These days, the world feels crushingly bleak. There is no shortage of horror in our daily news, no shortage of abuses by those in power, no shortage of inequalities and injustices—and all these can leave you (me) crushed by the steamroller that has become a regular part of our life these days.
As I see it, there are two options. You can choose to feel utterly overwhelmed or you can try to pick out the occasional cause that maybe you can do something about, a small and focused injustice that you can try to remedy. At the moment, for me, this injustice is the one served to the Menendez brothers. Yes, those Menendez brothers.
Just to clarify, I am not a lawyer.
I am not even a law student or a paralegal.
But there are many things about the justice system that make me furious and frustrated, and even more things that I do not understand. In fact, the one time I was selected for jury duty (as an alternate) was such a miscarriage of justice that it scarred me forever.
As a rule, I do not trust that justice will be done. I trust, in fact, that justice will be at the mercy of agendas and bottom lines far more often than it is not. This is not to say that justice is elusive, merely to say that when things work as they should, it is usually by virtue of lucky accident rather than merit.
When a case has the misfortune to be high profile, when it has the kind of stakes upon which careers are made (or broken), there is even more at risk, even more ulterior motives and agendas at play, endless variables toying with fate from behind the scenes. And then, justice, which is already intensely complicated, does become elusive, subject to the mercy of all those external voices clamouring to have their say.
In 1994, Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted of murdering their parents. The two brothers received a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. This had been, however, their second trial. Their first trial—with the two boys tried separately—had resulted in two deadlocked juries. Significantly, the jurors had voted along gender lines, with the men opting for conviction. The second trial—the one which resulted in conviction—had two significant differences which impacted the resulting sentences: Judge Stanley Weisberg severely limited the defense’s argument that the boys had acted following a lifetime of abuse and did not allow the jury to consider a charge of manslaughter in lieu of murder charges.
Lawyer Leslie Abramson, who represented both of the Menendez brothers, had focused the first trial on a claim of “imperfect self defense.” Unlike traditional self defense, imperfect self defense does not shield the defendant from all liability but reduces the liability primarily because the defendant actually but unreasonably believed that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. In other words, a victim of abuse kills the abuser not during a moment of actual attack but under the expectation that another attack would be forthcoming. Imperfect self defense eliminates the element of malice, reducing the level of the offense from murder to manslaughter.
However, in trial number two, this was not an option. Not only was Leslie Abramson unable to explore the allegations of abuse which, while not excusing the crime, could have served to explain it—but the accompanying reduced charge was also taken off the table by Judge Weisberg. And so, both Menendez brothers were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison, victims of a legal system that concealed relevant information for reasons both inexplicable and questionable.
Despite the fact that neither brother had had any prior convictions, or even a history of violence, they were sentenced to the maximum possible penalty, and, beyond this, were even forced to spend decades apart at separate prisons (only finally being reunited in April 2018 in the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego). I am not a lawyer, as I said above, but this sentence horrifies me and renders me even more disgusted with the whims of the American legal system.
While neither brother denies committing the crime, to conduct a trial without providing the jury with the full story appears (to my non-legally-educated mind) to be a gross miscarriage of justice. The verdict was wrong because the jury did not have all the necessary information. They did not know, for instance, that both boys had (allegedly) been abused by their parents for their entire lives. And without that information—without the option to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter—how could the jury decide properly?
Unfortunately for the Menendez brothers, they killed their parents in 1989. In the early 1990s, the definition of imperfect self-defense was quite limited, and it was seen as a justification for only the most radical of situations. Now, however-—and partly as a result of the Menendez trial—imperfect self-defense can be applied to a greater number of situations, including domestic violence. But then, in 1994, not only was it less often used, but there was also the belief—which now, in 2018, feels laughably archaic and naive—that fathers could not (or would not) abuse male children.
And so the Menendez brothers and their horrific tales were met with skepticism, a skepticism so great that the judge would forbid the possibility of abuse—and a reduced charge of manslaughter—from being considered by the jury.
However, this case cannot be considered without a conversation of the horrors of abuse. To do so is not only unfair but morally wrong and cruel. Yes, the parents are both dead and cannot explain or justify their actions. At the same time, how can one judge the brothers for their crime without considering the possibility that they are telling the truth and that they did undergo years of horrific abuse at the hands of the two people charged with keeping them safe?
How can one judge either brother without considering the psychological ramifications of betrayal, especially when it comes at the hands of those who are supposed to protect?
