Why the Menendez Brothers Should be Released

                      

In 1996, brothers Joseph Lyle Menendez and Erik Galen Menendez were convicted of the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty, in Beverly Hills, California. Before, during, and after their trials (their first concurrent trials ended in hung juries, leading to a joint trial in 1996), much of the public believed that the brothers were spoiled young men who shot their parents to collect their 14-million-dollar inheritance. The prosecution seemed to encourage these rumours and public disdain towards the men. Those who support this theory, back in the 1990s and today, believe that the brothers’ life sentence without parole is what they deserved for a brutal, senseless parricide. However, in the past decade, more and more people have come to realize that it may not be that simple. Some members of the public have been gravitating towards the defence team’s theory, which argues that the brothers killed their parents in self-defence after years of horrific abuse. Along with this theory, there are a plethora of reasons why the Menendez case should be re-examined. An unfair second trial, the legal concept of imperfect self-defence, and rehabilitation evidence are some of the main reasons why the Menendez brothers should be allowed another day in court.

The brothers’ second trial was heavily biased against the defence team, which is one of the biggest reasons why they should receive another chance at justice. Erik and Lyle’s original trials took place from 1993 to 1994. The boys were tried separately but concurrently. Both the prosecution and defence counsel pulled out all the stops, calling dozens of witnesses and presenting numerous theories as to why the brothers committed the crime. Some of the prosecution witnesses were the brothers’ therapist, Dr. Leon Jerome Oziel, as well as Lyle’s close friends Glenn Stevens and Donovan Goodreau. The defence team called several aunts, uncles, and cousins of the Menendezes to testify about the possible abuse of the brothers. The defendants themselves also testified, which is somewhat uncommon in criminal trials. The testimonies of their various relatives, tennis coaches, and teachers backed up the brothers’ claim that their parents were cruel and downright abusive. After listening to witnesses and lawyers’ arguments, the juries were given four options if they chose to convict the brothers: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, or involuntary manslaughter. Juror Hazel Thornton stated that the men on the jury voted for murder, while the women believed manslaughter was more appropriate (Hartmann, 2024). Because of this, both brothers ended up with hung juries, and mistrials were declared. Stanley Weisberg was the judge for both trials, and he was not going to make the same mistake twice: in the second trial, he did not give jurors the option to select manslaughter. That meant they had to choose between a conviction for first-degree murder or a not guilty verdict leading to an acquittal. Because the brothers had confessed to the killings, the jury almost certainly had to convict them of murder; there was no argument that they were not guilty. Before the trial, Weisberg limited the number of experts and witnesses for the defence, meaning that the new jurors heard almost nothing about the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse that Erik and Lyle experienced at the hands of their parents. None of the evidence for the relatives was admitted, and Lyle had been advised not to testify this time, so Erik was the only witness who could speak about the abuse (Hartmann, 2024). In the first trial, the brothers’ lawyers argued that Erik and Lyle had believed that their parents were plotting to kill them, so the boys struck first. This argument that they were afraid for their lives due to a history of child abuse was not allowed in the second trial. According to Erik, “The judge said, ‘well, Erik and Lyle are not women, so the battered women’s syndrome doesn’t apply’. So all of that trauma, it’s not relevant, and is not allowed into the second trial.” (Hartmann, 2024). This left the defence counsel with almost nothing. The one-sided limitation of witnesses, exclusion of valuable evidence and testimonies, and prohibition of an abuse defence created a trial that was doomed from the start. Lyle and Erik’s lawyers were left with little to work with, which impeded on the brothers’ right to a fair and unbiased trial.

