[EDITOR'S NOTE: Lesley Hillings, a juror in the second Menendez murder trial, and reporter Mary Jane Stevenson appeared on America Online's Center Stage April 22, 1996 for a live chat. The following is a transcript.]
Court TV: Hello everybody. Our guests tonight are Lesley Hillings, a juror in the Menendez trial, and Court TV reporter Mary Jane Stevenson. I'd like to ask our guests, what has it been like for you, since the trial ended?
Lesley Hillings: It has been quite a whirlwind with the media and all. It's kind of been like a therapy for us jurors to be able to talk about this entire case. I think a way for us to relieve the tensions or stress of the trial is to talk about it now.
Mary Jane Stevenson: At first it felt like the story wasn't over because I was chasing down jurors. But now it seems finally to be past me and hopefully I can go on vacation.
Question: What did you folks think of David Conn's demeanor in court?
Lesley Hillings: I thought he was an excellent lawyer and presented his case in a very well organized manner. Sometimes he would go overboard on a point or really badger the witness with repeated questions on the same exact point.
Mary Jane Stevenson: I thought he showed a lot of class when he discovered the incident between Dr. Vicary and Leslie Abramson. Although they are adversaries and he knew that she might have been in a lot of trouble, he basically sat back and let the judge work it out. He did not spew a lot of rhetoric and accuse her of misconduct.
Question: Can you please tell us the reasons why the jurors did not believe the sexual abuse?
Lesley Hillings: Because there were inconsistencies in Eric's story it left doubt in jurors' minds. Also, some jurors felt that either one of the brothers could have left the home at any point and chose not to. Some felt Jose Menendez did not seem the type of person that would do that. And I should add that some jurors did feel there was sexual abuse.
Question: Did the jury ever consider second-degree murder convictions, and if not, why not?
Lesley Hillings: The jury never discussed degrees of murder. We just went over all of the elements individually and found each of them to be true. When we had finished, we had all the elements of first-degree murder and therefore we never discussed the degrees individually.
Question: Based on what evidence did the jury conclude that Lyle and Erik purchased the guns with the intent to kill -- rather for self protection?
Lesley Hillings: Because of the tape that was made by their psychologist Dr. Oziel. There was evidence of premeditation on that tape. Also, we did not believe that they actually feared for their lives at any time. We did feel they feared their parents --but not for their lives.
Question: Do you think the jury, as a whole, connected with Carol Najera? Was she overbearing at times as assistant prosecutor?
Lesley Hillings: No, Ms. Najera was not overbearing. She actually was very soft spoken and her role was much less than that of David Conn who did most of the witness examination.
Question: Are you aware, and are other jurors aware, that the judge gutted the defense on the very last day of testimony in the penalty phase, just before closing arguments? By this I mean that the judge ruled that the defense couldn't argue its imperfect self-defense theory.
Lesley Hillings: No, the jury was not aware at that time because we were not allowed to read or watch any media coverage of the trial or discuss it with anyone. However, I do feel we considered self-defense during our deliberation and felt that neither defendant was acting in self-defense at the time they committed the killings.
Mary Jane Stevenson: It sounds to me as if the imperfect self defense instruction would not have made a difference in deliberation. However, let me pose this question to Lesley: Would it have made a difference if you were allowed to consider that the brothers believed they were in danger even though they truly weren't -- that because of their background they mistakenly believed there was a danger there that wasn't. That is the difference between imperfect self-defense and regular self defense.
Lesley Hillings: We did discuss whether they felt they were in danger and their state of mind while the crime was being committed. But we did not believe they were in fear at that time and that they were not acting in self defense.
Mary Jane Stevenson: So it sounds as if the judge's ruling had absolutely no bearing on the outcome of this case. Because what Lesley is saying is that although they were not instructed to consider imperfect self defense, they did so anyway.
Lesley Hillings: We were not instructed not to consider it.
Question: What were the inconsistencies in Erik's testimony about sexual abuse?
Lesley Hillings: Most of the inconsistencies that we found in Erik's testimony were not related to sexual abuse -- because no one witnessed the sexual abuse. However, we felt some of the testimony that Erik gave could not have occurred as he stated it without other people knowing about it because at various times cousins lived with them in the home for long periods.
Question: What was your impression of Roger McCarthy and his reconstruction of the crime scene?
Lesley Hillings: Personally I thought Roger McCarthy was a very nice man and a very credible witness. I give him a lot of credit for trying to reconstruct the crime scene because in my mind I kept wondering how the shooting occurred. His reconstruction gave me an idea of how it could have occurred. Then there were many experts brought in to refute the testimony and we listened to testimony on the reconstruction for about a month where they were arguing over minor details such as an angle of a shot or the exact order of the shots. During deliberation, we talked about the crime scene reconstruction for about five minutes, and felt it was irrelevant as to how the shots exactly occurred.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Amazing that so much time was spent on something that the jurors spent so little time considering. I felt from listening to the witnesses that that crime scene could not be reconstructed by anyone. And I wonder whether the prosecutors could have shaved off a month of this trial by eliminating Dr. McCarthy.
Lesley Hillings: The jurors felt that the reason the crime scene was played out for such a long period of time by the prosecution was to focus on the brutality of the crime. It allowed the prosecutors to show us photos and exhibits over and over again.