How can one judge either brother without considering the psychological ramifications of feeling that your home—the one place in the world which should feel safer than anywhere else—is a place of constant danger and pain?
How can one judge either brother without considering the psychological ramifications of—every time that you do try to confide in someone about what is being done to you—ever increasing punishment and threats of death?
Child abuse is horrific. It points to the worst of human nature. But unfortunately ignoring it does not make it go away.
In fact, in 1994, Judge Weisberg argued specifically that the abuse could not have happened and should not be acknowledged because abuse does not happen to boys. If the Menendez brothers had been the Menendez sisters, then a conversation about abuse would have been permitted during the second trial. If the Menendez brothers had killed their parents ten years later, a conversation about abuse might also have been permitted.
Not only has progress been made since 1994, and the sad reality that boys can (and are) abused become self evident, but California has passed a new law that should help prevent this kind of miscarriage of justice from happening again—sort of.
On September 30, 2012, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 593, also known as the “Sin by Silence” bill. AB 593 allows victims of domestic violence whose expert testimony was limited at their trial court proceedings to re-file for a writ of habeas corpus to allow expert testimony to weigh in on their defense.
Earlier legislation—SB 799 (passed in 2002) and SB 1385 (passed in 2005)—allowed petitioners to seek a new trial, a reduced sentence, or another equitable remedy if expert testimony on intimate partner battering and its effects had not been received into evidence during their original trial proceedings, and it is reasonable to believe that the outcome of the trial would have been different with such expert testimony. However, AB 593 applied to cases where the defendants did receive expert testimony but it was “deficient by today’s standards.” AB 593 not only allows victims of domestic violence whose expert testimony was limited to file for a writ of habeas corpus, but it also gives victims more time to receive legal representation by deleting the sunset clause in the original statute.
But are the Menendez brothers victims of domestic violence in the eyes of the law? Can this expanded legislation be used to provide them with increased expert testimony? Can SB 799 be used to justify a new appeal? Short answer: no. Longer answer: no, but the reason why is even more troubling.
Despite the various laws passed in California over the last decade taking into account the concept that people’s brains are not fully developed until age 25, or legislation such as AB 593, that allows for the fact that violence may come from complex causes which must be taken into account during sentencing, the Menendez brothers are precluded from benefiting from any of these thanks to a California ballot proposition that prevents life without parole inmates for applying for clemency or parole. So not only did they get screwed with their initial sentencing, but the cruelty of that initial sentencing prevents them from receiving any clemency in the decades to come.
As of May 2018, the Menendez brothers (as far as I know) are not getting another chance. Their last appeal—in 2005, to the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, was turned down. While Chief Justice Alex Kozinski agreed that there had clearly been one set of rules for the first trial, and then a second set of rules for the subsequent trial—the state didn’t succeed so “it changed the rules dramatically,” he says—he still upheld the convictions. And so the Menendez brothers waste away in prison, all indicators pointing to a lifetime in prison following a lifetime of abuse.
Again, no one is disputing what transpired on the night of August 20, 1989. However, what has been noticeably ignored was what happened on the nights prior to August 20, 1989. How can the murder of an abuser by the abused by judged without mentioning the (alleged) abuse? How can two men be sentenced to decades—the rest of their lives, in fact—in prison without acknowledging the trauma and impact of sexual and physical abuse? How is that trauma not, at the very least, part of the conversation to explain why they made the choices they did?
Now children are more likely (although still often sadly reluctant to do so) to know where to turn, what to say, about abuse. In 1989, two boys had no idea what to do. When they did try to tell others about their abuse, it only brought retribution upon them tenfold. These two boys had nowhere to go that felt safe, and so yes, they did a horrible thing, but they did a horrible thing because at one point in their lives, that felt like the only way out.
While it is impossible to know exactly what transpired during the first eighteen years of their lives, it is quite possible to see how unfairly the two of them have been treated in the twenty-four years since, and how cruelly Judge Weisberg manipulated the scales of justice. Haven’t they suffered enough?
