MENENDEZ TRIAL VERDICT WATCH
A Live Chat With Reporter Mary Jane Stevenson

[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a transcript of reporter Mary Jane Stevenson's March 6 Menendez Trial Verdict Watch. This live chat was held in The Odeon, an America Online Center Stage. More than 120 people attended the event.]

OnlineHost: Copyright 1996 Court TV; licensed to America Online, Inc.

CourtTV9: Mary Jane Stevenson will be here in a few minutes. She will be answering your questions on the Menendez murder trial.

OnlineHost: The auditorium consists of two major areas: the audience, where you are right now, and the stage, where the speakers appear. Text which you type onscreen shows only to those in your row, prefaced by the row number in parentheses, such as (2) if you are in row 2. To interact with the speaker, use the Interact icon on your screen.

OnlineHost: To send your question to the speaker, click on the Interact icon, then use the Ask a Question option.

OnlineHost: MJStevensn has entered the room.

CourtTV9: Mary Jane Stevenson has been covering the Menendez trial for Court TV. Today is the third day of deliberations. Mary Jane, what is the latest news?

MJStevensn: The latest news is there is no verdict yet. The jury asked for some testimony to be read back regarding Erik Menendez's testimony, but otherwise, they've been very quiet.

Question: Clearly the Menendez brothers took the lives of their parents. Don't you think it is negligent of the prosecutors to spend so many tax dollars to convict two people who admit guilt and are willing to plea?

MJStevensn: They're willing to plead to manslaughter, and the prosecution thinks it's murder.

Question: How long is the jury likely to deliberate?

MJStevensn: I have no idea. I cannot tell.

Question: Is it possible that one of the boys will get off and the other will be convicted?

MJStevensn: Yes, that's always been a possibility. But I should point out that getting off will be hard to do because they've admitted it and they most likely will at least be convicted of manslaughter.

Question: How has this trial differed from the first?

MJStevensn: Mainly the defense has been pared down tremendously. Lyle Menendez, who was the star witness for the defense in the first trial, did not testify in this trial. At least 30 other defense witnesses did not testify, and the main difference is that the judge rejected the defense's theory of imperfect self defense.

Question: What has been the most difficult aspect of covering this trial?

MJStevensn: Having to do my job without using all my tools, namely without a camera.

Question: What happens if there is another hung jury?

MJStevensn: Then the prosecution will have to decide whether to try the case again or to offer the Menendez brothers manslaughter pleas.

Question: Any truth to the rumors that Lyle has been more despondent than Erik this time?

MJStevensn: I don't know what you mean by more despondent. Can you explain? The issue is what crime they should be convicted of. They admitted to the killings, but do not admit that it was murder.

Question: Hi MJ, why was the letter Lyle wrote concerning the handgun issue admitted into evidence and yet the Tracy Baker letter was not, and do you know if T. Baker was going to testify for prosecution?

MJStevensn: The letter about the handgun was admitted because the judge ruled Erik Menendez was aware of it as well, and Erik Menendez testified. But because Lyle Menendez didn't testify the judge ruled the Tracy Baker letter was irrelevant because there was no evidence that Erik knew about it.

Question: Why has the judge imposed a gag order on information?

MJStevensn: He imposed a gag order on information about penalty phase evidence because he does not want the jury to hear anything about the upcoming penalty phase if there will be one.

Question: Do you think the judge will be overturned since he refused to let the jury consider any self defense?

MJStevensn: I have no idea what the court of appeals will do

Question: What exhibits have the jury asked to see?

MJStevensn: I only know that they've asked to see the transcripts of tape recordings of police interviews with the brothers and of the interview with Lyle and Erik and their therapist, Dr. Oziel.

Question: How do you view the "groupies" that have supported the brothers. Have there been many this time?

MJStevensn: There are several people who come to court to support the brothers.

Question: How much money have these trails cost me and other citizens of LA? 

MJStevensn: I don't know the exact figure, but taxpayers are paying for four defense attorneys as well as court costs for the five months this second trial has lasted.

Question: Why was this trial not covered on TV to the extent OJ's trial was?

MJStevensn: Because the judge did not allow a camera in the courtroom.

Question: Why can't the D.A.'s just concentrate on the horror of RELOADING the weapon to kill Kitty? Even if they were abused (which is not an excuse), how can anyone find not "the boys" to be not guilty on that action alone?

MJStevensn: The District Attorney did concentrate in his final closing argument on that last shot to Kitty Menendez. He showed a gruesome crime scene photograph and argued over and over again that this was the cruelest part of the killing.

Question: What happens if one of the brothers gets a different sentence than the other brother. Why didn't Najera take a more active role?

MJStevensn: Well then one of them may be walking the streets while the other one sits in jail. She actually questioned a good portion of the witnesses but David Conn was the lead prosecutor and generally the lead prosecutor dominates at least what goes on in the courtroom. She did a lot of behind the scenes work and was very active on this case.

