Lyle Menendez

A judge has rejected Erik and Lyle Menendez’s petition for a new trial, ruling that additional evidence that they suffered sexual abuse at their father’s hands would not have changed the outcome of the trial that has put them in prison for more than 35 years for gunning down their parents.

The ruling, handed down by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan on Monday, is the latest blow to the brothers’ bid for release. Both were denied parole during lengthy hearings in late August.

A habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of the brothers in 2023 argued they should have been able to present additional evidence at trial that their father, Jose Menendez, was sexually abusive.

The new evidence included a 1988 letter that Erik Menendez sent to his cousin, Andy Cano, saying he was abused into his late teens. There were also allegations made by Roy Rosselló, a former member of the boy band Menudo, who claimed Jose Menendez raped him.

The brothers have long argued they were in fear for their lives that their father would keep abusing them, and that their parents would kill them to cover up the nightmarish conditions in their Beverly Hills home.

Prosecutors contended the brothers killed their parents with shotguns in 1989 to get access to their massive inheritance, and have repeatedly highlighted Erik and Lyle’s wild spending spree in the months that followed their parents’ deaths. .

“Neither piece of evidence adds to the allegations of abuse the jury already considered, yet found that the brothers planned, then executed that plan to kill their abusive father and complicit mother,” Ryan wrote. “The court finds that these two pieces of evidence presented here would have not have resulted in a hung jury nor in the conviction of a lesser instructed offense.”

Ryan agreed with Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman that the petition should not grant the brothers a new trial because the abuse evidence would not have changed the fact that the brothers planned and carried out the execution-style killings in the family living room.

Ryan wrote the new evidence would not have resulted in the trial court proceeding differently because the brothers could not show they experienced a fear of “imminent peril.”

A spokesperson for the group of more than 30 Menendez relatives who have been fighting for the brothers’ release did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesman for the district attorney’s office was not immediately available for comment.

The gruesome killings occurred after the brothers used cash to buy the shotguns and attacked their parents while they watched a movie in the family living room.

Prosecutors said Jose Menendez was struck five times with shotgun blasts, including in the back of the head, and Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor wounded before the brothers reloaded and fired a final, fatal blast.

The petition rejected this week was one of three paths the Menendez legal team has pursued in seeking freedom for the brothers. Another judge earlier this year resentenced them to 50 years to life for the murders, making them eligible for parole after they were originally sentenced to life in prison.

Both were denied release at their first parole hearing, but could end up before the state panel again in as soon as 18 months. Clemency petitions are also still pending before Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The first trial ended with hung juries for each brother. In the second, allegations of abuse and supporting testimonies were restricted, and Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of first-degree murder in March 1996.

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.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

When are the hearings? Can I watch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens after the decision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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