Thank you for taking an interest in this case! I was Juror #9 on Erik Menendez’s first jury. Both first juries deadlocked in 1994. Lyle’s jury was not quite as cleanly divided along gender lines as ours, with 6 men voting for first degree murder and 6 women voting for voluntary manslaughter. The murder convictions happened in 1996. The many differences between the two trials, including the political motivations of the judge and the DA, are detailed in my book Hung Jury: The Diary of a Menendez Juror, published in 1995 and republished with new material in 2016. It was the 20th anniversary of the murder convictions that rekindled interest in the case, resulting in last fall’s 8-part NBC Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders series, based largely on Robert Rand’s forthcoming book The Menendez Murders. This was the first time the public saw the whole, true story as I know it, having been proceeded by decades of prosecution-biased news coverage, documentaries, dramatizations, and late-night parodies. Many today believe they never should have been convicted at all. Had they been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and even without one day deducted for good behavior (they have been exemplary prisoners and have contributed greatly to their prison communities) they would have been out six years ago. #JusticeforErikandLyle
“Had they been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and even without one day deducted for good behavior (they have been exemplary prisoners and have contributed greatly to their prison communities) they would have been out six years ago.” This makes me FURIOUS and also physically ill.
This was the greatest injustices done to two innocent young children, the judges and the court has become to political bending to their need to hold power against using the law to vindicate innocent young people and the constitution
I agree absolutely. And the fact that they are still in jail is infuriating.
The fact that they were obviously. brainwashed by there parents all the time growing up should have played a role in this trial. But I haven’t read anything about that ,and should have been injected into the trial at some point.Because when your a kid,you believe what your parents tell you. And seems like after years of programing by their parents ,when they finally get tired of the abuse and had enough they do what they had to do to escape such an evil exsistance of the life from their parents.were never mention. No one to protect them ,but themselves. The judge in those cases should have. made sure they were able to have all the evedience. presented and therefore help protcet their integrity,and digenity,insted of pubicly humiliatiing them. As a judge a lifetime of good dose not atone for even just one bad deed. The judge should not be on the bench at all. Political. travisity,for some votes . Oh my god what has the world come to.
I am also taking a recent fascination with this case.
The family dynamic of what happened here is so blatantly obvious that i’m livid of their convictions. The father was a cut-throat successful megalomaniac that was raised outside of 1st world America in Cuba. and the wife was either also abused into allowing the child abuse or turned a blind eye (Privileged housewife reasons, money, reputation, denial, convenience) making her also as dangerous.
I had a horrible mother that let her boyfriends mentally abuse me growing up, sometimes the hatred for the mother not protecting you is even more strong than the abuser.
Along with that; the way the boys carried themselves during the trial in particular the older more attractive boy Lyle made it so obvious to me they were abuse victims. Something about the process of child abuse keeps you stuck in that age. Again I can relate being 16 and my mother letting a 26 year old be in a relationship with me.
Lyle to me was so sensitive, childlike, and damaged that it was clear he was under developed and still looked like that abused kid. You can’t ‘act’ child abuse. Its so raw and real. The fact that if these were girls charged it would be a different result.
These boys were essentially the wrong gender raised with captors with invisible bars and if the bars were visible and if the captors would have not been related to them- they would have been CELEBRATED! Makes no sense to me. Triple trifecta keeping the ignorance of the justice system very blind to the case.
Neglect and abuse is an ongoing struggle and even the most innocent start to fantasize about the death of their captors.
THERE WAS NO MOTIVE HERE BUT FREEDOM! – These were victims.
Child abuse victims that killed child abusers in a same facility convicted for hurting children. If we are putting child abusers behind bars and destroying their lives aren’t WE also the Menendez brothers? – REALLY AMERICA?
yes yes yes yes, this.
I think you might be referring to Erik, the younger of the two brothers, because your description, describes Erik to a T.. not Lyle. Lyle is the stronger of the 2 brothers.
Do something! This is crazy injustice. I cannot believe they are still in prison! This is sick!
I completely and totally agree with your statements. I believed them during the trial, there was no excuse for Jose to have naked pic’s of his young sons standing up in the tub from the neck down. There were 51 witnesses who testified about the abuse and violence. The mistake I think the defense made was not pushing the physcology of the fear and abject terror they lived thru for so many years and pushing the fear that their parents were going to kill them. In other words how it was a more a self defense case than anything else. Two words I don’t ever remember hearing during the first trials. I firmly believe they both should paroled ASAP, and I’ll do anything I can to help free them. Just tell me what you need me to do. I’m not a lawyer or social worker etc but I’ll do whatever you think would help them.
Thanks so much for writing this. I couldn’t agree more that these two men should be released and I pray for this to happen sometime soon.
They should be freed. If this crime had been committed in the U.K, given their full circumstances they would definitely have been freed by now.