California has a type of self-defence that is referred to as “imperfect self-defence”, and, according to the Menendez brothers’ testimony, what transpired on the night of the killings was exactly that. Imperfect self-defence describes a situation where the accused has killed someone based on an “honest but unreasonable belief” that they needed to use lethal force to protect themselves or others (““Imperfect Self-Defense” & the Flannel Doctrine in California”, n.d.). If a jury decides that this concept applies to the accused, the charge will be reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter, with a sentence ranging from three to eleven years in state prison (““Imperfect Self-Defense” & the Flannel Doctrine in California”, n.d.). In their testimonies, Erik and Lyle described their growing paranoia in the days leading up to August 20th, 1989, when the murders were committed. One night, after Kitty ripped an expensive toupee off of Lyle’s head, a shocked Erik shared a secret of his own: that Jose had been sexually abusing him for years. On August 17th, three days before the killings, Lyle confronted Jose about the molestation (Rand, 2024, p. 86). Jose’s reply was, “We all make choices in our life. Erik made his. You made yours.” (Rand, 2024, p. 213). To Lyle, this hinted that his father had decided to keep his sons quiet by killing them. Then, Jose threatened Erik, saying, “I warned you never to say anything to Lyle. Now, he’ll go tell everyone. I’m not going to let that happen!” (Rand, 2024, p. 86). Afterwards, Erik ran into the house, where Kitty revealed that she knew that Jose was abusing the boys. This led the boys to the realization that their mother was always going to choose Jose over them. Jose and Kitty had previously threatened to kill their children multiple times, which makes it easy to understand why the boys believed their parents could and would silence them once and for all. Once, in the back of a limousine, Jose held Lyle by the neck and punched him in the face. He said, “Don’t ever embarrass me like that again, or I’ll kill you.” (Rand, 2024, p. 57). Another time, an increasingly depressed Kitty threatened to poison the family and herself. Because of this, Jose would sometimes take his sons out to eat. As author Robert Rand put it, “the brothers looked to their father for cues on when it was all right to eat the food at home.” (2024, p. 72). When he finally told Lyle about the abuse, Erik said that he had previously stayed quiet because Jose had threatened to kill him if he told anyone what was going on (Rand, 2024, p. 88). During the first trial, when Erik’s lawyer Leslie Abramson asked if he had ever said no to his dad’s sexual abuse, Erik said yes. He stated that Jose “came back with a knife…He put his hand on my head and put the knife on my neck…He said, ‘I should kill you, and next time, I will’.” (Hartmann, 2024). Later in his testimony, Erik said that his dad “would say, ‘what’s gonna happen to you if you tell anyone?’, and I remember, the first time I said that, ‘you will hurt me’. And, uh, he said, ‘wrong’, and so I hit myself. And he said, ‘what’s gonna happen if you tell someone?’, and I said, ‘you’ll kill me’, and he said, ‘right’.” (Hartmann, 2024). In the days leading up to the murders, Erik and Lyle believed that Kitty and Jose had already made up their minds to kill their sons. The parents spoke in past tense: Kitty told Erik “If you had kept your mouth shut, things might have worked out in this family.” (Rand, 2024, p. 92). When Lyle asked about a tennis camp Jose had wanted him to go to, Jose replied, “It doesn’t matter anymore.” (Rand, 2024, p. 92). After receiving numerous death threats from their parents over the years, it is no surprise that Erik and Lyle thought that their parents were able and willing to kill them. Jose and Kitty’s repeated threats, along with a lifetime of horrific abuse, resulted in Erik and Lyle’s sincere, visceral belief that their parents were finally going to go through with a murderous plan in the week leading up to August 20th. On the day of the killings, the brothers wanted to go out, and Kitty told them that they could not leave. Jose then ordered Erik upstairs to wait for him; both boys knew that meant sex. Lyle screamed at Jose, “You’re not going to touch Erik anymore!”. Then, Jose and Kitty went into the den and locked the doors. Lyle testified, “I was sure that was it. I just freaked out…I thought they were going ahead with their plan to kill us.” (Rand, 2024, p. 214). Lyle also said, “I thought we were in danger. I felt he had no choice. He would kill us. He’d get rid of us in some way. Because I was going to ruin him.” (Rand, 2024, p. 214). When Lyle’s lawyer Jill Lansing asked on the stand how he felt when his parents went into the den, he responded: “Just hard to describe how I felt, but like I had to run as fast as I could and my life was sort of slipping away, and that we were going to die.” (Rand, 2024, p. 214). Erik described the same feeling of panic, testifying, “All I had in my head was, ‘if my mom and dad exit that room before I get there, I’m going to die’.” (Hartmann, 2024). These testimonies speak directly to the concept of imperfect self-defence: Lyle and Erik had an honest, and possibly unreasonable, belief that their parents were about to kill them, so the boys struck first. Years of abuse, threats, and cruelty created two paranoid young men whose fear was so real to them that they thought they were acting in self-defence. This describes a situation of imperfect self-defence, and by extension, a charge of voluntary manslaughter and a reduced prison sentence.

