hearing

Six police officers will face a misconduct process following an investigation into their action after three people died in a car crash.

Sophie Russon, 20, Eve Smith, 21, Darcy Ross, 21, Rafel Jeanne, 24, and Shane Loughlin, 32, were last seen at about 02:00 GMT on 4 March 2023 after they went missing on a night out.

Two days after the crash, Gwent Police confirmed the car had been found on the A48 near Cardiff, with three of the five occupants tragically killed.

It was one of the most dramatic protests in Los Angeles by activists who opposed Israel’s war in Gaza: a shutdown of the southbound lanes of the 110 Freeway as it passes through downtown.

In a chaotic scene captured by news helicopters, protesters sat down on the freeway in December 2013, halting traffic just south of the four-level interchange. On live television, enraged motorists responded by getting into physical altercations with demonstrators.

Los Angeles City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office later charged many of the protesters with unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, failure to comply with a lawful order and obstruction of a street, sidewalk or other public corridor — all misdemeanors.

On Monday, after a lengthy legal battle, a judge agreed to put 29 protesters into a 12-month diversion program, which requires that each performs 20 hours of community service.

If they complete that service and obey the law, the charges will be dismissed in October 2026, said Colleen Flynn, the protesters’ attorney.

In court Monday, Flynn praised her clients for taking a stand, motivated by a moral duty to “bring attention to the loss of life and humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza.”

“These are people who were, out of conscience, making a decision to engage in an act of civil disobedience,” she told the judge.

Two others charged in connection with the protest were granted judicial diversion earlier this year and have already completed their community service. The charges against them have been dismissed, Flynn said.

Flynn initially asked for the 29 protesters to each receive eight hours of community service. City prosecutors successfully pushed for 20 hours, saying the political reason for the protest had no bearing on the case. Deputy City Atty. Brad Rothenberg told the judge that the freeway closure lasted about four hours.

“That affected thousands of people who come to the second largest city in the United States to work,” he said.

The hearing brought a quiet end to a furious legal battle.

Flynn spent several months pushing for the case to be dismissed, arguing that Feldstein Soto’s decision to charge the protesters was rooted in “impermissible bias” — religious or ethnic prejudice against Palestinians and their supporters.

At multiple hearings, Flynn said her clients experienced disparate treatment compared to other protesters who also disrupted traffic but were highlighting different political issues, such as higher wages for hotel workers. Flynn also pointed to social media posts by Feldstein Soto on Oct. 7, 2023, the day Hamas-led militants invaded Israel, murdering more than 1,200 people and kidnapping about 250 others.

“Every nation and every moral person must support Israel in defending her people,” Feldstein Soto wrote on her @ElectHydee page.

Last month, a judge denied Flynn’s request to dismiss the case. At that hearing, prosecutors said the protesters were charged because they shut down a freeway, creating a particular threat to public safety.

Prosecutors argued that a motorcycle traveling between traffic lanes at a high rate of speed easily could have plowed into freeway protesters who were sitting cross-legged on the pavement.

Prosecutors also defended Feldstein Soto’s social media posts, saying they were written on the day of the invasion, before Israel had launched its counterattack. At that point, Feldstein Soto was expressing outrage over a horrific day of violence, the prosecutors said.

Since then, Israel’s campaign in Gaza has killed more than 68,000 Palestinians, a majority of whom were women and children, according to the Health Ministry in Gaza.

Oct. 25 (UPI) — Due process rights were violated when federal officers detained the father of a girl who has cancer without a bond hearing pending deportation to Mexico, a federal judge in Chicago ruled.

U.S. District of Northern Illinois Judge Jeremy Daniel on Friday ordered Ruben Torres Maldonado, 40, to be given a bond hearing no later than Oct. 31 while he faces deportation as his 16-year-old daughter undergoes cancer treatment, WBBM-TV reported.

He remains in custody at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility pending the outcome of the bond hearing, which Daniel said should have been done already to uphold his right to due process.

His attorneys sought an immediate release, but Daniel said the “appropriate remedy” to his detainment is to hold a bond hearing as soon as possible.

“While sympathetic to the plight the petitioner’s daughter faces due to her health concerns, the court must act within the constraints of the relevant statutes, rules and precedents,” Daniel said.

Daniel was appointed to the court by former President Joe Biden.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary. Tricia McLaughlin called the legal challenge a “desperate Hail Mary attempt to keep a criminal in our country,” the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

He “did not comply with instructions from the officers and attempted to flee in his vehicle and backed into a government vehicle,” she explained.

McLaughlin, in a prepared statement, said “U.S. Border Patrol conducted a targeted immigration enforcement operation that resulted” in his arrest in Niles, Ill., on Oct. 18, according to WLS-TV.

“He has a history of habitual driving offenses and has been charged multiple times with driving without insurance, driving without a valid license and speeding,” she said. “He will remain in ICE custody pending removal.”

Moldonado, 40, has illegally resided in the United States since entering in 2003 and has lived in the greater Chicago area with his partner for the past 20 years.

He has worked as a painter for the same company over the past 20 years.

The Trump administration is calling for the immediate detention of all people when encountered and who are suspected of illegally entering or otherwise residing in the United States.

The detention mandate is based on a federal law that Maldonado’s legal team says only applies to “non-citizens who recently arrived at a border or port of entry.”

Daniel agreed that the law does not apply to Moldonado and ordered his bond hearing to ensure due process in his case.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and congressional Democrats have announced a sweeping investigation into potential misconduct in the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown that has ensnared citizens, made use of racial profiling and terrified communities for months.

Bass and the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), announced that Congress will open up “a broad investigation” into arrests of U.S. citizens by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, as well as another investigation into immigration raids overall. The announcement was made Monday at a news conference at L.A. City Hall.

“Donald Trump and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem are terrorizing immigrants, working people, the people of Los Angeles and of our state every single day,” Garcia said. “They violate the law and they violate the constitution.”

Garcia said that his House committee would investigate “every single brutal misconduct” that immigration authorities have committed in Los Angeles as well as across the country.

Simultaneously, the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will conduct an investigation into reports of the detention of at least 170 U.S. citizens by immigration authorities, which was reported by ProPublica last week.

“Troublingly, the pattern of U.S. Citizen arrests coincides with an alarming increase in racial profiling — particularly of Latinos — which has been well documented in Los Angeles,” Garcia and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a letter to Noem. “In a pattern symptomatic of a disregard for civil rights by DHS, U.S. citizens have faced extended periods of detention.”

For months, agents have roamed the streets of Los Angeles toting guns and chasing down immigrants. The scenes that have played out on the streets — protesters being arrested, immigrants dragged out of their cars — have been repeated in Chicago and other cities with largely Democratic leadership.

Mayor Bass said the arrests of American citizens means that no one in the country is safe.

“This can happen to anyone, to all of us, at any period of time,” she said.

Garcia said that the first hearing of the House committee will be held in Los Angeles and that Angelenos should attend and be heard on immigration enforcement issues.

The congressman did not give a date for the hearing, but said he hoped it would be soon.

In the letter that Garcia and Blumenthal sent to Noem on Monday, the legislators called on the Department of Homeland Security to report the total number of U.S. citizens who have been detained by immigration authorities, as well as how long each individual was detained. They also asked for information regarding the training that CE and Customs and Border Protection agents receive on use of force, among other things.

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge blocked the Trump administration Wednesday from firing thousands of government workers based on the ongoing federal shutdown, granting a request from employee unions in California.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston issued the temporary restraining order after concluding that the unions “will demonstrate ultimately that what’s being done here is both illegal and is in excess of authority and is arbitrary and capricious.”

Illston slammed the Trump administration for failing to provide her with clear information about what cuts are actually occurring, for repeatedly changing its description and estimates of job cuts in filings before the court, and for failing — including during Wednesday’s hearing in San Francisco — to articulate an argument for why such cuts are not in violation of federal law.

“The evidence suggests that the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending and government functioning to assume that all bets are off, that the laws don’t apply to them anymore,” Illston said — which she said was not the case.

She said the government justified providing inaccurate figures for the number of jobs being eliminated under its “reduction in force” orders by calling it a “fluid situation” — which she did not find convincing.

