This is the prosecution's June 19, 1995 response to the defense motion to exclude evidence of the Menendez brothers' spending habits.

GIL GARCETTI District Attorney
DAVID P. CONN Head Deputy District Attorney
CAROL JANE :NAJERA Deputy District Attorney 
210 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 974-3739

Attorneys for Plaintiff

ORIGINAL FILED June 19, 1995  LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
IN AND FOR THE COURT OF LOS ANGELES

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH LYLE MENENDEZ and ERIK GALEN MENENDEZ, Defendants

CASE NO. BA068880

PEOPLE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S' MOTION
TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF SPENDING

DATE: June 26, 1995 TIME: 9:00 A.M. PLACE: DEPARTMENT NW, "N"

TO THE HONORABLE STANLEY WEISBERG, JUDGE OP THE VAN NUYS SUPERIOR
COURT, AND TO THE DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 26, 1995, the People of the State of
California will oppose the defendants' motion entitled "MOTION IN
LIMINE RE RECENTLY PROFFERED SPENDING EVIDENCE." This opposition will
be based upon this notice, the attached points and authorities, and
such argument as will be made at the time of the hearing of the
motion.

INTRODUCTION

This court has previously ruled that the prosecution may present
evidence that  after the defendants murdered their parents, they spent
their parents' money. This evidence includes the following purchases
and attempted purchases:

1. Two Rolex watches and money clips (Both defendants)
2. Marina City Condominium (Both defendants)
3. Porsche (Lyle Menendez)
4. Clothing and accessories-New Jersey and New York (Lyle Menendez)
5. A Private limousine and body guard-New Jersey and New York (Lyle
Menendez)
6. A patio home (Lyle Menendez)
7. A townhouse (Lyle Menendez)
8. A restaurant-Chuck's Spring Street Cafe (Lyle Menendez)
9. A million dollar-plus residence in Newport Beach (Erik Menendez)
10. Jeep Wrangler (Erik Menendez)
11. Private tennis coach (Erik Menendez)
12. Pool table (Erik Menendez)

With the exception of the million dollar-plus residence in Newport
Beach, all of the above-cited spending evidence was ruled admissible
in some form in the first trial. This Court has since ruled it
admissible in a joint trial conducted before a single jury. The
defendants now seek to exclude additional evidence of their spending.
Specifically, they seek to exclude evidence of the following
expenditures:

1. Rental of the bungalow suite at the Hotel Bel-Aire
2. A ski trip to Aspen
3. Clothing and accessories purchased in Chicago, Illinois
4. A private limousine used in Beverly Hills and Chicago, Illinois
5. A Sony Big screen entertainment center
6. A Saab Automobile
7. A vacation to Cancun, Mexico
8. Skiing and gambling in Lake Tahoe
9. Traveling the professional tennis circuit
10. Investments at Smith Barney

The Defendants argue that insofar as the People can demonstrate that
each defendant fraudulently obtained $350,000 from the insurance
company, the prosecution should be precluded from also presenting
evidence that they spent the money obtained. They argue that evidence
of spending is more prejudicial than probative, and that it is
inadmissible character evidence.

Similar objections, made under Evidence Code 352 and 1101, were argued
on June 17 and July 26, 1993, before the start of the first trial. At
that time the court ruled that such evidence is not inadmissible
character evidence. The court also evaluated the evidence under
Evidence Code Section 352, and determined that the probative value of
the evidence outweighed any possible prejudice to the defendants.

Similar objections were raised after the first trial. On April 3, 1995
this court once again evaluated evidence of spending under Evidence
Code Section 352 and found it admissible. Additional arguments to
exclude evidence of spending were made on April 4, 1995, and were
rejected by the court.

The Court has thus considered and discussed, at length, the very
issues raised by the defendants in this motion in regard to evidence
of spending, and the court has repeatedly ruled that the defendants'
arguments are without merit.

The defendants seek to exclude all but one of the following 13 areas
of evidence which the People seek to present to the jury.

1. The party at the Bel-Aire hotel - In the first trial, spending at
the Bel-Aire Hotel was excluded after the defendants presented the
testimony of their cousin Henry Llanio, who testified that he helped
select the accommodations at the hotel as a meeting place for the
family immediately after the murders, and that he assumed the bill
would be paid by LIVE Entertainment.

In fact, the People will show through the testimony of Robin
Rosenbloom and others that the defendants used the suite to entertain
their friends, and that they threw a party immediately after the
memorial service in which, in the words of Ms. Rosenbloom, "no adults"
were in attendance. The defendants rented the most expensive suite,
ordered caviar and champagne, and Lyle Menendez paid for the
accommodations.

