Attorneys Ask Judge to Bar Death Penalty in Furrow Case

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to bar federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty against Buford O. Furrow Jr., the white supremacist accused of shooting up a Jewish day care center and murdering a Filipino American postman.

In lengthy legal briefs, Furrow’s public defenders leveled a broad attack on the federal death penalty law and its application by prosecutors in the case.

Furrow, 37, is scheduled to go on trial in November for a shooting rampage that wounded five people at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Granada Hills and for the subsequent slaying of mail carrier Joseph Ileto on Aug. 10, 1999.

Atty. Gen. Janet Reno approved a recommendation to seek the death penalty under a law that makes the killing of any federal employee a capital offense.

But in their motion, his defense team contended Monday that the 1994 Death Penalty Act is unconstitutional.

The lawyers noted that the law lists 16 aggravating factors that a jury may consider in deciding whether to vote for the death penalty. The law also permits prosecutors to present aggravating factors not spelled out by the statute. That is unconstitutional, Furrow’s lawyers argued.

The defense also argued that prosecutors were vague in detailing their justification for seeking the death penalty.

Citing the 8th and 14th amendments, Furrow’s attorneys said the Constitution requires that the decision-making process in capital cases be guided by carefully defined standards to prevent arbitrary, capricious actions.

They contended further that the government should be barred from seeking Furrow’s execution, because the grand jury that indicted him did not specifically charge him with capital crimes.

“The government cannot successfully argue that the death penalty notice filed Feb. 18 is an adequate substitute to a grand jury indictment,” said the defense motion.

It added that the 1994 law is unconstitutional because it limits appeals by people sentenced to death.

Finally, Furrow’s lawyers said, the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment under all circumstances, though they acknowledged that the current Supreme Court believes otherwise.

The lawyers did not say whether they plan to present a mental-illness defense on Furrow’s behalf, a key question that remains the subject of considerable speculation.

Prosecutors have filed a motion with U.S. District Judge Richard A. Paez to force the defense to reveal its intentions so the government can prepare for trial.

Public defender Judy Clarke has said there is no need to disclose the defense position on a mental health defense with months to go before the trial.

The prosecution will file briefs responding to the latest defense arguments, and the issue will be argued before Paez on June 5.