Law&Crime Sidebar - Killer Brothers at Center of Recent ‘Menendez Mania’ Could Have Case Reexamined

Episode Date: October 9, 2024

Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents, Jose and Kitty, in 1989. While prosecutors argued that the Menendez brothers were spoiled rich kids who wanted their inheritance, the brothers say the parents abused them sexually for years. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber analyzes a new development in their case more than 30 years later with attorney and former prosecutor Mari Henderson.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST: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. View 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. I don't think there is any question in this case that the boys or the men, young men, one was 19, the other was 21 at the time, that they murder the parents. I think that's factual, it's been established. I think the questions that are presented to us is two simple questions. One, one possibility, what is being alleged by his lawyers, not by us, that there was evidence that had that evidence been presented to the jury, the outcome of this case would have been different. And second, under California,

California law, a path to resentencing where a prosecutor can evaluate whether someone has been rehabilitated, and if so, ask the court. Could the infamous Menendez brothers, the subjects of a wildly popular Netflix series, actually be released from prison 35 years after the murders of their parents? We break down the backstory and the legal and maybe political arguments for why they should be led out of prison. We bring on a former prosecutor to talk about it all. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. So I'm going to take a guess and say that if you're watching this right now and you're interested in true crime, you probably have watched

the Netflix hit Monsters, the Lyle and Eric Menendez story from creator Ryan Murphy. If you haven't watched it, you probably have heard at least about it, right? Everybody's talking about this show. And now, as this series is being analyzed and discussed, it just so happens that the real-life brothers legal case has taken a major turn. And it may be possible the convicted murderers will be released from prison. It is a wild update. The question that we all have is, is this really going to happen? Why is it happening now? Is this political? Is this legal? Does the law support it? I'm going to give you some backstories. So back on August 20th, 1989, brothers Eric and Lyle Menendez shot and killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in the family's Beverly Hills home.

Eric was 18, Lyle was 21. Now, prosecutors argued that the two were motivated by greed, that they wanted money. They wanted their parents' inheritance. So they end up buying shotguns using fake identification. They purchase ammo. They even tried to practice going to a gun range, but they were turned away because shotguns weren't allowed. And then on the night in question, they go into the family. family's den, where their parents are watching TV and eating, and they gun them down.

13 to 15 shots are fired. Jose reportedly had a contact wound to his head. Lyle reportedly went back to the car to reload the weapon, came back to fire one more shot at his mom, and then the cover-up again. They collect the gun shells, they collect the shotgun shells, they went to the movies to create an alibi, they dumped the bloody clothes, the shells, the shoes in a trash can. Lyle ends up calling 911, says someone killed his parents, that he came home, found their bodies. When police show up, they run out of the home, screaming.

Prosecutors say this was all a charade. Lyle even said that the killing might be business-related, and maybe it was carried out by the mafia. After all, Jose was the CEO of RCA Records. He signed bands like Duran Duran and Minuto. Now, Jose had life insurance policies, and it left each person. brother $300,000. And the brothers started shopping days after the murders. Lyle bought three Rolexes and a Porsche. Eric bought a Jeep Wrangler. They have bought clothes. They bought businesses. And one of the things that led to the brother's arrests was that Eric had apparently confessed to

his therapist that he and Lyle committed the murders. So Eric and Lyle arrested. They're each charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder. But they had two separate juries in their first trial. And it was there that they argued they were abused by their parents. They were molested by Jose and that this abuse was basically enabled by their mother. Both brothers testified in the first trial. They even testified that they feared that their parents would kill them for exposing this abuse. And they argued that this was a form of imperfect self-defense under California law, that if you have a genuine but unreasonable belief or fear of imminent death or great bodily injury, you can argue that. And you would be found not guilty of murder,

