Lyle Menendez faces parole board a day after his brother Erik was denied release

Lyle, left, and Erik Menendez sit in Beverly Hills Municipal Court where their attorneys delayed making pleas on behalf of the brothers who are charged for the 1990 murders of their millionaire parents. (Nick Ut/AP via CNN Newsource)

After more than 30 years in prison, Erik Menendez was denied parole by a California board that decided he still poses a risk to public safety. Now Lyle, his older brother who was convicted alongside him for the murder of their parents decades ago, will have his own chance to argue for release.

The brothers got the chance to face the California Board of Parole after being resentenced in May, from life in prison without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life in prison with the possibility of parole.

Erik’s parole hearing lasted nearly 10 hours as officials questioned him on his rehabilitation and listened to arguments from the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office against his release, as well as pleas from members of his family in favor of it.

The board ultimately decided Erik would continue to “pose an unreasonable risk to public safety” if released, listing his teenage criminal history, the brutality of the 1989 killings and “serious violations” of prison rules. He may be eligible for parole again in three years, the board said.

Parole Commissioner Robert Barton said while explaining the decision that the seriousness of the past crime is “not a primary reason for this denial. It’s still your behavior in prison.”

“One can pose a risk to public safety in many ways, with several types of criminal behavior, including the ones you were guilty of in prison,” he said. He encouraged Erik to use his “great support network” more consistently to avoid more prison violations.

While Lyle’s case will be considered on its own merits Friday, his factors of rehabilitation are similar to Erik’s, with the only major differences being Lyle having a slightly lower number of rule violations in prison.

But Lyle’s especially brutal actions during his parents’ killings could weigh against him. Lyle, who is several years older than Erik, testified during the 1993 trial that he repeatedly fired the shotgun in close range at both of his parents. On Thursday, Barton said the manner in which the brothers’ mother was killed was “devoid of human compassion.”

Lyle also offered differing accounts of his father’s alleged abuse, which prosecutors have pointed to in questioning the validity of the brothers’ claims. At one point he asked his girlfriend to lie and say his father had drugged and raped her, the district attorney’s office has said in legal filings.

With Lyle now set to face the parole board, here are some of the key points from Erik’s hearing.

Parole board weighed several factors

The board went over several topics related to Erik Menendez’s parole assessment, but one of the biggest was whether he took responsibility for his crimes.

While the brothers admitted to the murders, their motive has remained hotly contested. They say they killed their parents out of fear for their lives after a lifetime of abuse from their father, but Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman and his office argue they committed the murders in an attempt to gain their father’s fortune.

Erik appeared to briefly waver on his longstanding claim of self-defense in one moment of Thursday’s parole hearing. Barton cited a document written by Erik in which he said he had “no justification” for the killings. Erik reaffirmed the statement Thursday.

“Is there any part of this which you believe was self-defense?” Barton asked. Erik replied: No.

Despite that exchange, Erik still seemed to double down on he and his brother’s story that they shot their parents out of fear for their lives.

Erik gave a window into his teenage mindset at the time of the killings, describing his father as a cruel and domineering figure who, in his words, created an environment in which “running away was inconceivable. Running away meant death.”

When pressed repeatedly by Barton as to why he didn’t consider reporting his father to authorities or leaving the house, Erik said “It’s difficult to convey how terrifying my father was.” He later said he felt tied to the house by an “absolute belief that I could not get away,” adding, “maybe it sounds completely irrational and unreasonable today.”

In sharing the perspective of his office, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian fixated on disputing the brothers’ motive, despite several admonishments from the parole board against re-litigating the crime. Balian argued that Erik should not be released due to his lack of full and unabated remorse for the murders.

“He never accepts anything. He had to create a fake, false self-defense narrative – a narrative he continues pushing today,” Balian said, adding that while he hopes Erik achieves redemption one day, that the day isn’t here.

The board also brought up the nine rule violations Erik has had during his imprisonment, which range from physical altercations to drug possession to having banned objects, including a cell phone and a lighter.

Since his incarceration, Erik has gained the support of several correction staff members who submitted letters describing him as a “model inmate.” Barton expressed doubt over this characterization, saying it was at odds with the violations he accumulated. Erik responded by telling the board he did not believe he had a chance at release until last year and at that point, his “consequential thinking” kicked in.

“I can’t be doing this,” he recalled thinking. “I don’t know how people (who) know they’re going to go to the board in five to 10 years could be doing this.”

Relatives expressed support for Erik

Over a dozen relatives spoke in support of Erik during Thursday’s hearing, many of them getting tearful as they expressed how they have forgiven him, even with the deep emotional scars the murders left on the family.

Some relatives spoke of the long, difficult path to forgiveness.

“To say that our family has experienced pain does not quite capture what the last 35 years have been like … It has divided us. It has caused us panic and anxiety. It has led to many of us retreating,” said Tiffani Lucero-Pastor, the great-niece of Erik and Lyle’s mother, Kitty.

Others acknowledged the pain caused by Kitty’s purported lack of intervention in the alleged abuse, saying it contributed to the environment of the home. Karen Mae Vandermolen-Copley, Kitty’s niece, said, “that absence of protection deepened their fear and confusion.”

The only relative known to oppose the brothers’ release was Kitty’s brother, Milton Andersen, who died earlier this year.

Family members released a statement after Erik’s parole was denied, saying they were disappointed but respected the decision.

“But our belief in Erik remains unwavering and we know he will take the Board’s recommendation in stride,” the statement reads. “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.”

Family members are also expected to speak on Lyle’s behalf during his hearing on Friday, saying in their statement that they “remain cautiously optimistic and hopeful” Lyle will be granted parole.

Gov. Newsom is the final arbiter on the brothers’ fate

While Erik was not granted parole Thursday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom ultimately decides if the decisions made about the brothers’ release will stick.

Under a 1988 state law, California’s governor holds the unusual power to approve, deny or modify parole board decisions for people convicted of murder and sentenced to an indeterminate term. The parole board’s decision could undergo an internal review for up to 120 days. After that, Newsom has 30 days to affirm or reverse the decision, if he so chooses.

CNN reached out to Newsom’s office for comment following Erik’s denied parole. The governor’s office didn’t answer previous CNN inquiries on whether he would intervene in the case.

The governor – as a result of two court rulings over the last two decades – has to assess the defendant’s risk to public safety and can consider whether the person demonstrated insight into their crime, said Christopher Hawthorne, a clinical professor of law and director of the Juvenile Innocence & Fair Sentencing Clinic at Loyola Law School.

Many of the decisions made by California governors since the law was established favored keeping people in prison as tough-on-crime policies prevailed, Hawthorne said, but Governors Jerry Brown and Newsom have reversed the trend in the last decade, making parole more available.

“Every governor is fairly allergic to releasing high-profile defendants,” Hawthorne said, but parole “was something that was not available, essentially, during the (Pete) Wilson, (Gray) Davis or (Arnold) Schwarzenegger administration, with very, very few exceptions.”

The three governors served successively from 1991, but starting in 2011, “Jerry Brown’s administration and Gavin Newsom’s administration have done infinitely better,” he said.