The judge's resentment against Erik and Lyle Menendez last week gave them a sibling who had not had in thirty years: they had a chance to leave Southern California prisons and be imprisoned.
After Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic found that if they were not released from prison, they would not pose an "unreasonable risk" and the brothers had been serving their sentences for life without parole without parole.
The Jesuits sent siblings for 50 years to recognize the advice of former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon and denied the stance of his successor, Nathan Hochman, who opposed their resentment.
Here is what could happen next, the case highlights the debate on key issues in the criminal justice system – recovery – and has attracted attention after Netflix miniseries and documentaries about its lives.
Jesic's ruling allowed Erik, 54, and Lyle, 57, to make freedom for freedom at hearings designed to determine whether they are suitable for parole. The procedures are scheduled to take place on June 13, a date pending in another effort to demand leniency from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
“Since the ruling makes them immediately eligible for parole considerations as youth offenders, the board’s intention is to convert the June 13, 2025 leniency hearing into an initial parole suitability hearing,” Scott Wyckoff, executive officer of the Parole Board hearing, said in a letter obtained by the Los Angeles Times.
A spokesman for the Department of Corrections said in an email that the board allowed people to raise objections to the change.
Although the hearing is no longer used for leniency, the brothers' applications in the governor remain active.
If a parole hearing occurs, the parole commissioner will be appointed to determine whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk. Prosecutors, relatives of the victims and others may weigh on this issue.
Hochman told reporters Wednesday that someone from the District Attorney’s Office will attend. He said the level of participation of the deputy may be decided by the parole board.
Even if the Commissioner found a brother suitable for parole, the “proposed” decision was approved by the News Magazine.
Asked Wednesday that Newsom refused to answer what he should do if the board recommended parole, but he said he often submitted the recommendation to the full parole board for review. He told reporters that he could also reverse the advice.
"Obviously, I have a relatively small respect for their judgment and the relatively small proportion of parole applications they actually approved," he said.
The process of determining whether someone meets leniency or parole is similar, Newsom said. As part of the sibling leniency application, the governor asked the board to determine whether the brothers pose a dangerous and unreasonable risk when released.
Part of this assessment has been made public. Hodgman said in the proceedings that forensic psychologists found the “moderate” risk of violence committed by the brothers outside the prison. Hochman said the findings are based in part on psychological assessments and recent prison violations.
The brothers’ attorney Mark Geragos downplayed the violations — including the violation of using a mobile phone smuggling after the proceedings — and said they did not constitute a “super trend” or serious crimes that could suggest they pose unreasonable risks.
Hodgman's objection to the brothers' release was partly due to the assessment. He also said they were not fully responsible for their crimes and cited 16 "unapproved lies" that he said the brothers had told the murders for decades. He reiterated that position in a press conference on Wednesday.
"If they can deal with the problem that leads to an increase in risk levels and then end up cleaning with all the lies, fraud and deception, then they should be the right candidate for parole," he said.
Speaking after their resentment, the brothers said they had assumed full responsibility and had no reason to kill mother Katie or father Jose on August 20, 1989.
In trial and media interviews, including in a 2017 interview with "Dateline", the brothers said they killed their parents in self-defense after Lyle faced his father's sexual abuse of his younger brother and Jose seemed to threaten his father.
Prosecutors have long objected to the account. They described the killing as terrible—Lyle Menendez reloaded his shotgun before shooting his mother in the face—and motivated by financial gain.
Lyle Menendez told the court in his speech Tuesday that he felt "ashamed" of his identity 35 years ago.
The brothers also seek freedom through the third path - the petition attempts to overturn their beliefs based on new evidence that the brothers’ defense attorneys said.
The petition includes a photocopy letter Erik said he wrote to his cousin, and Geragos said it confirmed Jose’s abuse of younger fellow months ago, submitted after the release of Peacock’s “Menudo + Menendez: Boys arpreed Breatheed”, which included former members of Puerto Rican Boy Band Opcy Jose Band occupation Jose Menendez. (Peacock is owned by NBCuniversal, the parent company of NBC News.)
At the time, Jose Menendez was an executive at RCA Records, which had multiple contracts with the band.
Hochman said the evidence did not meet the criteria required by a judge to order a new trial, and he opposed the petition.