but you could be found guilty of manslaughter. By the way, I really wanted to do this. I wanted to break down all of the legal issues surrounding the Menendez case. I think it's fascinating. I like to think I do a pretty good job of it, by the way, but you know who are also experts at breaking down the law, particularly when it comes to personal injury cases, which can be very, very complicated. Morgan and Morgan, our sponsor, our partner, America's largest injury law firm. Look, if you should get injured, this firm may be who you want in your corner. They have over a thousand attorneys, an incredible track record, by the way. I'll give you an example. In the past few months, they secured verdicts of $12 million in Florida, $6.8 million in New York, and $26 million in Philadelphia. And all of these, by the way, considerably higher than the highest insurance offers in these cases. There's also no upfront fee. They only get paid if you get paid the whole process can be done straight from your smartphone super simple so if you're injured you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash lc sidebar okay both juries in that first trial were hung they were all over the place whether this was first degree murder or

second degree or involuntary manslaughter or voluntary manslaughter so the brothers had a second trial this time prosecutors did something different they ensured that a lot of that sexual abuse evidence wouldn't come in that the jury wouldn't hear it. And they also got the judge to agree to not instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense, meaning the jury, and there was only one jury this time, they didn't have the option to decide manslaughter. It was either they're guilty or not guilty of murder. Now, only Eric testified at the second trial. The court ruled that Lyle, therefore, didn't lay a foundation for fear of his parents, that he killed them due to this honest but unreasonable fear. He didn't lay a foundation because he didn't testify. And the prosecution

successfully argued that some of the source evidence that would show that the brothers had this fear had to be excluded because, A, there was no foundation, and B, it was cumulative of everything else the defense presented in the second trial. So what happens? This time, second trial, the brothers ended up getting convicted of first degree murder. And in 1996, they are sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Now, they have remained in prison ever since they have over the years tried to file a number of legal challenges, appeals, habeas corpus motions, but unsuccessful. You go to net last year. Well, now you fast forward to 2023. Last year, their new attorneys filed a habeas motion. And that's a filing that basically says their imprisonment is unlawful. And they are

trying to vacate their convictions. And in this filing, they say they have two new people. of crucial evidence. One is a letter that Eric allegedly wrote to his cousin, Andy Cano, a year before the killings, in which he seems to suggest he is afraid of his father and that he was abused. The letter reads in part, quote, I've been trying to avoid dad. It's still happening Andy, but it's worse for me now. Every night I stay up thinking he might come in. I'm afraid. He's crazy. He's warned me a hundred times about telling anyone, especially Lyle. Now, the habeas motion also includes a declaration from Roy Rasello, a former member member of the boy band Minuto that I mentioned before. He claims that Jose drugged and raped him

when he was just a teenager. So the brothers say that this evidence supports their claims that they were abused and essentially acting in self-defense. And with this filing last year and the renewed attention in the case from the show, people are coming to the brother's side. They believe they should be released. Even Kim Kardashian visited the brothers in prison. She even wrote an op-ed with NBC pushing for their release. And now, out of all times, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office has announced they are reviewing this new evidence. In fact, under California law, not only is there a habeas option to challenge the conviction,

but you can actually petition for a recall of the murder sentence and be resentenced to something like manslaughter, time served, they would be released. It's based on the idea that you've been rehabilitated. also be a new trial that's ordered, but that might be less likely. Here's the DA, George Gascon, talking more about this. 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 has being presented to us and make a determination

based on the 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 we have come to a different conclusion. So the main idea is that our understanding of sexual assault has changed, particularly regarding men and boys. Perhaps this evidence, if presented a trial, would result in a different outcome. He said the final decision will be his. So how is this going to shake up? Should the brothers be released?

What is the DA's office going to do? Is this a legal decision or a political decision? So for that, I want to bring in Los Angeles criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, Marie Henderson, who is actually prosecuted child molestate. cases. Thank you so much for coming on. Look, my take is it feels very political. I mean, at all times to address this, I mean, this petition was filed a year ago to file it now. Feels more political than legal. What's your take? Absolutely. I completely agree. So I was a former DA in the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and I left just before George Gascoe and was

elected to office. And for those who don't know and who are not in Los Angeles, he is up for re-election coming up in just a few weeks against his opponent, Nathan Hockman. And so it is absolutely political, because as you said, this petition has been sitting around for almost a year because of new evidence that came to light last year. In fact, in the documentary last year. And so the timing of it is purely political at this point. And it's interesting that George Gascon would say that it's ultimately his decision because the hearing is not until the end of November. And so he may be in office still then, but not for much longer if he does not get re-election. Let me rephrase. It's his decision whether or not he wants to oppose the

habeas motion, motion sign on to it, whether he wants to move forward with a recall of the sentence and a resentencing. He can petition that. It'll be the court's decision whether to sign off on it. First, let me, before we get into this, habeas motions in general, because I don't know, I'm skeptical. I'm cynical that of all times to respond with so much attention being put on the Menendez brothers. Now's the time to respond. When do prosecutors usually respond to a habeas motion? I mean, this has been sitting around for a while, but a prosecutor has been assigned to the case.

