Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign hey everybody, it's Lacey and I'm Lauren. And welcome back to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:13] Speaker B: So today we're going to be kind of going over the procedural history. This is going to be a multi part kind of episode for us still in our same series where we're going to talk about the procedural history of the Menendez trial and kind of go into that because that was such a complicated trial situation that.
So we can dive into that so we can take it further in the next episode with more our opinions. But we kind of think we need to give some background first. But Lacey, I think you're gonna ask our question for the day.
[00:00:45] Speaker A: Yes. So if. Now I love my husband very much, so clearly not me and how this question arose. But let's say I was in a situation where I wanted to separate from my husband and get a divorce, but I don't have the financial means to move out and get my own place. And then my husband is also not wanting to leave the premises. I know in South Carolina you have to have a fault based divorce or a separation, a one year separation.
So if I were in that situation, what legal remedies do I have to, to initiate that separation to move forward with a wanted divorce?
[00:01:28] Speaker B: So I think it depends on the individual situation in those times. But some things I want to point out is in South Carolina, if you are low income, we do have South Carolina legal services and a lot of states have this where if you truly are low income and have no funds, they will help you. Especially in divorce situations where it is a, you're being abused, whether it be physical, mental and there's children involved because they take cases on a priority level of what is, you know, the worst thing that's happening. So if you're in that situation and you are being abused, they are going to usually come in and help you with your case. So there are resources for low incomes and just a shout out to legal services because they do a lot of great things for, for people. This is not the public defender's office. This is not for criminal. This is for things like family cases, evictions, things that are civil in nature but very important. We also have a lot of resources that people don't realize for battered women in South Carolina. So there are a lot of resources. If you are being abused but say is not being abused, it's just you don't want to and he's holding money over your head. There are things called temporary orders. You go to an attorney, you get a hearing in 10 days on these. And a lot of attorneys will work with you on these first hearings on money wise, like payment plans, that type stuff. Because if your husband's locked up, the money, and that's the issue, the money will come back at some time because the court's going to dive into this money, separate the assets. And if he has moved money around to not be able to pay you, the judges can pull that money back in. So there's a lot that can happen in the family court case, but you can get. And if you are fearing for your life because there is abuse, restraining orders, all those type things can happen. But you need to get in front of a family court judge and they can declare who lives in the home and who doesn't, usually within 10 days. So there are options out there. I know they're scary options a lot of times and I think you have to be ready to move forward in these situations. But legal aid or this change their name Legal Services, if there is abuse, if it's adultery, you can get a quicker divorce. If you can prove they cheated, then you don't have to wait the year separation. And so it can happen really quick. But in South Carolina, I know a lot of our court systems move really slow. Criminal, civil, but family court is not one of those things can happen. Quick things can happen like restraining orders, temporary orders, all that happens so quick. So go to an attorney, talk to them, figure out your options. Or if you are low income, go to legal services, get an appointment with them because you do have options. And if you're being abused, police, please reach out to some of these battered women services because you need. If it's a bad situation like that, don't stay and get killed.
[00:04:37] Speaker A: Yeah. So for those resources and phone numbers, would they be on the bar website?
[00:04:42] Speaker B: South Carolina Legal Services should be. And a lot of times, yes, you can call the South Carolina bar to get information because they can usually point you in the right direction. And also a lot of times there's free seminars the bar host at your local libraries.
The that I would recommend attending up here. We haven't done it in a while, but there's the telethon where you can actually call in and talk to an attorney. Or if you're nervous about talking during that time of the telethon, you can actually go online and just web chat people too. So it takes a little of the fear out of it because I know that conversation is scary. But we do have options. Don't stay in something that. And don't let money be the reason you stay in a situation, money usually will work itself out in these situations. But if you stay and you're being abused, that's not you need to go.
[00:05:36] Speaker A: So it's scbar.org for anybody in South Carolina listening that needs those services and needs to learn more information about what possibilities they have. So thank you, Lauren.
[00:05:47] Speaker B: And one quick thing, if you're not in South Carolina, I am sure all the other states something very similar. So always reach out to the bar in your state to learn about those free resources they provide.
[00:06:00] Speaker A: Yeah.
