Developments in the retrial of Lyle and Erik Menendez from Feb. 26 - March 1, 1996.
FEBRUARY 26
In a scathing attack of the prosecution, defense attorney Leslie Abramson accused David Conn of presenting fraudulent witnesses in an effort to win the case for "political reasons."
At one point during the first day of her closing arguments, Abramson exploded and began pounding the podium and screaming insults at prosecutors for calling the defense witness liars.
"The prosecution's basic posture is that everyone who testified for the defense is a liar," she said. Then, gesturing to members of the Menendez family sitting in the courtroom behind the defendants, she said, "they are not liars. They are the only ones in this courtroom who care about people, whose lives were destroyed by the shooting."
Then motioning to prosecutors, she shouted, "these people only care about winning. They don't care about tragedy. They don't care about love. They don't care about family betrayal."
Erik and Lyle Menendez admit shooting their parents in the living room of the family's Beverly Hills mansion on August 20, 1989.
The brothers claim they were afraid their parents were going to kill them. The defense contends that Jose Menendez threatened to kill his sons to stop Lyle from exposing him as a child molester. On the night of the killings, the father made overtures that he would sexually assault Erik, the defense claims.
In attacking the state's case, Abramson said prosecutors had not proved that the brothers killed out of hatred or greed .
She criticized Conn for introducing into evidence the taped therapy session in which the brothers confessed the shootings to their therapist, Jerome Oziel, because he was never called to testify during the retrial.
Conn had told jurors that the recording was the smoking gun in the trial. On the tape, the brothers discussed the killings in detail but did not say anything about killing their parents out of fear after a lifetime of abuse.
While Conn called the recording the smoking gun in the trial, Abramson derided it as a "cap pistol."
Abramson also attacked the state's theory that the brothers fired shots at their parents' knees to make the killings look like a Mafia hit. She said the bloody crime scene photographs showed highly emotional overkill, not a professional job.
When the Mafia kills someone, they do it with a 22 caliber (weapon), neat, clean and quiet," she said.
FEBRUARY 27
Defense attorney Leslie Abramson urged the jury to acquit Erik Menendez in the slaying of his mother and find him guilty only of manslaughter in the death of his father.
She told jurors that Erik was in a state of terror on the night of the shootings and that terror made it impossible to form the mental state for murder.
Abramson then explained for jurors how they could find acquit someone who admitted that he killed his parents.
"If, because of my client's mental disorder, he was in such a state of mind that he was not harboring malice . . . then you can't find him guilty of murder. Under that analysis, you can't find him guilty of any crime at all," she said. A finding of malice is a necessary component of murder.
The defense lawyer claims that at the time of the killings, Erik suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as the result of years of sexual abuse by his father, and physical and psychological abuse by both parents.
Abramson argued that Erik was afraid of his mother because she was an accomplice to her husband's abuse. When he found out several days before the killings that she knew all along about the abuse, it scared him because he realized she had never done anything to protect him and wouldn't do anything in the future.
Abramson also attacked the prosecution's claim the brothers killed for their parents' $14 million fortune.
"Parricide doesn't happen for money," she said. "Don't tell me molestation is made up when something this horrendous happens in this family."
Besides, she said, the brothers had all the money they needed when their parents were alive. Abramson pointed out that the prosecution did not produce any evidence to show the brothers ever wanted more money.
FEBRUARY 28
Defense attorney Leslie Abramson issued an emotional plea in her closing argument for Erik Menendez, saying it would be the "ultimate tragedy" in her life if she lost the case because it would be so unjust.
Abramson told jurors that she was proud of her client, who was a "very sick" 19-year-old when she met him and who she saw grew up during the six years Erik has been in jail. Several members of the audience wept as she discussed Erik's life.
She said that the prosecutor's final argument, calling for conviction, was "cold and callous and had nothing to do with my client...What frightens me when I hear an argument like Mr. (David) Conn' s is that it appeals to heartlessness."
Erik and Lyle are charged with murder in the August 20, 1989, shotgun slayings of their parents at the family's Beverly Hills home. The brothers admit they killed, but claim they did so out of fear and to end years of physical, sexual and mental abuse by their parents.
Abramson ended her closing argument by urging jurors not to compromise. She told them not to render a verdict of second-degree murder if they can't decide between first-degree murder and manslaughter or murder and acquittal. A hung jury would be better than an unjust verdict, she said.
The brothers' first trial ended when two separate juries deadlocked. Only one panel is hearing the second trial.
Lyle's attorney, Charles Gessler, launched a more low-key presentation, attacking prosecution claims that the brothers killed in order to get their hands on the family fortune.
Gessler said testimony showed both brothers believed they were disinherited and would lose their means of support if their parents died.
"Lyle Menendez had everything to gain from his parents being alive. He had a condo, credit cards, tuition at Princeton, clothes. And the only way he could lose all that was to kill his parents, because in his mind he was out of the will," Gessler said. "Does that make sense?"
Gessler was to continue his closing argument Thursday.
FEBRUARY 29
Closing arguments ended with prosecutor David Conn telling jurors that the defense was a big hoax.
In his rebuttal argument, Conn said Lyle and Erik Menendez blamed the victims, put their parents on trial, crafted a clever abuse excuse and told a lot of lies in order to justify the shootings.
"It's infuriating to sit here and hear counsel telling you Jose Menendez was a sick man because he physically and sexually abused his sons, knowing in this whole trial we didn't hear any evidence of physical and sexual abuse...except through Erik," he said. "I told you they were going to do this -- to put the parents on trial, to get you to hate the parents. So, are you convinced? Do you hate them?"
Conn proceeded to hold up the most gruesome photograph of Kitty Menendez and told the jury: "How can they shoot their mother like this? What is their defense...You can never pin down what the defense is in this case because no matter what it is, it doesn't make you do this. It doesn't make you kill you mother like this."
Erik and Lyle are charged with murder in the August 20, 1989, shotgun slayings of their parents at the family's Beverly Hills home. The brothers admit they killed, but claim they did so out of fear and to end years of physical, sexual and mental abuse by their parents.
The prosecution claims the brothers murdered their parents in a greedy bid to get their hands on the family's $14 million fortune.
Lyle's attorney Charles Gessler concluded his closing argument by asking jurors to find his client not guilty of murdering his mother and guilty only of manslaughter in the death of his father.
Gessler compared the case to a Greek tragedy with Jose and Kitty Menendez bringing about their own demise because of fatal moral flaws.
He said Jose caused his own death by molesting his sons and making them believe that they could never escape him. As a result, the brothers felt their only option was to arm themselves. He also argued that Kitty brought about her death by not protecting her sons and by making them believe she was an enforcer of her husband's abuse.
MARCH 1
The jury deliberated for about three hours after receiving instructions from Judge Stanley Weisberg.
The jury must reach verdicts on three counts for each brother: two counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Also, there are two special circumstances -- lying in wait and multiple murder.
If the jury finds the brothers guilty of first-degree murder, it will have to decide the special circumstances of lying in wait -- whether the murders were committed after a period of waiting and watching for an advantageous moment to take the victims by surprise. In other words, an ambush.
If the jury convicts either brother of first-degree murder on one count and at least second-degree murder on another count, then multiple murder automatically applies.
If one or both special circumstances are found for either or both brothers, the jury will have to return for a penalty phase to determine whether to recommend a sentence of life in prison without parole, or death. Defense attorneys estimate a penalty phase would take two to three months, during which they would call about 40 witnesses.
