Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Menendez Brothers: New Shocking Evidence Surfaces in Double Parent Murder Case

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. They diminished the abuse and we called it the abuse excuse. Brothers Eric and Lyle Menendez hoping to be released from prison or get a new trial for the murders of their parents after bombshell claims that new evidence proves their father sexually abused them. But the prosecutor on the case isn't buying it. This is not a manslaughter trial. Eric and Lyle were not victims. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. In the mid-90s, aside from the O.J. Simpson case, there was probably no bigger case than the trial of Eric and Lyle Menendez. The brothers killed their parents, Jose and Kitty

Starting point is 00:00:45 Menendez, at their home in Beverly Hills in 1989 and claimed burglars did it. Eric and Lyle went on spending sprees after their parents' murders. They were charged in 1992. The first trial ended in a hung jury, the second in a conviction and life sentences. Nearly a year ago, attorneys for Eric and Lyle filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus saying new evidence shows they should be freed or get a new trial. They always argued that they were guilty of manslaughter and not murder.

Starting point is 00:01:16 The evidence that the brothers cite includes a claim from Roy Rosello, a member of the popular 1980s boy band Menudo, coming forward to say that Jose Menendez raped him as a child. Menudo was represented by RCA Records at the time where Jose was an executive. The prosecutor on the murder case, though, says she doesn't believe it to this day. She spoke with Fox Nation in a new four-part series, Menendez Brothers, Victims or Villains, that was just released. I put on the fact that these two yahoos killed their parents, and I put on the fact that they

Starting point is 00:01:50 killed them in cold blood with premeditation. The facts in this case are irrefutable, except for the ones about Jose being a child molester, which I still, to this day, after 34 years of thinking about it, I don't buy it. But not at all. Let me say this. I did a preliminary hearing with Leslie Abramson five years before this case. And in it, she was saying that her client was in fact a victim of domestic abuse. But as soon as she came on the case, I know, oh, okay, she's going to turn them into victims because that was her MO. There you go. The Menendez's are adamant that they were the victims of abuse and cite a letter they say Eric wrote to their cousin Andy in 1988 detailing the abuse. Attorney Mark Garrigues is part of Eric and Lyle's defense team.

Starting point is 00:02:36 I spoke with him last year about this case. But we're hoping to at least get a hearing or an order that will give us a hearing. And somebody much more clever than me said, think about this. If this case from the 90s was tried today, do you think for a minute that somebody would exclude the abuse? It wouldn't happen. Victims, for the most part, all of the relatives are supported. So what chance do the Menendez brothers have of actually being released from prison or being resentenced? Joining me to discuss this are two California lawyers. Josh Ritter is a former prosecutor and Laura Uretzian is a defense attorney. Thanks to both of you for coming on.

Starting point is 00:03:20 Josh, I'll start with you on this because, full disclosure, as you told me, you were interviewed for this new Fox Nation four-part series about the Menendez case. So tell me, what do you believe will happen with this? What are your thoughts on the petition? Well, I think they have strong arguments. This is not something that I would say is without merit. They make strong points as far as, and it's important, I think, to understand the distinction here, is that they're not saying these two men are innocent. They're saying they're guilty, but they're guilty of manslaughter, and that they weren't given the proper opportunity to present evidence toward that.

Starting point is 00:03:59 And they said that in the first trial, they hung significantly on that issue between murder and manslaughter. But on the second trial, the judge made significant rulings limiting their ability to present evidence about the abuse, which would have lended towards their manslaughter arguments. And that because of that, the prosecution was given the opportunity to make statements in closing arguments along the lines of there is no corroborating evidence. And their position is that is in fact not true for the prosecutor to have even made those arguments to the jury. So I think there's merit to it. I think the arguments are strong. The problem is where they're bringing this, courts are incredibly reluctant to turn over jury verdicts. And they're incredibly reluctant to go back and revisits and they're incredibly reluctant to go back and revisit things unless they feel that the judge made rulings that are simply not founded

Starting point is 00:04:52 and are simply um without outside of the judge's discretion in other words so that's the uphill battle that they have that's interesting you bring that up because this is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that you know just so our viewers are clear on that, what that means is you go to a judge. You're basically saying to the prison warden, you know, bring us the body. That's what it means. And you're saying this person is being held unlawfully. And this was filed in state court and not federal court. So, Laura, do you have any opinion on why that happened? Because a lot of times we see these filed in federal court. So Laura, do you have any opinion on why that happened? Because a lot of times we see these filed in federal court.

