LOS ANGELES: The trials of Lyle and Erik Menendez came at a time of cultural obsession with courts, crime and murder, when live televised trials captivated a national audience.
Their resentencing — and the now very real possibility of their freedom — came at another, when true crime documentaries and docudramas have proliferated and brought renewed attention to the family.
A judge made the Menendez brothers eligible for parole Tuesday when he reduced their sentences from life without parole to 50 years to life for the 1989 murder of their father Jose Menendez and mother Kitty Menendez in their Beverly Hills home. The state parole board will now determine whether they can be released.
Their two trials bookended the O.J. Simpson trial, creating a mid-1990s phenomenon where courts subsumed soap operas as riveting daytime television.
“People were not used to having cameras in the courtroom. For the first time we were seeing the drama of justice in real time,” said Vinnie Politan, a Court TV anchor who hosts the nightly “Closing Arguments” on the network. “Everyone was watching cable and everyone had that common experience. Today there’s a true crime bonanza happening, but it’s splintered off into so many different places.”
The brothers became an immediate sensation with their 1990 arrest. They represented a pre-tech-boom image of young wealthy men as portrayed in many a 1980s movie: the tennis-playing, Princeton-bound prep.
For many viewers, this image was confirmed by the spending spree they went on after the killings. Their case continued a fascination with the dark, private lives of the young and wealthy that goes back at least to the Leopold and Loeb murder case of the 1930s, but had been in the air in cases like the Billionaire Boys Club, a 1980s Ponzi scheme that spurred a murder.
The first Menendez trial becomes compelling live TV
Their first trials in 1993 and 1994 became a landmark for then-new Court TV, which aired it nearly in its entirety. Defense lawyers conceded that they had shot their parents. The jury, and the public, then had to consider whether the brothers’ testimony about sexual and other abuse from their father was plausible, and should mean conviction on a lesser charge.
The lasting image from the trial was Lyle Menendez crying on the stand as he described the abuse.
At the time there had been some public reckoning with the effects of sex abuse, but not nearly to the extent of today.
The two juries — one for each brother — deadlocked, largely along gender lines. It reflected the broader cultural reaction — with women supporting a manslaughter conviction and men a guilty verdict for first-degree murder.
A tough-on-crime era, and a Menendez trial sequel
The trials came at a time when crime in the US was at an all-time high, a tough-on-crime stance was a prerequisite for holding major political office, and a wave of legislation mandating harsher sentences was passed.
That attitude appeared to prevail when, at their second trial, the brothers were both convicted of first-degree murder.
As Associated Press trial reporter Linda Deutsch, who covered both trials along with Simpson’s and countless others, wrote in 1996:
“This time, the jury rejected the defense claim that the brothers murdered their parents after years of sexual abuse. Instead, it embraced the prosecution theory that the killings were planned and that the brothers were greedy, spoiled brats who murdered to get their parents’ $14 million fortune.”
The second trial was not televised and got less attention.
“There were no cameras, it was in the shadow of O.J. so it didn’t have the same spark and pop as the first one,” Politan said.
The Menendez brothers become a distant memory
They had become too well-known to be forgotten, but for decades, the Menendez brothers faded into the background. Occasional stories emerged about the brothers losing their appeals, as did mugshots of them aging in prison.
“The public’s memory of them was, ‘Yeah, I remember that trial, the guys with the sweaters in court,’” Politan said.
That would change in the era of true-crime TV, podcasts and streamers.
True crime goes big
The 2017 NBC drama series “Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders,” wasn’t widely watched, but still brought the case new attention. The next decade would prove more important.
The 2022 Max docuseries “Menudo: Forever Young” included a former member saying he was raped by Jose Menendez when he was 14. At about the same time, the brothers submitted a letter that Erik wrote to his cousin about his father’s abuse before the killings.
The new true-crime wave would continue to promote them, even if the portrayal wasn’t always flattering.
” Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story,” a drama created by Ryan Murphy on Netflix, made them beautiful and vain buffoons, and the actors were shown shirtless on provocative billboards. Javier Bardem as Jose Menendez brought Oscar-winning star power to the project that dropped in September of last year.
That was followed a month later by a documentary on Netflix, “The Menendez Brothers.”
Together, the shows had the public paying more attention to the case than it had since the trials. Almost simultaneously came a real-life turning point, when then- Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón said he was reviewing new evidence in the case.
The office of Gascón’s successor, Nathan Hochman, opposed the resentencing.
Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian constantly sought at hearings to make sure the “carnage” caused by the brothers wasn’t forgotten, and repeatedly emphasized that they “shotgunned, brutally, their parents to death.”
But the shifts in public perception and legal actions were already in motion. The judge’s decision to reduce their charges came not with the drama of the televised trial, but in a short hearing in a courtroom that wouldn’t allow cameras. The broader public never saw.
Despite his opposition, Hochman was reflective in a statement after the resentencing.
“The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system,” Hochman said. “This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the Court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle.”