Question: Were there as many female supporters in the courtroom this time around?

MJStevensn: I don't recall exactly how many there were the last time, but there are a handful this time.

Question: What happens if the jury can only come up with a verdict for one brother?

MJStevensn: Then the prosecutors would have to decide how to try the second brother based on what kind of verdict is delivered for the other brother. For instance, if one brother is convicted of first degree murder on both counts, the prosecutor will be more likely to try this case again as a first degree murder. But if one brother gets a manslaughter and an acquittal, the prosecutor may think twice about how to try the other brother a third time.

Question: What's behind the apparent bad blood between Abramson and Judge Weisberg?

MJStevensn: He is making rulings that she believes are unfair. She thinks he has been so unfair that it seems he wants the brothers convicted of first degree murder.

Question: Do you think there are any issues here that amount to reversible error on appeal?

MJStevensn: I don't know, but the defense thinks that the judge has committed reversible error more than once and the defense believes it has a good chance at getting a murder conviction reversed on appeal.

Question: Why didn't the grandmother testify? Is she in court EVERY DAY?

MJStevensn: She is in court every day and I do not know why she didn't testify. The defense never had her on their witness list.

Question: Do you have any observations of the jury? Tears, eyes rolling in disbelief during testimony?

MJStevensn: Actually the jury is complete stone-faced. Neither side has been able to get a chuckle or anything else out of this jury. Some reporters said that they saw one juror shed some tears during Erik Menendez's testimony, but I haven't seen any of the jurors cry myself. They are extremely hard to read.

Question: Can both the brothers receive the death penalty?

MJStevensn: Yes. If they are found guilty of murder with special circumstance, they will have to sit through a penalty phase which is sort of a mini trial during which the same jury will recommend whether they should be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Question: MJ, have you been able to talk to either of the Menendez boys directly?

MJStevensn: I never reveal my sources.

Question: Could you give us a legal definition of manslaughter?

MJStevensn: It is a killing without malice, meaning the killer did not have the state of mind of malice or the intent to kill, but the killing was still unlawful.

Question: How would you rate the Judge?

MJStevensn: Let's just say I'm not happy that he excluded cameras. Otherwise, I'm paid not to have an opinion.

Question: If they are convicted will there time already served count?

MJStevensn: Yes. They have been in jail for six years. That will count for about nine years.

Question: MJ, do the brothers have many family members attending the trial and are they supportive or not?

MJStevensn: Yes, they have aunts, cousins, their grandmother -- and their family members are extremely supportive of the brothers and hope that one day they will get out of jail.

Question: Any idea why the prosecution was so adamant there was no abuse? Why not just say, even if there was, so what? Lots of kids are abused and leave home -- especially if they are adults.

MJStevensn: The prosecutor's stance is that he does not believe the abuse. He believes this defense was concocted and because he does not believe it, he refuses to concede that it ever happened.

Question: The 2nd judge has disallowed so much evidence presented during the first trial, not to mention having only one jury. If there is a guilty verdict, will this give the defense team a good argument for appeal?

MJStevensn: This is the same judge as in the first trial. The defense believes it has several good arguments for appeal, but the judge seems confident that all of his rulings will be upheld by any court of appeal.

Question: Does anyone believe that having more men than women will go against the brothers?

MJStevensn: Some people think women are more likely to believe the brothers because in the first trial Erik's jury broke down on gender lines and the women believed the abuse and the men didn't. But it is hard to tell. We'll see what this jury does.

Question: Who do you think was the most powerful defense witness and most powerful prosecution witness?

MJStevensn: Both sides had very many compelling witnesses and that's what makes this case so complicated. It will be interesting to see which witnesses the jurors thought were the most powerful.

Question: Did the defense present as strong a case this time around as in the previous trials?

MJStevensn: The defense was extremely limited by the judge. He cut out about half their witnesses and Lyle Menendez did not testify because of evidence prosecutors have uncovered since the first trial, which was damaging to him. So the defense case did not seem as strong as in the first trial. But the only way to really tell is by waiting to see what the jury does.

Question: What reasons did the judge give for excluding cameras?

MJStevensn: Because the defense asked for it, basically. The defense argued that it would hurt their clients' chance for a fair trial and the judge sustained their objections to the camera.

Question: By taking out the imperfect defense ruling, hasn't Weisberg essentially decided the case himself. Shouldn't that have been a jury question?

MJStevensn: A lot of people believe it should have been a question for the jury and not the judge. But Judge Weisberg said the evidence did not support the imperfect self defense theory and therefore he was within his discretion not to allow it. 

CourtTV9: Mary Jane has to go now. She will be reporting on the trial until a verdict is reached. Tonight she was on Prime Time Justice and In Context With Arthur Miller. Good night everybody.