The Menendez brothers fatally shot their parents in 1989, claiming they did so because of years of sexual abuse

More than 36 years after fatally shooting their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion, Erik Menendez was denied parole by a California parole board on Thursday, August 21, 2025.

Erik, now 54, appeared via videoconference from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, facing a hearing that drew attention nationwide due to the notoriety of the case.

His brother, Lyle Menendez, 57, is scheduled to appear before the parole board on Friday. The brothers’ shocking crimes in 1989 shocked the nation and became one of the most infamous parricide cases in U.S. history.

Erik and Lyle Menendez were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison for the murder of their father, José Menendez, and mother, Kitty Menendez. At the time of the killings, Erik was 18 and Lyle was 21. Their initial trials in 1993 ended in mistrials, conducted with separate juries.

During those proceedings, both brothers testified about alleged sexual abuse by their father, claiming that years of trauma and fear drove them to commit the murders.

However, prosecutors argued the killings were motivated by greed, aimed at securing a multimillion-dollar inheritance.

The second trial, conducted under stricter courtroom rules with cameras banned and limited testimony regarding abuse, resulted in guilty verdicts for both brothers. They were originally sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

A recent ruling by a Los Angeles judge reduced their sentences to 50 years to life, making both immediately eligible for parole because they were under 26 at the time of the crimes. Erik became eligible in May 2025, triggering the parole hearing that concluded on Thursday.

During the hearing, Erik’s legal team highlighted his remorse, rehabilitation, and positive contributions within the prison system. A spokesperson for the brothers issued a statement after the hearing, acknowledging disappointment but emphasizing continued hope.

“While we respect the decision, today’s outcome was of course disappointing and not what we hoped for,” the statement read. “But our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride.

His remorse, growth, and the positive impact he’s had on others speak for themselves. We will continue to stand by him and hold to the hope he is able to return home soon.”

The statement also turned toward Lyle’s upcoming hearing. “Tomorrow, we turn our attention to Lyle’s hearing.

And while it is undoubtedly difficult, we remain cautiously optimistic and hopeful that the commissioner will see in Lyle what so many others have: a man who has taken responsibility, transformed his life, and is ready to come home.”

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman praised the parole board’s decision in a separate statement, emphasizing justice for the victims.

“This does justice for Jose and Kitty Menendez, the victims of the brutal murders carried out by their sons on Aug. 20, 1989,” Hochman said. He noted that Erik will be eligible for parole again in three years.

The Menendez case has long been the subject of media fascination, spawning multiple documentaries, television adaptations, and extensive news coverage over the decades.

Despite the brothers’ claims of abuse, public opinion has remained sharply divided, with some viewing them as survivors of horrific familial trauma and others condemning them as cold-blooded killers.

Their story has been particularly compelling because of the interplay between celebrity, wealth, and crime: the Menendez family lived in a lavish Beverly Hills estate, creating a stark contrast between privilege and violence.

Legal analysts have noted that the parole hearing process takes into account several factors, including the inmate’s behavior in prison, efforts at rehabilitation, psychological evaluations, and the potential risk to society if released.

In Erik’s case, the board’s decision reflects the severity and premeditation of the murders, along with continued concern over public safety and the gravity of the crime.

The next eligibility window in three years will allow the board to reassess any changes in his conduct or circumstances.

The Menendez brothers’ infamy was compounded by the public nature of their trial and the lurid details presented in court.

During the hearings, both Erik and Lyle recounted years of alleged abuse by their father, claiming that their mother, Kitty, failed to intervene. Prosecutors, however, dismissed these claims as a fabrication meant to justify the killings.

Over the years, the story has been revisited in books, news programs, and dramatizations, including Netflix and television network adaptations, cementing the brothers’ place in American true-crime history.

Prison observers have noted that both Erik and Lyle have maintained good behavior while incarcerated, participating in rehabilitation programs and contributing positively to the correctional environment.

Nonetheless, the heinous nature of their crimes continues to weigh heavily in parole considerations.

The Menendez case is frequently cited in legal studies and criminal psychology courses for its complexity, the interplay between abuse allegations and motive, and the long-term effects of high-profile trials on family and public perception.

Erik Menendez’s denial of parole marks the latest chapter in a decades-long saga that continues to captivate and divide the public.

As Lyle’s hearing approaches, attention will turn to whether the parole board sees evidence of genuine rehabilitation and whether either brother might eventually be allowed to reenter society.

Until then, the memory of José and Kitty Menendez remains central, a stark reminder of the tragedy that occurred in their Beverly Hills home more than three decades ago.

The parole board’s ruling underscores the careful balance between rehabilitation and justice, leaving the Menendez story ongoing and far from resolution.

Analysts predict that debates over the case will persist, reflecting broader societal questions about punishment, abuse, and redemption.