EXCLUSIVE: Famed Celebrity Lawyer has 'Questions' About the Guilt Of Convicted Parent Killers Erik and Lyle Menendez As Debate Intensifies Over Their Possible Release
Erik and Lyle Menendez while on trial for their parents' murders in 1993.
July 15 2025, Published 3:45 p.m. ET
A judge has ordered Los Angeles prosecutors to explain why Erik and Lyle Menendez's murder convictions should not be re-examined in light of new evidence supporting their claims of sexual abuse by their father, RadarOnline.com can report.
The order comes amid renewed debate about the killer brothers, with one family friend and lawyer saying he has questions of his own about their motivation.
The brothers have been behind bars for over three decades for the murders.
Erik and Lyle were convicted of shooting and killing their father, record executive Jose, and their mother, Kitty, in their Beverly Hills home in 1989.
Defense attorneys have long argued the brothers acted out of self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father; however, prosecutors countered the brothers killed their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance.
But now, new evidence, including a newly discovered letter from Erik to his cousin Andy describing the alleged abuse and a declaration from Menudo boy band member Roy Rossello that he was raped by Jose Menendez in the 1980s, has raised new doubts.
In his new memoir, Crazy Lucky, famed celebrity lawyer – and Menendez family friend – John Mason wrote the speculation is justified.
"The police didn’t even test Erik’s or Lyle’s hands for gun residue after the bodies of Kitty and Jose were found blown literally to pieces back in 1996," he explained.
Claims of Innocence
A newly submitted letter could prove their case.
However, Mason isn't so sure about their claims of innocence.
"The brothers insisted they murdered for fear that their father would kill them after they threatened to expose many years of both sexual and emotional abuse," Mason wrote.
"Of course, I wasn’t privy to every single moment at the Menendez house, but I spent enough time there with them to call BS on both of those accusations.
"It took time for the case to unfold, but it wasn’t long before I began to see them as two young men who wanted to inherit their father’s multimillion-dollar estate.
"They were impatient. They didn’t want to wait for him to die."
Reduced Sentences
D.A. Nathan Hochman called the letter 'old news' and could be 'lies.'
The Los Angeles County District Attorney's office now has 30 days to explain why the brothers should not be granted habeas corpus relief.
Already in May, a judge reduced their sentences to 50 years to life in response to a re-sentencing petition, making them eligible for parole as soon as August.
"I'm not suggesting they should be released," Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic said of their parole bid. "That's not for me to decide."
There are several possible outcomes if the judge grants relief, including reduced sentences, a new trial, or even release from prison.
Manslaughter – Not Murder
Never Miss an
Daily updates from the heart of Hollywood, right to your inbox
By entering your email and clicking Sign Up, you’re agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Lyle and Erik could be up for parole in August.
The newly discovered letter was introduced by Erik and Kyle's attorney, Cliff Gardner, who argued the brothers "honestly believed they had to take action to save their lives.
"That means they are culpable for manslaughter, not murder. And if that's the case, they should be released based on the time they’ve already served."
However, L.A. District Attorney Nathan Hochman called it too little and too late.
"To say that this letter was not discovered until after the trial, as it’s been alleged in the defense papers, we believe, is just wrong," he said during a February press conference.
"We believe it’s inconceivable, as we’ve argued in our papers, and defies common sense, that if they had evidence that would show that sexual abuse had been communicated not just six years before the events, but nine months before the 1989 killings, that it would absolutely have come out during one or both of their testimonies."
