Judge Stanley Weisberg ordered Erik and Lyle Menendez to serve two consecutive life terms without parole, one for each parent, noting that they "separately considered killing their parents. This was a decision made over several days.'' The following is a transcript of the July 2 sentencing.

VAN NUYS, CALIFORNIA; TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996
9:35 A.M.
DEPARTMENT NW "N"
HON. STANLEY M. WEISBERG, JUDGE
(APPEARANCES AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)
(MARILYN A. FADALE, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)
(MARY LU MURPHY, OFFICIAL REPORTER.)

THE COURT: IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE VERSUS
MENENDEZ, THE DEFENDANTS ARE IN COURT WITH THEIR
LAWYERS. THE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED.

THE MATTER IS HERE FOR POST-TRIAL
MOTIONS AND SENTENCING.

IN THIS MATTER THE DEFENDANTS WERE EACH
CONVICTED BY JURY ON MARCH THE 20TH, 1996 OF THREE
COUNTS. COUNTS 1 AND 2 WERE VERDICTS OF GUILTY OF
MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITH A FINDING OF SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES. THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE
MURDER WHILE LYING IN WAIT AND MULTIPLE MURDER.

AND THE THIRD COUNT WAS A VERDICT OF
GUILTY OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER ON APRIL THE
17TH. THE PENALTY PHASE OF THE JURY TRIAL WAS
COMPLETED WITH A JURY VERDICT OF LIFE IN PRISON
WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE, AND THE MATTER
HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO TODAY'S DATE FOR PURPOSES OF
HEARING ANY LEGAL MOTIONS AND TO IMPOSE IMPOSITION
OF SENTENCE.

DO COUNSEL WAIVE ARRAIGNMENT FOR
JUDGMENT?

MS. ABRAMSON: YES, YOUR HONOR.

MR. GESSLER: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: IS THERE ANY LEGAL CAUSE WHY
SENTENCE SHOULD NOT NOW BE PRONOUNCED?

MR. GESSLER: THERE IS A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
THAT IS PENDING, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. I HAVE RECEIVED THAT
MOTION. I'VE REVIEWED IT. THERE WAS ALSO
OPPOSITION BY THE DEFENSE -- BY THE PROSECUTION,
RATHER.

IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER IN ADDITION TO
WHAT WAS PUT IN THE WRITTEN MOTION THAT THE DEFENSE
WISHES TO ARGUE?

MR. GESSLER: NO, YOUR HONOR. I THINK THAT
THE WRITTEN MOTION COVERS THE POINTS, AS WELL AS ALL
ARGUMENTS MADE TO THE COURT ON VARIOUS LEGAL MOTIONS
AS THE TRIAL WAS PROCEEDING, AND WE WOULD SUBMIT ON
THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY. AS FAR AS THE CODEFENDANT,
ERIK MENENDEZ?

MS. ABRAMSON: YOUR HONOR, I WOULD ALSO
INCLUDE THAT THE MOTION IS BASED NOT ONLY ON RULINGS
OF THIS COURT DURING TRIAL, BUT ALSO PRETRIAL TO THE
RETRIAL, DURING THE COURSE OF THE FIRST TRIAL, AND
PRETRIAL TO THE FIRST TRIAL.

AND WITH THAT WE WOULD ALSO SUBMIT IT ON
THE WRITTEN MOTION.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THERE ARE TWO FACETS
OF THE MOTION. FIRST IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 1181.5,
DEALING WITH VARIOUS ISSUES THAT ARE ENUMERATED IN
THE DEFENSE MOTION, ISSUES THAT AROSE, AS COUNSEL
INDICATED, BEFORE THE FIRST TRIAL, BEFORE THE SECOND
TRIAL, DURING THE FIRST TRIAL, AND DURING THE SECOND
TRIAL, ALL OF WHICH DEAL WITH LEGAL RULINGS OF THE
COURT.

EACH ONE OF THOSE RULINGS WAS THE
PRODUCT OF EXTENSIVE LITIGATION IN THE COURT. THE
ISSUES WERE EXTENSIVELY BRIEFED AND ARGUED. THE
COURT EXPLAINED ITS RULINGS AT THE TIME ON EACH AND
EVERY ISSUE.

THE COURT IS SATISFIED THAT EACH OF THE
RULINGS MADE BY THE COURT WAS A CORRECT RULING; AND
THERE IS NO BASIS, THEREFORE, FOR THE GRANTING OF A
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN 1181.5
OF THE PENAL CODE.

THE OTHER BASIS OF A MOTION FOR NEW
TRIAL IS THAT SET FORTH IN PENAL CODE SECTION
1181.6. THAT'S A MOTION TO MODIFY OR REDUCE THE
VERDICT. THIS IS ALSO ARGUED IN THE WRITTEN
MATERIALS IN THE MOTION FILED BY THE DEFENSE.

DID YOU WISH TO ARGUE THAT FURTHER?

MR. GESSLER: WE SUBMIT THAT ON THE DOCUMENTS
ALSO, YOUR HONOR.

MS. ABRAMSON: WE JOIN, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. THE COURT IS CALLED UPON
TO INDEPENDENTLY REVIEW THE RECORD IN THIS CASE TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE VERDICT OF THE JURY IS
SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE EVIDENCE. AND THE COURT IS
SATISFIED THAT AS TO EACH COUNT, AS TO EACH FINDING
OF THE JURY, AS TO THE VERDICTS IN THIS CASE, THAT
THE VERDICTS ARE AMPLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED IN THIS CASE, AND THERE'S NO BASIS FOR
THIS COURT, AND THE COURT FINDS NO REASON, TO MODIFY
OR REDUCE THE VERDICTS.

