Developments in the retrial of Lyle and Erik Menendez from Jan. 8 - 12.
JANUARY 8
The prosecution concluded its eight day cross-examination of Erik Menendez by once again focusing on the brothers' spending habits after the deaths of their parents.
Deputy District Attorney David Conn questioned Erik about why the brothers never purchased a headstone for their parents' graves.
"Mr. Menendez, when you were spending money following the death of your parents, the killing of your parents, did you purchase them a headstone?" he asked.
"I was not involved in that process," Erik answered.
Jose and Kitty Menendez's graves in New Jersey were without headstones until after the brothers were arrested in March 1990 for the August 1989 slayings of Jose and Kitty Menendez.
The prosecution previously presented testimony about how the brothers spent thousands of dollars on jewelry, clothing, cars, resort holidays and gambling after the slayings.
Conn also spent the eighth and final day of cross-examination by questioning Erik about the tape-recorded therapy session he had with Dr. Jerome Oziel on December 11, 1989. Conn asked Erik why, if he trusted Oziel enough to tell him about the shootings, he never told him about the lifetime of abuse.
Erik responded that Oziel was blackmailing the brothers and that he did not trust him. According to Erik, Oziel said he wouldn't go to the police with the information that the brothers killed their parents if they agreed to make the tape, say what Oziel wanted them to say, continue going to therapy for the rest of their lives and invest their inheritance in his business.
The prosecution still does not intend to call Oziel as a witness. Conn has said that he does not need his testimony because Erik's testimony is so absurd that the jury will not believe it. The defense contends that the prosecution does not want to call Oziel because he can not deny that he was blackmailing the brothers.
JANUARY 9
After 15 days of testimony, Erik Menendez finally stepped down from the witness stand.
He spent most of the day under redirect examination by his attorney, Barry Levin, explaining issued raised by the state during eight days of cross-examination.
Among other issues, Erik said there were no eyewitnesses to the sexual abuse because his father would never think of molesting him in public. He also explained that he thought he was going to be removed from his parents' will in 1988 and if he was going to kill them for the money, he would have done it at that time.
Erik also said he and his brother did not concoct stories of sexual abuse in order to avoid murder convictions. To try and bolster the claim, Levin tried to introduce a letter found in Erik's jail cell several months after his arrest. In the letter, Lyle wrote that he did not want to reveal the family secret of sexual abuse as a defense for the slayings.
The defense claimed the letter proves the brothers did not make up the story of sexual abuse to avoid the murder convictions. But Judge Stanley Weisberg ruled the letter was hearsay evidence and not admissible.
By the end of the day, Erik had been through a final series of questions from his lawyer and prosecution. Prosecutor and defense attorneys took turns asking, respectively, "did you intend to kill your parents?" and "did you kill in as blind panic."
Erik insisted that at the time of the August 1989 slayings, he was shooting in a blind panic and did not think about what he was doing. But, he admitted, that when he looks back at it now, he realizes that it looks as though by getting the gun and pulling the trigger, he must have intended to kill his parents.
JANUARY 10
The court was in recess.
JANUARY 11
The defense case entered a new phase as a psychologist testified that Erik Menendez suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder at the time he killed his parents.
Dr. John P. Wilson told jurors that the cause of Erik's disorder was the repeated acts of sexual molestation and physical and psychological abuse. He said Erik exhibited classic disorder symptoms such as recurring nightmares and amnesia.
"Sexual abuse of children first and foremost violates the most basic bond between the child and parents . . the bond of trust," he said.
Wilson said that post-traumatic stress disorder sufferers who have been terrorized typically fear imminent death. The brothers claim they were in a heightened state of fear at the time of the shootings and thought their parents were going to kill them. The prosecution claims the brothers killed Jose and Kitty Menendez out of hatred and greed.
JANUARY 12
The lawyer defending Lyle Menendez indicated a significant change in legal strategy.
Attorney Charles Gessler told the court that he plans to argue Lyle killed in the heat of passion -- that fear and anger overwhelmed him on August 20, 1989, when he and his brother shot their parents.
During the first trial, Lyle said he killed out of the honest but mistaken belief that his parents were going to kill him. He said he was afraid for his life.
His lawyer now says Lyle was a reasonable man who reacted out of anger, fear and passion.
According to the defense, the brothers had a fight with their parents on August 20. The incident followed a week of tensions after Lyle threatened his father to stop molesting Erik or he would go to the police. During the week, Erik convinced Lyle that their father was capable of killing them and the brothers went and purchased shotguns for protection.
Finally, on the night of the final confrontation, Jose told Erik to go to his room. The brothers took this to mean that he was about to molest Erik.
"You're not putting your hands on my brothers again," Lyle shouted at his father. "He's my son. I'll do what I want," Jose Menendez responded.
Lyle believed his brother was about to be raped. He went into an emotional state of fear and anger. His passion overwhelmed all sense of reason. He got his gun and shot his parents.
There is a key distinction between this defense and the one offered during the first trial.
At the first trial, the lawyers used the so-called imperfect self-defense theory. Under this theory, the brothers could not be judged by the standard of what a reasonable person would do. The years of abuse caused the brothers to see danger differently than a normal person. And because the jurors did not have to consider the reasonable man standard, they could not legally acquit the brothers. The best verdict the brothers were entitled to was manslaughter.
This time, Gessler wants to argue that any reasonable person would react the same way Lyle did after hearing that his brother was about to be raped. If the jury accepts this argument, it could vote to find Lyle guilty of manslaughter.
One possible reason why Lyle's lawyers want to change strategy is because he might not testify at this trial. While Lyle was a sympathetic witness during the first trial, prosecutors have discovered new incriminating evidence against him. The evidence included a letter telling his former girlfriend exactly how to testify in the first trial.
If Lyle doesn't testify, his lawyers can't call child abuse experts to testify about his state of mind. And without the experts, it would be tough for the defense to prove that Lyle reacted like someone who had been abused his entire life.
The defense must convince Judge Stanley Weisberg that the evidence supports this theory. If the judge agrees, he would instruct the jurors on the law of heat of passion. Only then could Gessler argue the theory to the jury.
The prosecution opposes the defense effort to recast Lyle's motives for the shootings.
