menendez brother

Access to the parole hearings this week for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez was tightly controlled by state prison officials, but despite the efforts to limit outside interference and drama, the unexpected release of an audio recording nearly derailed Friday’s proceeding.

The disclosure of an audio recording of Erik’s parole hearing, held Thursday, tossed his older brother Lyle’s hearing into disarray the following evening.

The closely watched hearings gave the Menendez brothers a chance at freedom for the first time since they were convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents in Beverly Hills.

The state parole board denied a petition from Erik, 54, after an all-day session Thursday. Updates to the news media were provided by a Times reporter who was selected to observe the hearings from a conference room at California Department of Corrections Rehabilitation headquarters near Sacramento.

Audio recording of the hearing was forbidden except by state prison officials. Media organizations were prohibited from disseminating any information in so-called pool reports from the Times reporter until after the parole board issued its decision.

The same restrictions applied to Lyle’s hearing on Friday, which also ran long. But as the hearing came to a close, news broke that created a complication.

TV station ABC7 published a recording of Erik’s hearing, which apparently had been inadvertently handed over in response to a public records request.

A corrections department spokesperson confirmed the audio had been “erroneously” released, but did not elaborate or respond to additional questions from The Times.

The news report brought the hearing to a temporary halt, sparking anger, frustration and accusations that prison officials had purposely released the recording to cause a “spectacle.”

“This is disgusting,” said Tiffani Lucero Pastor, one of the brothers’ relatives who at one point screamed at the members of the parole board. “You’ve misled the family, and now to compound matters, you’ve violated this family and their rights.”

Heidi Rummel, parole attorney for both Erik and Lyle Menendez, asked for a break during the already nine hours long hearing, and at one point asked that the meeting be adjourned, arguing that it was no longer a fair hearing because of the audio’s release.

“We are sitting here asking Mr. Menendez to follow rules,” she said during the hearing. “And in the middle of this hearing, we find out CDCR is not following its own rules. It’s outrageous.”

The fate of Lyle, 57, had not yet been decided, but the board had denied Erik’s release after questioning him extensively about his use of contraband cellphones and other violations of prison rules.

“I don’t think you can possibly understand the emotion of what this family is experiencing,” Rummel said. “They have spent so much time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

The Menendez brothers first saw a chance at parole after Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón petitioned a judge to have their sentences reduced to 50 years in prison.

The move made them eligible for parole, but new Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman moved to oppose the petition after he defeated Gascón in the November election. L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied Hochman’s request and found that prosecutors failed to show that the Menendez brothers were a danger to the public, clearing their path to the parole board.

The case, and the brothers’ petitions, has continued to generate nationwide attention, including a social media effort that pushed to have the Menendez brothers released in light of allegations the two were sexually abused by their father.

With the case already under a microscope, the release of the audio file created yet another roller coaster of speculation and doubt.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said that audio of the hearings could be released under the California Public Records Act, and that transcripts of the parole hearings usually become public 30 days after a decision is issued, under state law.

Rummel noted during the hearing that, as a parole attorney, she had requested audio of parole hearings in the past but the requests had been denied.

“It’s highly unusual,” she said during the hearing Friday. “It’s another attempt to make this a public spectacle.”

Rummel had objected to media access to the hearing, and implied at one point that media access had led to a “leak.”

Rummel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“It’s unacceptable,” said Maya Emig, an attorney representing Joan Vandermolen, Kitty Menendez’s sister. “There has to be notice given.”

Rummel asked whether the board also planned to release the audio of Lyle Menendez’s hearing.

“What policy allows for this to happen in this hearing but literally no other hearing?” Rummel asked the board. “It’s never been done.”

At one point, Rummel said she would be looking to seal the transcript of the hearing under Marsy’s Law, which provides rights and protections to victims of crimes.

Garland stated that audio from Friday’s hearing would not be released publicly until Rummel had the opportunity to object in court or contest its release.

Shortly after, Rummel said several relatives of the brothers had decided not to testify because of the release of the audio.

“It’s my impression from the family members that that’s not enough of an assurance,” she said.

The two-member parole board ultimately decided the audio incident would not deter them from making a ruling late Friday evening. They rejected Lyle’s request.

Both brothers will be eligible for parole in three years, but they can petition for an earlier hearing in one year.

Over the course of her three-decade career, Chloë Sevigny has built an eclectic résumé playing complex women whom she describes as “the moral compass” or “the salt of the earth” in a story.