While serving their life sentence, the Menendez brothers have been exemplary prisoners who, if convicted of anything else, could have already been released on parole. The main requirement for parole is that the offender has completed the amount of time deemed necessary by the court before they can be considered for parole. At parole hearings, a variety of issues are taken into consideration, such as the likelihood of reoffending and rehabilitation efforts. The Menendez brothers are extremely unlikely to reoffend; they did not kill out of anger, lust, greed, or any of the other common motives for repeat murderers. A self-defence killing is a one-off and would not happen twice, unless the offender’s life was seriously threatened again. Lyle and Erik do not pose a threat to public safety and would be very unlikely to kill again. They took their parents’ lives to, as they perceived it, save themselves, and therefore do not possess the characteristics of most killers. From a rehabilitation aspect, the brothers have done extremely well. Both of them have earned bachelor’s degrees in sociology, and Lyle is currently working on a master’s degree in urban planning (Hernandez, 2024). They have worked on projects for a variety of causes, including meditation and helping inmates with disabilities. Lyle created the Adverse Childhood Experience and Rehabilitation and Youth LWOP Ally, which aids young inmates who have been sentenced to life in prison without parole. With his friend Joel Baptiste Abreu, Lyle also created the Rehabilitation Through Beautification project. Through this, inmates work to improve the prison. They made green space and a large mural, which was painted mostly by Joel, Erik, and two other prisoners (Hernandez, 2024). When Joel asked Erik how he deals with life in prison, Erik responded, “Help other people. When you’re putting yourself in the position to help other people, it generates hope.” (Hernandez, 2024). Erik has created some programs of his own, including Victims Impact and Empathy for Vulnerable Populations, Life Care and Hospice Connection, and meditation classes. All of these projects would be of great importance if the brothers were resentenced and became eligible for parole. California Governor Gavin Newsom stated that, “The thing that’s perhaps the most determinative when you come up to the parole board process is what kind of prisoner have you been?...Have you been focused on your rehabilitation, have you taken responsibility for your crime, and whether you’re coming out more of a broken person, or you’re coming out as a better person and, all of that, is also determinative.” (Hernandez, 2024). The brothers have also taken responsibility for their crime, instead of placing all of the blame on their abusive parents, as some prosecutors and members of the public believe. In an interview for the Netflix documentary The Menendez Brothers, Erik blamed himself, stating, “Every aspect of this tragedy is my fault” (Hartmann, 2024). Their admission of guilt and remorse, coupled with their prison improvement projects, could contribute favourably to a parole decision. If the brothers were able to progress to parole board hearings, their rehabilitation efforts in prison would not go unnoticed, and would greatly increase their chances of being released.

