Menendez Brothers' Trials: 1993-94 & 1995-96

Six months of testimony had passed when closing arguments began on December 8. Prosecutor Bozanich depicted the brothers as "vicious, spoiled brats" who had killed their parents out of greed and then lied repeatedly to cover their tracks. When they were caught, Bozanich continued, the pattern of lies grew into elaborate tales of abuse intended to gain sympathy. Even if the unproved allegations of abuse were true, however, the brothers should not go free.

"We don't execute child molesters in California. Some of you think we should," Bozanich told the jurors. "But the state does not execute child molesters, and these defendants cannot execute them either."

The defense's demonization of Jos6 and Kitty Menendez continued into the final arguments. Some legal observers wondered why the prosecution had not pressed the brothers harder to explain why they had killed their allegedly unstable but unthreatening mother.

"It may be hard for you to believe that these parents could have killed their children," Lansing proposed. "But is it so hard to understand that these children believed their parents would kill them?"

Judge Weisberg's final instructions to the twin juries ruled out acquittals. The judge declared that the facts did not support a plea of "perfect selfdefense," in which "a reasonable and honest belief that their own lives were in imminent danger" led the brothers to kill.

The jurors had four options. If it was agreed that the brothers had maliciously plotted to kill their parents, a verdict of first-degree murder could warrant the death penalty. Varying sentences could be imposed for convictions of second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. If the brothers were found guilty of "involuntarily" shooting their parents out of a genuine but unreasonable fear, they could be sentenced to a term shorter than the time served since their arrest.

After 16 days of deliberations, Erik's jury told Judge Weisberg that it could not agree on a verdict. Weisberg ordered the jurors to keep talking, but after nearly three weeks of shouting behind closed doors, the jurors gave up. Judge Weisberg declared a mistrial and released the jurors with a warning not to speak to the media. He did not want Lyle's unsequestered jury to be influenced.

However, two weeks later, on January 28, Lyle's jury reported that it was also deadlocked. As weary attorneys on both sides watched, a second mistrial was declared. Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti immediately announced that the Menendez brothers would face a second trial for first-degree murder, with no possibility of plea bargaining.

Strong disagreements over the sexual abuse claims had scuttled any chance for unanimous verdicts. With both juries stubbornly divided over the brothers' truthfulness, the final votes were scattered over the three most serious verdicts possible, each with its own implicit, differing degree of guilt. Only one of the 24 jurors had voted for the least serious charge of involuntary manslaughter.

Regardless of his intent, Lyle's testimony indicated that he had made most of the decisions regarding the shootings, with his younger brother passively agreeing to participate. Yet Erik's jury had been the most contentious, with an almost even split between men voting for first degree murder and women voting for voluntary manslaughter. The female jurors complained that sexist bullying and male jurors' homophobic suspicions about Erik's sexuality had prevented a serious resolution of the case.

Defense attorney Abramson's tough, flamboyant defense had kindled tension between her and Judge Weisberg throughout the first trial. She continued her public assault on the prosecution after the verdict. She faulted the judge for his handling of the case and declared that no jury would ever be able to agree on a verdict. To prove her point, she invited the sympathetic women jurors to her home for dinner, a telephone chat with Erik, and an interview session with reporters about the stormy deliberations in the jury room.

While her detractors accused her of being a media hound, others marveled at her unabashed willingness to exploit the media on behalf of her client. Both critics and sympathizers agreed that publicizing her post-trial dinner aimed to influence the jury pool, while illustrating to the state that plea bargaining might be preferable to the time and expense of a second trial in which jurors might be no more likely to agree on a verdict.

Prosecutors were not impressed. They declared that the defense strategy used so successfully in the first trial would be easier to counter now that it was known. Those who had questioned the sincerity of the Menendez brothers' tears on the witness stand doubted that the defendants would be clever enough to convince a second jury of their emotional fragility.