brother erik

Access to the parole hearings this week for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez was tightly controlled by state prison officials, but despite the efforts to limit outside interference and drama, the unexpected release of an audio recording nearly derailed Friday’s proceeding.

The disclosure of an audio recording of Erik’s parole hearing, held Thursday, tossed his older brother Lyle’s hearing into disarray the following evening.

The closely watched hearings gave the Menendez brothers a chance at freedom for the first time since they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents in Beverly Hills.

The state parole board denied a petition from Erik, 54, after an all-day session Thursday. Updates to the news media were provided by a Times reporter who was selected to observe the hearings from a conference room at California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation headquarters near Sacramento.

Audio recording of the hearing was forbidden except by state prison officials. Media organizations were prohibited from disseminating any information in so-called pool reports from the Times reporter until after the parole board issued its decision.

The same restrictions applied to Lyle’s hearing on Friday, which also ran long. But as the hearing came to a close, news broke that created a complication.

TV station ABC7 published a recording of Erik’s hearing, which apparently had been inadvertently handed over in response to a public records request.

A corrections department spokesperson confirmed the audio had been “erroneously” released, but did not elaborate or respond to additional questions from The Times.

The news report brought the hearing to a temporary halt, sparking anger, frustration and accusations that prison officials had purposely released the recording to cause a “spectacle.”

“This is disgusting,” said Tiffani Lucero Pastor, one of the brothers’ relatives who at one point screamed at the members of the parole board. “You’ve misled the family, and now to compound matters, you’ve violated this family and their rights.”

Heidi Rummel, parole attorney for both Erik and Lyle Menendez, asked for a break during the already nine hours long hearing, and at one point asked that the meeting be adjourned, arguing that it was no longer a fair hearing because of the audio’s release.

“We are sitting here asking Mr. Menendez to follow rules,” she said during the hearing. “And in the middle of this hearing, we find out CDCR is not following its own rules. It’s outrageous.”

The fate of Lyle, 57, had not yet been decided, but the board had denied Erik’s release after questioning him extensively about his use of contraband cellphones and other violations of prison rules.

“I don’t think you can possibly understand the emotion of what this family is experiencing,” Rummel said. “They have spent so much time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

The Menendez brothers first saw a chance at parole after Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to have their sentences reduced to 50 years in prison.

The move made them eligible for parole, but new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman moved to oppose the petition after he defeated Gascón in the November election. L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied Hochman’s request and found that prosecutors failed to show that the Menendez brothers were a danger to the public, clearing their path to the parole board.

The case, and the brothers’ petitions, has continued to generate nationwide attention, including a social media effort that pushed to have the Menendez brothers released in light of allegations the two were sexually abused by their father.

With the case already under a microscope, the release of the audio file created yet another roller coaster of speculation and doubt.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said that audio of the hearings could be released under the California Public Records Act, and that transcripts of the parole hearings usually become public 30 days after a decision is issued, under state law.

Rummel noted during the hearing that, as a parole attorney, she had requested audio of parole hearings in the past but the requests had been denied.

“It’s highly unusual,” she said during the hearing Friday. “It’s another attempt to make this a public spectacle.”

Rummel had objected to media access to the hearing, and implied at one point that media access had led to a “leak.”

Rummel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“It’s unacceptable,” said Maya Emig, an attorney representing Joan Vandermolen, Kitty Menendez’s sister. “There has to be notice given.”

Rummel asked whether the board also planned to release the audio of Lyle Menendez’s hearing.

“What policy allows for this to happen in this hearing but literally no other hearing?” Rummel asked the board. “It’s never been done.”

At one point, Rummel said she would be looking to seal the transcript of the hearing under Marsy’s Law, which provides rights and protections to victims of crimes.

Garland stated that audio from Friday’s hearing would not be released publicly until Rummel had the opportunity to object in court or contest its release.

Shortly after, Rummel said several relatives of the brothers had decided not to testify because of the release of the audio.

“It’s my impression from the family members that that’s not enough of an assurance,” she said.

The two-member parole board ultimately decided the audio incident would not deter them from making a ruling late Friday evening. They rejected Lyle’s request.

Both brothers will be eligible for parole in three years, but they can petition for an earlier hearing in one year.

More than 35 years after murdering their parents in a volley of shotgun blasts, brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez are the closest to freedom since they were arrested and sentenced to life in prison.

The siblings — who infamously gunned down their mother and father in 1989 at the family’s Beverly Hills home — will go before a California parole board this week.

In recent years, the brothers have become a cause celebre amid mounting evidence that the slayings followed years of sexual abuse by their father.

A Los Angeles County judge agreed to resentence them earlier this year over the objections of L.A.’s top prosecutor.

Now, if the parole board finds they have been rehabilitated, the brothers could soon be sent home to reunite with the family members who have spent years fighting for their release.

But just because the brothers were resentenced doesn’t mean the parole process will be smooth sailing.

When are the hearings? Can I watch?

The brothers will each have individual hearings. Erik, 54, will go before the board at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday. The hearing for Lyle, 57, will take place at approximately the same time on Friday. Each hearing is expected to last between two and three hours, and the board will likely make a decision immediately, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Parole board hearings take place over video conference. The brothers will appear from a room in the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office and the brothers’ parole attorney, Heidi Rummel, will also appear remotely.

