LAPD Hearing to Review Briseno’s Complex Case : Police: Politically charged disciplinary proceeding will go beyond simple question of excessive force in King case.

On the surface, Officer Theodore J. Briseno’s long-awaited Los Angeles Police Department disciplinary hearing appears to probe a single, simple question: Did he use excessive force when he stomped or pushed Rodney G. King to the pavement on March 3, 1991?

But few issues in the deeply emotional case have ever been resolved simply, and virtually no one expects that this round, which is scheduled to open today, will be any different. Briseno’s hearing, postponed for more than two years while he was tried and acquitted twice for his actions, is likely to delve into questions that are far more complicated and politically charged.

Among them: Did Briseno lie when he testified in state court that he tried to stop his colleagues from beating King? Did he make up a story about returning to the Foothill police station to report the use of force? And, most controversially, is the LAPD trying to strip Briseno of his job not because he used force on King but because he violated the much-ballyhooed police code of silence when he turned on his fellow officers during the first trial in Simi Valley?

As those questions suggest, Briseno’s case has long been the most complicated to arise from the police beating that shook the LAPD and forged a national debate on the use of force by police officers. Ironically, Briseno’s case is so difficult largely because the notorious videotape of the beating shows him doing relatively little, and what he does is subject to widely different interpretations.

In essence, Briseno makes two appearances on the tape, at one point blocking Officer Laurence M. Powell and later stepping down hard on King’s back or neck. Between those moments, he can be seen on the periphery of the incident, but he otherwise is outside the center of the fray.

The two conflicting images have given rise to the ambiguous portrait of Briseno’s conduct. Some focus on the blocked blow and conclude that Briseno was the lone hero of the affair. Others isolate the so-called stomp and see him as doubly villainous--first for stalking and stomping King and second for selling out his colleagues to save himself.

“Briseno, at some point in the beating, tried to stop the misconduct,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven D. Clymer, one of two lead federal prosecutors in the recently concluded federal civil rights trial, said during his closing argument in that case. “That was a very commendable thing to do. . . . But for some reason, during the course of the incident, Briseno decided to become one of the boys. He no longer just wanted to watch the misconduct, he decided to participate in it.”

Because of the intense interest focused on Briseno’s disciplinary hearing, it is scheduled to begin today under highly unusual circumstances. A pool of print, wire service, radio and television reporters will cover the hearing under strict rules established by the LAPD--no tape recorders will be allowed in the room, and reporters are barred from entering or leaving during the proceedings.

But the LAPD has made one major concession to the press. For the first time in its history, the department has given permission for a television camera to be placed inside a hearing room. That concession was sought by media outlets and by Briseno’s attorneys, who say they intend to turn the hearing into a public test of the LAPD’s ability to judge its officers fairly.

“This is the first time in this department’s history that they will be on trial too,” said Gregory Petersen, one of Briseno’s lawyers. “This time, the world will be able to see how they conduct themselves.”

According to Petersen, the LAPD’s Internal Affairs officers who are prosecuting the case against Briseno have acted unfairly almost from the start. He accuses them of withholding evidence against his client up until the last minute--a huge packet of evidence was presented to the lawyer and to Briseno’s departmental defense representative only last week.

“It’s trial by ambush,” said Petersen, a former policeman who is a persistent critic of the LAPD’s disciplinary system. “That’s the way they do business.”

There are important differences between a criminal trial and a proceeding before the LAPD Board of Rights, the disciplinary body that will hear Briseno’s case this week. In a criminal trial, prosecutors must convince a jury of a defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” In a disciplinary hearing, a department advocate need only convince a group of three captains that a preponderance of the evidence favors the department’s position.

Moreover, defendants in criminal trials may not be compelled to testify. Briseno chose to take the stand in Simi Valley, but his lawyer in the federal trial, Harland W. Braun, kept Briseno off the stand and limited his entire defense to the admission of Briseno’s boot into evidence. In a disciplinary hearing, however, an officer can be fired for refusing to testify, meaning that Briseno almost surely will be asked to take the stand.

Finally, evidence of prior misconduct is admissible against a defendant in a disciplinary hearing while it is rarely allowed into a criminal trial. Briseno was once suspended for 66 days for using excessive force, an incident that jurors were never told about in the criminal trials but which department advocates will present as part of their case.

Internal Affairs officers decline to comment on the Briseno case, as they do with all pending administrative actions. But sources familiar with their investigation say the department will probably challenge Briseno in two ways: first, by using the videotape and expert witnesses to say that the force used by Briseno was excessive, and by presenting evidence that Briseno lied about returning to the Foothill police station to report the beating.

The first approach deals directly with the excessive force charge against Briseno; the second is intended to undermine Briseno’s credibility and to cast doubt on his description of why he used his foot on King.

To build their case, Internal Affairs officers say they intend to take six full days of testimony, an extraordinary amount of time for a disciplinary hearing. After a slew of motions and preliminary maneuvering, among their first witnesses is likely to be George Holliday, who shot the amateur videotape of the beating, followed soon thereafter by Briseno.

Other witnesses may include Sgt. Mark Conta, a training officer from the LAPD academy who testified for the prosecution in the federal civil rights trial of Briseno and three colleagues. The department also has indicated that it may call Sgt. Charles Duke Jr., who testified for the defense in the federal trial and whom the LAPD has ordered to stop training recruits because officials say his view of the department’s policy on use of force is inaccurate.

If asked, Duke is prepared to say that Briseno violated policy when he stomped King. In fact, Duke has publicly said that he believes Briseno is the only officer who should have been convicted in the federal trial.

Braun calls it unethical for the department to use a witness when the department has challenged that witness’s credibility. He also dismisses Duke’s view of Briseno’s conduct as “an emotional response” to Briseno testifying against his co-defendants in Simi Valley.

As the Board of Rights case finally opens, it is Briseno’s prior testimony that overarches every aspect of it. Many critics of the LAPD see Briseno as the lone police officer who told the truth about the incident--his admirers include such unlikely figures as rap star Eazy E, another client of Braun.

But while Briseno’s willingness to testify against other LAPD officers during the Simi Valley trial won him some unexpected supporters, it also alienated many police officers, including some who do not believe that Briseno was guilty of any crime. It was a somber Parker Center when Powell and Sgt. Stacey C. Koon were convicted; it is not likely to be so glum if Briseno loses his job.

“There are a lot of people here who think he lied and who blame him for Koon and Powell (being convicted),” said one officer. “That may be fair and it may not, but it’s the way it goes.”

With that feeling running deep, Braun and Petersen worry that the department will deny their client a fair hearing and choose instead to punish him for breaking ranks. Petersen already has said he believes the department will cheat his client out of his job. He pledges to appeal any firing to the courts.

Braun does not go that far, but he calls the LAPD case “an enforcement of the code of silence” and compares its prosecution of Briseno to “a runaway train.”

For his part, Briseno has anxiously awaited this hearing for 2 1/2 years. His police pension and his name hang in the balance. And until the LAPD concludes its case against him, he cannot find work, cannot move on with his life.

“It’s been such a long time,” Briseno said Tuesday. “I’m just looking forward to getting this over with. I’ve spoken the truth from the beginning, and now I’d like to get back to work.”