IS THERE ANY OTHER LEGAL CAUSE WHY
SENTENCE SHOULD NOT NOW BE PRONOUNCED?

MS. ABRAMSON: THERE IS THE MATTER OF THE
OTHER MOTION WE FILED CONCERNING ERRORS IN THE
PROBATION OFFICER'S REPORT THAT ARE NOT DUE TO THE
PROBATION OFFICER, BUT TO INFORMATION THAT WAS
RELAYED TO HIM BY OTHERS.

WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT REPORT
CORRECTED, IF THE COURT AGREES WITH OUR POSITION ON
SOME OF THESE ITEMS, BEFORE IT BECOMES THE OFFICIAL
PROBATION REPORT THAT WILL BE TRANSMITTED TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MS. ABRAMSON: AND FOR A PORTION -- IF THE
COURT IS INCLINED TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT
ITEM BY ITEM, AS WE LAID OUT IN OUR MOTION, I WOULD
ASK THAT AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE HEARING BE HELD
IN CAMERA OUT OF THE PRESENCE OF THE PUBLIC OR THE
MEDIA.

THE COURT: THAT REQUEST IS DENIED AS FAR AS
TO HOLD ANY HEARINGS IN CAMERA ON THIS SUBJECT. THE
REQUEST IS TO MODIFY CERTAIN STATEMENTS IN THE
PROBATION REPORT FOR EACH DEFENDANT. MOST OF THESE
REQUESTS DEAL WITH BOTH REPORTS JOINTLY. THERE ARE
PERHAPS ONE OR TWO ITEMS THAT RELATE TO ONE REPORT
AND NOT THE OTHER. BUT PRIMARILY THESE ARE ISSUES
THAT RELATE TO BOTH. AND I'M PREPARED TO DEAL WITH
THEM. CERTAINLY IF THERE ARE MATERIAL FACTUAL
INACCURACIES IN THE PROBATION OFFICER'S REPORT, THEN
THEY SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO ACCURATELY REFLECT WHAT
HAS TRANSPIRED IN THIS CASE.

GOING TO THE HEART OF YOUR MOTION HERE,
PAGE 2, THE OBJECTION TO THE REFERENCE OF HAVING
STOLEN THE DRIVER'S LICENSE.

THE EVIDENCE IS IT WAS LEFT BEHIND AND
APPROPRIATED BY THE DEFENDANTS AND KEPT. STOLEN IS
A WAY OF DESCRIBING MISAPPROPRIATION, AND I DON'T
FIND THAT IS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT; THEREFORE,
THAT REQUEST IS DENIED.

AS TO ITEM NO. 2 IN THE MOTION,
REFERRING TO THE SIZE OF BUCKSHOT, I THINK IT'S
CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE SIZE OF SHOT IN THIS CASE,
THE BUCKSHOT, WAS NO. 4 BUCKSHOT, RATHER THAN DOUBLE
OUGHT BUCKSHOT; THEREFORE, BOTH REFERENCES ON PAGE 2
WOULD BE CORRECTED TO DELETE THE WORDS, OR THE
NUMERALS DOUBLE OUGHT, ZERO, ZERO, AND IN PLACE
THEREOF PUT IN NO. 4.

THAT'S ON LINE 21, AND LINE 25.

MS. TOWERY: LINE 22, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: I'M SORRY?

MS. TOWERY: I THINK IT'S LINE 22.

THE COURT: MINE SHOWS 21.

MS. ABRAMSON: WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHICH
REPORT.

THE COURT: OKAY. ON THE ERIK MENENDEZ
REPORT IT'S 21, AND --

MS. ABRAMSON: LINE 25.

THE COURT: -- ON THE LYLE MENENDEZ REPORT
IT'S 25 AND 22.

MS. ABRAMSON: RIGHT.

THE COURT: THE NEXT REFERENCE -- AS FAR AS
THE NUMBER OF SHOTS LOADED, THERE WERE A CERTAIN
NUMBER OF SHOTS FIRED. AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE
WERE FIVE OR MORE LOADED INITIALLY, VERSUS WHAT WAS
ALREADY IN THE WEAPON, DID COUNSEL WISH TO BE HEARD
ON THAT FURTHER? WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION ON
THAT?

MR. CONN: WE WOULD SUBMIT IT, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DID YOU WISH TO BE HEARD?

MR. GESSLER: YES. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
THAT MODIFIED TO THE LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN OUR
MOVING PAPERS BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT
WAS FIVE SHOTS. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT WAS FIVE
ROUNDS.

THE COURT: LET'S JUST DELETE THE REFERENCE
TO THE NUMBER OF SHOTS.

MR. GESSLER: THAT'S FINE.

THE COURT: JUST REMOVE THE REFERENCE TO
"FIVE."

MR. GESSLER: THAT WOULD TAKE CARE OF IT.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'M MODIFYING EACH
REPORT BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO "FIVE."

MR. GESSLER: I THINK PROBABLY EACH NEEDS TO
BE PERHAPS -- SO IT WOULD READ: "THE DEFENDANTS
LOADED THEIR GUNS."

MS. ABRAMSON: EACH LOADED THEIR GUNS.

THE COURT: THE DEFENDANTS LOADED THEIR GUNS
WITH ROUNDS OF NO. 4 BUCKSHOT, BUCK EACH, NO. 4
BUCK.

MS. ABRAMSON: IT'S NOT THE BEST ENGLISH, BUT
IT'S ENGLISH.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND THE NEXT REFERENCE
OBJECTED TO BY THE DEFENSE IS ON PAGE 2, LINE 27.

MS. ABRAMSON: YES. THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR
HONOR.

THE COURT: AS TO THE VICTIM JOSE MENENDEZ
MAY HAVE BEEN ASLEEP AT THE TIME.

