Broderick Says She Was More Than Angry : Trial: She says she was ‘terrified. . . destroyed’ by the time of the killings. Prosecution aggressively attempts to impeach her testimony.

Elisabeth Anne (Betty) Broderick testified Wednesday that “anger doesn’t cover” how she felt on the morning of Nov. 5, 1989, when she entered the Marston Hills home of her ex-husband and his new wife and killed them with five shots from a .38-caliber revolver.

Her bitter divorce and custody battle with Daniel T. Broderick III had lasted so long that, by 1987, “I was terrified, distraught, disillusioned . . . destroyed,” Broderick, 44, said under cross-examination from Deputy Dist. Atty. Kerry Wells.

“So, anger doesn’t come close to what I was feeling,” Broderick said.

Wells spent Wednesday trying to impeach Broderick’s testimony and consistently zeroed in various things Broderick did before the slayings, such as driving her car through the front door of Daniel Broderick’s house and leaving obscene messages on his answering machine.

She asked repeatedly why Broderick used one particular obscene word to describe Daniel Broderick, 44, and another in reference to Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, his second wife and former legal assistant, with whom he began an extramarital affair in 1983.

“I’m having so much fun! I love this machine!” Broderick said on one tape-recorded message. “I want to go to court to prove that you’re a (expletive) and she’s a (expletive). This is so much fun!”

Wells hammered at apparent contradictions in Broderick’s testimony--about attempts to vandalize Daniel Broderick’s property, the statements of judges and mental-health experts and even the motives behind Daniel Broderick occasionally sending her flowers.

Broderick has said that her ex-husband, a prominent medical malpractice attorney and past president of the San Diego County Bar Assn., used his considerable influence and standing in the legal community to keep her from a fair and equitable divorce and custody arrangement.

In testimony during this trial, and in last year’s, which ended in a hung jury, she said he intended to drive her crazy, and with his acumen and status as a powerful attorney, “stacked the deck” against her.

The defense contends Broderick drove to her ex-husband’s home in the early-morning hours of Nov. 5, 1989, intending only to confront Daniel Broderick and to kill herself in front of him and his new wife.

The prosecution views the killings as first-degree, premeditated murders and is seeking a sentence of life in prison without parole. Last year’s trial failed to result in a verdict, with 10 jurors favoring a murder conviction and two holding out for manslaughter.

This year’s trial, which began Oct. 15, had not been in session from 11 a.m. last Thursday until Wednesday, because three jurors and prosecutor Wells were ill.

Early in Wednesday’s session, defense attorney Jack Earley angrily objected to a line of questioning by Wells, who attempted to introduce into evidence checks written from Daniel Broderick to his ex-wife.

Earley walked toward the front of the courtroom, picked up stacks of Elisabeth Broderick’s diaries--the full contents of which he hasn’t been allowed to introduce--and loudly challenged Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Whelan to finally drop the restrictions against those.

“Knock it off, Mr. Earley,” Whelan said.

Wells finished Wednesday’s session without having cross-examined Broderick about the killings themselves. She made occasional references to Nov. 5, 1989, but only in oblique ways and only in terms of Broderick’s state of mind and motives.

Her cross-examination about the slayings is expected today.

Broderick has said that she could not obtain proper legal representation during her divorce and custody proceedings, because no San Diego lawyer of the caliber she needed cared to tangle with Daniel Broderick.

Wells noted that Broderick had fired several or refused their advice or sought to represent herself and that her version of events differed dramatically from that of many other witnesses.

Broderick has said that Superior Court Judge Anthony C. Joseph, who officiated in some Broderick divorce matters, had been guilty of an egregious conflict of interest in telling the court that he was a “long-time, close friend” of Daniel Broderick.

Wells pored through court transcripts, asking Broderick to point out where such references took place. Broderick explained that such remarks were sometimes uttered in closed sessions or with no court reporter transcribing the proceedings.

At one point, defense attorney Earley found such a passage but was ordered to note the reference on re-direct examination, which may begin today.

Wells asked numerous questions about Broderick saying she was once denied her ex-husband’s voluntary monthly support payment of $9,000 because he had fined her for leaving obscene messages on his answering machine.

The resulting balance, Broderick said, meant that she owed him $1,300.

“Didn’t you also receive a check for $10,000 in November of 1986 to cover expenses?” Wells asked.

“That was an advance on my community property money,” Broderick said angrily. “That was not a support payment.”

Wells read off 22 entries, showing that Broderick made numerous credit-card payments and purchased a variety of other items from San Diego department stores.

Broderick said that she “had been living on credit cards since late 1985” and carried $50,000 “in credit-card debt at all times.” She was forced to buy things on credit, she said, because her ex-husband was so erratic with support payments.

Wells asked Broderick about having spray-painted her ex-husband’s home and whether she had stolen documents from his personal effects and broken the antenna of his car by holding it in her hand as he attempted to drive away.

Wells asked Broderick about her driving her Chevrolet Suburban van through the front door of her ex-husband’s house after he sold their family home in La Jolla without giving her proper notice.

“I just kind of bumped into it,” Broderick said of driving the car through the door.

Wells asked numerous questions about the effect Broderick’s behavior was having on the four children she shared with her ex-husband.

“He neglected them in all areas of their lives,” Broderick said of her ex-husband. “And I didn’t think they should be living with him.”

Wells asked about Broderick’s having written a letter to Daniel Broderick’s parents in August, 1988, in which she complained of his relationship with Linda Kolkena. Wells asked about the hostility of such a gesture.

“I think his parents, like everyone else, needed to know the truth,” Broderick said. “And if the truth upsets or hurts people, that’s too bad.”