Judge Gives Broderick Jurors Four Options for Verdict : Trial: They are instructed not to be moved by pity or prejudice. The prosecution urges that they “just make the call.”

Jurors began deliberating Thursday in the second murder trial of Elisabeth Anne (Betty) Broderick after the judge gave them four options, ranging from involuntary manslaughter to premeditated, first-degree murder.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Kerry Wells began an impassioned closing argument by saying, “You know the people’s position is first-degree murder. You know (the defense) position is voluntary manslaughter. We are giving this case to you to make the call. Just make the call .”

Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Whelan issued 45 minutes of instructions to the jury, telling them to consider involuntary and voluntary manslaughter, as well as first- and second-degree murder.

“You must not be influenced by pity for the defendant or by prejudice against her,” Whelan said.

The prosecution is seeking a sentence of life in prison without parole. The defense has asked for a verdict of voluntary manslaughter, for which the maximum sentence is 15 years.

Broderick, 44, is accused of murdering her ex-husband, prominent lawyer Daniel T. Broderick III, 44, and his second wife, Linda Kolkena Broderick, 28, in the bedroom of their Marston Hills home on the morning of Nov. 5, 1989.

Last year’s trial ended in a hung jury, with 10 jurors favoring a murder conviction and two holding out for manslaughter. Last year’s jury deliberated for four days before announcing that it was hopelessly deadlocked.

In his closing argument Wednesday, defense attorney Jack Earley urged jurors to consider a verdict of voluntary manslaughter and said the years of emotional abuse Daniel Broderick inflicted upon his ex-wife during a divorce and custody dispute marred by his extramarital affair were like a slow torture.

He placed a ticking metronome on the witness stand to illustrate what he called the “drip, drip, drip” by which Daniel Broderick sought to drive his ex-wife crazy.

Wells agreed Thursday that the case would arouse strong feelings in jurors but warned against using the heart as a barometer of the truth or of Elisabeth Broderick’s guilt or innocence.

“It’s OK to have emotions,” she said. “This case is tragic in all sorts of ways. You may find yourselves disagreeing about how you feel about this case. You ought to talk about how you feel, get your emotions out. But then it’s time to start thinking.”

Wells was the only attorney who argued Thursday, since prosecutors are allowed the final statement.

But some of her remarks drew strong objections from defense attorney Earley, and, at one point, Wells and Earley squared off angrily, prompting a heated conference among the attorneys and the judge.

Earley’s objection came after Wells disputed defense allegations about the deviousness and duplicity of Daniel Broderick and branded such assertions unfair, since he “isn’t here to defend himself.”

“I object, your honor!” Earley shouted, in the last of several objections during Wells’ closing statement.

“Counselor!” she shouted back, her voice breaking.

Both attorneys approached the bench, and Wells then continued her statement.

Unlike last year’s closing arguments and unlike the stance taken during much of both trials, Wells said Thursday she “conceded” that Daniel Broderick was often someone who could make a woman feel angry and who wasn’t always fair and just in his dealings with others.

Wells also said she thought an extramarital affair, such as the one Daniel Broderick began with legal assistant Linda Kolkena in 1983, was hardly commendable.

“No one should ever leave their wife. No one should ever leave their husband,” Wells said. “It’s rotten. And, in a perfect world, it wouldn’t happen.

“I’ll concede he should have given her more money when she demanded it during the divorce. But she had a Jag and two other cars. She traveled extensively. Would another trip to Hawaii or San Francisco or Tahiti really have made a difference?”

Wells conceded that Linda Broderick was “not a perfect human being” and “should not have responded to Elisabeth Broderick’s taunts,” as has been alleged, by mailing her wrinkle-removal and weight-loss ads or photographs underlined with the words, “Eat your heart out, bitch.”

Wells argued that Broderick had been paid $16,000 a month for the four months leading up to the slayings and said it could not be disproved that she had received “$64,000 in a four-month period!”

“She claims Dan and Linda drove her to this,” Wells said. “But that’s like blaming the rape victim for having been raped.”

Wells said it “made no difference” that there might have been conversation in the bedroom, or movement in the bed, or that Broderick was frightened into shooting, because, when she left the room, “She was alive and two others were dead. . . . That’s murder.”

But the most convincing proof why Elisabeth Broderick should be convicted of murder and not manslaughter, Wells said, came in the defendant’s own statements.

“Under the law, voluntary manslaughter requires an ‘intent to kill,’ ” Wells said. “But Elisabeth Broderick says the exact opposite--she says she did not intend to kill them. She says she just wanted to confront them, to talk.

“This is a major inconsistency between what she says happened and what her attorney is arguing. He’s arguing the exact opposite of what she said.

“If you believe her,” Wells said, that she only intended to confront them before firing the fatal shots, “then it’s second-degree murder. And, if you don’t believe her, then it’s first-degree . . .

“Murder is murder. Going over to someone’s house and killing them in their bed is murder, and justice demands she be held accountable for that.”