‘People Are Watching,’ Officer’s Jury Told : Slayings: A Compton lawman’s trial in the killings of two brothers ends with allusions to the Rodney G. King case.

Advising jurors that “a lot of people are watching this case,” a prosecutor on Wednesday called the killing of two Samoan brothers by a Compton police officer who shot them 19 times “a vicious, cruel homicide” and urged the panel to find the man guilty.

Jurors began their deliberations shortly after Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Healey allowed that the officer, Alfred Skiles Jr., “may have been” justified in firing the first burst of 10 shots at Pouvi Tualaulelei, 34, and Itali Tualaulelei, 22, which disabled both men. Skiles is charged with two counts of voluntary manslaughter.

But when Skiles reloaded his gun, Healey said, and shot both men as they allegedly lay on the ground, that “was the most brutal, cold decision I have ever heard a police officer make.”

Skiles--the first Los Angeles County law enforcement officer in a decade to be criminally charged in a killing--had testified a day earlier that he could not recall most of the events of Feb. 12, 1991, when he shot the brothers.

When it happened, he said, he “feared for his life” and shot the men in self-defense.

The brothers were shot a total of 19 times, all in the back or the side, autopsy reports said. Skiles had been dispatched to the Compton home to answer a call from Pouvi Tualaulelei’s wife, who said her husband had hit her.

The only witness to the shooting, Ieti Tualaulelei, the younger brother of the dead men, testified in the preliminary hearing that Skiles ordered his brothers to kneel before he shot them. He did not testify at the trial.

The defense also has contended that Skiles, who has since taken a stress-related retirement from the police force, suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome and has been unable to recall many of the events that took place the night of the killings.

Skiles, questioned by the prosecutor, was unable to recall how far the brothers were from him when he fired, or whether they were crouched, lying down or standing when he reloaded and fired the fatal second burst of shots.

Skiles’ attorney, George Franscell, was angered by Healey’s assertions that his client had lied about being afraid and having a faulty memory of the events.

“Wouldn’t you be a little bit scared?” Franscell said to the jurors. “You would be scared to death . . . to have these two big Samoans coming at you.” Both men were at least 6 feet tall and were described as large.

Healey said the former officer’s testimony was startling. He said he finds it improbable that a jury would believe that, after the brothers were shot 10 times, they “could then rise up somehow and continue to come at him,” as Skiles testified.

Healey told jurors that judging by where the bullet casings landed and other physical evidence at the scene, Skiles was lying.

“In my opinion, his entire story is at odds with the evidence,” Healey said outside the courtroom.

Asked about his remark to jurors that “a lot of people are watching this case,” Healey acknowledged that he was referring to the Rodney G. King case, in which not-guilty verdicts were returned after four LAPD officers were tried.

Skiles’ testimony Tuesday was the first time he had publicly told his version of events. He said he was frightened, that Pouvi Tualaulelei was verbally abusive and made numerous threatening remarks.

Skiles said he fired a burst from his semiautomatic gun first at Itali Tualaulelei, who had advanced on him, then at his older brother, who he said came at him crouched, “ready to tackle me.”

Skiles ran toward a garage wall, stopped, and turned to face both men. He saw them “still coming at me,” he said, and decided to reload.

He hurriedly reloaded by pushing a button disengaging the gun’s magazine, then unbuttoned a pouch on his belt and popped in a fresh magazine.

He said he then raised the gun and ran toward them, firing at both men.

“I shot Pouvi, and I ran past him. then I shot Itali and it got real quiet. Then I remember lights, bright lights coming on,” Skiles said.

The prosecution has contended that after the first burst of gunfire, the men were disabled and Skiles could not justify the second shooting as self-defense.