Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp’s Lawyer Reacts to Killer Menendez Brothers’ Appeal

Episode Date: October 11, 2024

The trials of Lyle and Erik Menendez in the 1990s were some of the earliest to be shown live on cable television. Now, 30 years later, their appeal for early release is back in the headlines as officials in Los Angeles announce they’ll be taking a closer look at the case. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discussed their chances, and the impact cameras had in the courtroom, with celebrity civil attorney Ben Chew.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Download the FREE Upside App at https://upside.app.link/lctakeover to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. views shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. What about all the times that you hit us or called us worthless in front of other people? Yeah, what about it? The Menendez Brothers murder case is now taken center stage and has got everybody talking from the very popular but controversial new Netflix show to perhaps the LA district attorney moving to help get the brothers release from prison. We want to talk to somebody who knows about high profile cases, the lawyer who famously represented Johnny Depp.

What's his take on the latest and whether a defamation lawsuit could possibly be on the horizon because of this TV series? Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. There is a lot of talk going on right now surrounding Eric and Lyle Menendez and whether they are going to be released from prison, 35 years after shooting to death their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez back in their Los Angeles home. And this renewed attention, this push for their freedom, seems to be due in large part to the release of the series Monsters, the Lyle and Eric Menendez story on Netflix. It was the number one most watched show on Netflix at one point. The second season of Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan's anthology series,

it depicts the story of the brothers who went to trial two times for their parents' murder. First trial, you had two separate juries, both hung as to whether this was murder or manslaughter. The brothers, they were able to argue imperfect self-defense under California law, which means you would have a genuine but unreasonable belief that your life was in danger and you needed to use lethal force. You see, the brothers argued that they were abused by their parents, and more specifically, that Jose had molested them, that kitty acquiesced or participated in a way.

And they introduced evidence not only of the abuse, but that their parents would kill them if they exposed this abuse. So the juries were hung on that first trial, whether this was murder, whether this was manslaughter. So the brothers were then tried a second time, but there was a difference. At this trial, there was one jury, and prosecutors were successful in convincing the court in arguing that the abuse evidence should be limited and that the brothers should not be permitted

to argue imperfect self-defense. In other words, at this second trial, manslaughter wasn't an option. And in the end, the jury convicted both Eric and Lyle of murder. And in 1996, they were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Now, at the same time as the is once again watching this show and they're being reintroduced to the Menendez story. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has indicated that they are looking into new evidence presented by the brothers' attorneys that may in fact result in their release from prison. We have not decided on the outcome. We are reviewing the information. But I think it's also important that we recognize that both men and women can be the victims of sexual.

assault. We have a moral and an ethical obligation to review what is being presented to us and make a determination based on a resentencing side whether they deserve to be resentenced even though they were clearly the murderers because they have been in prison for 35 years and they have paid back their dues to society or whether behaviors is appropriate if there was evidence that was not presented to the court at that time. And had that evidence been presented, perhaps a jury would have come to a different conclusion. That was District Attorney George Gascon. And this new evidence that the brothers say they have is a letter that Eric allegedly wrote to his cousin

almost a year before the murders, explaining that Jose was abusing him. And the second piece of evidence is apparently a signed declaration from Roy Rasello, a member of the boy band Minuto, who claims that Jose raped him when he was a teenager. Jose was a music executive, signed multiple musical talents, including Minuto. And as the DA reviews this evidence and whether they will sign on to the defense's habeas petition. And a habeas petition, by the way, is basically saying it's unlawful to keep someone in prison. And here they're saying that this new evidence could have changed the outcome of the trial as we see what the DA does there.

And one other thing that can happen is that under California law, a district attorney can also petition for a sentence to be recalled and for there to be a resentencing, especially if there's significant rehabilitation, which is alleged here. So in other words, the murder sentence could be recalled. They could be sentenced to manslaughter, time served, released from prison. And I know I said this a lot, but look, it is our privilege to be able to bring you these kinds of stories. And I want to thank one of our great partners who helps make episodes like this possible upside. And Upside is actually the sponsor of today's Law and Crime YouTube Takeover. Now, Upside's awesome. It is a free app that helps you get cashback on gas, groceries, food, real cashback.

Money that appears in your Upside app that you can transfer straight into your bank account. Super simple to use. For example, look here. I used Upside to find a gas station. I claimed an offer. I paid at the pump with my credit card. Follow the steps in the app. I got cash back.

