Скачать или смотреть Menendez Brothers: Perfect and Imperfect Self-Defense Arguments in Court

During the Menendez brothers’ first trial, defense attorneys argued for jury instructions on both perfect and imperfect self-defense. Despite their efforts, the judge only allowed instructions on imperfect self-defense, rejecting the plea for perfect self-defense.

Fast forward to the second trial in 1996, where the stakes were even higher. The judge’s refusal to instruct jurors on imperfect self-defense played a crucial role in the brothers’ convictions for first-degree murder, ultimately leading to their life sentences without the possibility of parole.

What is the Difference Between Perfect and Imperfect Self-Defense?

Imperfect self-defense is another way to reduce a murder charge to the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Imperfect self-defense means that a person honestly, but unreasonably, believed they (or someone close to them) were in danger of great bodily injury or death, and killed another person because of that fear.

What does reasonable mean?

The reasonable person standard is a way to judge the defendant’s thoughts by comparing them to what a normal person would think under the 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝘀 and 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘀 the defendant 𝗸𝗻𝗲𝘄.

What is Perfect Self-Defense?

In contrast, perfect self-defense, which is a complete defense to murder, is where a person honestly and reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury.
Every case is different, and depending on your situation you may have a perfect self-defense or imperfect self-defense. 

CALCRIM 571 reads, the defendant is not guilty of murder or manslaughter if he/she was justified in killing someone in self-defense or defense of another. 

The defendant acted in lawful self-defense if: 

1. The defendant reasonably believed that he/she or someone else was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; 

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; AND 

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger. 

When deciding whether the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, consider all the circumstances as they were known to and appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed. If the defendant’s beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not need to have actually existed. The defendant’s belief that he/she/someone else was threatened may be reasonable even if he/she relied on information that was not true. However, the defendant must actually and reasonably have believed that the information was true. 

If you find that the victim threatened or harmed the defendant or others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable. 

If you find that the defendant knew that the victim had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable. Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.

If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else that he/she reasonably associated with the victim, you may consider that threat in deciding whether the defendant was justified in acting in self-defense.

A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death/great bodily injury/forcible and atrocious crime has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating. 

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not justified. If the People have not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of murder or manslaughter.

What is Imperfect Self-Defense?

The jury instruction for imperfect self-defense, CALCRIM 571 reads, A defendant's actions can be considered "imperfect self-defense" or "imperfect defense" if:

1. He or she really believed that there was imminent danger that would cause the defendant or another individual death or to suffer great bodily injury; AND

2. The defendant really believed that he or she had to use immediate deadly force as a defense against the danger; BUT

3. At least one of those beliefs is considered unreasonable.


0:00 People’s Position
3:20 Micheal Burt’s Argument 
17:55 Leslie Abramson’s Argument
1:03:06 Judge’s Ruling on Jury Instructions


#MenendezBrothers #ErikMenendez #LyleMenendez #TrueCrime #Courtroom #MurderTrial #LyleAndErikMenendez