Sick evil child killers get off and out of prison in this country and go out and go it again (demented I know)! I just don’t get why they are still in prison, it’s insane!
It’s horrifying.
No.. there’s not an epidemic of sick evil children getting out and killing again in America. If anything America’s dirty little secret is the 10s of 1000s of children mostly kids of color that are put away in adult like prisons and even put in solitary confinement for months on end for such minor infractions as missing a city curfew time, having a meltdown in school, throwing skittles at another student. In America we have a school to prison pipeline, ESPECIALLY for brown and black children.
I remember watching the footage of this as a child, and even then, I had a sense that they were telling the truth about abuse. I just watched the series about the Menendez brothers. Like you, I’m horrified that these men received life sentences w/o parole. So much of how they were treated disgusts me, including the cruel jokes and dismissal of sexual abuse. As someone abused as a child, it affects everything about your life–forever. My father died a few years ago, and I’m still affected by it. I can understand how they felt trapped and terrified, and it’s heartbreaking that they never were able to have lives outside of that abusive household, and now, prison. How can anyone watch their testimony and think it’s an act? I know it wasn’t–they were clearly traumatized, and re-traumatized by having to speak about it in such a public way. I can’t even speak about it to a counselor without shutting down. And the fact that so many people came forward during the first trials to support what was happening–how could that have possibly been made up? So sad. There is no justice here.
It fills me with so much anger. And they are in prison for life?! WHAT?! Their entire lives are spent in prison. I don’t understand the cruelty and lack of empathy.
Injustice for them boys brainwashed by parents,to protect their inhuman acts to their boys.
I, too, have taken an interest in this case. I remember the trials, but didn’t pay much attention to the facts and the outcome. I cannot comprehend how any rational human being can come to the conclusion that these boys fabricated the stories of abuse. FIFTY ONE people testified to the fact that these things happened! The parents cannot defend the accusations, but you’re telling me that 51 individuals (including professionals in the field) are lying? After watching The Menendez Murders:Erik tells all, I find myself very sad and very disappointed in a legal system that failed these young men so horribly!! Thank you for writing this. I only hope that these two get another chance.
Do you happen to have information on where I would send letters advocating on their behalf?
That’s an excellent question. I’m in touch with Robert Rand, who is one of their main advocates and who has written about them extensively. I’ll ask him.
Hi, this is what Robert suggests:
There is no formal Menendez letter writing campaign right now. People could always write Gov. Newsom.
Also, one of the really dumb things is that California has this law but it doesn’t apply to E & L because they were sentence to LWOP.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-3051.html
(a)(1) A youth offender parole hearing is a hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger, or was under 18years of age as specified in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b), at the time of his or her controlling offense.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(A) “Incarceration” means detention in a city or county jail, a local juvenile facility, a mental health facility, a Division of Juvenile Justice facility, or a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility.
(B) “Controlling offense” means the offense or enhancement for which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of imprisonment.
(b)(1) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25years of age or younger and for which the sentence is a determinate sentence shall be eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing by the board during his or her 15th year of incarceration, unless previously released pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(2) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25years of age or younger and for which the sentence is a life term of less than 25 years to life shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 20th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(3) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25years of age or younger and for which the sentence is a life term of 25 years to life shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(4) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and for which the sentence is life without the possibility of parole shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(c) An individual subject to this section shall meet with the board pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3041 .
(d) The board shall conduct a youth offender parole hearing to consider release. At the youth offender parole hearing, the board shall release the individual on parole as provided in Section 3041 , except that the board shall act in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 4801 .
(e) The youth offender parole hearing to consider release shall provide for a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. The board shall review and, as necessary, revise existing regulations and adopt new regulations regarding determinations of suitability made pursuant to this section, subdivision (c) of Section 4801 , and other related topics, consistent with relevant case law, in order to provide that meaningful opportunity for release.
(f)(1) In assessing growth and maturity, psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments, if used by the board, shall be administered by licensed psychologists employed by the board and shall take into consideration the diminished culpability of youth as compared to that of adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual.
(2) Family members, friends, school personnel, faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations with knowledge about the individual before the crime or his or her growth and maturity since the time of the crime may submit statements for review by the board.
(3) This section is not intended to alter the rights of victims at parole hearings.