DID THE PEOPLE WISH TO BE HEARD ON THAT?

MR. CONN: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: DOES THAT MEAN YOU DON'T OBJECT
TO THIS BEING REMOVED?

MR. CONN: NO.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. THEN THAT WILL BE
REMOVED FROM THE REPORT AS TO EACH DEFENDANT.

THE NEXT REFERENCE ON PAGE 3, LINE 5 HAS
TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF ROUNDS RETRIEVED. THERE
MAY WELL HAVE BEEN TESTIMONY THAT MORE THAN ONE
ROUND WAS PICKED UP FROM THE VEHICLE. BUT ONE ROUND
WAS GIVEN TO THE DEFENDANT, LYLE MENENDEZ, WHICH
ENDED UP IN HIS WEAPON.

WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION AS TO
THIS, AS TO TWO OR ONE ON LINE 5, PAGE 3?

MR. CONN: WE WOULD ASK THAT IT READ "ONE OR
TWO ROUNDS OF BIRD SHOT."

MS. ABRAMSON: AND THE "RETRIEVE" PART WE
DON'T OBJECT TO, SO LONG AS THE NEXT SENTENCE IS "HE
GAVE A ROUND."

THE COURT: OKAY. "ONE OR TWO WAS RETRIEVED."

"ONE OR TWO WERE RETRIEVED."

MS. ABRAMSON: THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, THE
CODEFENDANT'S CAR -- WHERE THE DEFENDANT RETRIEVED
ONE OR TWO SHELLS OF BIRD SHOT, I THINK THAT READS.

MS. TOWERY: IT SHOULD SAY "HE GAVE ONE SHELL."

MS. ABRAMSON: "HE GAVE ONE SHELL." DOES THE
COURT APPROVE OF THAT?

THE COURT: "HE GAVE ONE SHELL."

MS. ABRAMSON: AND THEN THE NEXT PART, WHICH
IS THE MORE CRUCIAL PART, YOUR HONOR, THAT SHOULD
THEN READ: "AND SHOT VICTIM KITTY IN THE FACE AT
POINT-BLANK RANGE."

I THINK IT WOULD --

MR. GESSLER: STRIKING THE WORD "TWICE."

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION ON
THAT? THE EVIDENCE WAS THAT THERE WAS ONE SHOT AT
POINT-BLANK RANGE, AS I RECALL.

MR. CONN: I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WAS
IN DISPUTE. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO SIMPLY SAYING
THAT HE SHOT THE VICTIM IN THE FACE.

THE COURT: JUST REMOVING "TWICE"?

MR. CONN: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. THAT WILL BE DELETED.

AS FAR AS PAGE 8, LINE 6...

MS. ABRAMSON: THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INTOXICANT USED AND THE
DEGREE, THAT THAT WOULD INDICATE WHETHER IT'S
SIGNIFICANT OR NOT.

MS. TOWERY: I THINK ON THE LYLE MENENDEZ
REPORT IT'S ON PAGE 7.

THE COURT: OKAY. AS TO EACH OF THESE, THIS
IS JUST THE PROBATION OFFICER'S OPINION. YOU'RE
ASKING ME TO SAY THAT HIS OPINION ISN'T WORTH AS
MUCH AS YOUR OPINION. BUT THIS IS JUST HIS
OPINION.

MS. ABRAMSON: YOUR HONOR, HE IS IN COURT,
AND WE WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MR. MC
MILLEN WHY HE SELECTED THAT CATEGORIZATION VERSUS
OCCASIONALLY SOCIAL OR EXPERIMENTAL USE OF. MAYBE
THERE'S SOME PROBATION GUIDELINE.

THE COURT: I'M NOT GOING TO CONDUCT A
HEARING WHERE WE QUESTION THE PROBATION OFFICER.
HIS REPORT IS HERE AND HE'S WRITTEN IT. IF HE WANTS
TO MODIFY IT HE CAN DO SO. BUT THIS IS HOW HE
CHARACTERIZED THIS, FOR WHATEVER HIS REASONS WERE.

MS. ABRAMSON: WE'D LIKE TO HOLD ON THAT,
YOUR HONOR, AND HAVE A BREAK AND DISCUSS IT WITH THE
PROBATION OFFICER.

THE COURT: I'LL CERTAINLY LET YOU DO THAT.
AND IF HE WANTS TO MODIFY HIS REPORT BEFORE IT IS
FILED, I'LL PERMIT IT. BUT FOR MY PURPOSES I AM
RELYING UPON THE BODY OF THE REPORT DESCRIBING THE
NATURE OF USE OF EITHER ALCOHOL OR MARIJUANA --
WHICHEVER REPORT I'M LOOKING AT -- AND NOT THE WAY
THE PROBATION OFFICER CHARACTERIZES THAT.

SO AT THIS POINT I'M GOING TO LEAVE
THESE AS THEY ARE. IF THE PROBATION OFFICER HAS
REASON TO REQUEST THAT HE BE PERMITTED TO MODIFY HIS
REPORT, THEN I'LL CERTAINLY CONSIDER THAT.

LET'S GO ON TO THE NEXT MATTER. ON PAGE
4, ITEM EIGHT.

MS. ABRAMSON: PAGE 14, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: NO, ON YOUR PAGE 4, PAGE 14 OF
THE PROBATION REPORT, DEALING WITH THE
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CRIME SCENE AND DETECTIVE
ZOELLER'S DESCRIPTION OF IT.

COUNSEL ARE VERY TECHNICAL IN THEIR
ANALYSIS OF THE WORDS USED. THIS IS NOT A TRIAL
ISSUE AT THIS POINT, JUST A CHARACTERIZATION BY THE
DETECTIVE OF HOW HE VIEWED THE CRIME SCENE. HE'S
ENTITLED TO GIVE HIS IMPRESSION. HE WAS THERE AND
THAT'S ALL THIS REPRESENTS.