So moving on to another case that it does involve abuse, but I guess it's opinion too. Some people do believe they're abusing some not. But the Menendez brother. So that's what we're digging into today. So I'm going to do a brief factual information of the story and then, Lauren, I'm going to turn it over to you because I know you are, you know, a lot more in depth for the procedures of the trials that they went through. So it's been resurfaced because they are trying to get re sentenced. But Lyle and Eric Menendez, they were sentenced in was it the early 90s?
[00:06:44] Speaker B: I think it was like 90. No, it was mid-90s is actually when they're sentencing happened.
[00:06:50] Speaker A: Okay. Yeah. They were sentenced to life in prison for first degree murder for killing their parents.
There were two trials and Lauren's going to kind of go through what different evidence was presented in both of them.
But after they killed their parents, they left. They got rid of the weapon and their clothes. They came back. They thought the police would come, but they never did. So they came back. The police still weren't there because they didn't hear the gunshots. And so one of the brothers called 911 and said somebody's killed my parents. The other brother screaming. They were later arrested and charged with murder and later convicted. And like I said, they were sentenced to life in prison.
They there's new evidence that are what the state and the defense agree they think is new evidence discussing sexual abuse by the father of the brothers.
I'm not sure if it was just one brother or the other, but we can kind of get into that later. And so the current prosecutors reviewing the case as well as of course, the defense attorneys for the Menendez brothers, are trying to get them resentenced. So that's why that story has resurfaced even though it's several decades old. And now Lauren's going to kind of walk us through the procedural mess of these trials. And kind of how everything played out to get to this life sentence.
[00:08:15] Speaker B: So I am a true crime junkie.
I love these type things. I have no desire to do criminal defense. I'm one of those people that would rather sit and watch hours of Dateline. And I've done this since I was like way too young to be watching Dateline. Shout out to Lester Holt because I love him.
And Craig Melvin, now the anchor of the Today show that used to sometimes host that. But anyway, so I think a lot of the Menendez brothers, we kind of have to take into the social history of that time. Like, okay, so we're in the late 80s is when this happens. We're in Beverly Hills.
And Beverly Hills police are going to be different than what most of me and you deal with because you're in the richest of rich, the highfalutin of society out there in California. And during this time, race relations are super intense because some things that kind of building up. They murdered their parents. But then in this time span of this, we had the Rodney King case come out and I think we all know what happened there. The cops were acquitted from beating a black man to death. There were riots. Racial tensions were definitely high because they.
[00:09:32] Speaker A: Didn'T kill Rodney King.
[00:09:34] Speaker B: They didn't kill him.
[00:09:35] Speaker A: No, he did survive, but it was, it was filmed. So that's what made it so diff. Like, of course there's allegations of police brutality. I think it's probably nationwide, but really bad with the LAPD at this time. And so, yeah, Rodney King was fleeing the police, essentially. Just a brief overview. And when they caught up to him, he got up, he got on his hands and knees, put his hands up in the air and they, they beat him, beat the crap out of him. He did survive. He had broken ribs, broken bones, and somebody from a balcony recorded it. And that's why it was such a big story is because it was actually caught on film.
[00:10:18] Speaker B: And it was, it. There were, after the clip there was, you can watch videos of the riots and everything. So we have this going on like socially wise. The Menendez brothers, their dad is a Cuban immigrant to here, so they're first generation. But from all looks, they look like two white men. I mean, because their mom was white as could be like from a wealthy like white society. And their dad pretty much was self made, but he was very well in Cuba they were very rich. But when they came here, they had to flee Cuba with all that stuff going on. So they pretty much lost almost everything. And he started over and he became Very influential out in the culture out there in Beverly Hills. Everybody knew him. So I think some of that we have to take into account with this. So in 80, it was 88, 89, they murder their parents and then they go to trial relatively quick. I think their first trial was in the 90s, early 90s, I think it was like 91, 92. I'm terrible at timelines, but so they go to trial and at this first trial.
[00:11:22] Speaker A: 93, 93.
