More than three decades after the brutal killing of their parents, Lyle and Erik Menendez are once again facing a courtroom — this time, to challenge the verdict that’s defined their lives.
Convicted in 1996 and sentenced to life without parole, the brothers are now the focus of a high-stakes resentencing hearing under California’s youthful offender law. Over the next several days, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic will determine whether the brothers should be granted parole eligibility — a decision that could reopen one of the most infamous cases in California history.
The Evidence They Say Changes Everything
At the center of the brothers’ case is a 1988 letter Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin, detailing sexual abuse by their father, Jose Menendez. The letter, never shown to jurors at the original trial, is now being framed by the defense as a critical piece of evidence that redefines the narrative.
Adding weight to these claims, former Menudo member Roy Rosselló has publicly accused Jose Menendez of sexually abusing him in the 1980s — providing new context that the defense says shatters the prosecution’s theory of simple greed as the motive.
“This isn’t a minor detail,” said defense attorney Mark Geragos. “It’s a window into the abuse and trauma that was never allowed into the courtroom.”
Prosecution Pushback: A Battle of Narratives
Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman remains firmly opposed to resentencing. His office has described the brothers’ abuse claims as “self-serving,” and points to risk assessment reports that suggest a “moderate risk” of violence should the brothers be released.
Geragos, however, has accused the prosecution of clinging to an outdated narrative. “Every living family member supports their release,” he said. “To ignore that — and this new evidence — is not justice. It’s political theater.”
What’s Really at Stake
At its core, this hearing is about more than just parole. It’s a test of whether California’s justice system is willing to re-examine old cases through the lens of modern law and science.
The youthful offender law, which acknowledges that young adults are developmentally different from fully mature adults, is designed for cases exactly like this. Lyle was 21, Erik was 18 — barely out of adolescence — when the murders occurred.
Geragos argues that after more than 30 years of incarceration, rehabilitation, and evolving public understanding of abuse, the system has a responsibility to reconsider the case.
A Reckoning for the Courts
“This isn’t about absolving what happened in 1989,” Geragos said. “It’s about whether the justice system can face the uncomfortable possibility that it got it wrong — or if it would rather bury its mistakes.”
The hearing concludes May 14. Whether the judge rules quickly or takes time to deliberate, the outcome will resonate far beyond the Menendez case, raising questions about how — and if — justice can evolve.
Follow Us