MS. ABRAMSON: WELL, YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD
BE HEARD ON THAT ISSUE.

IT'S TRUE, IT'S NOT A TRIAL ISSUE IN THE
TRIAL. THE JURY GOT TO HEAR ALL POSSIBLE
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE, AND MUCH MORE
SPECIFIC DESCRIPTIONS, AND CAN FORM THEIR OWN
OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A CHARACTERIZATION SUCH
AS THIS IS ACCURATE. BUT THIS IS THE ONLY
RECITATION OF THE FACTS THAT THE C.D.C. WILL EVER
SEE. THE PROBATION REPORT BECOMES THE FUNDAMENTAL
FACT DOCUMENT.

THE COURT: RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING
THROUGH THIS AREA.

MS. ABRAMSON: EXACTLY. TO CALL SOMETHING
BODY PARTS CREATES A VISUAL IMAGE THAT IS VERY
DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY AT THE SCENE, AND
THEY WILL NOT HAVE THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

I WOULD BE SATISFIED IF THIS IS SIMPLY
REDUCED TO BLOOD AND TISSUE, WHICH IS WHAT IT WAS.
BODY PARTS SOUNDS LIKE HANDS AND EARS AND NOSES, AND
HAS A MUCH MORE HIDEOUS CONNOTATION, WHICH DOESN'T
HAPPEN TO FIT WHAT WE KNOW IS THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
JUST BY LOOKING AT THE PHOTOS.

THE COURT: OKAY. DID THE PEOPLE WISH TO BE
HEARD ON THAT?

MR. CONN: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. INSTEAD OF BODY PARTS,
YOU'RE ASKING THAT IT SAY TISSUE AND --

MS. ABRAMSON: BLOOD. TO BE ACCURATE.

THE COURT: OKAY. WHICH LINE IS IT?

MS. ABRAMSON: THAT'S LINE 11 ON --

THE COURT: LINE 15 ON THE LYLE MENENDEZ
REPORT.

MS. ABRAMSON: YES. ON THE ERIK MENENDEZ
REPORT IT'S LINE 11 THROUGH 12.

THE COURT: "BODY TISSUE AND BLOOD," INSTEAD
OF "PARTS."

OKAY. THAT'S BEEN AMENDED.

THE NEXT AREA OF OBJECTION IS REFERENCE
TO DR. OZIEL AND THREATS. THIS IS PAGE 14, LINE 12
THROUGH 14.

AS TO THE LYLE MENENDEZ REPORT, THIS IS
ON PAGE 14, LINES 15 THROUGH 17.

WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION ON THIS?

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT DR. OZIEL DID
TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE THREATS BY OR STATEMENTS
MADE BY LYLE MENENDEZ WHICH HE INTERPRETED AS
THREATS, AND THAT WAS ON OCTOBER 31ST. AND THEN ON
NOVEMBER THE 2ND HE TESTIFIED THAT HE HAD A
CONVERSATION WITH THE DEFENDANTS IN WHICH THEY TOLD
HIM OF THEIR CONVERSATION WHILE THEY WERE OUTSIDE BY
THE CAR, WHICH THEY TALKED ABOUT, OR LYLE MENENDEZ
DISCUSSED WHETHER THEY SHOULD KILL OZIEL. AND THEY
LAUGHED ABOUT IT AND INFORMED OZIEL OF THAT.

THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION OF THE TESTIMONY.

MS. ABRAMSON: EXACTLY RIGHT. AND YOU CAN'T
CHARACTERIZE THEIR TELLING HIM THEY HAD A
CONVERSATION LIKE THAT AND DECIDED NOT TO, BUT
INSTEAD CAME TO SEE HIM, AS A THREAT, ESPECIALLY THE
WAY THIS IS WRITTEN.

MOREOVER, THE SECOND CLAUSE: HE NEVER
TESTIFIED THAT THEY EVER SAID ANYTHING TO HIM THAT
THEY WOULD KILL HIM IF HE TALKED OR SAID ANYTHING.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT WHATSOEVER.

THE COURT: WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION?

MR. CONN: WE WOULD ASK THAT THE SENTENCE
READ THAT DR. OZIEL TESTIFIED THAT THREATENING
REMARKS WERE MADE TO HIM BY THE DEFENDANTS.

MS. ABRAMSON: WE'LL ACCEPT THAT, YOUR HONOR,
IF THE REST IS STRICKEN.

THE COURT: OKAY. I'VE MODIFIED IT TO STATE
JUST THAT: "DR. OZIEL TESTIFIED THAT THREATENING
REMARKS WERE MADE BY THE DEFENDANTS."  AND I'LL
DELETE THIS OTHER REFERENCE.

OKAY. AND THE NEXT OBJECTION BY THE
DEFENSE APPEARS ON PAGE 14.

MS. ABRAMSON: IT'S THE NEXT SENTENCE.

THE COURT: REGARDING DETECTIVE ZOELLER'S
BELIEF AS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE
CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THE DEFENDANTS TOGETHER IN
PRISON.

THAT'S DETECTIVE ZOELLER'S BELIEF AND
THAT'S CONTAINED IN THE REPORT.

WHAT IS THE OBJECTION OF THE DEFENSE TO
THAT? HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS BELIEF AND EXPRESS
IT IN THE REPORT.

