Menendez brothers suffer crushing blow after parole hearing is delayed
Erik and Lyle Menendez have been dealt a crushing blow just a week after becoming eligible for parole.
The brothers were due to face a parole board on June 13, but that hearing has now been pushed back by more than two months to take place on August 21 and 22.
The latest setback delays any possibility of freedom by at least nine weeks, after already spending 35 years behind bars for murdering both of their parents.
The brothers appeared in Los Angeles County Superior Court last Tuesday, where Judge Michael Jesic reduced their sentences from life without parole to 50 years to life.
The change means they're eligible to apply for parole under California's youthful offender law because they committed the crime under the age of 26.
But the June 13 date was already scheduled as a separate pathway to freedom. Governor Gavin Newsom was due to reveal whether he would consider clemency for the brothers.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation did not give a reason for delaying the hearing.
Newsom has the authority to grant immediate clemency to the brothers at any time, but securing parole could be a months or years-long process.
The brothers were ordered in 1996 to spend the rest of their lives in prison for fatally shooting their entertainment executive father, Jose Menendez, and mother, Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home.
The brothers were 18 and 21 at the time of the killings.
Defense attorneys argued the brothers acted out of self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, while prosecutors said the brothers killed their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance.
'I'm not saying they should be released, it's not for me to decide,' Judge Jesic said. 'I do believe they've done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.'
The brothers are broadly supported by their relatives, many of whom testified on their behalf during court proceedings. One said the duo had been 'universally forgiven by the family' for their actions.
'Today, 35 years later, I am deeply ashamed of who I was,' Lyle told the court. 'I killed my mom and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification. The impact of my violent actions on my family... is unfathomable.'
The defense began by calling Ana Maria Baralt, a cousin of Erik and Lyle, who testified that the brothers have repeatedly expressed remorse for their actions.
'We all, on both sides of the family, believe that 35 years is enough,' Baralt said. 'They are universally forgiven by our family.'
Diane Hernandez, who also testified during Erik and Lyle's first trial, spoke about the abuse she witnessed in the Menendez household when she lived with them and the so-called 'hallway rule'.
'When Jose was with one of the boys … you couldn't even go up the stairs to be on the same floor,' Hernandez said of the father.
The previous LA County District Attorney George Gascon had opened the door to possible freedom for the brothers last fall by asking a judge to reduce their sentences.
Gascon's office said the case would've been handled differently today due to modern understandings of sexual abuse and trauma, and the brothers' rehabilitation over three decades in prison.
A resentencing petition laid out by Gascon focuses on the brothers' accomplishments and rehabilitation.
Since their conviction, the brothers have received an education, participated in self-help classes and started various support groups for their fellow inmates.
But current district attorney Nathan Hochman said he believes the brothers are not ready for resentencing because 'they have not come clean' about their crimes.
His office also has said it does not believe they were sexually abused.
'Our position is not "no," it's not "never," it's "not yet,"' Hochman said. 'They have not fully accepted responsibility for all their criminal conduct.'
On August 20, 1989, armed with two shotguns, the brothers shot both parents to death as they watched a movie at their Beverly Hills mansion.
The brothers insisted they acted against a father who sexually abused them for years and a mother who turned a blind eye to the abuse.
The first trial ended with a hung jury. But at a second trial in 1996 - where the judge refused to allow any evidence about the brothers being molested by their father - they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
28 minutes ago
- Reuters
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
May 31 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration "parole" for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of "temporary protected status" for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. "This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country," said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history "has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process," Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. "President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants "notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. "The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court "has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States." In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's "more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies" without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. "I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance," said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. "But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field." That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. "Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected," Mukherjee said. "Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives." Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called "third countries" be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. "I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country," Johnson said.