Starting point is 00:05:28 In this case, I'm assuming we've got Cliff Gardner, who's a very experienced appellate lawyer. Usually the writ of habeas corpus that I know of, he brings them in state court. At least I've seen that in the Scott Peterson case. He must have thought that that is the place to do it. And I would defer him on that. He's the expert and the professional on that. In this case, in addition to what Josh was saying, as far as what arguments that the district attorney made,

Starting point is 00:05:55 they're also alleging that there's new evidence in this case that they've discovered since the convictions, including some of them are very damning as far as the parents are concerned, including a letter that Eric had sent to his cousin, Andy, where he in fact writes about the abuse and how he can't tolerate it anymore. And it almost confirms that it's not so. And that was a letter that was sent eight months prior to the shooting. And also a new discovery has come up. No information has come up about Jose Menendez, the father of the two brothers, having raped and a singer was part of a band.

Starting point is 00:06:40 So when he was 13 or 14, again, pretty damning. It goes to support the defense argument and defense theory that these boys were molested and sexually battered and raped by their father. And the mom obviously did nothing about it. And they were being abused physically and emotionally by both parents. And that was a member of the band Menudo. When we were all kids, I think Menudo was a really big deal. And Jose Menendez was a higher up at RCA Records and would have had access, the brothers argue, to members of Menudo. And that's how this happened.

Starting point is 00:07:20 I think you bring up a good point about this letter, Laura. I mean, there's this letter that Eric is purported to have written to his cousin Andy in 1988 before the murders, talking about this abuse. And apparently this letter wasn't discovered until after the cousin died. So it wasn't even available at trial. So I think that's an interesting point you bring up. Maybe they file this in state court because it's kind of newly discovered evidence, but they do it in the form of a habeas petition. You know, Josh, what do you make of this letter as a former prosecutor? You know, there are some people who always say, you know, you talk about newly discovered

Starting point is 00:08:01 evidence and it's supposed to be evidence that couldn't have been discovered at the time or wasn't available at the time. I don't know. Is this newly discovered evidence from the prosecution's perspective? Because we know they claimed this at the first trial that there was, you know, mental, physical, sexual abuse. But the letter appears to be brand new. Yeah, I don't think there's any denying that it would be considered newly discovered. They had looked for as much evidence as they could to support their arguments that they were the victims of abuse at their father's hands. And this was only revealed until much later. The problem is the question before the court now is going to be, well, yes, this is newly discovered evidence, but would it have significantly impacted

Starting point is 00:08:53 the juror's decision? Would it have moved the needle, in other words? And I think the prosecution and we and by the way, I don't know how firmly they are arguing against all of this, but the prosecution's position essentially is going to be that there was evidence of this at the time. They had made these arguments. The judge made the rulings that they did. And this isn't such significant evidence that you can say that they weren't involved in the killings. It's just more evidence towards the idea of manslaughter.

Starting point is 00:09:22 We don't know if this would have really changed the jurors' minds. It's all of these questions that make it ambiguous as to what the results would have been and if they would have been any different. And again, the courts like finality. They want jurors' verdicts to remain and not to be continually questioned years and years later. So it is strong evidence. I think had they had it at the time, it may have made a difference, but that's a different question that's being presented to the court now. The stories we cover make it really clear that you can get into a jam and need help from a lawyer. That's where a law firm like Morgan & Morgan can help you. Morgan & Morgan is the largest personal injury

Starting point is 00:10:05 law firm in the United States with more than 1,000 attorneys. The firm makes it really easy to submit a claim. You can do it in just a matter of clicks using just this, your cell phone. If you ever get hurt, your injury could be worth millions. And taking on a big insurance company is a lot easier when you have a firm like Morgan & Morgan fighting for you and protecting your rights. Morgan & Morgan does not settle for lowball offers. In the last few months, they've had some really big verdicts. In Philly, they won a verdict for $26 million. That was 40 times higher, the highest insurance offer. In Florida, Morgan & Morgan won a $12 million verdict. And in New York, Morgan & Morgan won a $6.8 million

Starting point is 00:10:46 verdict. Also, there are zero upfront fees. Submitting a claim is free and you only pay if you win. So if you'd like to submit a claim, log on to ForThePeople.com slash Crime Fix or click the link in the description or pinned in the comments. So, Laura, the first trial ended in a hung jury. And, you know, obviously the first trial, the jury was conflicted. They couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. Different rulings in the second trial leads to murder convictions, and they get life in prison without parole. You know, these brothers are cast as, spoiled brats who killed their parents and,

