Menendez Prosecutors Seek Sharp Limits on Defense

Signaling their intent to play hardball, prosecutors in the second Menendez murder trial said Tuesday that they do not believe the issue of abuse is relevant to the case and asked for sharp limits on defense testimony.

Deputy Dist. Atty. David P. Conn said prosecutors no longer believe that the concept of “battered-child syndrome,” under which most of the defense in the first trial was presented, provided a legal basis to allow testimony or other evidence.

Therefore, Conn said, 32 of the 56 witnesses who appeared for the defense should be excluded from the second trial. And, he said, the testimony of defense experts ought to be limited as well.

Defense attorney Leslie Abramson called the request “the most outrageous motion I’ve ever encountered as a defense attorney.” Van Nuys Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg said he needed time to study it and set a Feb. 28 hearing.

Erik Menendez, 24, and Lyle Menendez, 26, remain in County Jail without bail. Their second trial is set for March 13.

The first trial ended in January with separate juries deadlocked between murder and lesser manslaughter charges in the Aug. 20, 1989, shotgun slayings of the brothers’ parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.

The brothers admit to the slayings. Prosecutors contend that the brothers killed out of hatred and greed. But the brothers say they lashed out in fear after years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

At the first trial, the defense case began with anecdotes from teachers, coaches, relatives and friends about life in the Menendez household. The defense put on those 32 witnesses in a bid to lay the framework for the climactic testimony of the brothers.

A half-dozen mental health experts followed, saying that a lifetime of fear had left the brothers prone to impulse.

Prosecutors at the first trial--led by Deputy Dist. Atty. Pamela Bozanich--ridiculed the testimony of the mental health experts and opted not to raise a wholesale objection to the witnesses.

That tactic was based on a 1991 state law that authorized expert testimony in cases involving a claim of “battered-woman syndrome.” Bozanich reasoned that it would be fruitless to object in a case in which sons were claiming parental abuse.

Conn took over for Bozanich after the first trial, and he was careful Tuesday not to criticize her. But in urging Weisberg to exclude the first 32 witnesses, he said the 1991 law applies to testimony from expert witnesses, not teachers and coaches.

Abramson, who represents Erik Menendez, countered that the prosecution’s view of the evidence would unfairly cut the guts out of the defense case. Deputy Public Defender Charles Gessler, who represents Lyle Menendez, said he also opposes the prosecution request.