U.S. Will Seek Death Sentence for Furrow

Federal prosecutors said Friday that they will seek the death penalty against avowed white supremacist Buford O. Furrow Jr. for the shooting last August of a Filipino American letter carrier.

“Based on the facts as we know them to be, it is our view that the death penalty is warranted in this case,” said U.S. Atty. Alejandro N. Mayorkas.

The government’s precise reasons for the decision were filed Friday under seal, and Mayorkas said that “it is not appropriate for us to disclose the factors we believe warranted that conclusion.”

Furrow, 38, is also charged with shooting five people, three of them young children, at a Jewish community center in Granada Hills hours before the slaying of postal worker Joseph Ileto.

It is unusual for the Justice Department to seek the death penalty. The federal government has not executed anyone since 1963, although there are 27 people under federal death sentences. The U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles also is seeking the death penalty in three other cases.

One federal source said the government’s explanation for the Furrow decision was filed under seal because if it had been made public it would have been highly prejudicial to the defendant.

Maria Stratton, who heads the federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles and has seen the sealed papers, agreed with that assessment.

“The document pretty much lays out their plan for the penalty phase even before the case has been tried. . . . There is the potential that it would taint the jury pool,” Stratton said.

Some legal analysts said Friday that the Justice Department’s move is part of an effort to crack down on hate crimes.

“The federal government wants to send a message about how seriously they take this crime,” said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor.

Furrow’s defense lawyers expressed disappointment at the decision and said they would attempt to persuade Justice Department officials to reverse it.

“We understand that the decision is not set in stone; that is what Mr. Mayorkas told us,” Stratton said.

The government’s decision was hailed by Ileto’s family, an Asian American civil rights group and several Jewish organizations, including the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

“Hopefully [it] will deter hatemongers out there and let them know that the country will not tolerate vicious acts of violence and hatred,” said Ileto’s brother Ismael.

In total, Furrow faces 15 counts, including hate crime charges. In addition to three counts in the Ileto killing, he is charged with a dozen counts stemming from the shooting rampage at the North Valley Jewish Community Center the same day. He is accused of wounding three young boys, a teenage counselor and a grandmother working as a receptionist.

In August, Furrow and his lawyers refused to enter a plea. The federal magistrate ordered that a plea of not guilty be entered for him.

Prosecutors charge that Furrow drove to Chatsworth after the Granada Hills attack and killed Ileto solely because he was not white.

After the shootings, Furrow took a cab to Las Vegas, where he turned himself in to the FBI. He reportedly told agents that he wanted to send “a wake-up call to America to kill Jews.”

Leaders of white supremacist groups said Friday that among their sympathizers the death penalty decision might “backfire” against the government in its effort to curb hate crimes.

“We would say that it is a mistake to seek the death penalty in this case because people will perceive Mr. Furrow as a martyr, and I don’t think the government wants that,” said Matt Hale, leader of the Illinois-based World Church of the Creator.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Janet Reno made the decision in Furrow’s case after his lawyers appealed both to federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and to a special Justice Department death penalty committee in Washington.

Quin Denvir, the federal public defender in Sacramento who was one of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s lawyers, said it is unusual for the government not to publicly disclose its rationale for seeking the death penalty.

Normally, he said, the government reveals the “aggravating factors” that led to the decision.

Stratton said she expects the government’s reasoning to emerge during arguments over pretrial motions--including a forthcoming defense motion challenging the application of the death penalty to this case--in the next few months.

According to the federal death penalty law, aggravating factors include killing during the commission of another crime, previous conviction of other serious offenses, “heinous, cruel or depraved manner” of committing the offense, and vulnerability of the victim.

The government also is supposed to consider potential mitigating factors such as a defendant’s “impaired capacity,” meaning the inability to understand that his conduct was wrong.

Furrow was treated in several mental hospitals in recent years. He served six months for assault, stemming from an incident in which he tried to recommit himself to a mental hospital in 1998, saying he was suicidal and experiencing urges to kill people. He was released in May 1999.

Sources said both his lawyers and the government have been gathering records about his mental health.

Still, Stratton said Friday that the defense team had made no decision yet on whether it would offer a mental illness defense.

“We are still investigating the case. Many of the . . . witnesses to our client’s life are in the Pacific Northwest, and we have been going here and there talking to people,” she said.

The death penalty decision was applauded by Jeff Rouss, executive director of the Jewish Community Centers of Los Angeles, which includes the Granada Hills facility.

“This man killed an innocent individual who was a public servant. He terrorized children and hurt them at day care,” Rouss said. “His was an act of hatred, it was an act of terrorism and it was an act of murder.”

Sources said some of Furrow’s defense lawyers have spoken to Jewish attorneys in an attempt to persuade them to urge that the government seek a lesser sentence--life without possibility of parole.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he was not approached and that it would not have made any difference.

“I think the death penalty is an absolutely appropriate punishment for a crime of this nature. For people who commit acts of terrorism against innocent people at random, the greatest deterrent is knowing that they face the possibility of a death sentence,” Hier said.

But in a reference to Furrow’s reported psychiatric problems, the rabbi said, “No one wants to put to death a person who . . . was mentally unstable.” That decision ultimately will be up to the judge, he said.

One Jewish leader, who has spearheaded opposition to the death penalty in the Jewish community, decried the move. Rabbi David Saperstein of Washington, D.C., who is a Reform Jewish leader, said the decision would deflect attention from hate crimes and toward the controversy over the death penalty.

In a related court filing Friday, the U.S. attorney’s office and Furrow’s defense lawyers jointly asked U.S. District Judge Richard Paez to schedule the trial no sooner than Nov. 14, a formal move to waive Furrow’s right to a speedy trial.

The motion said that because the case was particularly complex and because “potential mental health issues” may arise, it would take longer for Furrow’s defense team to prepare for the trial.

Furrow’s team includes three federal public defenders from Los Angeles and Judy Clarke of Spokane, Wash., who played a key role in securing life sentences, rather than the death penalty, for both Kaczynski and Susan Smith, the South Carolina woman who drowned her two sons in a lake.

Times staff writer Ann W. O’Neill contributed to this story