Question: Was there one particular thing that made the jury vote for life in prison instead of death?
Lesley Hillings: No, there was not one particular thing. The judge's instructions were very limiting as to what we could consider to be an aggravating factor. An aggravating factor is something you consider in favor of the death penalty. There were many factors that you could consider as mitigating. To rule for a death penalty verdict, the aggravating factors had to substantially outweigh the mitigating factors.
Mary Jane Stevenson: It seems as if Lyle Menendez barely squeaked by with a life sentence because from what I've heard from the jurors, juror Bruce Seitz gave a speech to the jury about why Lyle should get life and not death. Bruce replaced another juror who had a heart attack during the first deliberations. This juror tells me she most likely would have voted for death. So had she not had her heart attack, it seems Lyle Menendez most likely would have gotten the death penalty.
Lesley Hillings: Lyle was definitely closer to getting the death penalty than Erik and many jurors made speeches such as Bruce Seitz, both in favor of Lyle and against him. After the case, when I spoke with the juror who had the heart attack, we discussed the death penalty. I explained to her some of the judge's instructions and what we could and could not consider, and she then questioned whether or not she too would have been able to vote for the death penalty under those circumstances.
Question: What did the jury think about the written play by play as to how the brothers were going to carry out the crime. I had heard some years back that there were written plans. Was that brought out in the second trial?
Lesley Hillings: No, there was no evidence of any written plans.
Mary Jane Stevenson: I've never heard of such a thing. Had there been evidence of written plans, I'm sure that the prosecution would have introduced it, and it was never introduced.
Question: What kind of things did the jurors talk about instead of talking about the trial? Did you talk about pets, families, or chicken coops? What?
Lesley Hillings: We discussed families and other current events. We did the morning crossword and jumble. We watched dozens of movies, played cards and dominoes, and kept ourselves entertained. We all had a great sense of humor and we used humor to lighten the stress of the case. And since we could not talk about the case, we tried to joke with each other and keep ourselves busy when we were not in court.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Did you have a video machine or something in the room where you were staying? That shack that you stayed in?
Lesley Hillings: Yes, we had a VCR and could watch movies that we all brought in, but we could not watch regular TV because there could be media coverage.
Question: Are you writing a book about your experience as a juror?
Lesley Hillings: No, I have no plans to write a book at this time.
Question: Did you find the jury instructions confusing?
Lesley Hillings: No, they were not confusing, but we did have to go over them very carefully -- to making sure we all understood them and that we agreed as to what they meant.
Question: Did the jury know when it convicted Lyle and Erik that the sentence would be death or life w/o parole only?
Lesley Hillings: Yes. At the beginning of the trial, the judge mentioned that if a verdict of first-degree murder was found, there would be a penalty phase that immediately followed.
Question: Did the fact that Lyle did not testify hurt him and/or Erik?
Lesley Hillings: I don't think Erik was hurt because Lyle didn't testify. There were many things we did not know about Lyle that we may have been able to learn if he had testified. We only heard information about Lyle from other witnesses and from Erik.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Lesley, what did you all think of the video that you watched during the Dateline interview of Lyle Menendez's testimony in the first trial?
Lesley Hillings: I personally felt that his testimony was very emotional. However, I listened in court to Lyle making a call to 911 reporting the parents' death, and he was crying and highly emotional in that call. I knew that he was lying when he made that call.
Question: Did anyone wonder/doubt why the psychiatrist Dr. Oziel was never called? Did you believe the tape of his session with Erik and Lyle?
Lesley Hillings: We felt the tape had some truth to it because it was made before their arrest. We all wondered why we did not see Dr. Oziel testify and wish that we could have heard from him.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Have you since heard that Dr. Oziel was never called because of credibility problems in the first trial? And if so, would that have made a difference in how you viewed the December 11 tape?
Lesley Hillings: No, I was not aware of that.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Would that have made a difference in how you viewed the tape?
Lesley Hillings: If he had testified in the second trial, I would have evaluated his credibility based on his testimony at that time because I have no knowledge of his prior testimony.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Did the fact that he did not testify make you question the tape at all?
Lesley Hillings: No, it did not make me question the tape. I figured there was a reason that neither side called him to the stand, but I did not know what the reason was. I thought the prosecution would have called him.
Question: How could you possibly avoid seeing all of the negative hateful publicity that was anti-Menendez?
Lesley Hillings: Most times I avoided watching regular TV and just watched cable movies instead. My children would check the morning newspaper and cut out anything related to the case as did the deputies at court when we brought newspapers. I told people I knew that I was on the case and could not discuss it in any way, and they were very understanding.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Have you caught up on the coverage since the trial, and if so, did anything surprise you?
Lesley Hillings: I have not fully caught up on the coverage that took place during the trial. However, from things I've heard on the news or through the media in the last few days, I felt there were some things I would have like to have known during the trial, but I don't think it would have changed my decision.
Mary Jane Stevenson: Could you give a couple of examples of things you heard that you would have liked to have known during the trial?
Lesley Hillings: Someone told me that Lyle bragged about being able to turn on tears or persuade a jury.
Court TV: I want to thank both our guests. We appreciate you guys spending the time with us. Good night all.