MS. ABRAMSON: HE'S ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS
BELIEF, BUT THIS PARTICULAR BELIEF HAS NO FACTUAL
BASIS FOR HIM. IT'S NOT HIS STATING: I BELIEVE
THAT IF THEY'RE INCARCERATED TOGETHER THUS AND SUCH
WILL HAPPEN. HE'S SAYING HE BELIEVES WHAT SOMEBODY
ELSE SHOULD THINK, AND THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS AN
ENORMOUS INSTITUTION, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
AND THAT THEY SHOULD BE CONCERNED.

NOT ONLY DOES HE NOT STATE ANY FACTS TO
SUPPORT THAT, BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE BEEN IN JAIL FOR
SIX YEARS AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DOESN'T SEEM
TO BE CONCERNED. IT'S JUST A SPECIOUS SUGGESTION
WITHOUT ANY REAL OPINION OR ANY FACTUAL BASIS, TO
CAUSE THEM HARM BASICALLY.

AND ON THAT BASIS WE ASK IT BE DELETED
BECAUSE HE HAS NO SUPPORT FOR THIS BELIEF.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I FIND THAT THIS IS
NO DIFFERENT THAN OTHER REFERENCES FROM OTHER
INDIVIDUALS AS TO THEIR BELIEFS AND FEELINGS. HE IS
ENTITLED TO HAVE HIS EXPRESSED AND INCORPORATED IN
THE REPORT. SO THE REQUEST TO STRIKE THAT IS
DENIED.

THE NEXT OBJECTION IS ON PAGE 23. IS
THAT ON BOTH REPORTS, THE SAME PAGE?

MS. ABRAMSON: LET ME SEE IF IT'S THE SAME
PLACE. I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO BE CIRCUMSPECT IN
DESCRIBING THIS AREA.

THE COURT: THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN
DISCUSSED IN COURT ON OTHER OCCASIONS AND OFFERS OF
PROOF WERE MADE.

MS. ABRAMSON: NOT THIS. THAT HAD TO DO WITH
A BOOK, NOT THIS PARTICULAR ALLEGATION. THAT'S ONLY
BEEN MADE IN THE SLANDER MEDIA. AND I REALLY THINK
IT INAPPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS IT OPENLY HERE WHEN THE
PARTY INVOLVED HAS NO NOTICE OF THIS, CAN BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED BECAUSE OF THE LITIGATION
PRIVILEGE, HAS NO RECOURSE IN A CIVIL ACTION.

AND SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE SIMPLY NOT
IDENTIFY THE PERSON NAMED.

MR. GESSLER: ON LYLE MENENDEZ' REPORT IT'S
LINE 26 THROUGH 28, SAME PAGE.

THE COURT: I HAVE THAT. IT'S ON 23 THROUGH
25 ON THE ERIK MENENDEZ REPORT.

WHAT IS THE PEOPLE'S POSITION ON THIS?

MR. CONN: I THINK THIS IS MORE IN THE NATURE
OF AN OPINION. THIS IS A PERSON WHO WAS CLOSE TO
THE DEFENDANTS AND WAS IN TOUCH WITH THEM DURING
THIS TIME PERIOD. HE REACHED HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS
CONCERNING THIS MATTER, AND I THINK THAT ANYONE
READING IT WOULD ALSO TAKE IT SIMPLY AS AN OPINION.

SO I ASK THAT IT REMAIN.

MS. ABRAMSON: WELL, YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF
ALL, I THINK THE BASIS -- ONE OF THE BASES FOR OUR
OBJECTION IS THAT THIS IS JUST MALICIOUS SPECULATION
BY A PERSON WHO HIMSELF HAD A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN
THE PARTICULAR OUTCOME THAT WAS ARRIVED AT IN THIS
CASE. ALTHOUGH HE IS CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO THE
PREVIOUS OPINION, AND THE SUBSEQUENT OPINION WHICH
WE DO NOT OBJECT TO, BECAUSE HE'S ENTITLED TO HIS
OPINION.

HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE HE IS ENTITLED
TO SLANDER SOMEONE WITH UTTERLY NO FACTS TO SUPPORT
THE SLANDER. THE SLANDER IS UTTERLY UNTRUE. I HAVE
INDICATED IN OUR MOTION THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THIS TO HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY THE PERSON ALLEGES,
BECAUSE THE INFORMATION WAS OUT BEFORE THE
DEFENDANTS EVER MET THE SLANDERED INDIVIDUAL.

AND I THINK, GIVEN THAT IT IS
UNNECESSARY TO INCLUDE A DEFAMATORY STATEMENT OR
STATEMENTS WHEN THE OPINION OF THE PARTY ADDRESSING
THE PROBATION OFFICER CONCERNING TRUTH OR FALSITY IS
CLEARLY STATED, AND WE'RE NOT OBJECTING TO IT
BECAUSE HE IS ENTITLED TO HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

HE'S NOT ENTITLED, HOWEVER, TO USE THIS
COURT AS A FREEWAY TO DEFAME SOMEONE.

THE COURT: WELL, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT
THERE IS NO FOUNDATION IN WHAT IS PROVIDED TO ME FOR
HIS OPINION. CERTAINLY, THAT IS HIS OPINION, IF
HE'S STATED IT AS SUCH. BUT THAT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY MEAN THAT IT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN
THE REPORT IF THERE'S NO FOUNDATION FOR IT
ESTABLISHED FOR ME TO EVALUATE. I WOULDN'T BE IN A
POSITION TO CONSIDER THIS INFORMATION FOR ANY
PURPOSE IN IMPOSING SENTENCE BECAUSE THERE IS NO
BASIS FOR ITS FOUNDATION ESTABLISHED IN THE REPORT.

THEREFORE, I'M GOING TO JUST REMOVE THAT
FROM THE REPORT JUST ON THE GROUNDS THERE IS NO
FOUNDATION SET FORTH IN THE REPORT FOR IT, AND ONLY
FOR THAT REASON; NOT FOR THESE OTHER REASONS ARGUED
BY COUNSEL.