The Guardian
32 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Jewish organizers are increasingly confronting Trump: ‘The repression is growing, but so is the resistance'
On the morning of Columbia University's commencement last week, an intergenerational group of Jewish alumni gathered in the rain outside the Manhattan campus's heavily policed gates, wearing keffiyehs and shirts emblazoned with the words 'not in our name'. Two had graduated more than 60 years earlier, and one spoke of having fled the Nazis to the US as a child. Others recalled participating in Columbia protests of the past, including those that led the university to divest from apartheid South Africa. They spoke as alumni and as Jews to condemn the university's investments in Israel, its repression of pro-Palestinian speech, and its capitulation to the Trump administration's assault on academic freedom in the name of fighting antisemitism on campus. They had planned to burn their Columbia diplomas in protest, but the rain got in their way, so many ripped them to pieces instead. 'As a Jewish person, I'm really appalled at the idea that they are trying to make it sound as if opposing genocide is somehow antisemitic,' said Josh Dubnau, a professor at Stony Brook University who received a PhD from Columbia in 1995 and led the protest. 'There are thousands of us who don't believe in the right of the Jewish people to ethnically cleanse Palestine. There were Jews thousands of years before Zionism, and there will be Jews when Zionism is in the dustbin of history.' Another alumnus, who graduated last year after being suspended over her participation in campus protests, wore a graduation gown and carried the photo of one of nearly 15,000 Palestinian students killed in Gaza during the current war. 'We have a particular duty to show up as Jews because we are not being actively targeted in the way that Palestinian students, Muslim students and Arab students are,' said the student, who asked to remain anonymous. 'It's our duty to weaponise our privilege as Jewish students.' New York police arrested her along with another protester after they set their Columbia diplomas on fire. Nineteen months into Israel's war in Gaza and the US protest movement it prompted, allegations of antisemitism on campuses have become one of the primary pretexts for the Trump administration's multipronged attack on higher education, including billions in funding cuts, demands universities submit to a string of measures curtailing their academic freedom, and the detention and attempted deportation of international students who expressed pro-Palestinian views. But increasingly, Jewish students, faculty and alumni are pushing back against the exploitation of antisemitism charges to justify repressive policies they say do not represent their Jewish values. They have written letters, led protests, lobbied legislators and denounced what they say is the systematic exclusion of Jewish perspectives that are critical of Israel from the national conversation over antisemitism. Jewish Americans – some identifying as 'anti-Zionists', others with a range of views about Israel – have been at the forefront of the movement against the war in Gaza. Last summer, some 200 people, almost all Jewish, were arrested at a protest on Capitol Hill a day before a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu. Earlier this year, more than 350 rabbis, along with more Jewish creatives and activists, signed a New York Times ad denouncing Trump's proposal to ethnically cleanse Gaza. But Jewish-led organising has broadened in recent months. As Jewish Americans continue to protest the war, they are also taking on Trump's onslaught against higher education in the name of Jewish safety, rallying around detained students and condemning what they view as the exploitation of antisemitism in the service of a rightwing political project. In yet another New York Times ad, several former heads of leading Jewish advocacy groups, including conservative ones like Aipac and Hillel International, criticised US Jewish groups that 'have been far too silent about the stunning assault on democratic norms and the rule of law' under Trump. 'The repression has been growing, but so has the resistance,' said Marianne Hirsch, a retired literature professor at Columbia University, who researches memory and the Holocaust and is outspoken against efforts to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. 'I'm seeing a really cross-generational, Jewish faculty, student, and community mobilisation against this narrative.' Jewish Americans' views on Israel, the war in Gaza, antisemitism on campuses and the Trump administration's actions are far more complex than mainstream political discourse may suggest. A recent poll by the Jewish Voters Resource Center found that a majority of Jewish Americans are concerned about antisemitism and say they are 'emotionally attached' to Israel, although older respondents poll much higher on both questions than younger ones. But the survey also found that 64% disapprove of Trump's policies to purportedly combat antisemitism, and 61% believe arresting and deporting pro-Palestinian protesters contribute to increased antisemitism. A rightwing Israeli thinktank found last year that one-third of American Jews believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. While large numbers of Jewish students point to feelings of ostracization on campus in the last year and a half, their views on the campus protests vary widely. A qualitative study of the experiences of Jewish students, published this month, criticizes representations of campus life that 'compartmentalize students into either/or categories, diminishing nuances between them'. The authors point to 'a need for nuanced discussions about Israel, antisemitism, and Jewish identity that respect generational differences and diverse perspectives'. But tackling complex questions – for instance, about when anti-Zionism veers into antisemitism – has become difficult in an increasingly repressive climate. 'It is making it impossible to have discussions in the classroom,' said Joel Swanson, a Jewish studies professor at Sarah Lawrence College. Swanson noted that many Jewish Americans are now mobilising against precisely the kind of repression their ancestors came to the US to escape. 