Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Menendez Jury Ruling Brings a Split Opinion

Lyle and Erik who?

The Menendez brothers, of course.

You remember them. They made the biggest news in town until some ex-football superstar was charged with double murder.

The brothers went straight to the back burner.

But this week, they re-emerged. Van Nuys Superior Court Judge Stanley M. Weisberg ruled Monday that there is no legal basis for the defense claim that the brothers could only get a fair shake with separate juries or at separate trials.

The retrial, before one jury, will begin June 12, the judge ordered.

The first trial was conducted with two juries in court at the same time because prosecutors were not willing to risk losing evidence that applied directly to one brother only.

It ended with both juries deadlocked between murder and lesser manslaughter charges.

At the retrial, the brothers will again face first-degree murder charges in the Aug. 20, 1989, shotgun slayings of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.

*

How should the Menendez brothers be tried?

James Blatt, Encino criminal defense attorney

“From an economic point of view, the judge’s decision to have one jury obviously saves the taxpayers a significant amount of money. However, if I was the court, I would seriously consider having two juries, as in the last trial, because although each brother has inherently the same set of facts, their issues are different, their degree of culpability is different, and their motivations appear to be different. So based upon an abundance of caution, the court should have had two juries listening to the case at the same time, one for each brother, so each brother could have independent determination based upon their facts, and not have them mingled with each other.”

Malka Tasoff, treasurer, San Fernando Valley Criminal Bar

“I think they should have two juries. First of all, it’s a death penalty case, and when you have a death penalty case, you want to be very careful that you don’t make a mistake. As I understand it, there are a lot of issues that affect one of the boys that could be used against the other, and the likelihood of the evidence that comes in against one brother being misused against the other is great because they are brothers. It is a high publicity case, and we can afford to ensure that justice is done.”

Bob Pugsley, professor, Southwestern Law School

“A single panel could do all the job that is necessary to be done. That’s because 95% plus of the evidence that the state has against them relates to both brothers, and it seems to me that it was a waste of judicial economy in the first trial to have done it the way they did, to have two separate juries in the same room. This way, the actions of both brothers who acted in tandem are put up to scrutiny by a single jury panel which is more than capable of deciding whether either, or both, of them should be convicted, and, if so, at what levels of culpability. I am pleased by the judge’s decision.”

Howard Gottlieb, Van Nuys attorney

“I think it should be separate trials, separate juries, separate cases. If they’ve got conflicted defenses, by law, you are entitled to a separate trial. I can’t see where a single jury is going to be not prejudiced by testimony given against the other brother. They acted in concert. You can’t unring a bell.”