There are several other details in the Menendez case that are insignificant from a legal standpoint, but can be perceived as small injustices. The Menendez brothers are often compared to Gypsy-Rose Blanchard, a woman who planned the murder of her mother in 2015 after a lifetime of medical child abuse. Gypsy received only a ten-year sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree murder, even though she planned the killing with her boyfriend. The prosecutor claimed he had enough evidence to secure a first-degree murder conviction, but did not think it was a fair charge because of the abuse Gypsy suffered (Keegan, 2016). Gypsy planned her mother’s killing, which automatically indicates murder in the first-degree. The Menendez brothers claim that they did not plan their parents’ killings, but shot in self-defence, which indicates a charge of manslaughter. If the logic of the Blanchard case was applied to the Menendez case, then Erik and Lyle would also have received second-degree murder charges and significantly reduced sentences, since they were also abused by their parents. Now, Gypsy-Rose is out of prison and starring in her own reality show on Lifetime, while the Menendez brothers remain incarcerated for what could be the rest of their days.

Many of the Menendez brothers’ supporters argue that their case should be reexamined because societal attitudes towards male child abuse have changed. In California and many other jurisdictions, there is a “battered women’s defence”, which can be used by women who kill or seriously injure their intimate partners. This defence constitutes that the accused has been repeatedly abused by her partner and that the abuse psychologically impacted her thinking and perception of threats (Regehr and Glancy, 1995). In the second Menendez trial, the judge stated that the battered women’s defence did not apply to the boys. As mentioned in the second paragraph, the defence was not allowed because Lyle and Erik were not women. However, due to a shift in how society perceives family violence, the battered women’s law is now referred to as “the domestic battery law”. This change recognizes that anyone, including men, can be victims of familial violence. If the case happened now, Judge Weisberg’s excuse that the battered women’s defence does not apply because Lyle and Erik are not women would not work; the law now recognizes that men can experience abuse and suffer psychologically because of it. Battered women’s syndrome, the cornerstone to the battered women’s defence, is now called “battered person syndrome” in the International Classification of Diseases (6B40 Post traumatic stress disorder, n.d). This acknowledges male victims of trauma and abuse. With expert testimony that the Menendez brothers suffered from battered person syndrome, this could be used as a defence in court. The argument would be the same premise as that of battered women’s syndrome: that the brothers suffered severe, prolonged abuse that changed the way they perceive the world around them. Their experiences of spoken and physical threats from their parents altered their minds so much that they anticipated danger more than other people would in their situation. This aligns with Lyle and Erik’s testimony that their parents’ words and actions prior to August 20th led the boys to believe that they were going to be killed. An ordinary person might not have understood Jose and Kitty’s cues that way, but Erik and Lyle’s history of abuse and psychological trauma shaped their perception of the situation they were in. This defence of battered person syndrome could have worked, if it was allowed, back in the 1990s, and it certainly could work in a modern-day murder trial. The medical and legal recognition of battered person syndrome signifies that society has come a long way in understanding the experiences of male victims. It is this newfound comprehension and empathy towards male survivors that is cited by Menendez supporters in their push for another look at the case and sentence.

Another aspect of the Menendez case that would be handled differently today is the speculation around Erik’s sexual orientation. Many people involved in the case in the 1990s discussed rumours that Erik might be gay. Erik denied this and stated that he was confused about his sexuality because of the sexual abuse he experienced at his father’s hands. The prosecutor in the original trial, Lester Kuriyama, perpetuated the gay rumour. In his closing argument, Kuriyama used the ambiguity of Erik’s sexuality to claim that Erik was never sexually abused by his father, but instead that he was able to describe gay sex acts through his own consensual experiences with other men. Kuriyama alleged that “Homosexuality is a personal choice” and “If Erik indeed engaged in consensual homosexual activities with other men, that would account for him being able to describe for you the accounts he described to you about sexual encounters with his father.” (Rand, 2024, p. 275). The way Erik’s sexuality was handled in his trial was insensitive and would not be allowed today. Society, and its laws, have come a long way in accepting and understanding different sexual orientations. Same-sex marriage is now legal in California, although it was not at the time of the original trials (Karlamangla, 2024). The legalization of gay marriage, as well as numerous organizations dedicated to the advocacy and acceptance of gay rights, shows once again that most Americans have evolved in their understanding of experiences different than their own. Many scientists have discovered that homosexuality is indeed not a choice, contradicting Kuriyama’s statement in the 1990s (Sullivan, 2019). This newfound evidence would show Kuriyama’s arguments to not only be scientifically inaccurate, but also inadequate as legal arguments in a closing statement. Acceptance of queer identities, in addition to empathy towards male abuse victims, are two things that barely existed at the time of the original trial, and would make a huge impact if the case was reexamined today.