“What it is is a situation where things are being done before they are being thought through. It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs,” she said. “And it has a human cost, which is really why we’re here today. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated.”

Illston also ran through a string of recent comments made by President Trump and other members of his administration about the firings and their intentionally targeting programs and agencies supported by Democrats, saying, “By all appearances, they’re politically motivated.”

The Trump administration has acknowledged dismissing about 4,000 workers under the orders, while Trump and other officials have signaled that more would come Friday.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said Wednesday on “The Charlie Kirk Show” that the number of jobs cut could “probably end up being north of 10,000,” as the administration wants to be “very aggressive where we can be in shuttering the bureaucracy, not just the funding,” and the shutdown provided that opportunity.

Attorneys for the unions, led by the American Federation of Government Employees, said that the figures were unreliable and that they feared additional reduction in force orders resulting in more layoffs, as promised by administration officials, if the court did not step in and block such actions.

Illston, an appointee of President Clinton, did just that.

She barred the Trump administration and its various agencies “from taking any action to issue any reduction in force notices to federal employees in any program, project or activity” involving union members “during or because of the federal shutdown.”

She also barred the administration from “taking any further action to administer or implement” existing reduction notices involving union members.

Illston demanded that the administration provide within two days a full accounting of all existing or “imminent” reduction in force orders that would be blocked by her order, as well as the specific number of federal jobs affected.

Elizabeth Hedges, an attorney for the Trump administration, had argued during the hearing that the order should not be granted for several procedural reasons — including that the alleged harm to federal employees from loss of employment or benefits was not “irreparable” and could be addressed through other avenues, including civil litigation.

Additionally, she argued that federal employment claims should be adjudicated administratively, not in district court; and that the reduction in force orders included 60-day notice periods, meaning the layoffs were not immediate and therefore the challenge to them was not yet “ripe” legally.

However, Hedges would not discuss the case on its actual merits — which is to say, whether the cuts were actually legal or not, which did not seem to sit well with Illston.

“You don’t have a position on whether it’s OK that they do what they’re doing?” Illston asked.

“I am not prepared to discuss that today, your honor,” Hedges said.

“Well — but it’s happening. This hatchet is falling on the heads of employees all across the nation, and you’re not even prepared to address whether that’s legal, even though that’s what this motion challenges?” Illston said.

“That’s right,” Hedges said — stressing again that there were “threshold” arguments for why the case shouldn’t even be allowed to continue to the merits stage.

Danielle Leonard, an attorney for the unions, suggested the government’s positions were indefensible and directly in conflict with public statements by the administration — including remarks by Trump on Tuesday that more cuts are coming Friday.

“How do we know this? Because OMB and the president relentlessly are telling us, and other members of the administration,” Leonard said.

Leonard said the harm from the administration’s actions is obvious and laid out in the union’s filings — showing how employees have at times been left in the dark as to their employment status because they don’t have access to work communication channels during the shutdown, or how others have been called in to “work without pay to fire their fellow employees” — only to then be fired themselves.

“There are multiple types of harm that are caused exactly right now — emotional trauma. That’s not my word, your honor, that is the word of OMB Director Vought. Let’s cause ‘trauma’ to the federal workforce,” Leonard said. “And that’s exactly what they are doing. Trauma. The emotional distress of being told you are being fired after an already exceptionally difficult year for federal employees.”

Skye Perryman, president and chief executive of Democracy Forward, which is co-counsel for the unions, praised Illston’s decision in a statement after the hearing.

“The statements today by the court make clear that the President’s targeting of federal workers — a move straight out of Project 2025’s playbook — is unlawful,” Perryman said. “Our civil servants do the work of the people, and playing games with their livelihoods is cruel and unlawful and a threat to everyone in our nation.”

Illston asked the two parties to confer on the best date, probably later this month, for a fuller hearing on whether she should issue a more lasting preliminary injunction in the case.

“It would be wonderful to know what the government’s position is on the merits of this case — and my breath is bated until we find that,” Illston said.

After the hearing, during a White House news conference, Trump said his administration was paying federal employees whom “we want paid” while Vought uses the shutdown to dismiss employees perceived as supporting Democratic initiatives.

“Russell Vought is really terminating tremendous numbers of Democrat projects — not only jobs,” Trump said.

Democrats on the Senate panel grilled her over her leadership of the Justice Department. She hit back, with GOP support.

United States Attorney General Pam Bondi faced fierce questioning at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, as Democrats accused her of politicising the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Republicans rallied behind her pledge to restore law enforcement’s core mission.

In her first appearance before the Republican-controlled committee since the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, Bondi on Tuesday defended the department’s direction under her leadership, saying she came into office determined to end the “weaponisation of justice” and refocus on violent crime.

She said the DOJ was now “returning to our core mission of fighting real crime”, pointing to increased federal activity in Washington, DC; and Memphis, Tennessee.

Bondi also defended the deployment of National Guard troops to cities like Chicago and Portland, saying local governments failed to protect citizens. She tied challenges in enforcing public safety to the ongoing government shutdown, blaming Democrats for undermining law enforcement readiness.

One of the critical moments of the hearing came with Bondi’s justification for prosecuting Comey, a longtime critic of US President Donald Trump. Comey faces charges of false statements and obstruction of Congress related to his 2020 congressional testimony, and is scheduled to appear in court on Wednesday. Democrats pressed whether the indictment followed from independent prosecutorial judgement or political pressure. Bondi declined to answer questions about private conversations with the White House, calling them “personnel matters”.

The Jeffrey Epstein files were another flashpoint in the hearing as Bondi repeatedly refused to explain her decision to reverse course on releasing documents. She instead accused Democratic senators of having accepted campaign donations from an affiliate of the late, convicted sex offender.

Democrats also quizzed her on allegations that Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover agents last year, before the current US administration came into office. Bondi said the decision to drop the inquiry preceded her tenure and declined to state whether the money had been recovered.

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the panel, repeatedly accused Bondi of using her leadership to help weaponise the DOJ. “Our nation’s top law enforcement agency has become a shield for the president and his political allies when they engage in misconduct,” he said. The Illinois senator claimed Bondi “fundamentally transformed the Justice Department and left an enormous stain on American history”.

“It will take decades to recover,” he added.

Under Bondi’s leadership, key divisions such as civil rights have seen mass departures, and career prosecutors tied to investigations into Trump or the January 6 attack on the US Capitol have been removed or reassigned.

A letter by nearly 300 former DOJ employees, released just before the hearing, warned that the administration was “taking a sledgehammer to other longstanding work” and urged a return to institutional norms.

Republicans on the committee largely defended her actions, echoing claims that the DOJ under the prior Biden administration — which brought two criminal cases against Trump — was the one that had been weaponised. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley commended Bondi for resetting priorities and asserted that law enforcement needed new direction.

Oct. 7 (UPI) — Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, and refused to answer questions on several topics.

Bondi declined to answer questions about the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey regarding her discussions with President Donald Trump as well as the firings of Department of Justice attorneys who worked on Jan. 6 cases and her refusal to prosecute certain cases of Trump’s allies.

Bondi also avoided questions about the files of convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and Trump’s alleged friendship with him. She responded that the Democrats should explain their own relationships with him, CNN reported.

Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-N.Y., said Bondi’s testimony was a new low for attorneys general.

“Her apparent strategy is to attack and conceal. Frankly, I’ve been through close to 15 of these attorney general accountability hearings, and I have never seen anything close to it in terms of the combativeness, the evasiveness and sometimes deceptiveness,” Blumenthal told reporters after leaving the hearing. “I think it is possibly a new low for attorneys general testifying before the United States Congress, and I just hope my Republican colleagues will demand more accountability than what we have seen so far.”

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., agreed with Blumenthal.

“She was fully prepared for, with specific and personal comebacks, accusing various of my colleagues, of challenging their integrity or challenging their basis for their questions in a way I’ve not ever seen,” Coons said.

The White House has already praised Bondi’s performance.

“She’s doing great,” a White House official told CNN. “Not only is the AG debunking every single bogus Democrat talking point, but she’s highlighting the Democrats’ own hypocrisy and they have no response.”

