One Half Of The Menendez Brothers Loses Parole Hearing After Contradicting Testimony

One of the Menendez Brothers' hopes of parole has just been crushed after a hearing ended with Erik Menendez's request for release being denied.

The decision comes on the heels of a major shift in the case last year, when a judge thought to be sympathetic to the brothers was removed and replaced with a new presiding judge. 

The Menendez brothers were convicted of fatally shooting their parents, Kitty and Jose, inside their Beverly Hills home in 1989, a case that has remained one of the most infamous true-crime stories in American history.

Erik will remain behind bars after the California parole board shot down his request for release, and his own testimony during Thursday's hearing may have been what doomed him.

The claim from supporters and the jailed brothers for years has always been that the murders were an act of self-defense after years of sexual and emotional abuse.

However, Erik complicated that argument during the hearing, saying he did not kill in self-defense while also insisting he feared for his life. Despite the support from numerous family members, the board stood firm. 

TMZ reported that Parole Commissioner Robert Barton believes Erik presents a public safety risk, citing his role in the murders, past burglaries, the cover-up, and multiple prison violations.

Barton also pointed to the killing of their mother, Kitty, as "devoid of human compassion" and rejected the idea that Erik was under immediate threat at the time.

Erik's parole hearing was not just to hear his testimony; his prison record was also discussed. The board reviewed decades of violations that painted a troubling picture of his time behind bars.

Among the most serious was a 2013 scheme where Erik admitted to joining a gang in a tax fraud operation, saying he went along with it as a survival tactic in an "extremely violent" prison. 

His rap sheet also includes incidents stretching back to the late '90s, from manipulation of staff to inappropriate contact during visits.

One early infraction in 1997 involved lying to prison officials and being cited for excessive touching during chapel visits. The board also heard claims he tricked fellow inmates into buying him drugs, leaving others stuck with his debts.

The rejection of Erik's parole came after a significant change in the courtroom last year, when a judge seen as more sympathetic to the brothers was pulled from the case and replaced.

The Blast reported that Judge Michael V. Jesic of the Los Angeles County Superior Court stepped in ahead of the parole hearing, a shift that may have shaped the outcome.

Michael, a former district attorney, is widely regarded for his tough-on-crime stance and reputation for being prosecution-minded. TMZ noted that throughout his career, he has often sided with stricter interpretations of justice.

Those who have worked with him also describe the judge as principled and determined, with a track record of choosing what he believes is right over what might be easier or more popular.

Support for Erik and his brother Lyle has not just come from family and friends; well-known figures outside their circle have also voiced it. The Blast noted that Judge Greg Mathis publicly backed the brothers' push for freedom.

Mathis said that he would cut down their prison terms and fast-track their release if he were in charge of their case. He added that after more than three decades behind bars, the brothers have paid a heavy price and deserve a chance at freedom. 

Pointing to the sexual abuse allegations the brothers raised against their father, the 65-year-old stressed that those claims of abuse could reshape how the justice system looks at their case.

The case has since been reassigned to the Van Nuys Courthouse, where the original trial took place back in 1996.

Erik and Lyle are not the only ones facing setbacks; even their lawyer is caught up in legal trouble. The Blast reported that celebrity attorney Mark Geragos was hit with a $100,000 judgment over his involvement in a failed extortion scheme targeting Nike.

The case stemmed from 2019, when California youth basketball coach Gary Franklin sought help after Nike ended its $72,000-a-year sponsorship with his program. Franklin turned to disgraced lawyer Michael Avenatti, who then tried to leverage the situation for his own payout, dragging Mark into the mix.

Mark argued he never officially represented Gary and acted only as a middleman, but jurors still ruled he aided Michael and breached legal duties. While they cleared him of fraud, the panel still ordered Mark to compensate Gary.