[00:11:24] Speaker B: Okay. So at this first trial there is at. Well, at this point we're kind of taking it back. So they didn't have a lot of evidence that the Menendez brothers actually killed their parents because there was no murder weapon. There was like not a lot of you had no smoking gun that type stuff coming into this. But they were arrested for it. And then in jail, one of them wrote a letter to the other one. And during this time there was a story out that the two of them tried to escape jail. So they actually hadn't tried to escape at all. But the cops came into, or the security guards or whoever came in and looked through their room to see if there was a plan of escape. And they found this letter that the one wrote to the other, pretty much laying out the whole thing. So that's really their biggest evidence coming in. But so we go into this trial after that.
The jury was selected and I will tell you, like, probably the jury was biased because at this point news is starting to really report on crimes and stuff.
We have a lot. It's not like the 1950s anymore, the 1980s. The news is out there. It's quicker. You're printing newspapers and stuff, you're watching the nightly news. So you're seeing all of this. And so they go to their first trial. In their first trial, it is two separate trials combined into one because the evidence is all the same. So it's the state versus Eric, the state versus Lyle. So there's two separate verdict forms, everything. Right. But they are combined into this one case because all the facts are the same. So coming into it, there is no question that the two of them have killed their parents. They have admitted to killing their parents.
The. What we're. They're trying to prove is it was in self defense, that that is premeditated.
[00:13:19] Speaker A: They're trying to prove that it was premeditated and not just in the heat of the moment.
[00:13:24] Speaker B: Well, yeah, so like, but they're like the. So what the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not in self defense that they killed Their parents. That's where the burden was. And just so we know, like self defense requires usually an imminent harm, that in that moment you are scared for your life.
[00:13:45] Speaker A: Well, actually Lauren is the defense that has to prove self defense, not the prosecutor proving that it wasn't.
The burden is on the defense, at least South Carolina. Maybe not in California, but in South Carolina the burden is on the defense to prove self defense.
[00:14:02] Speaker B: So I was trying to read that and some of. I think it depends on the state because it very well could.
[00:14:07] Speaker A: But in South Carolina I know the burden would be on the defense to prove self defense.
[00:14:13] Speaker B: It had like from what I was seeing from California and I could be wrong because I'm not a California attorney, that the state had to prove it wasn't in self defense.
[00:14:21] Speaker A: Interesting.
[00:14:22] Speaker B: Okay, I could be wrong. That was Google and I'm not a California attorney. But that was kind of what the state. But with self defense, it is imminent threat of harm that you are going to be, you know, killed, raped in that moment. So I think that was one of the things when we get into the trial, one thing is the psychologist or that presented evidence was the psychologist of the Menendez brother. And he saw him before the trial happened, like before he killed his dad because he had been in some trouble years prior. And the court had, like most courts require you to get some mental health. And so he had. But one thing about the psychologist that testified, he had made the dad had made the psychologist sign a piece of paper saying anything that happened in that stuff he had to be told the dad about. So kind of how he talked about in the Britney Spears case, where you ever get through therapy, because this. But that was one of the prosecution's main witnesses because this is who the Menendez brothers confessed. Well, who Eric, I believe it was. Eric was seeing him. I do get them confused. So Eric was seeing him. And Eric actually confessed to him after a session that he had killed his parents and then brought ly in and ly confessed. And this psychiatrist recorded the whole conversation. And there was this whole pre trial motion of could this come in? Because are we breaking confidentiality that a therapist is supposed to have with us? The issue is with confidentiality that it can be broken if the person feels that the people are an imminent risk of danger to someone else or to themselves. So the psychiatrist or psychologist argued in this case that because he knew about the murders, it was, it was, he was in danger and the courts actually let his testimony come in.
[00:16:19] Speaker A: I don't like that.
[00:16:20] Speaker B: But okay, well, that's and he was a crooked psychologist from the get go, I think.
[00:16:24] Speaker A: I mean, to allow the dad to have the information. Yeah, agreed.
[00:16:29] Speaker B: I guess there is some of that because he was underage. But I still think you should have free range in therapy, right. To talk about what you want to talk about. So there is that there. And then in the trials, both Menendez brothers got on the stand and that is when they testified that they were sexually abused by their dad. There was a lot.
[00:16:53] Speaker A: And Lyle, the older brother, said on the stand that he had sexually assaulted his brother.
