Erik Menendez was denied parole after making his bid for freedom before California’s parole board.
The decision came after an all-day hearing on Thursday, during which Erik detailed the events of the 1989 killings of his parents, José and Kitty Menendez, and spoke about his life in prison since then.
Despite his testimony and emotional pleas from 18 family members who spoke in his defense, the board concluded that Erik still represents “an unreasonable risk to public safety.”
The Menendez brothers’ case has fascinated and divided the public for decades, spawning television series, documentaries, and heated debate over whether the siblings were cold-blooded killers or deeply traumatized victims of parental abuse.
The denial of parole ensures that Erik, now in his mid-50s, will remain incarcerated for the foreseeable future, continuing the long and controversial saga.
Board of Parole Commissioner Robert Barton explained the reasoning behind the denial, citing Erik’s original crimes, past criminal behavior, and ongoing prison violations. Barton noted that Erik’s conduct at the time of the murders—including a cover-up effort carried out with his brother, Lyle—demonstrated planning, manipulation, and deceit.
Erik’s prior record of burglaries before the murders was also referenced, along with a troubling history of disciplinary infractions accumulated during his incarceration. According to the board, these violations revealed a pattern of manipulation, violence, and dishonesty that undermined any case for rehabilitation.
The murders, which took place inside the family’s lavish Beverly Hills mansion in August 1989, shocked the nation. Erik and Lyle Menendez gunned down their parents with shotguns, later going on lavish spending sprees with the family fortune.
At trial, prosecutors argued the brothers murdered for money and freedom, while the defense claimed they acted out of fear after years of sexual, emotional, and physical abuse.
After two mistrials, both brothers were convicted in 1996 of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Earlier this year, however, a judge resentenced them, making them eligible to apply for parole after more than three decades behind bars. Thursday’s hearing marked Erik’s first serious chance at release—but that chance ended in rejection.
During the hearing, Erik spoke about the night of the murders, describing himself as terrified and convinced that his father was preparing to rape him. He admitted that his actions were not strictly in self-defense, but said the overwhelming fear of abuse and death drove him to pull the trigger.
Erik recounted that the moment he turned the gun on his mother, Kitty, was devastating. According to his testimony, she admitted to knowing about the abuse but chose not to intervene.
That revelation, Erik claimed, destroyed his sense of hope. He characterized her both as a victim of his father’s cruelty and a participant in perpetuating the abuse by refusing to protect her children.
The board, however, placed heavy emphasis on Erik’s prison record. In his 35 years behind bars, he amassed numerous infractions ranging from manipulative behavior to involvement in criminal enterprises.
One of the most serious incidents occurred in 2013, when Erik was linked to a tax fraud scheme run by a prison gang. He admitted that he “jumped at the opportunity” to cooperate, claiming it was a strategy for survival in a violent prison environment.
Earlier violations included allegations that he tricked fellow inmates into buying drugs on his behalf, left debts unpaid when transferred to new facilities, and manipulated correctional officers.
He was also disciplined for inappropriate behavior with visitors, including his wife Tammi. On one occasion in 1997, he was written up for “excessive physical contact” in the prison chapel. Ten years later, a similar incident led to questions about whether sexual activity occurred during a visit—something Erik denied, saying it was only intimate touching.
In 1999, he was placed on temporary non-contact status with his wife after being accused of “aggressive behavior.” Taken together, these incidents painted a picture of someone the board felt had not demonstrated the reform necessary to be trusted outside prison walls.
Despite the long list of violations, Erik’s family members rallied to his side. Eighteen relatives testified in his favor, urging the board to consider his decades of incarceration, his alleged abuse as a child, and his attempts to grow spiritually and emotionally while imprisoned. They argued that Erik is no longer a danger and that his release would allow him to contribute positively to society.
But their appeals could not overcome the board’s concerns. Commissioner Barton emphasized that while the Menendez brothers’ claims of abuse were taken into account, Erik’s overall record suggested that granting parole would pose too great a risk.
The denial leaves Erik with limited options. He can appeal the decision, but such appeals are rarely successful. His brother Lyle, who faced resentencing alongside him, is scheduled for his own parole hearing soon. Observers are watching closely to see whether Lyle’s outcome mirrors Erik’s or if the board views him differently.
For now, Erik Menendez remains behind bars, his dream of freedom once again extinguished. The ruling underscores the enduring controversy of the Menendez case—a story where questions of abuse, justice, and morality continue to collide more than 35 years after the night that made the brothers infamous.