By Andrew Dalton
Los Angeles (AP) – The trials of Lyle and Erik Menendez came at a time of cultural obsession for the courts, crime and murder, when live television tests have captured a national audience.
Their resentment – and the now very real possibility of their freedom – came to another, when real documentaries on crime and the docudramas have proliferated and attracted renewed attention to the family.
A judge rendered the Menendez brothers eligible for parole on Tuesday when he reduced his life penalties without parole at 50 to life for the murder in 1989 of their father Jose Menendez and mother Kitty Menendez in their house in Beverly Hills. The state -owned board of directors of the State will now determine if they can be released.
Their two trials conducted the OJ Simpson trial, creating a phenomenon of the mid -1990s where the courts subjected to soap operas like a riveted daytime television.
“People were not used to having cameras in the courtroom. For the first time, we saw the drama of justice in real time,” said Vinnie Politan, an anchor of television in court that hosts the “night closing arguments” on the network. “Everyone looked at Cable and everyone has had this common experience. Today, there is a real crime boon, but it takes place in so many different places.”
The brothers became an immediate feeling with their 1990 arrest. They represented a pre-technical image of young rich men as represented in many films from the 1980s: preparation for tennis and the preparation of Princeton.
For many viewers, this image was confirmed by the spending wave they crossed after the murders. Their case continued a fascination for the dark and private life of young people and the rich who dates back at least in the case of murder of Léopold and Loeb of the 1930s, but which had been in the air in cases like the Billionaire Boys Club, a program of Ponzi of the 1980s which stimulated a murder.
The first Menendez test becomes convincing live television
Their first trials in 1993 and 1994 became a benchmark for the new Court television, which broadcast it almost in its entirety. Defense lawyers have conceded that they had shot their parents. The jury and the public then had to examine whether the testimony of the brothers concerning the sexual and other abuse of their father was plausible and should mean a condemnation for less accusation.
The sustainable image of the trial was Lyle Menendez who was crying on the stand by describing the abuses.
At the time, there had been public calculations with the effects of sexual abuses, but not almost the extent of today.
The two juries – one for each brother – in the dead end, largely along the genre. He reflected the broader cultural reaction – with women supporting a condemnation for manslaughter and men a guilt for guilt for first degree.
A difficult era on crime and a series of trials Menendez
The trials occurred at a time when crime in the United States was at a record level, a difficult position on crime was a prerequisite for the holding of a major political post, and a wave of legislation forcing more severe sentences was adopted.
This attitude seemed to prevail when, during their second trial, the brothers were both found guilty of first degree murder.
As an Associated Press test journalist, Linda Deutsch, who covered the two tests with Simpson and countless others, wrote in 1996:
“This time, the jury rejected the affirmation of defense that the brothers murdered their parents after years of sexual abuse.
The second trial was not televised and attracted less attention.
“There were no cameras, it was in the shadow of OJ, so he did not have the same spark and the same pop as the first,” said Politan.
The Menendez brothers become a distant memory
They had become too well known to be forgotten, but for decades, the Menendez brothers faded in the background. Occasional stories have emerged on the brothers losing their calls, just like the mogues of their aging in prison.
“Public memory was:” Yes, I remember this trial, guys with courtyards “,” said Politan.
This would change in the era of real television, podcasts and streamers.
The real crime goes big
The dramatic series NBC 2017 “Law & Order True Crime: The Menendez Murders” has not been widely looked at, but has always attracted the case. The next decade would be more important.
The MAX 2022 documentary centers “Menudo: Forever Young” included a former member saying that he had been raped by Jose Menendez at the age of 14. About at the same time, the brothers submitted a letter that Erik wrote to his cousin on his father’s abuses before the murders.
The new wave of true crime would continue to promote them, even if the representation was not always flattering.
“Monsters: The story of Lyle and Erik Menendez”, a drama created by Ryan Murphy on Netflix, made beautiful buffoons, and the actors were shown to bare on the provocative display panels. Javier Bardem as Jose Menendez brought the power of the stars Oscar winners to the project that dropped in September from last year.
This was followed a month later by a documentary on Netflix, “The Menendez Brothers”.
Together, the shows have made the public pay more attention to the case than since the trials. Almost simultaneously came a real turning point, when the Los Angeles district prosecutor George Gascón said he was examining new evidence in the case.
The office of the successor of Gascón, Nathan Hochman, opposed the conviction.
Deputy Prosecutor of District Habib Balian has constantly asked the hearings to ensure that the “carnage” caused by the brothers has not been forgotten and has repeatedly stressed that they “have” brutally brutally brutally. “
But the changes in the perception of the public and the legal actions were already in motion. The judge’s decision to reduce their accusations did not come with the drama of the television trial, but during a short hearing in a courtroom that would not allow the cameras. The wider audience has never seen.
Despite his opposition, Hochman reflected in a statement after respect.
“The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the justice system,” said Hochman. “This case, like all cases – in particular those that captivate the public – must be considered with a critical eye. Our opposition and our analysis assured that the court received a complete and precise registration of the facts. Justice should never be influenced by the show. ”
Originally published:
California Daily Newspapers