But in the second season of Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan’s “Monsters,” which reexamines the story of the Menendez family for a new generation, Sevigny plays the role of victim and villain in equal measure. An unflinching exploration of abuse and privilege, the Netflix limited series reconsiders the lives of Lyle (Nicholas Alexander Chavez) and Erik Menendez (Cooper Koch), who were convicted in the 1989 killing of their wealthy parents, José (Javier Bardem) and Mary Louise a.k.a. Kitty (Sevigny).

“The most challenging part was that each episode was a different person’s idea of her, so I had to switch gears as to who I think she was to serve the way that they were telling the story,” Sevigny says. “I’ve never had to do that before, and as an actor, you want to find the truth of the character, and then there was, of course, not one singular truth to her. And plus, nobody really knows what happens.”

After working together on two seasons of “American Horror Story” and then “Feud: Capote vs. the Swans,” Sevigny received a call from Murphy, who felt strongly that she should play the mysterious Menendez matriarch.

“From the very get-go, he pitched me having this opus kind of episode, where I get to really examine alcoholism and abuse and a lot of complicated issues that people don’t necessarily like to face,” Sevigny says of the sixth episode, which chronicles José and Kitty’s relationship against the backdrop of family therapy sessions. “I think that’s not how we justify doing these kinds of [true-crime stories], but we hope that they can give someone the courage to speak out if they are in a position where they’re being mistreated.”

Sevigny with Javier Bardem in “Monsters: The Lyle And Erik Menendez Story.”

(Netflix)

As one of New York’s “It” girls of the ’90s, Sevigny barely spent any time at home watching television, but she still remembers seeing photographs of the Menendez brothers during their murder trials on the front pages of newsstands. In preparation for the part, Sevigny revisited the era. She read writer Dominick Dunne’s buzzy Vanity Fair stories about the trials. She read a few books about Kitty’s upbringing, which revealed her history of self-medicating. She even watched the brothers’ trial testimony, in which they alleged that José had sexually abused them as children.

At a Vanity Fair party, Sevigny met a director whose wife had been close friends with Kitty and claimed that Kitty had genuinely loved her children. But while “Monsters” offers a brief glimpse of maternal love at the very end, the series as a whole takes a decidedly different approach.

“There were aspects of the character that I tried to lean into that I thought, ‘Oh, you don’t often see a mother complain about her children in the way that she does, like, “I hate my kids. They ruined my life.”’ There are certain things that you never, or rarely, see on TV,” Sevigny says. What was more difficult for her to wrap her head around was the thought of a mother who is willfully blind to child abuse: “What kind of person does that, and how do you access that kind of emotion, or the strength, for lack of a better word, or the cowardice to behave in that way in those certain situations?

(Larsen&Talbert / For The Times)

“The series is also an examination of the cycles of abuse and how hard it is for people to break out of those cycles,” adds Sevigny, who found it easy to act frightened when confronted with Bardem’s high intensity. “She had been abused, and her mother had been abused by her father. Her mother left her father, and she was raised without a dad. I think that can often be a reason for women to stay with their husbands because they think, ‘Oh, maybe just having a father around outweighs the abuse,’ which is not true, obviously.”

“Monsters” has not been without controversy, however. Last September, Erik publicly criticized the series for its inaccuracies and for implying an incestuous relationship between him and Lyle. (Erik has formed a bond with Koch, with whom he has remained in touch, and Lyle has since commended the series for helping viewers understand the long-term effects of child abuse.)

“The Netflix team had given us all these talking points, and we were supposed to stay very disengaged [from the brothers] — and Cooper did not listen to them,” Sevigny recalls with a laugh. “I was like, ‘Wow, this young boy, this is his first [big] thing, and he’s coming out the gate just speaking his mind.’ Being a woman and an actress, and growing up in the ’90s, we were all silenced and muzzled in a way, so it’s interesting to watch these young people have the agency and advocacy to speak up for themselves.”

In May, the brothers were resentenced to 50 years to life in prison, which makes them eligible for parole. Sevigny is no stranger to being part of zeitgeisty shows, having played one of the wives of a polygamous fundamentalist Mormon in HBO’s “Big Love” around the time that Warren Jeffs was convicted of child sexual assault: “You want to make art, hopefully, that gets people talking and engaged, and I think [‘Monsters’] has done that to the umpteenth.”

