The Menendez Brothers case is a true crime case in which the two brothers Erik and Lyle are convicted of killing their parents. They were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and have been in jail for nearly 35 years. The case has now been brought up and lawyers are trying to get it reopened, hoping to free the Menendez brothers by bringing new evidence to the case.
Angel Odu, a junior, discussed the need for a new trial. Odu believes that societal evolutions in parenting norms and the impact of abuse on individuals, specifically the brothers should be re-evaluated. Odu thinks the previous trial was influenced by biased potential system manipulation, and a new trial would be highly beneficial to the Menendez brothers. Odu emphasizes the importance of considering the psychological effects of abuse on brian chemistry.
“Having a new outlook on things that are abused, things that are inappropriate for parents to do, just things that are just wrong in general, will play a part. A new trial would be so influential , there would just be a great impact. The abuse should be taken into account because everybody is different, and the way everyone takes abuse is different. Some people, like, it messes with their brain chemistry, the chemicals in their brian are messed with due to large traumas,” Odu said.
Hawin Amini, a junior, focused on the importance and need for a new trial due to the abuse they endured. Amini has confidence the previous trial was unfair because abuse against men was a very vague and mostly unknown topic in that time period. Amini proclaims that a new trial would be fairer, given abuse in society today. Along with key details to be considered in a new trial including the duration and nature of the abuse. Amini has the opinion that a potential trial for the Menendez brothers would result in a lower sentence , reflecting the changed societal attitudes towards abuse.
“The circumstance of their situation and like, because of all the abuse that they had to go through, and they didn’t see another kind of escape route. A trial might be different because now, like this generation and this time, people are more awake about it. We have good awareness spread about it. They should have mentioned how long the abuse went on and what kind of abuse, because it was freaky and bad stuff,” Amini said.
Jack Keller, a junior, discussed the fairness of a previous trial involving the Menendez brothers, with opinions being sought on whether they should be allowed to have another trial and including how the abuse should be considered. Keller states a new trial should be opened up, and important evidence should be left out, regarding the brothers.
“I don’t think it was fair because at the time it couldn’t have been mentioned, but now that we have new and more technology, it’s able to prove details in this case. They need to really look into the specifics of this case, because back then it wasn’t a huge thing for men to be abused and for the situation to be brought into light,” Keller said.
Natalie Cochran, a junior, considers the potential retrial of the Menendez brothers case. Cochran expresses her skepticism about a new trial, believing the evidence is large enough to be released . Cochram argues that the previous trial was unfair due to outdated mindsets and lack of technological evidence, such as DNA analysis. Cochran believes that a new trial would benefit from modern forensic capabilities and public details. Cochran’s main belief is that key details for a potential retrial should include acknowledging sexual assault and presenting letters the boys sent, detailing abuse.
“I feel like they shouldn’t have to go through all that trouble for a retrial when basically, all the evidence is already there about the abuse and everything. So they should get set free or get parole. Their trial was set in the 80s, so it consisted of different mindsets. Back then men couldn’t be abused or anything and there was no technology to prove the brothers statements,” Cochran said.
Mia Ramirez, a junior, details the Menendez brothers case and hopes for a better and new trial. Ramirez feels that the brothers original trial was unfair, due to the defense attorneys lack of presenting evidence. Ramirez emphasized the time period, showing that it was a different mindset and the Jury’s lack of being able to believe them.
“I believe that they should get another trial, because in the first trial, they never really went into depth on how their parents sexually assaulted them and how the mother was also involved with the assaults. So how they were verbally, mentally, and physically abused whenever they were kids. I don’t think it was fair because again, they never went into depth on what went through their head, during the killing part,” Ramirez said.
Whether or not the trial is reopened, it’s important the Menendez brothers get the justice they deserve. If the trial is reopened, and new evidence is proven by using technology, then we may soon find out if these brothers should continue to spend their life in prison or they will finally be set free.