(g) If parole is not granted, the board shall set the time for a subsequent youth offender parole hearing in accordance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 3041.5 . In exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (d) of Section 3041.5 , the board shall consider the factors in subdivision (c) of Section 4801 . A subsequent youth offender parole hearing shall not be necessary if the offender is released pursuant to other statutory provisions prior to the date of the subsequent hearing.
(h) This section shall not apply to cases in which sentencing occurs pursuant to Section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) to (i) , inclusive, of Section 667 , or Section 667.61 , or to cases in which an individual issentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a controlling offense that was committed after the person had attained 18 years of age. This section shall not apply to an individual to whom this section would otherwise apply, but who, subsequent to attaining 26 years of age, commits an additional crime for which malice aforethought is a necessary element of the crime or for which the individual is sentenced to life in prison.
(i)(1) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who became entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing prior to the effective date of the act that added paragraph (2) by July 1, 2015.
(2)(A) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to indeterminate life terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by July 1, 2017.
(B) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to determinate terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by July 1, 2021. The board shall, for all individuals described in this subparagraph, conduct the consultation described in subdivision (a) of Section 3041 before July 1, 2017.
(3)(A) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to indeterminate life terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by January 1, 2020.
(B) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to determinate terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by January 1, 2022. The board shall, for all individuals described in this subparagraph, conduct the consultation described in subdivision (a) of Section 3041 before January 1, 2019.
(4) The board shall complete, by July 1, 2020, all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to terms of life without the possibility of parole and who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing before July 1, 2020.
(a) Notwithstanding subdivision (i) of Section 3051 , the board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to indeterminate life terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 3051 by January 1, 2018.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (i) of Section 3051 , the board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to determinate terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (i) of Section 3051 by December 31, 2021. The board shall, for all individuals described in this subdivision, conduct the consultation described in subdivision (a) of Section 3041 before January 1, 2018.
CA Penal Code § 3051 (2017)
https://law.onecle.com/california/penal/3051.html
(a) (1) A youth offender parole hearing is a hearing by the Board of Parole Hearings for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger, or was under 18 years of age as specified in paragraph (4) of subdivision (b), at the time of his or her controlling offense.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(A) “Incarceration” means detention in a city or county jail, a local juvenile facility, a mental health facility, a Division of Juvenile Justice facility, or a Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility.
(B) “Controlling offense” means the offense or enhancement for which any sentencing court imposed the longest term of imprisonment.
(b) (1) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which the sentence is a determinate sentence shall be eligible for release on parole at a youth offender parole hearing by the board during his or her 15th year of incarceration, unless previously released pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(2) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which the sentence is a life term of less than 25 years to life shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 20th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(3) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed when the person was 25 years of age or younger and for which the sentence is a life term of 25 years to life shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(4) A person who was convicted of a controlling offense that was committed before the person had attained 18 years of age and for which the sentence is life without the possibility of parole shall be eligible for release on parole by the board during his or her 25th year of incarceration at a youth offender parole hearing, unless previously released or entitled to an earlier parole consideration hearing pursuant to other statutory provisions.
(c) An individual subject to this section shall meet with the board pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 3041.
(d) The board shall conduct a youth offender parole hearing to consider release. At the youth offender parole hearing, the board shall release the individual on parole as provided in Section 3041, except that the board shall act in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 4801.
(e) The youth offender parole hearing to consider release shall provide for a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. The board shall review and, as necessary, revise existing regulations and adopt new regulations regarding determinations of suitability made pursuant to this section, subdivision (c) of Section 4801, and other related topics, consistent with relevant case law, in order to provide that meaningful opportunity for release.
(f) (1) In assessing growth and maturity, psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments, if used by the board, shall be administered by licensed psychologists employed by the board and shall take into consideration the diminished culpability of youth as compared to that of adults, the hallmark features of youth, and any subsequent growth and increased maturity of the individual.
(2) Family members, friends, school personnel, faith leaders, and representatives from community-based organizations with knowledge about the individual before the crime or his or her growth and maturity since the time of the crime may submit statements for review by the board.
(3) This section is not intended to alter the rights of victims at parole hearings.
(g) If parole is not granted, the board shall set the time for a subsequent youth offender parole hearing in accordance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 3041.5. In exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (d) of Section 3041.5, the board shall consider the factors in subdivision (c) of Section 4801. A subsequent youth offender parole hearing shall not be necessary if the offender is released pursuant to other statutory provisions prior to the date of the subsequent hearing.