Bondi, along with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, criticized the judge in the case of Sophie Roske, the woman who planned an attack on Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Roske, who called the police on herself before making contact with Kavanaugh, was sentenced to eight years in prison for the plot.

“My prosecutors did an incredible job on that case,” Bondi said. She said the Justice Department would appeal the sentence, which was 22 years below the federal guidelines and the minimum sentence prosecutors wanted. “The judge also would not refer to the defendant by his biological name,” Bondi said. Roske is transgender.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., asked Bondi what conversations she has had with the White House about investigations into Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Comey. Bondi again declined to answer.

“I’m not going to discuss any conversations,” Bondi said to Klobuchar, CBS News reported.

Klobuchar asked her about a Truth Social post by Trump last in which he asked Bondi why she hadn’t brought charges against Comey, Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

“President Trump is the most transparent president in American history, and I don’t think he said anything that he hasn’t said for years,” Bondi said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., pressed her on whether the FBI found any pictures of Trump “with half-naked young women,” saying that Epstein was reported to have shown them around.

“You know, Sen. Whitehouse? You sit here and make salacious remarks, once again, trying to slander President Trump, left and right, when you’re the one who was taking money from one of Epstein’s closest confidants,” Bondi responded, referring to tech entrepreneur and LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, who has said he regretted his contacts with Epstein, CBS reported.

Since Bondi took over at the Justice Department, she and her team have fired prosecutors who worked on capitol riot cases and pushed out career FBI agents.

The Public Integrity Section is nearly empty now, and more than 70% of the lawyers in the Civil Rights Division are also gone, NPR reported.

In a letter Monday, nearly 300 former Justice Department employees asked the Oversight Committee to closely monitor the department.

“We call on Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities far more vigorously. Members in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle must provide a meaningful check on the abuses we’re witnessing,” the letter said.

The letter also alleged poor treatment of staff.

“As for its treatment of its employees, the current leadership’s behavior has been appalling. … And demonizing, firing, demoting, involuntarily transferring, and directing employees to violate their ethical duties has already caused an exodus of over 5,000 of us — draining the Department of priceless institutional knowledge and expertise, and impairing its historical success in recruiting top talent. We may feel the effects of this for generations.”

Bondi said the DOJ stands by the “many terminations” in the department since Trump took office. “We stand by all of those,” she said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said in an opening statement, “What has taken place since Jan. 20, 2025, would make even President Nixon recoil.”

Durbin said Bondi has left “an enormous stain in American history.”

“It will take decades to recover,” he said.

The hearing is just two weeks after she sought and secured an indictment of Comey at the direction of the president. Democrats have said she’s weaponizing the Department of Justice, breaking with the longstanding tradition of keeping the department independent of political goals.

Comey was indicted on one count each of lying to Congress and obstructing justice for his testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020. Before the indictment, U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert refused to indict because of a lack of evidence against Comey. Trump accused him of waiting too long to indict and nearly allowing the statute of limitations to run out. Siebert resigned under pressure from the administration.

Last week, Durbin said the targeting of Trump’s political enemies is “a code-red alarm for the rule of law” in a floor speech, The Washington Post reported.

“Never in the history of our country has a president so brazenly demanded the baseless prosecution of his rivals,” he said. “And he doesn’t even try to hide it.”

But Republicans claim that Bondi’s leadership is necessary after years of what they say was politicized attacks from the Justice Department under the President Joe Biden administration.

“If the facts and the evidence support the finding that Comey lied to Congress and obstructed our work, he ought to be held accountable,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chair of the Judiciary Committee.

During her confirmation hearing, Bondi vowed that weaponization of the Justice Department is over.

“I will not politicize that office,” Bondi said at the time. “I will not target people simply because of their political affiliation.”

Oct. 4 (UPI) — A federal judge has ordered a hearing to determine if the Justice Department is engaged in a vindictive prosecution of El Salvadoran immigrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

U.S. District Court for Middle Tennessee Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in a 16-page ruling on Friday granted a motion by Garcia’s defense team that seeks a hearing regarding a potential vindictive prosecution.

“The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior DOJ and [Homeland Security] officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit,” Crenshaw wrote.

The Maryland lawsuit refers to Garcia’s successful legal challenge in a federal court there, in which he showed the Department of Homeland Security erred when it deported him to El Salvador, which is his nation of citizenship.

While Garcia is subject to deportation, an immigration judge had ruled he can’t be deported to El Salvador, where Garcia, an alleged member of MS-13, said his life would be in danger from a rival gang.

That rival gang is Barrio 18, which is active in the United States as the 18th Street Gang.

El Salvador since has cracked down on gang activities and imprisoned many gang members.

Crenshaw said Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi each publicly “celebrated the charges against him,” CNN reported.

Such public celebrations are insufficient to show vindictive prosecution, though, according to The New York Times.

Instead, Garcia must show federal prosecutors improperly filed criminal charges against him as punishment for his Maryland court challenge.

Crenshaw said Garcia has shown the possibility that the prosecution is vindictive by initiating an investigation into the Tennessee traffic stop within days of the Supreme Court upholding lower court rulings requiring the Trump administration to facilitate Garcia’s return from El Salvador.

The matter arises from a Nov. 30, 2022, traffic stop of Garcia, in which Tennessee police found him traveling from Texas to Maryland with eight passengers and driving without a valid license, Crenshaw said.

The Tennessee police released Garcia with a warning regarding his expired driver’s license and did not charge him with any crimes or civil infractions.

After securing a two-count federal indictment against Garcia on May 21, the Trump administration flew Garcia back to the United States on June 6 to face prosecution for alleged human trafficking and conspiracy.

“Abrego has carried his burden of demonstrating some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive,” Crenshaw wrote.

He said the Justice Department must provide “objective, on-the-record explanations” regarding the prosecution that was brought after the Biden administration said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Garcia.

A hearing date has not been scheduled regarding the alleged vindictive prosecution.

If Crenshaw rules the prosecution is vindictive, he could dismiss the case against Garcia, who remains subject to deportation.

Former President Barack Obama nominated Crenshaw to the federal court in 2015.

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

PROVO, Utah — An attorney for the 22-year-old man charged with killing Charlie Kirk asked a judge Monday for more time to review the large amount of evidence in the case before deciding if the defense will seek a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to go forward with a trial. Defendants can waive that step, but Robinson’s newly appointed attorney Kathryn Nester said her team did not intend to do so.

Utah prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder and plan to seek the death penalty.

Both the defense and prosecution acknowledged at a brief hearing Monday that the amount of evidence that prosecutors have is “voluminous.” Robinson was not present for the hearing and appeared via audio from jail at his defense team’s request.

Judge Tony Graf set the next hearing for Oct. 30.

Defense attorneys for Robinson and prosecutors with the Utah County attorney’s office declined to comment after Monday’s hearing. It took place in Provo, just a few miles from the Utah Valley University campus in Orem where many students are still processing trauma from the Sept. 10 shooting and the day-and-a-half search for the suspect.

Authorities arrested Robinson when he showed up with his parents at his hometown sheriff’s office in southwest Utah, more than a three-hour drive from the site of the shooting, to turn himself in. Prosecutors have since revealed text messages and DNA evidence that they say connect Robinson to the killing.

A note that Robinson left for his romantic partner before the shooting said he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices, “and I’m going to take it,” Utah County Atty. Jeff Gray told reporters before the first hearing. Gray also said Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred.”

The killing of Kirk, a close ally of President Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism, has galvanized Republicans who have vowed to carry on Kirk’s mission of moving American politics further right.

Trump has declared Kirk a “martyr” for freedom and threatened to crack down on what he called the “radical left.”

Workers across the U.S. have been punished or fired for speaking out about Kirk‘s death, including teachers, public and private employees and media personalities — most notably Jimmy Kimmel, whose late-night show was suspended then reinstated by ABC.

Kirk’s political organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, brought young, evangelical Christians into politics through his podcast, social media and campus events. Many prominent Republicans are filling in at the upcoming campus events Kirk planned to attend, including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Sen. Mike Lee at Utah State University on Tuesday.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — FBI Director Kash Patel touted his leadership of the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency at a congressional hearing likely to be dominated by questions about the investigation into Charlie Kirk’s killing and the recent firings of senior FBI officials who have accused Patel of illegal political retribution.

The appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee represents the first oversight hearing of Patel’s young but tumultuous tenure and provides a high-stakes platform for him to try to reassure skeptical Democrats that he is the right person for the job at a time of internal upheaval and mounting concerns about political violence inside the United States.

Patel rattled off a series of what he said were accomplishments of his first months on the job, including his efforts to fight violent crime and protect children. Nodding to criticism from Democrats, he closed his remarks by saying: “If you want to criticize my 16 years of service, please bring it on.”

Patel returned to the committee for the first time since his confirmation hearing in January, when he asserted that he would not pursue retribution as director. He’ll face questions Tuesday about whether he did exactly that when the FBI last month fired five agents and senior officials in a purge that current and former officials say weakened morale and contributed to unease inside the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

Three of those officials sued last week in a federal complaint that says Patel knew the firings were likely illegal but carried them out anyway to protect his job. One of the officials helped oversee investigations into the Jan. 6 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and another clashed with Justice Department leadership while serving as acting director in the early days of President Donald Trump’s administration. The FBI has declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Republican lawmakers, who make up the majority in the committee, are expected to show solidarity for Patel, a close ally of Trump, and are likely to praise the director for his focus on violent crime and illegal immigration.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee’s Republican chairman, signaled his support for Patel at the outset of the hearing, praising the director for having “begun the important work of returning the FBI to its law enforcement mission.”

“It’s well understood that your predecessor left you an FBI infected with politics,” Grassley stated.

The panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, described Patel as “arguably the most partisan FBI director ever.”

“Director Patel has already inflicted untold damage on the FBI, putting our national security and public safety at risk,” Durbin said.

Republicans are also likely to try to elicit from Patel fresh details about the investigation into Kirk’s assassination at a Utah college campus last week, which authorities have said was carried out by a 22-year-old man who had grown more political in recent years and had ascribed to a “leftist ideology.”

Patel drew scrutiny when, hours after Kirk’s killing, he posted on social media that “the subject” was in custody even though the shooting suspect remained on the loose and was not arrested until he turned himself in late the following night.

Patel has not explained that post but has pointed to his decision to authorize the release of photographs of the suspect, Tyler Robinson, while he was on the run as a key development that helped facilitate an arrest. A Fox News Channel journalist reported Saturday that Trump had told her that Patel and the FBI have “done a great job.”

Robinson is due to make his first court appearance in Utah. It’s unclear whether he has an attorney, and his family has declined to comment.

Another line of questioning for Patel may involve Democratic concerns that he is politicizing the FBI through politically charged investigations, including into longstanding Trump grievances. Agents and prosecutors, for instance, have been seeking interviews and information as they reexamine aspects of the years-old FBI investigation into potential coordination between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Patel has repeatedly said his predecessors at the FBI and Justice Department who investigated and prosecuted Trump were the ones who weaponized the institutions.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Grammy winner Lil Nas X is seeking treatment out of state after his naked run-in with law enforcement last month, according to multiple reports.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shellie Samuels said during a hearing on Monday that the 26-year-old “Dreamboy” and “Industry Baby” artist “is allowed to remain out of state as long as he remains in treatment,” Rolling Stone reported. The outlet said Samuels modified the terms of the singer’s release to account for the ongoing treatment.

A legal representative for Lil Nas X (born Montero Lamar Hill) did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for confirmation on Monday.

The judge also did not disclose additional details about the singer’s treatment, adding that “it’s private, nobody needs to know where he is, but he is in treatment,” Billboard reported.

Hill, who broke out with his hit “Old Town Road,” was arrested last month in Studio City on suspicion of charging at a police officer. He was also hospitalized for a possible overdose. At the time, officers responded to reports of a “nude man walking in the street.”

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office charged Lil Nas X with four felony counts stemming from the incident: three counts of battery with injury on a police officer and one count of resisting an executive officer. Hill allegedly assaulted officers who were trying to take him into custody. At least three were injured, the L.A. County district attorney’s office said.

The musician pleaded not guilty on all counts and was released from a Van Nuys jail after posting $75,000 bail. He faces up to five years in state prison if convicted on all charges.

Shortly after his arraignment, Lil Nas X reassured fans that he’s “gonna be all right” and said the ordeal with law enforcement made for a “terrifying four days.”

Hill’s attorney Drew Findling spoke to Rolling Stone after Monday’s hearing about the judge’s mention of “treatment.” “We’re doing what is best for Montero in a personal standpoint and a professional standpoint, but most importantly for his well-being,” Findling says in video shared on X by reporter Nancy Dillon.

“He is surrounded by an amazing family and amazing team of people that care about him and love him and we’re just addressing those issues,” Findling added. “It’s really as simple as that. He’s had a great life, he’ll continue to have a great life and this is a bump he’s gonna get over.”

Kony faces charges for the Lord’s Resistance Army campaign of torture and abuse in Uganda in the early 2000s.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is slated to hear evidence against fugitive Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony two decades after his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) gained international infamy for atrocities in northern Uganda.

The Tuesday hearing, known as a “confirmation of charges”, is the Hague-based court’s first-ever held in absentia.

Kony faces 39 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection to the LRA’s campaign against the Ugandan government between 2002 and 2005, which prosecutors allege was rife with rape, torture, and abductions of children.

Kony has eluded law enforcement since the ICC first issued an indictment in 2005, making the hearing a litmus test for others in which arresting the suspect is considered a far-off prospect, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The hearing is expected to last three days and will allow prosecutors to outline their case in court, after which judges will decide whether to confirm the charges. Kony cannot be tried unless he is in ICC custody, however.

“Everything that happens at the ICC is precedent for the next case,” Michael Scharf, an international law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told The Associated Press news agency.

Kony was born in 1961 in northern Uganda’s village of Odek, where he was a Catholic altar boy and took up an interest in spirituality. He later claimed to be a spirit medium and used religious rituals – alongside violence and torture – to maintain control of followers.

The LRA’s attacks against the Ugandan government date back to the 1980s, but the group was not thrust into the international spotlight until 2012, when a #Kony2012 campaign went viral on social media.

By then, the LRA had been forced out of Uganda and was operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, where it continued its violent crusade. The LRA’s activities killed at least 100,000 people and displaced about 2.5 million in Africa, according to the United Nations, along with the kidnapping of children.

Survivors in Uganda plan to follow the ICC proceedings, including Everlyn Ayo, a 39-year-old whose school was first attacked by LRA fighters when she was five years old.

“The rebels raided the school, killed and cooked our teachers in big drums and we were forced to eat their remains,” Ayo told the AFP news agency. “Many times, on our return to the village, we would find blood-soaked bodies. Seeing all that blood as a child traumatised my eyes.”

The ICC has been under heavy pressure from Washington for its pursuit of cases surrounding Israel’s war on Gaza.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration had previously sanctioned the ICC in response to its investigation and subsequent arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

Last month, the US announced a new round of sanctions targeting members of the ICC, the latest instance of a pressure campaign against the court.

Published on
03/09/2025 – 8:00 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

MEPs are set to complain widely about the EU-US trade agreement when they confront Commission trade chief and agreement negotiator Sabine Weyand during a Parliamentary hearing on the deal on Wednesday.  

“While clearly we understand that the EU has chosen stability, diplomacy and to keep a cool-minded approach, however this cannot translate into the acceptance of an unfair and asymmetric trade relation with our American friends and partners,” Italian MEP Brando Benifei.

“As it is now, it is not acceptable,” Benifei told Euronews, speaking on behalf of his Socialists & Democrats group.

Last week the Commission proposed reducing tariffs on most US industrial goods, as well as less sensitive agricultural products, to 0%, as it began implementing the agreement reached with the US at the end of August. At the same time, the agreement provides that the EU will pay a 15% tariff on its exports to the US.

The Commission’s legislative proposal must now navigate its way through the Parliament and the EU Council for approval.

The Greens are also speaking out against an unbalanced agreement and rejecting the Commission’s argument that it will ensure stable trade relations with the US.