I know the prosecutor assigned to the case. And ultimately, so when George Gascon says, you know, takes a role in this, it's actually going to be the prosecutor who's looking at this and looking at the new evidence. who's going to be discussing with the court, whether they agree or not. And so it can take time, but certainly it's very clear that the new show that Kim Kardashian's op-ed, and the entire environment right now, with focus on boys and young men being sexually abused and everything that's going on with P. Diddy, this is all kind of come to the forefront at this stage. I want to get into the law of this in a second because I'm of the opinion the law hasn't really changed that this evidence, even if you take it as true, wouldn't make this manslaughter. I'll get to that in a second. I want to go to this law in California, a penal code section 1172.1 that allows a district attorney to recommend resentencing when a prison sentence is excessive. Maybe it no longer serves the interest of justice. Have you ever seen a case?

of people charged with first-degree murder, not felony murder, not like they were the getaway driver and someone dies during the course of a robbery, but if first-degree premeditated murder where their sentence can be recalled and they are resentenced to a lesser crime and they're ultimately released from prison. You tell me if that is common in California right now. Certainly not during my time when I was a district attorney. However, when George Gascon was reelected, he made it part of his, excuse me, elected in the first instance, he made it part of his platform to promote the resentencing unit at the DA's office and has done more resentencing than past DAs. But I haven't seen something to this level of this first degree murder where they're

serving life without the possibility of parole. Now, people are sympathetic to the brothers who believe that they were abused. I'm going to get to that in a second. But the idea that, well, we can justify this by saying they have rehabilitated. You know, they were educated in prison. They've done great work in prison. They've started some great initiatives in prison. But they were convicted of murder. How does that, how is that justified?

Because there are people who are sitting behind bars who could say, I've been rehabilitated. I've done great work in prison. How come I'm not getting the option to be released? So the idea that rehabilitation would be a way that somebody who was convicted of murder and sentenced the life in prison without. the possibility of parole, now can have an option to have their sentence recalled and for them to be resentenced. That's the part I'm confused about. I mean, the rehabilitation is a factor if they had the possibility of parole. Certainly, then that would come into play

and what they've done during their time in prison, but they were sentenced without the possibility of parole. So it is only this book of this new evidence that could be the potential to allow resentencing or allow parole and allow perhaps credit for time served. This is the legal aspect I want to get to. Okay. So a majority of people I've spoken to, a lot of people disagree with me on this. I'm curious if you'll agree or not. But under the law, right, if the question would be, let's say this evidence came in. Clearly, the first jury who heard everything, they were hung. But I believe, and by the way, multiple courts have said that it wasn't a mistake for this evidence to not be included or a substantial part of this

evidence to not be included in the second trial and that self-defense charge wasn't appropriate in the second trial. Let me go to the Ninth Circuit because this is one of the last courts that heard this issue. They heard this habeas issue. And they say that it was appropriate to not instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense. This is what it says. The California Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that there was no error in the trial court's decision not to give the instruction because the defense presented insufficient evidence under California law of a belief of imminent peril. Because Eric and Lyle left the house after the confrontation, went to the car, retrieved their shotguns, reloaded their guns with better ammunition, re-entered the house,

burst through the doors, and began shooting their unarmed parents, the court concluded that there was no substantial evidence of a belief in imminent peril, talking, of course, about self-defense. Now it goes on to say, quote, none of the evidence, including evidence of the abuse petitioners allegedly suffered at the hands of their parents or even the details concerning the confrontation that occurred the night of the attack before the victims and petitioners retired to different locations supported the imperfect self-defense instruction. Indeed, the defense did present evidence that Jose had repeatedly abused his sons and that Kitty acquiesced for most of their lives.