Super simple. You can use Upside at all different kinds of places, restaurants, convenience stores. So to find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description. to download upside or scan the QR code on screen and use our promo code LC takeover and you'll get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas. Hope you can check it out. As we're wondering, could the brothers get a new trial? Could they be resentenced and released? We have also asked, how accurate is this show? We did a sidebar on what is real, what is not. And Eric Menendez is not happy with the portrayal. Could he take legal action? I mean, a lot of this sentiment right now is based on the characterizations put forward in this show.

So as we sort through the legal and high-profile nature of this case, I want to bring in somebody who knows a thing or two about fighting a case for the world to see. Ben Chu, who famously represented Johnny Depp in his very high-profile trial against Amber Heard. Ben, so good to see you. Thanks for coming back here on Sidebar. You're most welcome, Jesse. Great to see you. So one of the things that I wanted to ask you is that this show has been accused of being exploitative. of what were very, very serious, tragic events.

And, you know, people said that, and I saw this firsthand, there was a difference between covering the Johnny Depp trial versus people took clips. They put music behind it. They made it into a spectacle when you were really dealing with very serious subject matter between him and Amber Hurd. And I think the argument that's come forward with this show, and I was just curious your opinion,

do you think shows like this are harmful? that we talked about it with Menendez, this show, but there was also the show this first season was about Jeffrey Dahmer, people looking at these, they're murderers, right? And glamorizing it and making it as a pop culture reference. Do you see it as harmful in any way? Yeah, I think it definitely has the potential to be harmful,

especially whereas here you have the possibility of a future trial. I mean, I think there's a distinction between a documentary or a fictionalization of a trial that is over and done with, as opposed to something which may be transpiring now. That is, the Menendez brothers may be resentenced and may be released, as you said, or they might be retried. And there's a real danger to the extent that there's a retrial that a potential juror or jurors will have seen this, or will, have seen this, or will have the idea that everything set forth in Monsters,

the Lyle and Eric Menendez story, is true as opposed to a semi-fictional account. So well said, Ben, so well said. And look, I did a sidebar on this, and I'm going to go into one point about it, but a lot of the main events are true. A lot of even some of the smaller details are pretty accurate. But Eric Menendez is not happy. And I wanted your take on this. and we're going to give you an idea of this because Eric Menendez released on social media

through his wife a statement. And it reads in part, I believed we had moved beyond the lies and ruinous character portrayals of Lyle, creating a caricature of Lyle rooted in horrible and blatant lies rampant in the show. It is with a heavy heart that I say I believe Ryan Murphy cannot be this naive and inaccurate about the facts of our lives so as to do this without bad intent. The statement goes on to say that it is sad for me to know that Netflix's dishonest portrayal of the tragedy surrounding our crime have taken the painful truth's several steps backward, back through time to an error when the prosecution built a narrative on a belief system that males were not sexually abused and that males experienced rate trauma

differently than women. Is the truth not enough? Let the truth stand as the truth. How demoralizing is it to know that one man with power can undermine decades of progress in shedding light on childhood trauma? Now, Ryan Murphy responded to this in a statement to entertainment tonight where he said, the thing that I find interesting that Eric doesn't mention in his quote is if you watch the show, I would say 60 to 65 percent of our show in the scripts and in the film form, center around the abuse and what they claim happened to them. And we do it very carefully, and we do give them their day in court, and they talk openly about it. Now, Ben, you were famously represented Johnny Depp in a defamation case.

When you hear statements like this from Eric Menendez, would he file a suit for defamation? Yeah, I mean, I think he would have certain obstacles facing him. But, yeah, I think he can make a prima facie case for defamation. Now, there are myriad defenses. The defendant would argue, of course, that this is going to call for an actual malice, a standard, which is an extremely high standard,

where it's effectively knowledge of falsity, which is very high hurdle to meet and would be in this case. But the argument would be on the defendant's side that this is a matter of public controversy. We're dealing with public figures. So actual malice must be shown. And that is very, very high standard. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Especially when you're dealing with high profile individuals, right so one of the things that has been the most controversial point of this show is that the show implies that there might have been an incestuous relationship between the brothers lyle and eric they kiss in one scene they shower together in another scene although that might have been kind of like an imagination sequence and a well-known expert on this case robert rand he wrote the book

the menendez murders the shocking old untold story of the menendez family and the killings that's done the nation, he's come out, said this is totally untrue, although there was some sort of minor suggestion of maybe when the boys were younger. There was a toothbrush incident. This happened during their criminal trial. And in fact, Rand told the Hollywood reporter, I believe the only physical contact they might have had is what Lyle testified that when Lyle was eight years old, he took Eric out in the woods and played with him with a toothbrush, which is what Jose had done with him. And so I certainly wouldn't call that a sexual relationship of any. sort. It's a response to trauma. Ryan Murphy said there are people who say that never happened.