“The deal has major disadvantages for the EU,” German Green MEP Anna Cavazzini said, adding: “The only ‘gain’ that the Commission is selling us is stability. However, Trump’s incessant demands and new tariff threats are turning this process into a waste of time.”

Just after the agreement was concluded, US President Donald Trump threatened countries with digital legislation — like the EU — with tariffs, accusing them of directly targeting Big Tech.

According to the German MEP, the proposal to reduce EU tariffs on US imports will clearly “not have a smooth sailing through the European Parliament.”

The agreement, which is still under discussion within the Parliament’s largest group, the centre-right EPP, has nonetheless failed to win the full support of some of its individual members within the parliamentary committee on trade.

“Capitulation”

“This is an outright capitulation — we’re committing to colossal sums for investments and pledges to purchase billions worth of chips and military equipment, while granting the US 0% tariffs,” French MEP Celine Imart (EPP) said, “all this for the reindustrialisation of the US !”

Swedish MEP Jörgen Warborn, who coordinates the work of the EPP within the trade committee, is more cautious.

“It is hard to put yourself in the situation of the negotiators of the Commission,” he told Euronews, adding: “It is good that we have a framework agreement, because hopefully this can give us more stability. But at the same time, I don’t see the deal as balanced as I would have hoped it to be.”

Within Renew, the liberal group at the Parliament, some MEPs are also angry. The treatment granted to US agricultural products — benefiting from 0% tariffs or favourable quotas for certain items — is not going down well.

“I’m outraged by the whole situation. Yes, of course, there are the US’s promises when it comes to defence, but this agreement truly exposes our total dependence, which forces us to sign just about anything,” Belgian MEP Benoit Cassart (Renew), who is also a farmer, said, adding: “I disagree with those who think the EU has ‘won’ just because things didn’t turn out worse. If that’s the logic, then next time the US will start at 50% and we’ll end up with 40% tariffs on all our exports.”

French MEP Marie-Pierre Vedrenne, who coordinates Renew in the committee, considers too that “there is a widespread feeling that we [the EU] failed to put any real leverage on the table.”

A senior Israeli official accused of child sex crimes in the United States has failed to appear for a scheduled court hearing in his case, weeks after he returned to Israel, prompting concerns that he may have fled to avoid facing trial.

Tom Artiom Alexandrovich’s lawyer, David Chesnoff, told the court in Nevada on Wednesday that he told his client not to attend the hearing.

“He was instructed by me that he didn’t have to be here,” Chesnoff said.

However, Judge Barbara Schifalacqua was quick to shut down the suggestion, stressing that suspects released on bond like Alexandrovich have “to make every court appearance”.

“I’m looking at his bond documents that indicate the court appearance that he was ordered to appear at was today,” Schifalacqua told Chesnoff. “And so your oral – I guess – request without anything before the court to waive his appearance here today is hereby denied.”

Alexandrovich’s case has been stirring controversy and making international headlines since his arrest was announced earlier this month.

The Israeli official was arrested on August 6, but the incident was not made public until more than a week later, when the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department announced an undercover operation “targeting child sex predators”.

Alexandrovich was released and allowed to return to Israel after being charged with luring or attempting to lure a child online to engage in sexual conduct.

His release without travel restrictions has led to speculations that he may have received preferential treatment due to the close ties between the US and Israel.

But the administration of President Donald Trump has denied intervening in the case, and the local district attorney has argued that Alexandrovich’s release was “standard”.

Earlier this month, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu falsely denied that Alexandrovich was arrested and downplayed the incident.

On Wednesday, Chesnoff suggested that he had a deal with prosecutors relating to Alexandrovich’s court appearances going forward.

“My client is not here. We have an agreement with the state, and I informed your staff earlier that he was not going to be here,” the lawyer told the court.

But Schifalacqua said the district attorney’s office has “no authority to waive appearances” at a felony arraignment.

“Nobody got a waiver from my court,” Schifalacqua said.

Eventually, Chesnoff and the court agreed that Alexandrovich would appear remotely before the court next week, on September 3, for his arraignment – a hearing where he would be formally presented with the charges and enter a plea of guilty or not guilty.

Schifalacqua warned that she may impose conditions on Alexandrovich’s release, including a possible ban on contact with minors and using social media and dating platforms.

As outrage grew over allowing Alexandrovich to leave the country, last week, acting US Attorney for the District of Nevada Sigal Chattah – a Trump appointee – pointed the finger at local prosecutors.

“A liberal district attorney and state court judge in Nevada FAILED TO REQUIRE AN ALLEGED CHILD MOLESTER TO SURRENDER HIS PASSPORT, which allowed him to flee our country,” Chattah wrote on social media.

But Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson has said that there was nothing unusual about how Alexandrovich’s case was handled.

“The standard bail for this charge was $10,000, so anybody, upon being booked on that charge, can post that bail and get released with no conditions, and that’s what happened in this case,” Wolfson told Las Vegas Review-Journal earlier this month.

However, Richard Davies, a criminal defence lawyer in Nevada, told Al Jazeera last week that the apparent lack of conditions on Alexandrovich’s release despite the seriousness of the charges was “fishy”.

“The court should be concerned about protecting children in this community and nationwide. So it’s highly unusual – again – to allow this person to leave,” Davies said.

Wolfson and Chesnoff did not return Al Jazeera’s request for comment by the time of publication.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran native who was deported despite a court order barring his removal, cannot be deported again until at least October.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said Wednesday that the Trump administration has been temporarily blocked from deporting Abrego Garcia until his latest challenge against deportation is resolved in court.

Abrego Garcia had been transferred to a detention center in Tennessee, where officials stated he possibly could be deported to Uganda, but he now has a hearing slated for Oct. 6 to challenge that.

Xinis said she’ll issue a ruling within 30 days of that hearing. She also ordered that custody of Abrego Garcia, who is currently being held in a detention center in Virginia, must remain within a 200-mile radius of the court in Maryland.

However, she further said she won’t order that Abrego Garcia be released from immigration custody, which she ruled should be decided by an immigration judge. His attorneys moved on Monday to reopen his immigration case and apply for his asylum.

Abrego Garcia was deported in March by the Trump administration on contentions that he was a member of the criminal MS-13 gang. He was sent to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, even though a 2019 court order was in place to bar deportation back to his native country due to fear of persecution.

He was returned to the United States in June to face allegations that he was transporting undocumented migrants while he lived in Maryland, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

His attorneys also stated his case should be reopened to allow Abrego Garcia to designate deportation to Costa Rica, should he be ruled for removal.

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.

SACRAMENTO — A day after his younger brother was denied release, Lyle Menendez also saw California parole officials reject his bid for freedom, ruling he will remain behind bars for now for the 1989 shotgun murders of his parents.

The parole board grilled Menendez, 57, over his efforts to get witnesses to lie during his trials, the lavish shopping sprees he and his brother Erik, 54, took after their parents’ killings, and whether he felt relief after the murders.

“I felt this shameful period of those six months of having to lie to relatives who were grieving,” Menendez told the board. “I felt the need to suffer. That it was no relief.”

As the elder brother, Menendez said he at times felt like the protector of Erik, but that he soon realized the murders were not the right way out of sexual abuse they were allegedly suffering at the hands of their parents.

“I sort of started to feel like I had not rescued my brother,” he said. “I destroyed his life. I’d rescued nobody.”

The closely watched hearing for Lyle Menendez, one of the most well-known inmates currently in the state’s prison system, was thrown into disarray Friday afternoon after audio of his brother’s parole hearing on Thursday was publicly released.

The audio, published by ABC 7, sparked anger and frustration from the brothers’ relatives and their attorney, who accused the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation of leaking the audio and tainting Lyle’s hearing.

A CDCR spokesperson confirmed the audio was “erroneously” issued in response to a records request, but did not elaborate or immediately respond to additional questions from The Times.

“I have protected myself, I have stayed out of this, I have not had a relationship with two human beings because I was afraid, and I came here today and I came here yesterday and I trusted that this would only be released in a transcript,” said Tiffani Lucero-Pastor, a relative of the brothers. “You’ve misled the family.”