Eric testified that Jose had threatened to kill him if he revealed the sexual abuse. testified than days leading up to the murders, he had some fear that at some point his parents would kill him, a fear that fluctuated in intensity during those final days. Petitioner's focus on this evidence, however, is misplaced. Taken at face value, this background evidence served only to explain why the brothers might have an unreasonable fear of their parents at the moment they killed them. At most, the evidence illustrated that Eric and Lyle feared that their parents had the capacity to and might at some point harm them. Eric's testimony about his general fear in the days leading up to the murder does not provide any evidence that the moment he shotguned

his parents to death, he feared he was an imminent peril. Eric's testimony, as true, these killings were in effect preemptive strikes. Thus, the instruction was not warranted under California law. Had either Eric or Lyle presented evidence that at the moment of the killings, they had an actual fear in the need to defend against imminent peril to life or great bodily injury, this evidence would have helped explain why they had that unreasonable fear. Nonetheless, the fears leading up to the murders and the reasons why such fears might have existed simply are not the threshold issue for California's in perfect self-defense instruction. So, Mari, that's a lot. But basically what I'm suggesting is, even if this evidence, this new evidence about the letter and the testimony from this Minuto member, even if it comes in, I still don't think self-defense works.

I agree with you. I mean, the brothers at this point have exhausted all of their appellate options. I don't think that the courts would come to a different conclusion even if the evidence came in. And that's a big if the evidence came in because who's to say whether this Minuto member taking the stand and testifying to Jose Menendez abusing him would ever even come in or be admissible. We already know from the Harvey Weinstein case, Bill Cosby case, that these Me Too witnesses, that can be a huge issue, a threshold issue of whether they're allowed to testify or not. And so whether that testimony would even come in is a big if. The letter is probably more likely, but then it begs the question of why did the letter resurface for the first time, you know, 20 years, more than 20 years later. Well, they would say that it was only discovered recently for a variety of reasons.

But I think the thing that confronts people is, well, you had one jury who was hung and then the second jury didn't even have the opportunity to be hung. My answer to that would be the prosecutors made a mistake. They shouldn't have allowed that evidence in at the first trial. They objected to it properly, and it was upheld by every single court in the second trial. And by the way, to the argument about whether certain sexual abuse evidence shouldn't have been excluded, again, going back to the Ninth Circuit, I want your opinion on this. It reads, quote, Eric testified about the alleged abuse in great detail for roughly seven full court days. In addition, Brian Anderson, a cousin of Lyell and Eric testified about severe physical abuse that petitioners suffered at the hands of Jose. Diane Vandermullen testified about physical and verbal abuse by both Jose and Kitty.

Andy Cano, also a cousin, testified that Eric confided to him that Jose was molesting Eric. Cano testified that Eric always had bruises on his body. Several witnesses testified that when Jose was alone with one of his sons in the bedroom, no one was allowed to go near the bedroom. Dr. Vakari testified that Eric suffered from an anxiety disorder that could affect his mental state. In addition, Dr. Wilson testified that Eric suffered from battered person syndrome. depression, post-traumatic stress disorder. Given all of this testimony directly suggesting various forms of abuse as to both Eric and Lyle,

the trial court excluded some of the other proffered testimony as cumulative. So I think there's this misconception, Mari, that none of the jury didn't hear anything about this when it seems based on the record they did. Yes, the jury, the second jury did hear testimony and evidence regarding the abuse, but the question is one of timing because the jury heard this back in the mid-90s where it was a very different time than today and what we know today about sexual abuse, about sexual abuse victims, and specifically that men and young boys can be sexual abuse victims. We've seen Kevin Spacey and other people. This has come to light with, you know, the Me Too movement. And so

while that testimony, there is a misconception that there was no testimony about that in the second trial, the question is if that second trial were heard today, even without the cumulative evidence coming in, if there would have been a different decision. And there might have been because people think differently now about those issues. Do you think a new trial is going to be ordered? I mean, a lot of the witnesses are unavailable. It's an old, old case. Do you think a new trial will be ordered? I think it's a slim chance that a new trial will be ordered. What about Gascon? Do you think he's going to not oppose the habeas motion? Do you think think that, because there's two, there's the habeas motion, and then there's this petition