The People seek to present evidence of the lavish accommodations
available to them following the murders of their parents, as well as
the use they made of such accommodations. This evidence is relevant to
their state of mind immediately after the murder of their parents, and
is circumstantial evidence of their state of mind at the time of the
murder of their parents.

2. The Aspen ski trip- Testimony will show that the defendants took a
vacation shortly after they killed their parents. The issues raised[
by the defendants in their response in regard to this evidence are
matters which may be the proper, subject of cross-examination, but
such matters do not go to the admissibility of the evidence.

3. Shopping in Chicago, Illinois- This evidence of spending is similar
to the evidence of spending already ruled admissible by this court
through the testimony of Richard Wenskowski and Glenn Stevens. Here
again, issues raised by the defendants in their response in regard to
this evidence are matters which may be the proper subject of
cross-examination, but such matters do not go to the admissibility of
the evidence

4. Limousine rentals in Beverly Hills - The rental of limousine for
personal transportation is similar to the evidence previously ruled
admissible through the testimony of Richard Wenskowski. This evidence
is admissible for the same reason that limousine rentals in New Jersey
and New York were ruled admissible in the first trial.

5. Limousine rentals in New Jersey - Lyle Menendez' rental of
limousines was ruled admissible in the first trial, and should be
ruled admissible once again. Also admissible is Lyle Menendez'
interest in pricing bullet-proof limousines.

6. Limousine rentals in New York - Lyle Menendez' limousine rental in
New York was ruled admissible in the first trial, and should be found
to be admissible once again.

7. Limousine rentals in Chicago. Illinois - This evidence is
admissible for the same reason that limousine rentals in New Jersey
and New York was ruled admissible in the first trial.

8. The Sony Entertainment System - The People have provided the
defendants with a statement by Perry Berman in which he discusses his
personal observations and knowledge of a purchase of an elaborate and
expensive Sony sound system by Lyle Menendez. The defendants argue
that this purchase cannot be proven without documentation. While
documentation may be one way to establish the purchase, the testimony
of a witness having personal know1edge of this matter is an equally
valid way to establish the disputed fact.

9. A Saab Automobile - Lyle Menendez' purchase of a vehicle for Jamie
Pisarcik is relevant and admissible to show the defendant's use of his
ill-begotten gain. This evidence is not challenged by the defendants.

10. The Cancun, Mexico vacation - Here again the defendants offer no
proper reason why this evidence should be ruled inadmissible. Here
again also, documentation is not the only way to establish the
expenditures of the defendant, and the testimony of a percipient
witness can establish this fact. Nor is it relevant that the parents
of the defendants took the defendants on similar vacations before the
defendants killed them. That the defendants may have been accustomed
to living well does not defeat evidence of motive; to the contrary, it
demonstrates what the defendants were afraid of losing if they were to
be cut out of the will. For that reason, it establishes motive all the
more.

11. The Lake Tahoe ski trip- Evidence of a vacation and gambling, in
Lake Tahoe, including the fact that the defendant borrowed money from
Mark Slotkin is additional evidence of the defendant's state of mind,
and there is no proper reason to exclude it.

12. Professional tennis circuit-Israel - The defendant argues that
this is evidence of "work," - an argument to which only the privileged
could relate. In truth, this is evidence of the defendant's pursuit of
his personal goal of becoming a professional tennis player, a pursuit
made possible with the bloody money of his dead parents.

13. Investments at Smith-Barney Florida - This evidence of Erik
Menendez' spending is comparable to the purchase of a restaurant by
Lyle Menendez and should be ruled admissible on the same basis. Both
are relevant to the defendants' motive for committing the murders.

III. CONCLUSION

The defendants object to the admission of all but one of the 13 items
of evidence discussed above. Only two of these items were ruled
3dmissible in the first trial; the other items were not offered. The
defendants argue that one item of evidence was previously ruled
inadmissible ( the spending at the Hotel Bel-Aire) but the People ask
that this evidence be admitted based upon the evidence and arguments
only now advanced by the prosecution in regard to this evidence.

The defendants request that this court exclude evidence of spending
pursuant to Evidence Codes sections 350, 352 and 1101. In light of the
previous rejection ion by this court of similar arguments advanced in
regard to similar items of evidence, the People respectfully ask that
this court deny the defendants' request.

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June 1995

7 /s/ David P. Conn

/s/ Carol J. Najera