SO I'M GOING TO REMOVE THAT REFERENCE ON
PAGE 23 OF THE LYLE MENENDEZ REPORT, STARTING ON
LINE 26, WHICH SAYS "IT DID," AND STOPPING ON LINE
28 WITH THE WORD "THIS."

THERE'S NO BASIS FOR ME TO DETERMINE
THAT MR. ANDERSEN HAD SOME INFORMATION AND HOW HE
HAD THIS INFORMATION AND THE RELIABILITY OF IT.
THEREFORE, THAT WILL BE REMOVED.

MS. ABRAMSON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

ON THE ERIK MENENDEZ REPORT IT'S LINES
23 THROUGH 25.

THE COURT: AND SIMILARLY, THAT WOULD BE
REMOVED.

MS. ABRAMSON: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. PAGE 25. I'VE BEEN GOING
THROUGH THE ERIK MENENDEZ REPORT WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THINGS ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME
IN BOTH REPORTS, UNLESS COUNSEL IDENTIFIES SOMETHING
OTHERWISE.

LINE 23. THE OPINION OF THE PROBATION
OFFICER: "HE IS NOW FACING LIFE IN PRISON, AND
RIGHTLY SO."

THE DEFENSE OBJECTS TO THE PHRASE "AND
RIGHTLY SO." THAT IS THE OPINION OF THE PROBATION
OFFICER AND IS PART OF WHY REPORTS ARE PREPARED, TO
GET THE OPINION OF THE OFFICER; AND, THEREFORE, THAT
OPINION WILL STAY IN THE REPORT AS TO BOTH REPORTS.

I THINK WE'VE COVERED EVERYTHING HERE,
UNLESS THERE WAS SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO LYLE
MENENDEZ.

MR. GESSLER: THERE IS, YOUR HONOR, ON PAGE
24, CONCERNING BRIAN ANDERSEN. THERE ARE SOME
SEPARATE THINGS, PREDOMINANTLY LINES 8 AND 9.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. GESSLER: CONCERNING HIS USE OF THE TERM
"SOCIOPATHIC MENTALITY," WHICH IS A DIAGNOSIS THAT
CAN ONLY BE MADE BY A PROFESSIONAL IN MENTAL
HEALTH. AND I DON'T THINK THAT TERM SHOULD BE
LOOSELY THROWN AROUND AS AN OPINION BY A LAY
PERSON. THERE'S NO BASIS FOR HIM TO COME UP WITH
THAT.

THE COURT: OKAY. DID YOU WISH TO BE HEARD,
MR. CONN?

MR. CONN: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL REMOVE THAT
REFERENCE. AFTER THE WORDS "AT ALL," THE REST OF
THAT SENTENCE WILL BE REMOVED.

MR. GESSLER: AGAIN, THE WORD IS USED,
"SOCIOPATHIC MENTALITY," AT THE END OF LINE 11, THE
FIRST WORD OF LINE 12. I WOULD ASK THAT ALSO --
WHERE IT SAYS "DOES NOT SHARE THE SAME SOCIOPATHIC
MENTALITY," THAT THAT REFERENCE BE REMOVED.

THE COURT: I'LL REMOVE SOCIOPATHIC AS A
CLINICAL DIAGNOSIS WITHOUT FOUNDATION AS FAR AS THE
PERSONAL OPINION OF MR. ANDERSEN.

ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE AS TO LYLE
MENENDEZ?

MR. GESSLER: WE WOULD OBJECT TO THE FACT,
AGAIN, OF HIS OPINION AS TO WHETHER LYLE WOULD BE A
PROBLEM IN THE PENAL SYSTEM AS HAVING NO FOUNDATION
WHATSOEVER.

THE COURT: OKAY.

MR. GESSLER: THERE'S LINES -- END OF LINE 9
AND LINE 10.

THE COURT: I THINK THAT'S WITHIN THE REALM
OF PERSONAL OPINION, AND I'LL PERMIT THAT TO STAND,
SINCE HE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
DEFENDANT. THAT'S CERTAINLY HIS OPINION.

MR. GESSLER: I THINK THAT TAKES CARE OF OUR
OBJECTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THEN OTHER
THAN WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE REPORTS OF THE
PROBATION OFFICER, TO MODIFY THOSE REPORTS, IS THERE
ANY LEGAL CAUSE WHY SENTENCE SHOULD NOT BE
PRONOUNCED?

MR. GESSLER: NO, YOUR HONOR.

MS. ABRAMSON: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. THEN WE'LL PROCEED WITH
SENTENCING.

DID THE DEFENSE WISH TO BE HEARD
FURTHER?

I'VE READ THE REPORTS OF EACH
DEFENDANT. I'VE READ AND CONSIDERED EACH REPORT.
I'VE READ AND CONSIDERED THE ATTACHMENTS.

MS. ABRAMSON: I'M SORRY?

MS. ABRAMSON:  ONE OTHER MOTION IS PENDING, YOUR
HONOR, AND THAT IS NOT RELEASING A PROBATION REPORT TO
THE MEDIA UNTIL IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED.

THE COURT: WELL, I HAVE MODIFIED IT, AND IN ITS
MODIFIED VERSION IT WILL BE FILED WITH THE COURT AS AN
OFFICIAL DOCUMENT AND SUBJECT TO RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC
BY ENTERING OF THE JUDGMENT.

MS. ABRAMSON: MAY WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK
AT THE COURT'S MODIFICATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT
PARTICULAR PART THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING TO DO
WITH DEFAMATION IS SUFFICIENTLY DELETED SO THAT IT
CANNOT BE READ?