Sevigny found out that she had been nominated for her first Emmy while driving to the airport in Los Angeles, where she has been shooting Peacock’s “The Five-Star Weekend” opposite Jennifer Garner. The actor ultimately sees the show’s 11 total nominations as an acknowledgment of Murphy’s enduring creative vision.

“I respect all the diverse shows that he makes, and that he hires the same actors, artisans and craftsmen over and over. To validate his choice in me for that part also felt really important, because I think that he sticks his neck out for people a lot,” says Sevigny, who celebrated the achievement with a small Champagne toast during her flight back to New York. “The kinds of stories that he’s trying to tell are often challenging and people shy away from them, and the work that he does is important. And now maybe he’ll hire me again!”

When a Los Angeles County judge resentenced Erik and Lyle Menendez on Tuesday, he offered the brothers a path to freedom for the first time since they were given life in prison for killing their parents with shotguns in 1989.

The latest development makes Lyle, 57, and Erik, 54, eligible for parole — but that is just one of three avenues that could enable them to walk free after 35 years behind bars.

In the coming months, several different judges, parole commissioners and even Gov. Gavin Newsom could still have a hand in the brothers’ fate.

When could they get parole?

Tuesday’s decision by L.A. County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic modifies the brothers’ original sentence to 50 years to life. Under the state’s youthful offender law, both are immediately eligible for parole because the shootings happened before they turned 26.

A parole hearing probably will be scheduled before the end of the year, according to lawyers working with the Menendez defense team. At the hearing, a panel of commissioners could deem the brothers suitable for parole, but that decision is not final on its own. A 90-day review period would follow, and Newsom could block their release.

Nothing had been scheduled as of Wednesday. At a parole hearing, the brothers will have to take accountability for their crimes and argue to commissioners that they are unlikely to re-offend. In statements delivered in court on Tuesday, they appeared contrite and emotional when revisiting the murders.

“My actions were criminal, selfish, cruel and cowardly,” Erik Menendez said Tuesday. “I have no excuse, no justification for what I did. … I take full responsibility for my crimes.”

Lyle also said he made “no excuses” for felling his mother and father with shotgun blasts, and apologized to the nearly two dozen relatives who have spent years fighting for his release.

“I’m so sorry to each and every one of you,” Lyle told the court Tuesday. “I lied to you and forced you into a spotlight of public humiliation you never asked for.”

How else could they be released?

Before the resentencing process began, Erik and Lyle’s attorneys also filed an application for clemency with Newsom. If the governor grants clemency, their sentence would be commuted immediately and they could walk right out of the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, where they’ve been housed for years.

A remote clemency hearing is scheduled for June 13, with the brothers set to appear virtually before the parole board. On that day, the board can make a recommendation to Newsom on their suitability for release — which could also forecast their fortunes at an eventual parole hearing.

There is no timeline for Newsom to act on the clemency application, and he is not required to respond to it. The governor has already announced a potential change to statewide parole processes in connection with the case.

The brothers also have a pending petition for a new trial. In the motion, defense attorney Mark Geragos pointed to additional evidence of sexual abuse committed by Jose Menendez, including a fresh allegation from a member of the boy band Menudo.

The brothers have long argued they carried out their crime for fear their parents would kill them to cover up years of sexual abuse committed by Jose.

What’s next for the district attorney?

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman thrust himself into the center of the Menendez case even before he was elected, attacking his predecessor’s decision to seek to have the brothers resentenced last year despite having no access to files on the case.

Hochman asserted that former Dist. Atty. George Gascón filed the petition only to save his failing reelection bid and promised to review the case after he was inaugurated.

In March, Hochman formally announced his opposition to their resentencing, saying the brothers still had not shown proper “insight” into their crimes by atoning for lies they told about their motives in the case and attempts to get witnesses to give fabricated testimony at their original trials.

Despite Jesic repeatedly warning prosecutors that those arguments weren’t legally appropriate for a resentencing hearing, Hochman’s team barreled ahead, ultimately ending in the most high-profile loss of Hochman’s early tenure as district attorney.

Hochman said Wednesday he still considered his opposition to their resentencing a success because it presented to the judge, parole board and governor — all of whom would have a say in the brothers’ fate — a “full record of the facts.”

Hochman maintained that he did not believe the brothers should be released and said prosecutors will “participate” in any future parole hearings.

Hochman could also potentially appeal Jesic’s ruling. The district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to an inquiry about that approach.

Times staff writers Richard Winton and Matthew Ormseth contributed to this report.