Heidi Rummel, Lyle Menendez’s parole attorney, also criticized CDCR, accusing the agency of turning the hearing into a “spectacle.”

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

After the audio was published, Rummel said family members who planned to testify decided not to speak after all, and said she would be looking to seal the transcripts of Friday’s hearing.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said regulations allowed for audio to be released under the California Public Records Act. Transcripts of parole hearings typically become public within 30 days of a grant or denial, under state law.

During his first-ever appeal to the state parole board, Lyle Menendez was questioned over his credibility.

Garland referred to Menendez’s appeal to get witnesses to lie, plans to escape, and lies to relatives about the killings as a “sophistication of the web of lies and manipulation you demonstrated.”

Menendez said he had no plan at the time, there was just “a lot of flailing in what was happening.”

“Even though you fooled your entire family about you being a murderer, and you recruited all these people to help you … you don’t think that’s being a good liar?” Garland asked.

Menendez said the remorse he felt after the crimes perhaps helped create a “strong belief” he didn’t have anything to do with the killings.

Dmitry Gorin, a former Los Angeles County prosecutor, said the board’s decision denying parole was consistent with past decisions involving violent crimes.

“Although this is a high-profile case, the parole board rejecting the release demonstrates that it seeks to keep violent offenders locked up because they still pose a risk to society,” Gorin said. “Historically, the parole board does not release people convicted of murder, and this case is no different.

He called the decision a win for Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who has opposed the brothers’ release.

The brothers were initially sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for the killings of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez, but after qualifying for resentencing they gained a chance at freedom.

Many family members have supported their cause, but the gruesome crime and the brothers’ conduct behind bars led to pushback against their release.

The killings occurred after the brothers purchased shotguns in San Diego with a false identification and shot their parents in the family living room.

The bloody crime scene was compared by investigators to a gangland execution, where Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head. Evidence showed their mother had crawled, wounded, on the floor before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

The brothers reported the killings to 911, according to court records. Soon afterward, prosecutors during the trial noted, the two siblings began to spend large sums of money, including buying a Porsche and a restaurant, which was purchased by Lyle. Erik bought a Jeep and hired a private tennis instructor.

Prosecutors argued it was access to their multimillion-dollar inheritance that prompted the killing after Jose Menendez shared that he planned to disinherit the brothers.

But during the trials, the Menendez brothers and relatives testified that the two siblings had undergone years of sexual and physical abuse at the hands of their father.

In contrast to their frenzy around their trial, Thursday and Friday’s parole hearings were quiet — yet occasionally contentious — affairs.

A Times journalist was the only member of the public allowed to view the hearing on a projector screen in a room inside the agency’s headquarters outside of Sacramento.

During the Friday hearing, the parole board quickly dived into the allegations that the brothers were sexually assaulted by their father, which Lyle Menendez said confused and “caused a lot of shame in me.”

“That pretty much characterized my relationship with my father,” he said, adding that the fear of being abused left him in a state of “hyper vigilance,” even after the abuse stopped and his father began to abuse Erik.

“It took me a while to realize that it stopped,” Menendez said. “I think I was still worried about it for a long time.”

Growing up, he said, taking care of his younger brother gave him purpose, and helped to protect him from “drowning in the spiral of my own life.”

Menendez alleged his mother also sexually abused him, but said he did not share it during his comprehensive risk assessment because he “didn’t see it as abuse really.”

“Today, I see it as sexual abuse,” he said. “When I was 13, I felt like I was consenting and my mother was dealing with a lot and I just felt like maybe it wasn’t.”

Board members also questioned Lyle Menendez on why he didn’t mention the possibility they were removed from their parents’ will in their submissions to the board, but Menendez contended their inheritance was not a motive in the killings.

Instead, he said, it became “a problem afterward” as they worried they would have no money after their parents’ deaths.

“I believe there was a will that disinherited us somewhere,” he said.

The result of Thursday’s hearing means Erik can’t seek parole again for three years, a decision that left some relatives and supporters of the younger brother stunned.

“How is my dad a threat to society,” Talia Menendez, his stepdaughter, wrote on Instagram shortly after the decision was made. “This has been torture to our family. How much longer???”

In a statement issued Thursday, relatives said they were disappointed by the decision and noted that going through Lyle’s hearing Friday would be “undoubtedly difficult,” although they remained “cautiously optimistic and hopeful.”

Friends, relatives and former cellmates have touted the brothers’ lives behind bars, pointing to programs they’ve spearheaded for inmates, including classes for anger management, meditation, and helping inmates in hospice care.

But members of the board questioned both siblings about their violation of rules, zeroing in at times about repeated use of contraband cellphones.

During the hearing Friday, Lyle said he sometimes used cellphones to keep in touch with family outside the prison. But Deputy Parole Commissioner Patrick Reardon questioned this explanation, and asked why Menendez needed a cellphone if he could make legitimate calls from a prison-issued tablet.

The rule violation, board members pointed out, had resulted in Menendez being barred from family visits for three years.

Reardon pointed out that Menendez pleaded guilty to two cellphone violations in November 2024 and in March 2025. Menendez was also linked to three other violations, although another cellmate of his took responsibility for those violations.

Menendez said the violations occurred when he lived in a dorm with five other inmates, and admitted the use of cellphones was a “gang-like activity.” The group, he said, probably went through at least five cellphones.

Heidi Rummel, Menendez’s parole attorney, argued in her closing that despite the cellphone issues, Menendez had no violent incidents on his prison record.

“This board is going to say you’re dangerous because you used your cellphones,” she said. “But there is zero evidence that he used it for criminality, that he used it for violence. He didn’t even lie about it.”

But members of the board repeatedly focused on what seemed to be issues of credibility. Reardon said at times it felt like Menendez was “two different incarcerated people.”

“You seem to be different things at different times,” Reardon said during the hearing. “I don’t think what I see is that you used a cellphone from time to time. There seems to be a mechanism in place that you always had a cellphone.”

Garland asked Menendez about whether he used his position on the Men’s Advisory Council — a group meant to be a liaison on issues between inmates and prison administrators — to manipulate others and gain unfair benefits.

Menendez said the position gave him access to wall phones, and used the position to help him barter or gain favors.

Garland also pointed to an assessment that found Menendez exhibited antisocial traits, entitlement, deception, manipulation and a resistance to accept consequences.

Menendez said he had discussed those issues, but that he didn’t agree he showed narcissistic traits.

“They’re not the type of people like me self-referring to mental health,” he said, adding that he felt his father displayed narcissistic tendencies and lack of self-reflection. “I just felt like that wasn’t me.”

Menendez pointed to his work to help inmates in prison who are bullied or mocked.

“I would never call myself a model incarcerated person,” he said. “I would say that I’m a good person, that I spent my time helping people. That I’m very open and accepting.”

The parole board applauded Menendez’s work and educational history while in prison, noting he was working on a master’s degree.

Despite the violations, Menendez argued he felt he had done good work in prison.

“My life has been defined by extreme violence,” he said, tears visible on his face. “I wanted to be defined by something else.”

State parole officials had not yet publicly announced that Erik Menendez would remain behind bars, but word of the outcome was already spreading among his family members early Thursday evening.

Stunned and angry at the decision, some relatives took to social media just as news broke that Menendez, 54, had been denied parole for the 1989 shotgun murders of his parents, a grisly crime committed with his older brother, Lyle.

“How is my dad a threat to society,” Talia Menendez, his stepdaughter, wrote on Instagram. “This has been torture to our family. How much longer???”

In the all-caps post, Menendez’s daughter castigated the parole board, calling them “money hungry media feeding pieces of trash” after the decision.

“You will not have peace until my dad is free!!!!” she wrote in a following post.

A hearing for Lyle, 57, began Friday morning, leaving family members who support his case clinging to hope his ruling will be different.

Originally sentenced to life without parole, the brothers eventually qualified for resentencing because they were under 26 years old at the time of the killings.

Several petitions and legal filings went nowhere for decades, but their case received renewed attention after the popular Netflix series “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story” sparked a social media interest in their case, and the sexual abuse the two siblings alleged was perpetuated by their father, Jose Menendez.