'The very liberal principles that have enabled Jewish thriving in the United States are being chipped away at systematically, one by one,' he said. Many of those who identify as anti-Zionist have found a home under the umbrella of Jewish Voice for Peace, a pro-Palestinian Jewish group whose membership has doubled since the war started – to 32,000 dues-paying members – and whose student chapters were banned from several campuses during last year's protests. In Baltimore, earlier this month, members of the group's dozens of chapters gathered for a national convening. Over four days of workshops at the heavily secured event, participants talked about organising from campuses to religious spaces to promote a 'Judaism beyond Zionism', as the conference tagline read, as well as address authoritarianism in the US. As US universities have become political battlefields, much Jewish organising is happening on campuses and academic spaces. Responding to what they view as a crisis in their scholarly field precipitated by Israel's atrocities in Gaza, Hirsch, the Columbia scholar, and others have launched a multidisciplinary Genocide and Holocaust Studies Crisis Network, a group of mostly Jewish academics invoking their expertise to advocate against universities capitulating to authoritarianism. Jewish faculty and students have also organised in defense of pro-Palestinian students detained by the Trump administration. Following the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian permanent resident and Columbia University graduate who has been detained for nearly three months with no charges, more than 3,400 Jewish faculty across the country signed a letter to denounce 'without equivocation, anyone who invokes our name – and cynical claims of antisemitism – to harass, expel, arrest, or deport members of our campus communities'. Several Jewish students and faculty wrote letters to the court in support of Khalil. And Jewish groups and synagogues filed a court briefing in support of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish Tufts University student who was detained over an op-ed critical of Israel and released earlier this month as her case continues. 'Jewish people came to America to escape generations of similar predations,' they wrote. 'Yet the images of Ozturk's arrest in twenty-first century Massachusetts evoke the oppressive tactics employed by the authoritarian regimes that many ancestors of [our] members left behind in Odessa, Kishinev, and Warsaw.' Faculty and students have also denounced congressional hearings against antisemitism on campuses that they say misrepresent their experiences and exclude their perspectives. As their president prepared to face legislators for a fresh round of antisemitism hearings in Congress this month, Jewish faculty and students at Haverford College issued a statement saying that their voices 'have absolutely not been represented in the current public discussion of antisemitism' and questioning the credibility of mostly non-Jewish, Republican legislators leading the battle over antisemitism on campuses. Earlier this month, a group of Jewish students from Columbia University visited Congress to talk to legislators about their participation in campus protests that politicians paint as antisemitic, bringing their views 'to lawmakers who are almost never hearing from that specific perspective', said Beth Miller, the political director of Jewish Voice for Peace's action group, who accompanied the group. As the Trump administration has sought to justify its repressive measures in their names, many American Jews have found themselves invoking their Jewishness in a public way for the first time. 'We've been criticising identity politics and the way everything gets siloed into identities, and suddenly we find ourselves saying 'as Jewish faculty' or 'as the daughter of Holocaust survivors',' said Hirsch. 'I've always tried to steer clear of having a public Jewish identity. I never felt like I had to advertise it,' echoed Joshua Moses, an anthropology professor at Haverford. 'But this moment kind of demands it.'
The Sun
35 minutes ago
- The Sun
Violence erupts over trans athlete AB Hernandez in California with supporter arrested for smashing car with Pride flag
VIOLENT protests have erupted in California after a trans athlete served a crushing defeat to female rivals at the state championship. AB Hernandez, 16, came first in the women's long jump and triple jump heats at the sporting event - in defiance of Donald Trump's executive order to ban trans athletes from women's sports. 4 4 4 4 She will compete today at the finals of the Interscholastic Federation Southern Section Masters Meet. But a crowd of angry parents confronted her mother at the event to complain that a trans girl was competing against their daughters. It has now turned into a heated row with dozens of protestors carrying out demonstrations to 'save girls sports". Protesters were seen carrying placards and boards outside the Veterans' Memorial Stadium, where the sporting event took place. A banner reading "NO BOYS IN GIRLS' SPORTS!" was flown above the sporting venue during the high school track-and-field championships. The protests quickly turned violent after one person was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, Clovis police Sgt. Chris Hutchison told the Chronicle. He said the person - understood to be an LGBTQ activist - allegedly used a Pride flag to smash a car window, leaving a person injured. More fiery protests are expected to take off as Hernandez prepares to take on her female rivals during the finals today. Yesterday, furious high school parents berated the mother of the trans athlete after her dominant victory. The video, which has now gone viral on TikTok, shows the parents hounding Hernandez's mother for allowing her to compete. One of the parents can be heard yelling at her mother: "What a coward of a woman you are allowing that." Hernandez's story previously made headlines after another teenage girl that she beat to first place in a separate contest waited for her to descend from the podium before moving to pose in the top spot. In the TikTok, the parent can also be heard shouting: "Your mental illness is on your son, coward." But more than half of US states have implemented bans on trans youth athletes participating since 2020. In an Instagram post, Hernandez's mother said: "It takes immense bravery to show up, compete, and be visible in a world that often questions your very right to exist, let alone to participate." Hernandez's case was thrust into national attention after Donald Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California over her sporting participation. Her successes prompted the California Interscholastic Federation to change its rules to allow "biological female" student athletes who would have made the qualifying mark without a trans contestant in the race to compete in the finals. A spokesperson for California Governor Gavin Newsom's office called the proposed pilot "reasonable". California state law allows the participation of trans women and girls in women's sports. Trump posted on Truth Social: "Please be hereby advised that large scale Federal Funding will be held back, maybe permanently, if the Executive Order on this subject matter is not adhered to." His message refers to an Executive Order from February titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports". In an interview with Capital & Main, Hernandez, from Jurupa Valley, California, said: "There's nothing I can do about people's actions, just focus on my own. "I'm still a child. You're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person." She faced heckling and protesters in the crowd at a track meet earlier this month and was accompanied by campus security and Sheriff's Department deputies, CNN has reported. "Girls were just shocked that people would actually come to do that, and really bully a child," she said. "I've trained so hard. I mean, hours of conditioning every day, five days a week. "Every day since November, three hours after school. And then all of summer, no summer break for me." Her mother added that those who have "doxed, harassed and violated my daughter AB's privacy" have created a "hostile and unsafe environment for a minor".