THE COURT: WHAT I WILL DO IS HAVE THE CLERK MAKE
COPIES OF WHAT I'VE DONE AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO
COUNSEL.

MS. ABRAMSON: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, YOUR HONOR.

WE WOULD LIKE A BRIEF BREAK, YOUR HONOR, SO
WE CAN TALK TO THE PROBATION OFFICER.

THE COURT: WELL, ON THAT ONE ISSUE, AS I
INDICATED, I AM NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE
PROBATION OFFICER CHECKED THAT PARTICULAR BOX FOR ANY
PURPOSE IN IMPOSING SENTENCE. THE INFORMATION ABOUT
EITHER ALCOHOL OR MARIJUANA CONSUMPTION THAT IS
CONTAINED IN THE REPORT OF EACH DEFENDANT IS WHAT I
CONSIDER THE FACT THE PROBATION OFFICER CHOSE TO PUNCH
THE BOX OR CHECK THE BOX, SO I WILL CERTAINLY ALLOW YOU
TO TALK TO THE PROBATION OFFICER. IF HE WANTS TO DELETE
THAT, IT WILL BE DELETED BEFORE IT IS ACTUALLY FILED,
AND THE PROBATION OFFICER CAN INFORM THE CLERK THAT HE
WANTS TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION, IF HE DOES.

ALL RIGHT. THEN AS I INDICATED, WE ARE NOW
READY TO PROCEED WITH SENTENCING.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE DEFENSE?

MR. GESSLER: NO, YOUR HONOR.

MS. ABRAMSON: NO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

AS TO THE DEFENDANT, ERIK GALEN MENENDEZ,
THEN AS TO COUNT I, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE WITH
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO SECTION 190.2(A)15 AND
190.2(A)3 HAVING BEEN FOUND TRUE, THE DEFENDANT IS
SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON FOR THE TERM OF LIFE WITHOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

AS TO COUNT 2, A VIOLATION OF SECTION 187
OF THE PENAL CODE, FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, THE SAME SPECIAL
CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO STATE
PRISON, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE.

THAT SENTENCE IS CONSECUTIVE TO THE
SENTENCE IN COUNT 1. THESE ARE SEPARATE ACTS OF
VIOLENCE, SEPARATELY CONSIDERED BY THE DEFENDANT AND
ARRIVED AT AFTER DELIBERATION OF PREMEDITATION, AND THE
COURT FEELS THAT BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATE DECISIONS MADE
BY THE DEFENDANTS AS TO THE MURDER OF EACH VICTIM AND
THE SEPARATE VIOLENCE INVOLVED IN THE KILLING OF EACH
VICTIM, THAT THESE ARE APPROPRIATELY CONSECUTIVE
SENTENCES.

AS TO COUNT 3, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER,
THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED TO THE TERM OF 25 YEARS TO
LIFE IN THE STATE PRISON. THAT SENTENCE IS STAYED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 654 OF THE PENAL CODE; THAT STAY TO
BECOME PERMANENT UPON COMPLETION OF THE SENTENCE IN
COUNTS 1 AND 2.

MS. ABRAMSON: YOUR HONOR, FOR THE RECORD I WANT
IT NOTED THAT WE OBJECT TO THE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES,
SINCE THIS IS ONE ACT, ONE ACT OF FIRING A WEAPON.

BUT I WANT TO PUT THAT OBJECTION ON THE
RECORD, BECAUSE I HAD NOT PLANNED TO APPEAL FROM THE
SENTENCE, AND NOW I MUST APPEAL FROM THE SENTENCE AS
WELL.

THE COURT: IT'S QUITE CLEAR FROM THE EVIDENCE
THAT THE DEFENDANTS SEPARATELY CONSIDERED KILLING EACH
PARENT, MADE A DECISION SEPARATELY AS TO KILLING THEM.
THIS WAS A DECISION MADE OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL DAYS.
THE EVIDENCE IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THEY CONSIDERED KILLING
ONE PARENT, KILLING BOTH PARENTS, AND ULTIMATELY MADE A
DECISION TO KILL THEM BOTH, AND THEREAFTER FOLLOWED
THROUGH ON THAT AGREEMENT AS PART OF THEIR CONSPIRACY.

AS FAR AS CREDITS, THE DEFENDANT IS
ENTITLED TO 2306 DAYS TIME SERVED. THAT'S ACTUAL TIME
SERVED. HE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL CREDITS, IN
ADDITION TO THAT, FOR A TOTAL OF 3458 DAYS AS TO ERIK
MENENDEZ.

AS TO LYLE MENENDEZ, SIMILARLY AS TO
COUNT 1, HE IS SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON FOR
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PURSUANT TO
SECTION 190.2(A)15 AND 190.2(A)3, SENTENCED TO STATE
PRISON FOR LIFE WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

COUNT 2, LIKEWISE SENTENCED TO STATE PRISON
PURSUANT TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES HAVING BEEN FOUND TRUE
OF THE FIRST-DEGREE MURDER, LIFE IN PRISON WITHOUT
POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.

THE COURT IMPOSES CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES.
THE COURT FINDS THAT THESE ARE SEPARATE ACTS OF
VIOLENCE, SEPARATELY COMMITTED BY THE DEFENDANTS AFTER
CAREFULLY PLANNING AND CONTEMPLATING THE ACTS OF KILLING
ONE OR BOTH PARENTS, AND ULTIMATELY DECIDING TO KILL
BOTH. THEREFORE, THE COURT FINDS IT'S APPROPRIATE TO
IMPOSE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES AS TO COUNTS 1 AND 2.