In the past several years, much of the public has shifted its perception on the case of the Menendez brothers. Erik and Lyle Menendez, their legal teams, and their supporters are pushing once again for the case to be reevaluated. Their second and final trial was heavily biased against the defence counsel. The exclusion of crucial evidence and witnesses impeded the brothers’ right to a fair trial. The testimonies of Lyle and Erik describe a lifetime of terror, resulting in an honest but likely unreasonable belief that their parents were going to kill them on the night of August 20th, 1989. The brothers struck first, and their sincere fear of immediate danger constitutes imperfect self-defence. If the brothers are resentenced, they could be eligible for parole, and their behaviour in prison would almost guarantee their release. They have started numerous projects to help vulnerable inmates, as well as contributed to making a green space in their prison. When compared to a similar case of parricide committed by Gypsy-Rose Blanchard, the Menendezes’ sentence seems extremely unreasonable. Gypsy’s prosecutor gave her a lesser charge because of the abuse she suffered from her mother, while the final Menendez jury received no option of selecting a lesser conviction. In the 1990s, the Menendez brothers were not allowed to use the battered women’s defence, since they are not women. But that defence is now the “battered person defence”, and describes a defendant so traumatized that they perceive danger in everyday situations. This applies to Erik and Lyle, based on their testimonies. Finally, the argument by prosecutor Lester Kuriyama that Erik was not sexually abused by his father, rather that he used (speculated) gay encounters to fabricate the abuse stories is utterly disgusting. His attitude that Erik was, and chose to be, gay and therefore lied about his abuse would not be allowed in a modern-day courtroom. All of the above reasons show that Lyle and Erik Menendez did not receive a fair trial, and by extension, a fair verdict and sentence. After a childhood comprised of abuse and threats from their parents, then a media spectacle and biased trial, the brothers have suffered further in their adult lives by being imprisoned for the past 34 years. Now the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has a chance to interrupt the brothers’ cycle of mistreatment by resentencing them and making them eligible for parole. Maybe this time, justice will be served, and the two abused men will finally have a chance at a normal life.

References

Hartmann, A. (Director). (2024). The Menendez Brothers [Film]. Netflix.

Hernandez, S (2024, Nov. 25). “Marriage, service, TikTok fame: How the Menendez brothers spent 34 years in prison.” Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-11-25/menendez-brothers-prison-years 

““Imperfect Self-Defense” & the Flannel Doctrine in California.” (n.d.) Shouse California Law Group. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/legal-defenses/self-defense/imperfect-self-defense/#

Karlamangla, S. (2024, Feb. 12). “The 20th Anniversary of California’s First Same-Sex Marriages.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/us/20th-anniversary-california-same-sex-marriages.html

Keegan, H. (2016, July 5). “In 'extraordinary' case, Gypsy Blanchard gets 10 years for murdering mother.” Springfield News-Leader. https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2016/07/05/gypsy-blanchard-pleads-guilty-murder/86617662/  

Rand, R. (2024). The Menendez Murders: Updated Edition. BenBella Books.

Regehr, C and Glancy, G. (1995, April). “Battered woman syndrome defense in Canadian courts”. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7606702/#:~:text=This%20defense%20hinges%20on%20the,during%20a%20particular%20battering%20episode

Sullivan, B. (2019, Sept. 3). “Stop calling it a choice: Biological factors drive homosexuality.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/stop-calling-it-a-choice-biological-factors-drive-homosexuality-122764 

6B40 Post traumatic stress disorder. (n.d). International Classification of Diseases. https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#2070699808