Starting point is 00:11:26 you know, they wanted the money and they went on a spending spree and they were just jerks and they claimed that the house was burglarized and, you know, they were made fun of on late night TV and on Saturday Night Live, things like that. You know, had this letter existed from your perspective as a defense attorney or, I mean, obviously it existed, but had the defense had it back then and maybe Cousin Andy would have been who would have been alive or whatever had testified. Let's just kind of put ourselves back in that position back then. Do you think that would have tipped the scales? I mean, it's hard. I'm asking you to speculate a little bit, but it sounds pretty compelling if you've got a letter where you're saying like, I can't take this anymore. Dad is

Starting point is 00:12:09 like doing this and he's molesting me and I can't take it. Think about it. You've got a witness who's testifying. You've got a jury at the first trial. That's six, six, right, for manslaughter versus murder. And the six were for manslaughter. And I think it was a mix as far as where they were on the rest of this, as far as the rest of the six jurors. You've got a witness who's testifying about what Eric told him when they were young, when they were 13. And you get a letter that backs it up eight months before the shooting. And this is, you know, they're much older and he's still complaining about abuse, sexual abuse, that not only corroborates it, it also tells you where he is mentally, right? This individual, Eric, in this case, is still being abused years later. He's still

Starting point is 00:13:06 telling his cousin. So this is the second time. It's not just one time. It's a second time. Unfortunately, the cousin didn't remember it. I think it would have been very impactful, especially for a jury that was where you had six convinced that this was voluntary manslaughter. You never know. Maybe it would have been, we would have had all 12 on the side. It's hard to tell, but it is very compelling and it's something that should have been presented to the jury. Now we know that at the second trial, a lot of things were excluded and it was a lot more limited. Again, the jury obviously wasn't as convinced on the abuse because they didn't hear as much evidence on the abuse. So imagine here them seeing a letter that was handwritten eight months prior, what the prosecution was going to argue that they planned this eight months prior.

Starting point is 00:13:55 So Eric said, I mean, it would have been hard to believe. So the jury would have been convinced. I think they would have at least bought it. Maybe they would have had a few more people on their side. You never know. They could have had, again, a hung jury for the second trial. So it's something that the courts should consider. And I think it's strong enough for them to hopefully overturn the convictions. This is a high profile case. I mean, back in the 90s, aside from OJ, nothing bigger than the Menendez brothers case, right? So it's a big case. A lot of time has passed though. And we have the DA's office led by George Gascon now. It's a different playing field. So Josh, just briefly, where do you see this going?

Starting point is 00:14:38 No, that's a really important point that you bring up. This was decades ago. And culturally, as a society, we view this differently. We have had a much fuller understanding about the cycle of abuse and how people behave when they're being abused, especially we're talking about a father abusing male children and our thoughts on that. There was a lot of discussion at the time of why didn't they just fight him off? And like you had pointed out earlier, they were subject to a lot of ridicule in the media at that time. I think things have changed significantly and our view towards abuse and their behavior has changed significantly. I think as a society, we're ready to take another look at this case. The problem is they're dealing with the constraints of the legal system and what they can allow with the arguments that they're making.

Starting point is 00:15:29 Laura, what's your take on that? Josh, maybe you're right on that one, because the legal standards are different than what the society thinks. Yes, we have now as a society, we're more ready to give them a chance. But you've got the courts deciding this issue. And I mean, I've read the writ of habeas corpus. It raises some very good points. Would it be a good idea for them to get a second trial, a third trial, actually? Yes. But are the courts going to agree with us?

Starting point is 00:16:02 Can't tell you. You never know. You never know. I've seen all sorts of stuff. We've seen it in the Scott Peterson case. Anything is possible. So I Garagas, I know, was on TV saying that some of the family members of Kitty and Jose are supportive of the brothers release of Eric and Lyle being released and that they've presented that to the DA's office. So it'll be interesting to see what their take is on this eventually. Thanks so much, guys. Appreciate it. Thank you for having us.

Starting point is 00:16:43 And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Ann Jeanette levy thanks so much for being with us we'll see you back here next time you can download crime fix on apple spotify google and wherever else you get your favorite podcasts and new episodes post each weeknight at 6 eastern time on law and crimes youtube channel daniel camacho does our video editing our head of social media is bobby zoki. Our head of social media is Bobby Zoki. Our senior director of social media is Vanessa Bynes. Savannah Williamson is one of our producers. Diane Kay and Alyssa Fisher book our guests. And Brad Mabey is our audio editor.

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Menendez Brothers: New Shocking Evidence Surfaces in Double Parent Murder Case

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.

Your Ad Here

Pet Camera - EBO Air 2

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Menendez Brothers: New Shocking Evidence Surfaces in Double Parent Murder Case

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.