AS TO COUNT 3, CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER,
THE COURT IMPOSES A SENTENCE OF 25 YEARS TO LIFE. THAT
SENTENCE IS STAYED PURSUANT TO SECTION 654 OF THE PENAL
CODE, THAT STAY TO BECOME PERMANENT UPON COMPLETION OF
THE SENTENCE IN COUNTS 1 AND 2. AS TO LYLE MENENDEZ, HE
IS ENTITLED TO CREDITS OF 2038 DAYS.

MS. ABRAMSON: EXCUSE ME, YOUR HONOR. I DON'T
WANT TO CONFUSE THINGS, BUT ACCORDING TO THE PROBATION
REPORT, ERIK MENENDEZ' DAYS WERE 2375.

THE COURT: WELL, THE CLERK HAS CALCULATED THE
DAYS, AND THE DAYS FOR ERIK MENENDEZ -- PERHAPS I
MISSTATED IT -- THE CALCULATION RESULTED IN 2306, AND
FOR LYLE MENENDEZ 2308, AND HE IS ENTITLED TO 1154 DAYS
ADDITIONAL CREDITS, TOTALING 3462 DAYS.

AS TO LYLE MENENDEZ --

MS. ABRAMSON: COULD THE COURT INDICATE THE
NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL DAYS GRANTED TO ERIK MENENDEZ FOR
GOOD TIME/WORK TIME?

THE COURT: OKAY, I'LL DO IT AGAIN.

MR. LEVIN: I THINK YOU SAID 1152.

THE COURT: THE RULE IS DIVIDE BY FOUR, ROUND
DOWN TO THE LOWER NUMBER, SO THAT'S 576, AND THEN DOUBLE
THAT IS 1152 DAYS.

THE COURT: SO 1152, PLUS 2306.

MS. ABRAMSON: THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THAT'S 3458.

EACH DEFENDANT HAS A RIGHT TO APPEAL THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THIS COURT. IF THEY CHOOSE TO
DO SO, THEY MUST FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITHIN 60 DAYS
IN THIS COURT, SETTING FORTH IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR
THEIR APPEAL, SPECIFYING WHAT IT IS THEY ARE APPEALING,
EITHER THE SENTENCE OR THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT, OR
WHATEVER ISSUES THEY WISH TO ADDRESS IN THEIR APPEAL.

IF THEY CANNOT AFFORD COUNSEL, THE
APPELLATE COURT WILL APPOINT COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THEM
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL.

THEY SHOULD KEEP THE APPELLATE COURT
INFORMED OF THEIR WHEREABOUTS THROUGHOUT THE PENDENCY OF
THEIR APPEAL SO THE APPELLATE COURT CAN COMMUNICATE WITH
THEM DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS APPEAL.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL THE
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THIS COURT, LYLE MENENDEZ?

DEFENDANT LYLE MENENDEZ: I DO, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: AND DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR RIGHT TO
APPEAL THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THIS COURT, ERIK
MENENDEZ?

DEFENDANT ERIK MENENDEZ: YES, YOUR HONOR.

THE COURT: OKAY.

AS TO THE ISSUE OF THE ABILITY -- THE
PRESENT ABILITY OF THE DEFENDANTS TO REIMBURSE THE
COUNTY FOR THE SERVICES OF THEIR REPRESENTATION, THE
COURT HAS RECEIVED A REPORT FROM THE COST RECOVERY UNIT
OF THE SUPERIOR COURT INDICATING THAT AT THIS POINT
THERE IS INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR THIS COURT TO MAKE
A DETERMINATION THAT THE DEFENDANTS HAVE THE PRESENT
ABILITY TO PAY FOR ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COST OF THEIR
REPRESENTATION.

HOWEVER, THE COURT WILL RETAIN
JURISDICTION, AS IT IS ENTITLED TO, UNDER SECTION
987.8(B) FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS TO REVIEW THE MATTER
AND SCHEDULE A FURTHER HEARING, IF THE COURT FEELS
APPROPRIATE, TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER OR NOT THE DEFENDANTS
HAVE THE PRESENT ABILITY TO REIMBURSE THE COUNTY FOR ANY
OR PART OF THE REPRESENTATION PROVIDED BY
COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL.

ALL RIGHT. THE DEFENDANTS ARE EACH
REMANDED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF, TO BE
TRANSPORTED BY THE SHERIFF FORTHWITH TO STATE PRISON TO
BEGIN COMMENCEMENT OF THEIR STATE PRISON SENTENCES.

THAT COMPLETES THIS TRIAL.

(AT 10:20 A.M. PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT NW "N"  HON. STANLEY M. WEISBERG JUDGE

NO. BA 068880

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

ERIK GALEN MENENDEZ, AND
JOSEPH LYLE MENENDEZ,
DEFENDANTS.

REPORTERS' DAILY TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
TUESDAY, JULY 2, 1996
VOLUME 329

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE PEOPLE:
GIL GARCETTI
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

BY:
DAVID CONN, DEPUTY
AND
CAROL NAJERA, DEPUTY


18000 CRIMINAL COURTS BLDG.
210 WEST TEMPLE STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT JOSEPH LYLE MENENDEZ:
MICHAEL P. JUDGE,
PUBLIC DEFENDER

BY:
CHARLES GESSLER, DEPUTY
AND
TERRI TOWERY, DEPUTY

210 WEST TEMPLE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90012

FOR THE DEFENDANT ERIK GALEN MENENDEZ:
LESLIE ABRAMSON,
ATTORNEY AT LAW

4929 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
SUITE 940
LOS ANGELES, CA 90010

BARRY LEVIN, ESQ.
11661 SAN VICENTE BOULEVARD
LOS ANGELES, CA 90049

MARY LU MURPHY
CSR NO. 5178

MARILYN FADALE,
CSR NO. 4547

OFFICIAL REPORTERS