A superior court granted their resentencing petition in May, paving the way for the parole hearings this week.

More than a dozen relatives of the two brothers testified in favor of parole during the Thursday hearing for Erik Menendez, and were also expected to speak for Lyle as well.

After a nearly 10-hour hearing Thursday, Parole Commissioner Robert Barton commended the support Menendez received from his family.

“You’ve got a great support network,” he said Thursday before pointing to Erik Menendez’s repeated violation of prison rules by using a contraband cellphone. “But you didn’t go to them before you committed these murders. And you didn’t go to them before you used the cellphone.”

Erik’s wife, Tammi Menendez, blasted the decision.

“Parole Commissioner Robert Barton had his mind made up to deny Erik parole from the start!” she wrote on X. “This was a complete setup, and Erik never stood a chance!”

Anamaria Baralt, a Menendez cousin and the family spokesperson, tried to remain positive in a video posted on Instagram, noting he could re-apply for parole in three years.

“Erik was given the lowest possible denial time,” she said. “It’s disappointing. we are certainly disappointed as a family.”

However, she said she was proud of Menendez as he addressed the parole board for the first time, something the family did not view as a possibility a few years ago.

“We knew this was a steep climb,” she said in the video. “California is very rigorous in its standards. Not many people get out on parole on their first try. So it wasn’t entirely a surprise. But it is nonetheless very disappointing.”

According to the Prison Policy Initiative, a research and advocacy group that pushes for criminal justice reform, the vast majority of inmates who go before the board are denied parole.

A recent study of parole rates across the states by the Prison Policy Initiative found that 14% of parole hearings in 2022 resulted in approval.

“While we respect the decision, [Thursday’s] outcome was of course disappointing and not what we hoped for,” the Menendez family said in a statement. “But our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride. His remorse, growth, and the positive impact he’s had on others speak for themselves.”

Family, friends and cellmates have commended the two brothers for their work inside prison in the past few years, referring to them as “mentors” for other prisoners and spearheading programs inside prison walls.

Lyle Menendez spearheaded a beatification project at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, and his brother has organized artwork for the project.

The two have started programs dealing with anger management, meditation, and assisting inmates in hospice care.

But Thursday‘s hearing also aired struggles and issues the younger sibling has faced during more than three decades in prison, including drug and alcohol use, fights with other inmates, instances of being found with contraband, and allegations he helped a prison gang in a tax fraud scheme in 2013.

Members of the parole board spent several minutes in particular asking about being caught multiple times with a cellphone, which he said he used to speak with his wife, watch YouTube videos, pornography, and look for updates on his case in the media.

Menendez said he paid about $1,000 for the phones, and said he did not consider the impacts the devices could have in the prison system.

“I knew 50, 60 people that had phones,” he said Thursday. “I just justified it by saying if I don’t buy it someone else is going to buy it. The phones were going to be sold.”

It was in January that he said a lieutenant had an extended talk with him about the impacts, including how someone must smuggle the phone, how it must be paid for, how it corrupts staff, and how they can be used for more criminal activity.

Despite the connection phones provided to the outside, Menendez said, it was later that he realized the effect that using one was having on his life, now that the prospect of freedom was possible.

“In November of 2024, now the consequences mattered,” he told the board. “Now the consequences meant I was destroying my life.”

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, who has opposed parole and resentencing for the two brothers, applauded the decision by the board.

“The California Board of Parole has rightly decided against granting parole to Erik Menendez,” he said in a statement. “This ruling does justice for Jose and Kitty Menendez, the victims of the brutal murders carried out by their sons on Aug. 20, 1989.”

Hochman said that, during their time in prison, the brothers have continued to claim they killed their parents in self-defense, but pointed out that their parents suffered shotgun blasts to the back and at point-blank range during the killings.

“The Board correctly determined that Erik Menendez’s actions speak louder than words, and that his conduct in prison and current mentality demonstrates that he still poses an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.”

SACRAMENTO — Erik Menendez will not be released, the California Parole board decided in a highly-anticipated and lengthy hearing Thursday, curtailing for now the contentious push by he and his older sibling to be freed after the 1989 killing of their parents in their Beverly Hills home.

The hearing came after years of legal efforts by Menendez and his brother to be set free despite being convicted of life without the possibility of parole in 1995. Their jury trial, and accounts of an abusive upbringing in the upscale Beverly Hills home, inspired several documentaries and television series that drew renewed attention to their case and allegations of sexual abuse against their father.

The hearing — the first time Erik Menendez, 54, has faced the California Parole Board — offered a never-before seen glimpse into his life behind bars over more than three decades. A separate hearing for Lyle, 57, is set for Friday.

The hearing, Erik Menendez noted, was 36 years and a day after his family realized his parents were dead. The killing occurred on Aug. 20, 1989.

“Today is the day all of my victims learned my parents were dead,” he said. “So today is the anniversary of their trauma journey.”

After a nearly 10-hour hearing, the board decided to deny parole to Menendez for three years. He could petition for an earlier hearing.

“This is a tragic case,” said Robert Barton, parole commissioner, after issuing the decision. “I agree that not only two, but four people, were lost in this family.”

Relatives, friends, and advocates have described the Menendez brothers as “model inmates,” but during the hearing Thursday members of the Parole Board raised concerns about drug and alcohol use, fights with other inmates, instances in which Erik Menendez was found with a contraband cell phone, and allegations that he helped a prison gang in a tax fraud scam in 2013.

More than a dozen relatives testified in favor of release for Menendez, with many of them saying they had forgiven him and his brother for the killing. Although amazed by the famiy’s support, Barton said Menendez should not be released on parole.

“Two things can be true,” Barton said. “they can love and forgive you and you can still be found unsuitable for parole.”

In a statement, a spokesperson for relatives of the two siblings said they were disappointed.

“Our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride,” the family said in a statement. “His remorse, growth, and the positive impact he’s had on others speak for themselves. We will continue to stand by him and hold to the hope he is able to return home soon.”

They said they remained “cautiously optimistic” for Lyle Menendez, whose hearing was set for Friday.

Menendez testified he obtained cell phones despite risking discipline because he didn’t believe there was a chance of him ever being released. He took the gamble, he said, because the “connection with the outside world was far greater than the consequences of me getting caught with the phone.”

He also associated with a gang, he said, for protection.

That all changed in 2024, he said, when he realized there was a chance be paroled at some point.

“In November of 2024, now the consequences mattered,” he told the board. “Now the consequences meant I was destroying my life.”

The crime that put Menendez and his brother in prison began when the siblings drove to San Diego, bought shotguns with cash using someone else’s identification, then returned home and opened fire in the family living room while their parents were watching television.

Investigators have said the gruesome crime scene looked like the site of a gangland execution. Jose Menendez was shot five times, including once in the back of the head, and evidence showed Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor, wounded, before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

The brothers called 911, with Lyle screaming that “someone killed my parents,” according to court records. But while they appeared as grieving orphans, Erik and Lyle also began spending large sums of money in the months following the killings. Lyle bought a Porsche and a restaurant while Erik purchased a Jeep and retained a private tennis instructor with the intentions of turning pro. The two were infamously seen sitting courtside at an NBA game between the murders and their capture.

Prosecutors argued the brothers killed their parents out of greed to get access to their multi-million dollar inheritance. Jose was planning to disinherit the brothers since he considered them failures, according to court filings. The brutality of the crimes and the juxtaposition of such violence against the family’s Beverly Hills image turned the case into an international media circus, only rivaled at the time by the O.J. Simpson trial.

While mobs of reporters also circled the brothers resentencing hearings in Van Nuys earlier this year, Thursday’s parole hearing was a much more solemn and quiet affair. With the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tightly controlling media access, a Times journalist was the only member of the public allowed to view the hearing on a projector screen in a room inside the agency’s headquarters just outside Sacramento.

The parole hearing is not meant to re-litigate details of the case or the brothers’ roles in the killings, but members of the board questioned Menendez Thursday on details of the grisly murders, which the brothers and supporters in their family were committed because they had suffered sexual abuse at the hands of their father.

