Menendezes’ Self-Defense Claim Hurt : Trial: Judge will not give jurors the option of outright acquittal. They will be told that brothers’ claim could be grounds for a reduced manslaughter verdict.

Jurors in the Menendez brothers murder trial will be given instructions on self-defense that could lead to a reduced manslaughter verdict but not to outright acquittal, the judge in the case decided Monday--all but dashing defense hopes that the brothers might be exonerated.

Van Nuys Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg said he will instruct jurors that their options will include a manslaughter conviction if they find that Lyle and Erik Menendez were in genuine fear for their lives--even if someone else in the brothers’ shoes might not have been fearful.

But in the climax of a day of legal arguments, the judge dealt a severe setback to the defense, turning down a request for a jury instruction offering the option of an acquittal. Weisberg said the facts of the case did not meet the legal standard: that a reasonable person would have feared imminent death on the night of Aug. 20, 1989, when the brothers shot and killed their parents.

The brothers testified that they loaded their 12-gauge shotguns and blasted away at Jose Menendez, 45, a wealthy entertainment executive, and Kitty Menendez, 47, after the parents closed the door to the TV room in the family’s Beverly Hills mansion.

The issue, Weisberg said, is whether an average person would similarly take the closing of the door as a sign of impending doom. Later, he answered his own question, saying there “simply is no evidence” for that theory.

Despite the judge’s ruling, it is possible that jurors could acquit the brothers, but only if they disregard the court’s instructions and vote on sympathy alone, lawyers in the case said. “The only way for the jury to find them not guilty is to ignore the law,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Pamela Bozanich said outside court.

Two juries are hearing the case, one for each brother. Closing arguments will be made first to Lyle Menendez’s jury, beginning Wednesday. Then, while that panel begins deliberations, the opposing attorneys will make final arguments to the Erik Menendez jury. Though one panel is likely to reach a verdict before the other, both verdicts will be announced simultaneously, Weisberg has said.

Erik Menendez, 23, and Lyle Menendez, 25, are charged with first-degree murder. If convicted of that charge, they could be sentenced to death.

Prosecutors contend that the brothers killed out of hatred and greed. The brothers admit the slayings, but testified that they killed in fear and self-defense after years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

When the legal wrangle began Monday, prosecutors conceded that the defense was entitled to a jury instruction on “imperfect” self-defense, which can allow the jury to reject a first-degree murder charge but still calls for a conviction on a lesser offense--from second-degree murder down to voluntary manslaughter.

In “imperfect” self-defense, the killer perceives an “imminent” lethal threat. But that perception is mistaken or unreasonable.

The defense had sought even more--asking for a jury instruction on “perfect” self-defense, which would have told jurors that they could deliver a not guilty verdict if they believed that the killings were justified.

In “perfect” self-defense, the threat to someone’s life is so clear that anyone in similar circumstances would also perceive it to be lethal, entitling them to kill to protect themselves.

Defense lawyer Michael Burt, who represents Lyle Menendez, said the brothers’ perceptions of imminent danger were reasonable because their father had threatened to kill them if they did not keep silent about the molestation. Leslie Abramson, defending Erik Menendez, argued that traditional notions of self-defense do not take into account the unique circumstances of child abuse.

But Bozanich belittled the brothers’ contention that their parents planned to kill them that night, when--under the prosecutors’ version of events--the Menendez parents were merely eating berries and cream, filling out a college application form for their younger son and watching television.

On this issue, Weisberg sided with prosecutors. “The law is that everyone has a right to live, and there has to be a substantial reason before anyone can limit someone’s right to live.”

*

In other developments Monday, prosecutors asked for permission to show jurors 985 photographs obtained only last Friday from the defense, on the last day of the presentation of evidence and testimony--and only after Weisberg ruled that a defense expert had referred to the photos in testimony.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Lester Kuriyama said he would settle for 89 of the 985 photos going to jurors. Most, he said, were snapshots of birthdays, vacations and other family events, filled with happy faces and embraces.

A string of defense witnesses testified that the Menendez household was a cold, loveless place. Kuriyama said the photos would counter that impression.

By the close of the day, Weisberg had not ruled on the request.