While parole hearings are a matter of public record, CDCR does not live stream the events. A Times reporter will watch the hearing live in Sacramento and publish the results immediately after.

How does a parole board hearing work? Who gets to speak?

The bulk of a parole board hearing involves the commissioners questioning the person who is seeking release from prison. But other parties play a role as well.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, or a prosecutor from his office, will be able to argue against release.

The district attorney’s office filed a 75-page “statement of view” with the parole board which details what prosecutors describe as the brothers’ “shifting stories” about the night of the murders. Such details include their attempts to arrange for an alibi and the fact that they “convincingly and repeatedly” lied to investigators and relatives that the killings must have been a mafia hit.

Hochman and his prosecutors have also attacked the idea that the brothers killed in self-defense. Despite the abuse allegations against their father, prosecutors say there is no evidence that Jose or Kitty planned to kill the brothers on the night of the murders.

Normally, the family of the victim in a case would also be able to speak against release if they so chose. However, the vast majority of Kitty and Jose Menendez’s living relatives want the brothers set free and formed a coalition to advocate for Erik and Lyle years ago. Several of them intend to speak and others have submitted letters in support of the brothers, according to Laziza Lambert, a family spokeswoman.

Milton Anderson, Kitty Menendez’s brother, was opposed to Erik and Lyle’s release but he died earlier this year. His attorney, R.J. Dreiling, said he does not have standing to take part in the hearings and it was unclear what, if any, record will be made of Anderson’s objections.

Why are the brothers eligible for parole? What factors will the parole board consider?

The brothers won their resentencing hearing in May. Former Dist. Atty. George Gascón sought to have the brothers resentenced to 50-years-to-life in prison last year, and L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic agreed because Hochman’s prosecutors could not prove that Erik and Lyle posed an unreasonable risk to the public.

Since the brothers were under the age of 26 at the time of the murders, the reduced sentence made them eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law.

The parole board must consider a wide array of factors, according to CDCR, including an applicant’s criminal history, level of self-control at the time of crime, their behavior while in prison and personal growth over that time, their post-release plans and the facts of the crime itself.

“The parole board must give great weight to the youth of the brothers at the time of the crime, and ultimately decide if they pose an unreasonable risk to public safety,” said Dmitry Gorin, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor.

While Gorin said there is a “strong case” for the brothers to receive parole, he also noted it is rare for the board to grant freedom to convicted killers, especially in a case with the level of brutality seen in the Menendez slayings. The fact that the brothers admitted to wrongdoing in the killings in open court earlier this year might aid them, according to Gorin.

The brothers could face blistering opposition from Hochman and his prosecutors, who sought to revisit the bloody crime scene time and time again during Erik and Lyle’s resentencing hearing.

“We have consistently opposed their release because they have not demonstrated full insight into their crimes or shown that they have been fully rehabilitated, and therefore continue to pose a risk to society,” the district attorney’s office said in a statement. “We will evaluate our final position based on the evidence presented at the hearing.”

The parole board can also consider any violations of CDCR rules in the brothers’ files, and some recent alleged slip-ups by Erik and Lyle have raised the eyebrows of legal experts.

“They have serious rule violations, including fights, including not coming in from the yards when they were told to. That doesn’t sound that bad, but it can be, depends on what they were doing in the yard,” said Nancy Tetrault, who successfully represented Leslie Van Houten, a devout follower of Charles Manson, before the parole board in 2023.

Tetrault also noted that the brothers have been caught with cell phones behind bars, a violation of prison rules that could be problematic for the parole board.

“It’s a very serious rule violation,” she said. “Why? Because that is the connection to criminality outside of prison.”

Both Gorin and Terault said it is unlikely that the board would render different decisions each day. Given they are accused of the same crime, the results of Erik’s hearing on Thursday will likely forecast what happens to Lyle 24 hours later.

What happens after the decision?

If the parole board grants release for one or both brothers, Gov. Gavin Newsom will have the right to review or reject the decision within 120 days. While Newsom hasn’t publicly commented on the case — and has separately considered granting the brothers’ clemency — his track record on high-profile parole cases doesn’t bode well for the brothers.

When the parole board granted release for Sirhan Sirhan — the man convicted of assassinating Robert F. Kennedy in downtown Los Angeles — Newsom overruled them. The governor also overruled the parole board multiple times when they sought to release Van Houten, though his decision was eventually thrown out by a California appeals court.

Newsom declined through a spokeswoman to comment before the hearing on whether he believed the brothers should be released.

If the board denies the brothers, a new hearing can be set anytime within the next three to 15 years. Applicants can petition for a new hearing earlier than that if they argue the circumstances of their case have changed.

“For example, if they completed, you know, an intense class on inside or something like that, and they think that they deserve to be heard within a year,” Tetrault said.

Newsom could also refer the decision to the entire state parole board for a second opinion, as he did in the case of convicted killer Stephanie Lazarus, a former LAPD detective.

The brothers would still have other paths to freedom even without parole. Newsom could still grant them clemency, and a motion for a new trial is still working its way through the legal system.