[00:17:00] Speaker B: Yes. So pretty much there was this circle going on that the dad abused them and then the older one took him out into the woods and abused the younger one and that they were. But they were sexually abused and that supposedly their mom, they went to their mom and told her that this happened and she did nothing. Pretty much, your dad loves you, you need to respect him. And when you're bad, he's going to punish you. There was also testimony presented, you know, that the dad had been abusive, not sexually, but other people stated the dad had been abusive, like forcing them to be in pain till they cried like bull, like pitting them against their other relatives like that. There was a lot of hostile environment for the kids in the testimony.
What the prosecutor, what they were trying to do in this was at least if it wasn't going to be self defense, bring it down to manslaughter, which had a lot less than premeditated murder.
And so in that situation, they testified, everybody rests, the jury goes out to deliberate on. And it was a hard jury case to deliberate on because there's so many different options. There's first degree premeditated murder, there's manslaughter, there's they should be off because of self defense. And there's two separate people we're thinking about here because one is an abuser himself and one has been abused by two people in his family. And so that's what the jury goes out. The jury deliberates for a long time. And a lot of times in these jury deliberations, they take polls. Usually they started by taking a poll. And from what they said on, like different documentaries, the jury came in and was deadlocked 6 and 6. And pretty much what has been said is the men all said that it was first degree murder. The women had empathy and were going manslaughter. So they all were not buying the self defense at this point as far as like the imminent threat of danger, because in that moment they killed them. They were not in danger. So that like, it wasn't like in the act of being molested, they killed him. It was premeditated. They went out and bought the gun. So they weren't buying that. So they were saying they need to serve some jail time. But ultimately. Oh, and I think it is something to note. The judge in this case was the same judge as the Rodney King case. So I think that like where the officers were acquitted.
Yes. So they're kind of like, the judge is probably having mixed emotions and all those. Because he's like, if I was a judge, I'd be thinking, crap, I'm in another high profile case. And the judge, while they don't make the ultimate decision, they make decisions on things that come into trial that really impact the trial. So, like, they get to make decisions on certain evidence coming in and like, allowing them to testify and stating about the sexual abuse was evidence that judge allowed in. Right. Okay, so we get here, the jury's deadlocked. They come back, they've taken multiple polls, it's not getting anywhere. So when you have a deadlock jury, you're not innocent, you're not guilty. It's just, there's nothing. So in this situation, I think it's important to note they can retry them without it being double jeopardy because there was never a verdict.
[00:20:19] Speaker A: And the thing with juries is a jury can't decide what the law is. What they are supposed to do is interpret the facts and apply the law to facts. So what a jury is doing in this case, in any criminal case, is determining do they believe the brothers when they say they were abused? They can choose to say, well, I believe Lyall was, but not Eric, or I believe Eric was, but not Lyle, or I don't believe either one. And so they're evaluating credibility as to how this happened. And does buying a gun in advance, but if they are abused, is that premeditation? So they're interpreting these facts and then given the law and then trying to decide, okay, with these facts, what, where does it fit? Does it fit in a not guilty or a guilty of this crime or guilty of that crime? So it sounds like to me, with the interpretation that the men probably did not believe them that they were abused, or they believe that if they were abused, it didn't matter. Buying the gun in advance would not lessen the charge in their minds. And it seems like the women did believe that they were abused and were trying to escape that abuse. So therefore the premeditation was taken away.
[00:21:30] Speaker B: I think a big part in all this too was the fact that they're having to add this for two different brothers, I mean, right. It is just a lot to go into a jury room with all this. It's not black and white and knowing that they are making this decision.
And then like maybe some of her did cross sides while they're in the jury. But then they went back and forth and there was a deadlock and there's nothing you can do about it. You can't force them because it doesn't matter if 11 of them found him guilty of premeditated murder, but one said they're innocent. That's it. All 12 have to unanimously decide this. So once they did this, they came back, said it was, you know, deadlock jury. So they were released at that point, and it's up to the state to decide if they want to retried or not. So this is one thing. In civil cases, they poll the jury afterwards.
Do they do that in criminal cases too?
[00:22:32] Speaker A: The defense bar, if they want it polled, or the state, if it's only the state can poll as well. But we usually do.
[00:22:41] Speaker B: And that means to see how many of the jurors said they were, where the jurors stood on it. And a lot of times this is when the state will decide if they are going to try the case again. If it's 11 saying guilty and one saying and not the state's, like, okay, we're probably going to try this again.