There were people who said it did happen. If you watch the show, what the show is doing is presenting the points of view and theories from so many people who were involved in the case. Now, what do you make of that, Ben, that specific point? Is that problematic for Ryan Murphy and Netflix? It could be. But again, to the extent that they are setting forth other alternatives and other points of view, that's another gonna be a fair reporting kind of defense to say we weren't making the allegation that the brothers in fact had a sexual relationship.

We were exploring different sides of that. So again, that becomes very murky for the plaintiffs in this case. And you have another threshold issue with both Menendez brothers as potential plaintiffs is you have to argue that there were actually damages to your reputation. And if you are convicted murderers or if it's bumped down to something less, can your, can your reputation really be damaged? The counter argument would be they're actually, their reputation was enhanced because if people are looking at the show and saying they're innocent, they're not the monsters of the show the

parents are, you could say the show actually is not hurting them, but helping them. Exactly right. And if this complaint were filed and it somehow survived what would be myriad motions to dismiss on various legal grounds, to the extent you got to the discovery phase, you would see the defendants make that argument and probably even have some expert testimony on that. You could do surveys of people who have a higher reputation of the plaintiffs than they did prior to prior to the plaintiffs. the show coming out where they were just seen by many as as murderers. So it's a great point, Jesse. There may not be any damages at all here. Yeah, and there hasn't been any announcement of a lawsuit, but when you hear these statements, it's something that I thought about. Now, I want to get into the idea of what will happen to these brothers. Could they be released from prison? Let me first ask your opinion on this. I've been asking everybody's opinion on this. Do you think the DA, George Gascon, responding to this habeas motion,

A year after it was filed, when this show is coming out, he's up for re-election in California. Do you think that this is all motivated more by politics, or do you think this is all motivated by the law? And by the way, not only is a lot of people talk about it, Kim Kardashian has visited the brothers in prison, has advocated for their release, but do you think this decision by the DA's office to look at this evidence now and maybe consider signing on to the habeas motion or trying to read it? call the sentence? What do you think? Politics or law? Well, I don't want to be cynical and certainly I don't want to speculate too much, but the timing you mentioned that he's signing on so much after the original filing does suggest that other factors, including perhaps the publicity, you know, could be at play. And this is an elective office, so it wouldn't be beyond the

possible, the pale of possibility. Can I give you my take? And I'm curious your thought. My take is the law hasn't changed. What do I mean by that? The brothers have been fighting this for years. They have filed a number of appeals, habeas motions, all been denied. And it was held by other courts that it wasn't a mistake to not include every piece of sexual abuse evidence in the second trial, that it was actually cumulative, that it wasn't a mistake to not instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense in the second trial because even if you assume the brothers were abused and they were in fear for their life, that fear wasn't a of imminent harm.

It was a general fear that they would be killed in the future. They planned the killings. They bought the gun. They bought the ammunition. They shot the parents while watching television. So even if we assume that this new evidence, the letter, the declaration is real, in my opinion, from a legal point of view, this seems like murder, not manslaughter, but I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe there should be a new trial. Maybe a jury should hear this. You tell me, I mean, there's a difference between, I guess, the jury should hear this first. They shouldn't hear this because multiple courts have said it wasn't a mistake what happened in the second trial. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, I think you make an excellent point. I mean, this certainly seems quite premeditated, irrespective of what Jose may or may not have done. And the timing is somewhat suspect.

