A timeline of the Menendez brothers' double-murder case
Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison for fatally shooting their father, Jose Menendez, and mother, Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills mansion in August 1989. They were 18 and 21 at the time.
For years after their convictions, the brothers filed petitions for appeals of their cases that were denied. But the brothers became eligible for parole after a Los Angeles judge in May reduced their sentences from life in prison without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, marking the closest they've been to freedom since their convictions.
Even if the board grants their parole, it could still be months before the brothers walk free — if at all. If the board grants each brother's parole, the chief legal counsel has 120 days to review the case. Then, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to affirm or deny the parole.
Here's a look at their case over the last three decades:
March 1990: Lyle Menendez, then 21, is arrested. A few days later, Erik Menendez, 18, turns himself in. They are charged with first-degree murder.
July 1993: The Menendez brothers go on trial, each with a separate jury. Prosecutors argued that they killed their parents for financial gain. The brothers' attorneys don't dispute the pair killed their parents, but argued that they acted out of self-defense after years of emotional and sexual abuse by their father.
January 1994: Both juries deadlock.
October 1995: The brothers' retrial begins, this time with a single jury. Much of the defense evidence about alleged sexual abuse is excluded during the second trial.
March 1996: Jurors convict both brothers of first-degree murder.
July 1996: The brothers are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
February 1998: A California appeals court upholds the brothers' conviction, and three months later, the state Supreme Court agrees.
October 1998: The brothers file habeas corpus petitions with the California Supreme Court. After they are denied the next year, they file petitions in federal district court, which are also denied.
September 2005: The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals denies their habeas corpus appeal.
May 3: Attorneys for the Menendez brothers ask the court to reconsider the convictions and life sentences in light of new evidence from a former member of the boy band Menudo, who said he was raped by Jose Menendez when he was 14. In addition, they submit a letter that Erik wrote to his cousin before the killings about his father's abuse.
Sept. 19: Netflix releases the crime drama ' Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, ' a nine-episode series about the killings.
Oct. 4: Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón says his office is reviewing new evidence in the case.
Oct. 16: Multiple generations of family members of the Menendez brothers hold a news conference pleading for their release from prison. The relatives say the jurors who sentenced them to life without parole in 1996 were part of a society that was not ready to hear that boys could be raped.
Oct. 24: Prosecutors say they will petition the court to resentence the brothers, and that it could lead to their release.
Nov. 18: California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he would not decide on granting the brothers clemency until after the newly elected district attorney has a chance to review the case.
Nov. 25: A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge holds a hearing regarding the request for resentencing but says he needs more time to make a decision, delaying the resentencing hearings.
Dec. 3: Nathan Hochman is sworn into office as the new district attorney of LA County.
Feb. 21: Hochman says his office will oppose a new trial for the Menendez brothers. He cast doubt on the evidence of sexual abuse. The following week, Newsom orders the state parole board to conduct a 'comprehensive risk assessment' to determine whether the brothers have been rehabilitated and if they would pose a danger to the public if released.
March 10: Hochman says his office won't support resentencing the brothers because they have repeatedly lied about why they killed their parents.
April 11: A judge denies prosecutors' request to withdraw their resentencing petition. The following week, resentencing hearings scheduled are delayed due to disputes among prosecutors and the brothers' lawyers, who say they will ask to remove Hochman's office from the case.
May 9: Hochman's office remains on the case as the judge again denies prosecutors' request to withdraw their resentencing petition.
May 13: Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduces the brothers' sentences from life without parole to 50 years to life. They are immediately eligible for parole because they committed the crime under the age of 26. The state parole board must still decide whether to release them from prison.
Aug. 21 and 22: Erik and Lyle Menendez are scheduled to have their hearings with the California state parole board. They will take place virtually.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S. court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
A New York appeals court has thrown out President Donald Trump's massive financial penalty while narrowly upholding a Judge's finding that he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The Thursday's (August 21, 2025) ruling spares Mr. Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Mr. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory' in the case, which stemmed from a civil lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' the Republican wrote. James, a Democrat, focused on the parts of the decision that went her way, saying in a statement that it 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' The ruling came seven months after Mr. Trump returned to the White House, his political fortunes unimpeded by the civil fraud judgment, a criminal conviction and other legal blows. A sharply divided panel of five Judges in the state's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Mr. Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive'. A lower-court judge, Arthur Engoron, had ordered Mr. Trump last year to pay $355 million in penalties after finding that he flagrantly padded financial statements provided to lenders and insurers. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties for executives at his company, the Trump Organisation, including sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr, have brought the total to $527 million with interest. 'While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award' to the state, Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. They called the penalty 'an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution'. Both were appointed by Democratic governors. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Mr. Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. Donald Trump Jr celebrated the decision by mocking James, who had periodically posted a running tally of the fraud penalty with interest. Over a post from James in February 2024, when the tally was nearly $465 million, Trump Jr wrote: 'I believe you mean $0.00. Thank you for your attention to this matter.' The five-Judge panel, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the monetary penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. In the meantime, Mr. Trump and his co-defendants, the Judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause to prevent any punishments from taking effect. While the Appellate Division dispatches most appeals in a few pages in a matter of weeks, the Judges weighing Mr. Trump's case took nearly 11 months to rule after oral arguments last fall and issued 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some Judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two Judges wrote that they felt James' lawsuit was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any lenders felt cheated, they could have sued Mr. Trump themselves, and none did. Another wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial that James had proven Mr. Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, appointed by a Republican governor, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' ... but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Judge Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' Mr. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me'. The Republican leader has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Mr. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign'. Mr. Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defence also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Mr. Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Mr. Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Mr. Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Mr. Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Mr. Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Mr. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
NDTV
39 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Everybody Feels Safe": Trump Visits Cops, Troops Deployed In Washington DC
Washington: President Donald Trump visited police and troops Thursday that he has deployed in the US capital in what he calls a crackdown on crime, saying they were going to "stay here for a while." Trump ordered hundreds of members of the Guard, a reserve force, to deploy in Washington last week vowing to "take our capital back," despite protests by some residents and statistics showing violent offenses falling. "We're going to make it safe, and we're going to then go on to other places, but we're going to stay here for a while. We want to make this absolutely perfect," the Republican said outside a US Park Police facility in the Anacostia neighborhood of Washington. He was surrounded by law enforcement from various local and federal agencies as well as National Guard troops. Earlier Thursday the 79-year-old had suggested he would go on patrol with police and the military, but instead he made a short speech and gave out pizzas and hamburgers. "Everybody feels safe," he said, adding that he plans to get the capital "fixed up physically." "One of the things we're going to be redoing is your parks. I'm very good at grass, because I have a lot of golf courses all over the place. I know more about grass than any human being," the billionaire added. He spoke one day after his vice president, JD Vance, was greeted by boos and shouts of "Free DC" -- referring to Washington's formal name, the District of Columbia -- on his own meet-and-greet with troops. Vance dismissed the hecklers as "a bunch of crazy protesters." The DC National Guard has mobilized 800 troops, while Republican states Ohio, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia are sending a total of around 1,200. They have been spotted in tourist areas such as the National Mall and its monuments, the Nationals Park baseball stadium and others. The overwhelmingly Democratic US capital faces allegations from Republican politicians that it is overrun by crime, plagued by homelessness and financially mismanaged. But data from Washington police showed significant drops in violent crime between 2023 and 2024, though that was coming off the back of a post-pandemic surge. Some residents have welcomed the crackdown, pointing to crime in their areas -- but others have complained the show of force is unnecessary, or has not been seen in parts of Washington where violence is concentrated. - Sandwich guy - Several incidents involving the surge of law enforcement have gone viral as residents voice their discontent, including the arrest of one man who was caught on camera throwing a sandwich at an agent. Banksy-style posters honoring the so-called "sandwich guy" have popped up around the city. The National Guard troops have provided "critical support such as crowd management, presence patrols and perimeter control in support of law enforcement," according to statements on their official X account. In addition to sending troops into the streets, Trump has also sought to take full control of the Washington police department, attempting at one point to sideline its leadership. The deployment of troops in Washington comes after Trump dispatched the National Guard and Marines to quell unrest in Los Angeles, California, that was sparked by immigration enforcement raids.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Trump's ex-lawyer Alina Habba illegally served as US attorney in NJ, judge rules
A US federal judge has ruled that Alina Habba, former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, has been unlawfully serving as the acting US attorney for New Jersey. Chief US District Judge Matthew Brann found that Habba's interim period expired in July and the Trump administration's attempt to keep Habba in office through 'a novel series of legal and personnel moves' violated federal law requiring Senate confirmation for such said her actions since July 'may be declared void' but temporarily delayed the enforcement of the ruling pending an decision stems from challenges by New Jersey defendants who argued Habba lacked legal authority to prosecute them after her 120-day interim term ended. Habba, nominated in March and known for her outspoken political remarks, faced opposition from state Democratic senators, stalling her formal judges had sought to replace her with a career prosecutor, but the Trump administration intervened, reinstating Habba despite Senate resistance. Brann warned that such manoeuvres, if unchecked, could allow presidents to bypass Senate oversight Justice Department said it intends to appeal, while the ruling raises broader questions about similar appointments made during Trump's tenure.- Ends