for a recall of the sentence. What do you think it's going to happen? What do you think he's going to do? I think come election day, his fate will be sealed one way or the other, and he's going to move on from this. It's not going to have the attention that he wants or the press or media attention, and so he'll move on from this. It will be up to the prosecutor who's been tasked with this and looking at this new evidence and not be elected. let's say the prosecutor, whoever that might be, decides to move forward and say, you know what, we're not challenging this, we're signing off fully with this habeas motion, we're signing off fully with the recall of the sentence. What role does the court play? And the court step in and say, I disagree with all of this. I don't think that this is right. Yes, I mean, ultimately, it will be up to the court. So it will be a question of whether it'll come down to credit for time served, that now, you know, they've been in prison for,

over 20 years. And I mean, these are men in their mid-50s now who have been, as we discussed, rehabilitated in prison. But I still think that they are facing a very uphill battle here. And they're not the only ones that are in these circumstances, but they're the ones that are in the spot. Do you think it's a slippery slope? If you grant them early release for first-degree murder, who else might have that ability to do that? I mean, that's absolutely a question. and a question that prosecutors and the court has to think about. And so between the slippery slope, the fact that the courts have already exhausted all of the appellate options, that this new evidence is not necessarily going to make or break.

I just think all of those things point to it being an uphill battle for these brothers, regardless of Kim Kardashian coming in and doing an uphead. So let me, I'll read you a portion of what she said. And just to be clear about my opinion, look, I agree with you. I think if the trial were held today and everything was allowed in and manslaughter was on the table and this self-defense imperfect instruction, this imperfect self-defense instruction was included, there's a chance they could be acquitted. But my point of view is the courts have spoken and they said this is the law.

The law is that this evidence shouldn't have come in, that it was cumulative, that they were not entitled to an imperfect self-defense instruction. And every court, they've lost that argument. So I'm just siding with what the courts have come forward with. and the law hasn't changed that as far as I know. Now, talk about Kim Kardashian. Let me read you a quick snippet of her op-ed. She says, I've spent time with Lyle and Eric. They are not monsters.

They are kind, intelligent, and honest men in prison. They have both have exemplary disciplinary records. They have earned multiple college degrees, worked as caregivers for elderly incarcerated individuals and hospice, and been mentors in college programs committed to giving back to others. Then she writes, when I visited the prison three weeks ago, one of the wardens told me he would feel. feel comfortable having them as neighbors.

24 family members, including their parents, siblings, have released statements fully supporting Lyle and Eric and have respectfully requested that the justice system free them. Well, that, I mean, that's great. That's great that they've been doing such great work. Do you think the letter from Kim Kardashian will have an effect on the court's decision? It won't have an effect on the court's decision. I mean, this is not a situation like Alice Johnson and Trump and her, the great work she did do there. I mean, I just, it's not going to have an impact.

It's what she does and what's great about her pursuing legal causes is she's putting a spotlight on issue. She's getting people to talk about it. We're here today talking about it. And so I love that she is able to use her platform for good in that she can bring attention to issues. But at the end of the day, it's not going to sway the prosecutors or the court. Mari, real quick, before I let you go, you mentioned this hearing on November 29th. Are the brothers going to be released on November 29th, or is it's just the first step in a long process? What can we expect from that day?

Again, it would be a first step in a long process, even if, you know, the prosecutors were to agree. This is, they're facing a long road. I mean, it's taken over a year to even get to the point of this hearing being on calendar after the habeas petition and after the menudo affidavit came to light. So it is a long road for the Menendez brothers. And people are going to stop talking about it once, you know, the Netflix show is off. There's another Netflix documentary, I think, that's about to start with tapes from them in prison. So they'll always be in the news, but this is going to be a long road for them.

All right. Let's see what happens. Mari Henderson, thank you so much for coming on. And also thank you for the great work that you do and also that you did do as a prosecutor as well. Really appreciate it. Thank you. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Very curious about your opinion. on this one. You can put them in the comments. I'm curious to see what you guys think about it. But that's all we have for you right now. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.