Will the Menendez Brothers Be Released? Breaking Down their Legal Paths to Freedom
Nearly three decades after Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of murdering their parents in a Beverly Hills mansion, the brothers—whose case was thrust back into the spotlight by Ryan Murphy's 2023 docuseries —may be edging closer to freedom.
This week, they are set to appear virtually in a Los Angeles courtroom as their lawyers argue for a resentencing that could open the door to parole, marking a pivotal moment in one of America's most notorious criminal cases.
The prospect of resentencing emerged last October, when then-L.A. County District Attorney George Gascón announced he was 'keeping an open mind' about the case.
In the months that followed, the brothers' family launched a campaign, " Justice for Erik and Lyle," urging officials to reconsider the life-without-parole sentences handed down in the 1990s. Gascón subsequently recommended their terms be reduced to 50 years to life, which would make them eligible for parole under California law.
The resentencing effort is just one of several legal avenues now being pursued in an effort to secure the brothers' release.
Here are the paths available to Eric and Kyle, now aged 54 and 57 respectively.
Resentencing Track
This Tuesday and Wednesday are crucial for this path to release, in which the Menendez brothers will look towards Los Angeles County Superior Judge Michael Jesic to decide whether to proceed with former D.A. Gascón's recommendation.
The hearings had been delayed for months, complicated by the arrival of District Attorney Nathan Hochman, who has taken a markedly different view of the case than his predecessor.
In April, Hochman moved to withdraw Gascón's recommendation, arguing that he did not believe the brothers had taken full responsibility for their crimes. This move was then rejected by Judge Jesic, paving the way for this week's hearings to take place.
The brothers' longtime defense attorney, Mark Geragos, said he will call on at least seven family members to testify. It remains unclear whether the brothers will speak.
Since the brothers were both under 26 years old at the time of their crimes, if they are resentenced, they will be eligible for parole immediately under California law.
Clemency
Alongside the court proceedings, a separate clemency request sits with California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Newsom has scheduled a parole board hearing date of June 13, to assess whether the two brothers pose a threat to the public.
Under state law, parole can be granted if an inmate is no longer considered 'an unreasonable risk of danger to society.'
On his podcast 'This is Gavin Newsom' in February, Newsom explained that the hearing would include the opinions of various public safety experts and forensic psychologists.
'There's no guarantee of outcome here,' Newsom said. "My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case, and more due diligence before I make any determination for clemency.'
Habeas Corpus
The final, and least likely path, lies in the 'habeas corpus' petition filed by the brothers' attorneys in 2023, seeking a new trial based on what they describe as newly discovered evidence.
Central to the new evidence is a letter from Erik Menendez when he was 17 to a cousin, describing alleged sexual abuse by his father, Jose Menendez — claims that formed the crux of the brothers' defense during their 1996 trial.
Their legal team also cite allegations made in 2023 by Roy Rossello, a former member of the boy band Menudo, who claims he was raped by Jose Menendez.
To succeed, the petition must meet a high legal bar: the evidence must be new, credible, admissible, and could not be discovered at the time of the trial.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Alameda County jurors' compensation cut back to $15 a day
(KRON) — A pilot program providing Alameda County Superior Court jurors with $100 per day in compensation is being paused indefinitely. Any juror selected to serve for a trial after June 4 will only receive $15 daily, court officials said. The goal for paying jurors $100, instead of a meager $15, was to diversify jury pools. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Nixon said, 'Jurors are an essential part of our judicial system, and we need to do all we can to increase participation.' During jury selection, prospective jurors can request to be dismissed by a judge for a wide range of reasons. Financial hardships are common reasons for dismissal requests. Man who allegedly gunned down 2 people at Vallejo encampment captured: VPD The Jury Pilot Program was created as part of AB1981, which was signed by Newsom in 2022. In a notice sent this week to seven superior courts participating in the $100 per day pilot program, the Judicial Council of California requested that each court suspend the program because Gov. Gavin Newsom's revised budget cut funding. The National Center for State Courts, which was tracking juror demographics and diversity in all seven counties, was scheduled to release a report at the conclusion of the pilot program. The status of that report is currently unknown given the program is ending less than halfway through its designed length of time, court officials said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fox News
3 days ago
- Fox News
Save the Dogs of Skid Row
