Retrial jury

This post contains miscellaneous information about, and relating to, the jury in the Menendez brothers retrial.

Profile of the jury panel that deliberated the fate of Lyle and Erik Menendez:
Juror 1: White male, 34 years old.
Juror 2: White male, 64 years old.
Juror 3: White female, 63 years old.
Juror 4: White male, 62 years old.
Juror 5: White male, 52 years old.
Juror 6: Hispanic male, 43 years old.
Juror 7: White male, 30 years old.
Juror 8: White female, 36 years old.
Juror 9: White female, 59 years old.
Juror 10: White male, 37 years old.
Juror 11: White male, 25 years old.
Juror 12: Asian female, 42 years old.

Newspaper articles
Los Angeles Times: Menendez Jurors Had Sympathy, but No Doubts

Los Angeles Times: Menendez Jurors Sure of Their Decision


On April 22, 1996, retrial juror Lesley Hillings and reporter Mary Jane Stevenson appeared on America Online’s Center Stage for a live chat. A transcript of the chat can be found here:

Lesley Hillings appeared in the “American Justice: Menendez Murders” documentary, where she, among other things, said:
“The whole thing with the fear I just couldn’t buy. Because their parents were so controlling, I believe that, but I don’t believe that they feared that their parents were going to kill them at the time they killed their parents.”

In Dateline NBC’s “Unthinkable: The Menendez Murders” documentary, retrial juror Andrew Wolfberg was asked:
“Do you think, in retrospect, had you been offered imperfect self-defense, that you might have maybe started in a different place or come to a different conclusion?”
Wolfberg: “I’m pretty confident that we would not have because we literally started from first-degree murder, and when every element was satisfied we were done.”

Menendez family history
Certain evidence that had been excluded from the guilt phase of the retrial was allowed to be introduced in the penalty phase. The evidence consisted of the testimony of relatives, friends, teachers, coaches, and additional mental health experts.

In her 1997 autobiography, Leslie Abramson writes that a male juror told Lyle Menendez’s defense attorneys that he wished he’d heard some of this evidence earlier in the trial.

Journalist and author Robert Rand has on numerous occasions stated that several members of the jury that convicted the Menendez brothers told him after the trial that they would not have voted for murder if they had heard the family history evidence. More details on this can be found here:

Potential juror misconduct
On April 3, 1996, defense attorney Leslie Abramson stated in court that the defense was “very concerned about a matter.” The matter being that:
“The “National Enquirer” of April 9, 1996 has a story in it, which in the way it reads, would indicate and make you believe that a member or members of the jury has discussed deliberations and certain opinions and conclusions that the jury came to with someone, whether the reporter for the “National Enquirer” directly, or with someone else, who then gave the information to the Enquirer. We think this requires investigation. I’m not sure how to go about it. But if it is true, that the impression from this story is that one of the jurors have been talking, that is clearly misconduct of the worst sort.”

The magazine was marked as Exhibit 462, and an “in camera” hearing was held but the transcript of the hearing was ordered sealed by the court.

More details can be found here: