Drama Fades in 2nd Murder Trial of Ex-Socialite : Courts: The event of last year appears to have lost its edge. Even defendant Betty Broderick seems almost bored at times.

Hardened courtroom observers have taken to calling it Betty II, as though the event being described was a prizefight or the latest sequel from Steven Spielberg.

But the second murder trial of Elisabeth Anne (Betty) Broderick, which began Oct. 15 in San Diego County Superior Court and is expected to end next month, seems to have lost its edge. Like most sequels, it lacks the fire of the all-consuming original.

Last fall, when Broderick first came to trial for the 1989 shooting deaths of her ex-husband, Daniel T. Broderick III, 44, and his new wife, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, more than 100 would-be spectators waited patiently at the door of the courtroom each morning.

Only a few found seats in a gallery of 36 chairs. This time around, the lines are gone, and on most days--particularly during the trial’s first week--six seats or more were always vacant.

Much of the time, the key missing element is anger. Time seems also to have taken a toll on people’s memories, with several forgetting key details they were able to remember so clearly a year ago.

Kim Broderick, 21, the oldest daughter of Daniel and Elisabeth Broderick and a prosecution witness, has appeared almost mellow during the second trial compared to the bitter woman who took the stand a year ago to testify vehemently against her mother.

And the defendant, who last year chatted animatedly with her defense attorney and dressed like the La Jolla socialite she once was, seems quieter, subdued and rarely surprised by anyone’s testimony.

At times, in fact, she seems almost bored.

Elisabeth Broderick’s first trial ended in a hung jury, with 10 jurors opting for a murder conviction and two holding out for manslaughter.

There was an almost obsessive interest in the trial, which weaved together themes of sex, death and 1980s greed. National magazines wrote stories on the case, including People and Ladies’ Home Journal.

Elisabeth Broderick, 43, was the woman scorned, left for the younger woman--Daniel Broderick’s former legal assistant, the lovely Linda Kolkena. At issue in the Brodericks’ divorce was his million-dollar-a-year income as a medical malpractice attorney and custody of their four children.

As a man with law and medical degrees, Daniel Broderick was a past president of the San Diego County Bar Assn., and by all accounts, a cunning lawyer who knew how to work the system, especially when it came to divorce.

The murder case so captivated people that a made-for-television movie will chronicle the Brodericks’ story on CBS early next year. Actress Meredith Baxter-Birney will portray Elisabeth Broderick, with Stephen Collins playing her late husband, said Dick Lowry, producer-director of “Till Murder Do Us Part.”

Simon & Schuster plans to publish a book, and during the second trial, the new Courtroom Television Network is televising testimony live in 44 states. Courtroom TV executives say that only the coming trial of William Kennedy Smith will take precedent over “Betty II.”

So what’s different in the second trial?

For one, the jury. Last year’s seemed like a white-collar club compared to the dozen on this year’s panel.

During jury selection, one man admitted to having been convicted of burglary. Another said he seriously considered killing his ex-wife. Both were seated.

Defense attorney Jack Earley says the testimony of prosecution witnesses also is different. Deputy Dist. Atty. Kerry Wells declined to be interviewed, saying she prefers to wait until after the verdict.

But Earley maintains that a different picture is being presented in the second trial, with the obvious hope of securing a harsher verdict.

Earley contends that Elisabeth Broderick drove to her ex-husband’s home, intending only to kill herself.

The prosecution contends that Elisabeth Broderick’s actions constituted first-degree, premeditated murder and that the couple died “as they lay helpless in their sleep.”

Earley contends that words were exchanged, that there was movement in the bed, and the differences--observers say--are crucial in determining the distinction between murder and manslaughter.

If convicted of first-degree murder, Broderick faces a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole.

During the first day of testimony in Broderick’s second trial, Earley hammered away at what he called discrepancies in the first and second trials.

“I think the district attorney needs a certain scenario in the case, and I think their witnesses . . . are going to supply that,” he said. “They’re going to supply different testimony.”

Earley cited the following witnesses as having varied their testimony between the first and second trials:

* Dr. Christopher Swalwell, a pathologist with the San Diego County medical examiner’s office, who conducted the autopsies on Daniel and Linda Broderick.

Swalwell testified at last year’s preliminary hearing and at the first trial that Daniel Broderick suffered a “through-and-through” wound, meaning that the bullet passed through his back and out the chest cavity before being discovered by police on the carpet near the bed.

But last week, Swalwell said he was no longer convinced of the nature of Broderick’s wound, that it “might not have been” through and through.

Earley finished a rigorous round of questioning by asking Swalwell: “In your opinion, the wound to Dan Broderick was not through and through?”

“What I meant to say,” an obviously confused Swalwell said, “was . . . that it could have been.”

* San Diego Police Sgt. Terry DeGelder, who supervised the collection of evidence at the crime scene.

DeGelder testified last week that he did not remember the cord being wrapped tightly around the telephone near the bedroom in which the killings occurred.

But at last year’s trial, DeGelder testified that the cord was wrapped tightly around the phone.

At issue is whether Daniel Broderick was awake and reaching for the phone before he was shot.

* Brian Forbes, a close friend of Daniel Broderick, who, with Brad Wright, Elisabeth Broderick’s boyfriend, discovered the victims’ bodies later that Sunday morning.

Last week, Forbes testified that he failed to recall expressing a need to summon an ambulance to Daniel Broderick’s Marston Hills home, near Balboa Park.

But at last year’s trial, Forbes testified that he did feel the need to call an ambulance.

* Kim Broderick, who last year testified that her mother wept in describing the killings and said that Daniel Broderick muttered as his last words: “OK, you shot me. I’m dead.”

Last week, Kim Broderick said she could not recall her mother crying, that she remembered only her “shaking” voice. She said she also failed to recall her mother describing Daniel Broderick’s last words.

In testimony late last week, Lee Broderick, Elisabeth Broderick’s 20-year-old daughter, said her mother told her that Daniel Broderick said: “All right, you shot me, I’m dead.”

Earley said it was “obvious” that Kim Broderick had been “coached” by Wells or members of Daniel Broderick’s family.

* Ruth Roth, a licensed marriage, family and child therapist who once tried to mediate a custody agreement between Daniel and Elisabeth Broderick.

In testifying last week about Elisabeth Broderick, Roth referred to notes taken during therapeutic sessions. But in testifying about Daniel Broderick, she had no notes, saying that for the first time in a long career she refrained from taking notes during his session.

Roth testified that midway through her second session with Elisabeth Broderick, she stopped taking notes in the hope of building a better rapport and enhancing a feeling of trust. So, during Daniel Broderick’s session, she said, she chose not to take notes out of fairness to him.

Roth’s admission about note-taking failed to surface during the first trial.

Earley asked angrily if Daniel Broderick’s status in the legal community had influenced her decision not to take notes, to which she replied that his status and clout meant nothing to her.

In an attempt to impeach her testimony, Earley referred to Roth having been “on Dan Broderick’s payroll,” because she later agreed to treat the couple’s oldest son, Danny, in therapy and then sued Elisabeth Broderick in a fee dispute.

Much of Earley’s attempts during the retrial have been to impeach prosecution witnesses and set the stage for his witnesses--chief among them, Elisabeth Broderick.

Lowry, producer of the CBS movie, said there remains much interest in the trial. He calls Elisabeth Broderick the most compelling character in “an intriguing and accessible story to every adult in America.”