“In my mind, leaving meant death,” Menendez told the board Thursday when asked why he didn’t leave the house, or go to police. “My absolute belief that I could not get away. Maybe it sounds completely irrational and unreasonable today.”

Menendez said he and his brother purchased the shotguns because they believed their parents might try to kill them, or that his father would go to his room to rape him.

“That was going to happen,” he said. “One way or another. If he was alive, that was going to happen.”

Asked why the two killed their mother as well, Erik Menendez said the decision was made after learning she was aware of the abuse, and the siblings saw no daylight between the two.

“Step by step, my mom had shown she was united with my dad,” he said at the hearing. “On that night I saw them as one person. Had she not been in the room, maybe it would have been different.”

He said the moment he found out his mother was aware of the alleged abuse was “devastating.”

“When mom told me…that she had known all of those years. It was the most devastating moment in my entire life,” he said. “It changed everything for me. I had been protecting her by not telling her.”

Asked if he believed his mother was also a victim to his father’s abuse, Erik Menendez said, “definitely.”

“He was beating her because I failed,” he said.

After denying parole, Barton pointed to their decision to kill their mother, calling it a decision “devoid of human compassion.”

“The killing of your mother especially showed a lack of empathy and reason,” Barton said. “I can’t put myself in your place. I don’t know that I’ve ever had rage to that level, ever. But that is still concerning, especially since it seems she was also a victim herself of domestic violence.”

Menendez was visibly overcome with emotion when discussing details of the murder, although he did not appear to cry.

After the murders, Menendez said the spending sprees between he and his brother, including buying a Rolex, were an “incredibly callous act.”

“I was torn between hatred of myself over what I did and wishing that I could undo it and trying to live out my life, making teenager decisions,” he said.

Erik eventually confessed to the killings in discussions with a therapist, and L.A. County sheriff’s deputies found a letter in Lyle’s jail cell admitting to the murders. After jurors hung in their first trial, Erik and Lyle Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder in 1996.

L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Habib Balian opposed parole for Menendez during the hearing, arguing he lied to the parole board and had minimized his role in the killings during the hearing.

“When one continues to diminish their responsibility for a crime and continues to make the same false excuses that they’ve made for 30-plus years, one is still that same dangerous person that they were when they shotgunned their parents,” Balian said Thursday. “Is he truly reformed, or is he just saying what wants to be heard?”

Menendez, Balian argued to the board, was still a risk to society and should not be released.

Interest in the brothers case was revived in recent years following a popular Netflix series, “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.” The popular show aired after a Peacock docuseries, “Menendez + Menudo: Boys Betrayed,” uncovered additional evidence of Jose Menendez’s alleged sexual abuse of his children and others, including Roy Rosselló, a member of the boy band Menudo.

The new evidence was part of the brothers’ most recent legal appeal in the case. More than 20 of the brothers’ relatives formed a coalition pushing for their freedom, arguing they had spent enough time imprisoned for a pair of killings that were motivated by years of horrific abuse.

Last year, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to re-sentence Erik and Lyle to 50-years-to-life in prison, making them eligible for parole. After he defeated Gascón in the November 2024 election, new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman quickly moved to oppose the re-sentencing petition, going as far as to transfer the prosecutors who authored it and asking a judge to disregard Gascón’s filing.

L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied that request. After finding prosecutors failed to prove the brothers were a danger to the public, Jesic granted the resentencing petition in May, clearing the path for Thursday’s parole hearing.

Fellow inmates and rehabilitation officials have described the two as “mentors,” spearheading programs and projects for inmates.

The two have created programs to deal with anger management, meditation, assisting inmates in hospice care and to improve conditions inside prison.

Lyle spearheaded a Rehabilitation Through Beautification project at Richard J. Donovan prison, to work on upgrades and create green space in the prison, along with painting a 1,000-foot mural. Erik has worked with other inmates to do the artwork for the project.

But members of the board questioned Menendez on various incidents, including a fight in 1997.

Menendez said another inmate hit him first, but admitted that he “acted aggressively” as well. In another fight, Menendez said he “fought back” in self-defense.

Members of the board also questioned Menendez on multiple incidents that he was found with contraband, including art supplies, candles, spray cans, and cell phones that Menendez said he would pay about $1,000 to obtain.

Some of the art supplies he used to decorate his cell, he said.

Menendez said he also gave other inmates access to the phone, because “if it was someone that I trusted or someone that I knew had a phone I didn’t want to tell him no.”

He said he used the phones to speak wiht his wife, watch YouTube videos and pornography.

“I really became addicted to the phones,” he said.

During the hearing, Barton said he was concerned about the number of support letters that refer to Menendez as a model inmate, saying it could minimize the impact of cell phones in the prison.

Menendez said it wasn’t until later that he realized the larger impact that cell phones could have, despite how prevalent they could be in prison.

“I knew of 50, 60 people that had phones,” he said. “I just justified it by saying if I don’t buy it someone else is going to buy it. The phones were going to be sold, and I longed for that connection.”

But in January, he said, he had an in-depth with a lieutenant and took a criminal thinking class that made him reassess.

“The damage of using a phone is as corrosive to a prison environment as drugs are,” he said. “In the sense that someone must bring them in, they must be paid for, it corrupts staff…phones can be used to elicit more criminal activity.”

Members of the board spent a significant amount of time questioning Menendez on the use of contraband phones, and also pointed to them as part of their reasoning in denying parole.

“Your institutional misconduct showed a lack of self awareness,” Barton said. “You’ve got a great support network. But you didn’t go to them before you committed these murders. And you didn’t go to them, before you used the cell phone.”

Dmitry Gorin, a former prosecutor, said Menendez decision to break the rules while in prison affected his chances at winning release, even though he was young when he was convicted.

“If you’re not going to comply with the rules in prison, you’re not going to comply out in society — that’s what they’re saying here,” Gorin said. “The big picture here is without serious medical issues or being elderly, I don’t know anyone who killed two people who has been paroled.”

Nancy Tetreault, an attorney for former Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten, said despite public support for parole, Erik was considered moderate risk in the comprehensive risk assessment. To have a better chance at release, he would have to be considered low risk, she said.

“That’s very hard to overcome,” she said.

The two brothers were also involved in classes, but also would need to be more involved in rehabilitative programs for a favorable decision, Tereault said.

“Yes, they have a lot of classes and things like that that I was reading the classes they’ve put together, like meditation, for insight, that they’re leaving it, but they need to, they need to start programming,” she said.

Menendez admitted to drinking alcohol and briefly using heroin at one point in prison, which he said he tried because he was “miserable” and feeling hopeless.

“If I could numb my sadness with alcohol, I was going to do it,” he said. “I was looking to ease that sadness within me.”

Members of the board also asked Menendez about his connection to a prison gang and a tax fraud scam in 2013, but did not discuss details of the scheme.

Menendez said part of the reason he associated with members of the gang, known as 25s or Dos Cinco, was fear of his safety.

“When the 25ers came and asked for help, I thought this was a great opportunity to align myself with them and to survive,” Erik Menendez said, adding that he thought he needed to keep himself safe since he had no hopes of being paroled at the time. “I was in tremendous fear.”

The gang was in charge of the prison yard, he said, and a member approached him about the scheme, although Menendez said he did not personally control the checks. The gang also supplied him with marijuana, he siad.

Much changed after 2013, Erik Menendez said, and he curbed his use of drugs and alcohol. At one point, members of the gang also believed he had become an informant.

“I did not like who I was in 2013,” Erik Menendez said. “From 2013 on I was living for a different purpose. My purpose in life was to be a good person.”

In Oct. 14, 2023, his mother’s birthday, he said he committed to stop using drugs, he told the board.

Deputy Parole Commissioner Rachel Stern asked Menendez about his work with hospice inmates, including a World War II veteran convicted of an unspecified sexual violence crime that Menendez helped with getting his meals and bedding.

Menendez said he saw his work with the inmate as a way to make amends for his father.

Menendez apologized to his family during the hearing, noting their support.

“I just want my family to understand that I am so unimaginably sorry for what I have put them through,” he said. “I know they have been here for me and they’re here for me today, but I want them to know that this should be about them. It’s about them and if I ever get the chance at freedom I want the healing to be about them.