(h) This section shall not apply to cases in which sentencing occurs pursuant to Section 1170.12, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, of Section 667, or Section 667.61, or to cases in which an individual is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a controlling offense that was committed after the person had attained 18 years of age. This section shall not apply to an individual to whom this section would otherwise apply, but who, subsequent to attaining 26 years of age, commits an additional crime for which malice aforethought is a necessary element of the crime or for which the individual is sentenced to life in prison.
(i) (1) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who became entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing prior to the effective date of the act that added paragraph (2) by July 1, 2015.
(2) (A) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to indeterminate life terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by July 1, 2017.
(B) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to determinate terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by July 1, 2021. The board shall, for all individuals described in this subparagraph, conduct the consultation described in subdivision (a) of Section 3041 before July 1, 2017.
(3) (A) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to indeterminate life terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by January 1, 2020.
(B) The board shall complete all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to determinate terms and who become entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing on the effective date of the act that added this paragraph by January 1, 2022. The board shall, for all individuals described in this subparagraph, conduct the consultation described in subdivision (a) of Section 3041 before January 1, 2019.
(4) The board shall complete, by July 1, 2020, all youth offender parole hearings for individuals who were sentenced to terms of life without the possibility of parole and who are or will be entitled to have their parole suitability considered at a youth offender parole hearing before July 1, 2020.
(Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 684, Sec. 1.5. (SB 394) Effective January 1, 2018.)
Very well written and thought out blog.
Thank you so much!
Thank you so much for examining this case. I haven’t thought about this case in years. It’s amazing how much the real case differs from what the media presented at the time. The too cozy relationship between the second judge and the DA’s office is a scandal. The brothers deserve to have a chance at the life that a voluntary manslaughter conviction would have given them.
It’s so horrifying…and they are trapped in a nightmare.
This case is a horrible injustice all the way around. If anyone were looking out for these two boys the parents would be in jail!!!
I definitely see the injustice the Mendez brothers received. It’s not fair that there are several murders that take place and were given lighter sentences. These boys suffered emotional abuse and physical abuse. The judge was out of control for not allowing a fair trial. I feel he should be disbarred! How can anyone trust to have a fair trial with him as a judge! People don’t understand how so much child abuse goes on in someone’s home. It’s not easy to just tell your family members because either they won’t believe you or if they go to the police they need proof. If you don’t have a mother who doesn’t back you up and protects the dad.. Guess what? The abuser doesn’t go to jail he gets to go back home, and the abuse gets worse! I know this because it happened to me! So people who are quick to judge and assume what happens behind close doors! No one has a clue unless they lived through it! If that was their only way out I would have done the same thing.
I agree so much.
Judge weisberg should be disbarred. He makes the justice system in America the sad joke that it is
So he thinks that boys are not sexually abused?? What kind of idiot !!!!!! I dont think he really believes that. I believe that he wanted to insure there would not be another mistrial so he eliminated their defense. I wish he could experiense the TERROR the child felt as his pediphile pervert father made his way to his room. I pray that the brothers will be released. I will be checking for a petition to sign or a valid address to send a letter.
I hope this “enlightening” is a case of better late than never albeit, way too late. What these parents did to their kids is sickening on every level. What these boys needed was therapy, not incarceration. They’ve been in prison their entire life so far, mentally now physically (and mentally too I gather). It’s time they get heard. Leslie Abramson did a great job,. On the other hand, for a judge to think in the 1900s that boys can’t be abused blows my mind. Makes me wonder what the back story is on that reasoning. I am a paralegal. The eyes of the law aren’t always in sync with the the eyes of logic. Thanks for posting this and Hazel for the book giving this attention that’s way over due. Not saying murder is the answer and anybody should get off scott free but there have been successful defenses for woman who killed their abusive husband when not in the act of being abused, how is this different? I hope the Menendez brothers get the clemency they deserve and restitution for the needless years they wasted in prison. I pray that schools do more to make a safe space for children to speak up about abuse. I pray the schools themselves are a safe space, these days, tragically, that’s a tall order.
I agree completely — it’s just like an abused wife killing her husband in self defense.
To add to my comment, I am also a victim of rape, one time with my life threatened by a gun. My world turned upside down and I was never the same. I can’t imagine going through it time and time again, let alone by my own parents. I can’t say what I would have done. Maybe . . . maybe killing isn’t the answer, maybe… but locking them up and throwing away the key, definitely is not.
♥️♥️♥️