But it will be quite interesting to see how. far the DA goes and whether he will bump it down to manslaughter and let them go or whether or whether there will be another trial. Here's the thing. If they have a new trial and they present this evidence and they're allowed to present this evidence, there's a very, very strong likelihood these brothers could be convicted of manslaughter and not murder and time served, okay? But my opinion is the courts have said it shouldn't be introduced and they're not entitled to self-defense. Prosecution didn't argue that properly in the first trial they did in the second. So if I'm just basing it off of the courts, that's my opinion. Now, the idea of a new

trial, though, do you think that's likely? I mean, it's so old. The witnesses, I don't even know if it available. It seems that it might be a case of we're going to move now to try to just throw this conviction out, not even have a new trial, maybe move to recall the sentence. Do you think that's more likely? I do. I think that is more likely because I think the new trial would be a circus. As you said, it's so far, it's so stale. The evidence is stale that a wiser move to the extent that the DA is determined to do this would be a recall of the sentence and basically calling it a day with time served. Now, whether that's a just result, I don't know, but that I think is more likely. You think a court would sign off on that? So even if the DA

were to say, we're going to push for this sentence to be recalled and resentenced the manslaughter time, serve released. I think the court would agree to that? I think it depends on the judge. I mean, I think it really could come down. I mean, as he said, a judge could easily take your view that this was a brutal, premeditated murder, especially with respect to the mother. I mean, if you honestly believe that the father committed the sexual abuse, you might be more inclined as a judge to bump it to manslaughter, but it's harder to justify, at least to me, it seems harder to justify killing of the mother, even if the mother were aware of it. I think there's a moral difference between actually abusing someone and knowing about it, not exonerating

the person who merely knows, but I don't see how you get around even an imperfect self-defense the murder of the mother. Well, look, it reminds me of the Gypsy Rose Blanchard case, very high profile. And in that situation, self-defense wasn't on the table. What it was was, and she was clearly abused, clearly, clearly abused. She didn't kill her mother. Her mother would have been arrested, but she killed her mother, led guilty to second-degree murder.

Her boyfriend was found guilty of murder. That was a crime. And that was a situation where even though there was tremendous horrific abuse, doesn't entitle you to murder someone unless your life is in danger at that moment. Now, I'm sure this people are going to disagree with me, but I'm also just basing it on what the courts have found in the year since they've been convicted in sentence. Now, if they did have a new trial, do you think cameras should be in that courtroom? The first trial had court cameras.

The second one didn't. This, as you mentioned, would be a circus, be a high-profile case. You were in one of the most high-profile trials in the last 30 years. What do you think? Do you think there should be cameras in the Menendez Brothers trial if they do get a new trial? I actually do. I think it's good for the public to see the judicial system at work. And I know there was some criticism of the death trial, but I think on balance, it's good

to see. We had a wonderful judge in that case, Chief Judge, Annie Escarati, and I think the people were able to see how fair she was, how judicious she was, and how well she was. she controlled that courtroom and how fair and even handed she was to both sides, sometimes ruling for us, sometimes ruling for them. I think it's good to have it. I mean, if we can see these kind of fictionalized accounts like the Netflix program, why shouldn't we see what actually happens?

Because I think sunlight, as they say, is a good disinfectant. I think it enhances the reputation of the judicial system. and that's just my view. I know it's controversial. I couldn't agree with you more, and I'm not agreeing with you just because I like you so much, Ben. I think that that is 100% true. Transparency is key. Allow people to see the arguments from both sides. Not everybody's going to read a transcript, not everybody's going to read an article, but to see it with their own eyes, so important. How often do we talk about it's important for the jury to see the witnesses on the stand as opposed to a taped interview that comes out.

later on. I agree with you. I think it's so important. Now, let me ask you this. If the brothers are released from prison, how would you advise them to rebuild their image in their lives? Eric is 53, Lyle's 56. I thought this was an interesting question to ask you because one of the motivations when it came to the Johnny Depp trial was to reverse the narrative that had been put on him for so long. And that trial clearly helped him and rebuild his image. So if these brothers are released how would you advise them to do i would advise them to move on and and get on with their lives so much of their lives have now been spent in prison i don't think they want to be reliving this and giving endless interviews you know till the end of their days i think they should

find if there's some passion they have they should pursue that and and maybe leave the public sphere entirely for Mr. Depp. He was able to go back to redirecting and acting and playing music and he really doesn't talk about it. Just let the jury verdict speak for itself. And in this case, there wouldn't be that kind of exoneration and vindication, but at least it would be the closing of a door. I don't see how revisiting this or relitigating literally or figuratively the depiction of them and the Netflix, I just think it's a waste of their time.

They should, if they want to have something left of their lives, they should do something more meaningful for them. Ben, very well said. I agree with you again. So good seeing you. Thank you for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Ben Shue, everybody.

Thank you. Thanks, Jesse. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple, Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time.

You can binge all episodes of this long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.