The abused and neglected dogs of skid row need our help! I'm Tomi Lahren, more next. I've been working with several LA area animal rescues to bring awareness to and ultimately END the abuse and neglect of dogs on Skid Row. Not only are the dogs living on Skid Row subjected to daily animal abuse at the hands of drug addicted homeless people, I am particularly distraught by images of pit bulls locked in wire crates under tarps in the California summer heat, in total darkness with no food or water. This treatment is against the law in LA, but you'll be shocked to know the enforcement, especially on Skid Row, is light to none. The police have been called, LA animal control has been called. Nothing has been done. These encampments in LA are a free-for-all. The homeless do whatever they want and get away with dang near anything, including this animal abuse. Governor Newsom said he's gonna crack down on encampments but there's no enforcement mechanism behind his words. I am so sick and tired of the homeless getting away with everything in LA. It's a free-for-all and it needs to end. A protest is planned on Skid Row on June 8th at 11am to demand city action to protect these innocent dogs being ABUSED in plain sight. I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
San Francisco Chronicle
3 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How a 77-year-old Manson follower has Newsom in familiar bind
Once again, a state parole board has found one of cult leader Charles Manson's followers – Patricia Krenwinkel – suitable for release after more than 56 years behind bars for her role in seven 1969 murders. And once again, Gov. Gavin Newsom must decide whether there is any evidence that Krenwinkel, 77, would pose any danger if released – and whether a decision to free her would affect his political future. The Board of Parole Hearings, whose members were appointed by the governor, voted Friday to grant parole to Krenwinkel, the state's longest-serving female prisoner. The board had ruled against her 14 times before recommending parole in 2022, but Newsom vetoed her release, saying she had not shown 'sufficient insight' into her crimes. The governor gave a similar explanation in 2022 for vetoing the parole of another Manson follower, Leslie Van Houten, whose release had been approved five times by the parole board since 2016 but blocked each time by Govs. Jerry Brown and Newsom. But a state appeals court ruled in 2023 that Newsom had failed to justify his conclusions that Van Houten, 73, lacked sufficient understanding of her actions and could still be dangerous after 54 years in prison. She was freed after the governor decided not to appeal the ruling. 'The only factor that can explain this veto (of Van Houten's parole) is political optics, and California law does not allow governors to veto people's parole because it will look bad,' said Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC College of the Law San Francisco and author of the 2020 book 'Yesterday's Monsters: The Manson Family Cases and the Illusion of Parole.' And she said the same thinking will most likely affect Newsom's upcoming decision on Krenwinkel, once the parole board's decision becomes final in 120 days. 'What does he think people have an appetite for in this political reality?' Aviram asked, noting California voters' approval last November of Proposition 36, which increased some sentences for drug crimes. 'It costs him nothing to oppose (her release). In the worst-case scenario, the court overrules him again and she gets out.' Manson ordered seven of his followers, including the 21-year-old Krenwinkel and two other young women, to kill nine people in three gruesome attacks in the Benedict Canyon area of Los Angeles in July and August 1969. During her trial, Krenwinkel admitted chasing Abigail Folger, heiress of the Folger coffee family, and stabbing her 25 times in the home of actress Sharon Tate, another murder victim, and then helping to kill grocery store executive Leno Bianca and his wife, Rosemary, and using their blood to scrawl 'Death to pigs' on a wall. Convicted of seven murders, Krenwinkel was sentenced to death along with Manson and three others in 1971. But the sentences were reduced to life with the possibility of parole after the California Supreme Court overturned the state's death penalty law in 1972. The voters passed a new law in 1977 making capital crimes punishable by death or life in prison without the possibility of parole, but those sentenced under the earlier law, including Krenwinkel, remained eligible for parole. Another ballot measure, approved by the voters in 1988, authorized the governor to veto decisions by the parole board. In prison, Krenwinkel has a clean disciplinary record, earned a college degree and has taken part in community-service programs, working to support other inmates with mental illnesses. At her 2022 parole hearing, she said that after dropping out of school and becoming an infatuated member of Manson's so-called family at age 19, 'I allowed myself to just start absolutely becoming devoid of any form of morality or real ethics.' In a statement released by Krenwinkel's lawyers, Jane Dorotik, a former inmate and now part of the support group California Coalition for Women Prisoners, said, 'Those of us who served time with her came to know her as a thoughtful, gentle, and kind person – someone deeply dedicated to creating a safe, caring environment.' Relatives of the murder victims have not been persuaded. 'I beg the board to consider parole for Patricia Krenwinkel only when her victims are paroled from their graves,' Anthony Demaria, a nephew of victim Jay Sebring, testified at one of her hearings. And Patrick Sequeira, a prosecutor in the murder cases, told the board that if Krenwinkel 'truly understood her crimes and the horrific nature of it, she wouldn't be here at a parole hearing. She would just accept a punishment.' Not so, said her lead attorney, Keith Wattley, executive director of UnCommon Law, an Oakland-based firm that represents inmates seeking parole. 'Pat has fully accepted responsibility for everything she did, everything she contributed to, every twisted philosophy she embraced and endorsed and, most importantly, every life she destroyed by her actions in 1969,' Wattley said in a statement after the board's latest decision. 'Now it's the Governor's turn to show that he believes in law and order when the law requires a person's release despite public outcry.'
