during the jury selection discussion.

One man called the federal trial “a waste of taxpayers’ money,” and added of King: “If you get your ass beat, you probably did something to deserve it.”

Asked about the riots that swept Los Angeles after the not guilty verdicts against the officers last year, the man wrote that he was glad he lived in the desert and not in the city.

Another potential juror expressed deep reservations about serving: “I would not like to be a juror because I would be afraid regardless of the verdict,” the person wrote. “The press would persecute me.”

Yet another juror said she suffered from two ulcers, high blood pressure and hearing loss. She also said she cannot be away from her husband for long periods because he suffers from a heart condition.

“Are we going to force this person to come into court and answer questions?” Davies asked of the woman. “Some people should not be troubled further.”

Clymer and Barry F. Kowalski, the other lead prosecutor, asked Davies to eliminate 62 prospective jurors without calling them back for further questioning. Of those, prosecutors said 24 were for hardship, meaning that they have health problems or other issues that would make it difficult for them to serve and be sequestered for a long period of time. Davies granted six of those requests, including the woman who said she suffered from ulcers.

The rest of the prosecution’s proposed eliminations were because prospective jurors’ answers on the questionnaire suggest to prosecutors that they are so biased that they should not be permitted to serve. Davies denied those, forcing those jurors to return for oral questioning, scheduled to begin next week.

Although defense lawyers said they have identified nine prospective jurors whom they believe should be dismissed, they did not ask for those panelists to be eliminated at this point. Instead, they hope to question the rest of the prospective jurors orally, posing follow-up questions that may help determine which ones can serve impartially.

Meanwhile, attorneys on both sides were awaiting a ruling from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on whether edited versions of the juror questionnaires should be released to the press and public.

On Monday, lawyers for the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press filed emergency appeals for access to the questionnaires. They said they are not interested in information that would identify prospective jurors, but they asked the appeals court to force Davies to release edited versions of the documents so that the public can fully observe the jury selection process.

Davies, who told jurors he hoped that their answers would never be made public, objected to that request and filed his own response--an extremely rare move for a federal judge.

“It is substantially probable that disclosure of the completed questionnaires will subject prospective and actual jurors to threats, harassment and widespread publicity,” Davies wrote. “Even if (I) were to redact identifying features from each questionnaire, the imminent danger remains that sensitive information from the disclosed responses could later be matched to jurors through independent sources, resulting in threats and harassment.”

The Justice Department as well as three of the four defense lawyers agreed with Davies and urged the 9th Circuit to reject the media request.

“It is easy to forecast with confidence the fear and mistrust that will automatically flow if the (prospective jury panel) is informed that their questionnaires will, after all, become public record,” wrote lawyers Ira Salzman and Michael P. Stone, who represent Sgt. Stacey C. Koon and Officer Laurence M. Powell, respectively. “The integrity of the respondent court will be suspect and the oral (questioning) will be infected with suspicion and distrust.”

One defense lawyer, Harland W. Braun, joined with the news organizations, saying that he does not believe that the right to a fair trial would be affected by partial release of the questionnaires.