In this case, it was a split jury. So the state's taking that into consideration. And then I think we can talk more about that in our next episode. Kind of the thought process behind that. Pretty much the state at this point hasn't done anything and years are kind of going by. But then what happens is we have O.J. simpson. California was crazy in the late 80s, early 90s, so, so we have O.J. simpson come in, kill his wife. I think we all agree he was a part of it no matter what. And we will talk about OJ Later. Cop cars going off right at the same time mentioning him. But in this whole time, the jury is acquits O.J. simpson. Three months later, we're back in a trial with the Menendez brothers for retrying it. So I definitely think this has something to do with it. I mean, and we can dig more into that.
[00:23:50] Speaker A: I mean, prosecutors are elected officials as political. So with losing such a big high profile case, they probably wanted a conviction. And since they had a mistrial, the next time they could, they probably felt like they could get one to show that we're being tough on crime. Vote for us.
[00:24:06] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think that, like, I think if O.J. hadn't happened, the Menendez brothers probably would not have went back to trial. Because interesting is a lot of resources go into a trial, a lot of money go into a trial. And I think one thing to note during all of this is the men, the Menendez brothers are not your typical victims of situations here.
Right. So I think that kind of played into all of it. So when OJ Gets his acquittal, they're like, maybe we can push this again. So they go into a second trial.
[00:24:41] Speaker A: And race goes into that because like you said that they were of Cuban descent by their father, but in looking, they, they are half white by their mother. So I think too, it's like, hey, they, they are half Caucasian.
This has nothing to do with race. You know, Rodney King looks bad, OJ Looks bad. You know, so now we're going to go after some privileged, you know, white men to show that this isn't about, you know, we're not racist either for political gain.
[00:25:16] Speaker B: Well, and also, like, they were preppy white boys. They got on the stand and wore sweaters with little button up shirts under it. And that was, if you go back in the time, snl, like what? Jay Leno.
Yeah's name that was really popular. David Letterman.
[00:25:35] Speaker A: Letterman, yeah.
[00:25:36] Speaker B: They were all making fun of them during this with, because of how preppy they were. So they go into the second trial. When we get into the second trial, the judge does not let the evidence. They cannot testify of their sexual abuse.
[00:25:50] Speaker A: Was it the same judge?
[00:25:52] Speaker B: I believe so. Okay. I believe it was. I'm not 100. They had the same defense attorneys, though. It was still that like little intense woman and the more calm lady. But they come in and the judge didn't let the sexual abuse come in. The trial moves forward and at this point they were sentenced to premeditated first degree murder in their second trial, which is then they were given a life sentence in jail. So procedurally this trial was very complex because we have two trials and two different versions of the evidence came into play with these. And it was just a complex matter. So in the span of 10 years, they were kind of like out here in limbo and then 100% guilty.
And so it was just different procedurally. And I think that's important to note when going over this case. And one of the big differences for this was that the sexual assault testimony was not allowed into the second trial. Right.
[00:26:57] Speaker A: So.
And I didn't know that until we were preparing for this case that that information didn't come in. And like I said in the beginning of this episode, that that testimony and I guess it's up to whether you believe it or not. That's why the prosecutors now are do believe they were victims of sexual assault.
So that's, you know, they're, they are in support of them getting a lesser less time in prison, converting the life sentence to something along the side of voluntary manslaughter, which was presented at that first trial.
So in wrapping this one up in the next episode, what we're going to talk about is another case that's been really big with killing someone's parents, and that's Gypsy Rose. So the next episode, we're going to jump into, you know, this premeditation.
How do you compare and decipher whether someone's premeditated when somebody is the victim of abuse, how the Menendez brothers and that abuse and in with premeditation plays into spousal battered spousal syndrome and Gypsy Rose and how her sentence was so much significantly different, even though she played a part in killing her mother. So tune in. We're about to dive into more of these cases and how they're connected.
And if y'all have any questions after these episodes air, definitely hit us up. You ready to dive in next week?
[00:28:33] Speaker B: I am. And hit us up on Instagram, Twitter, all those different your platforms on social media send us emails, dms, because we want to hear from you.
[00:28:42] Speaker A: Yep. All right. We'll see y'all in the next episode. Bye.
