The brothers at the centre of one of the highest profile criminal trials in recent US history may have new hope of being released. Lyle and Erik Menendez have seen a resurgence of public interest in their case following the popular Netflix show “Monsters”. Convicted in 1996 of murdering their parents, the brothers were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Their defence argued that they had endured years of severe sexual and psychological abuse, but the jury rejected these claims as mitigating factors. In the UK however, mitigating factors such as these can significantly impact sentencing.

In just it’s first weekend of release, the series is reported to have had over 12.3 million views. It also encouraged the Menendez brothers themselves to create a documentary “The Menendez Brothers”, where they provide insight on the murders and their subsequent trials. There are also interviews with the trial's lawyers, journalists who reported on the case, jurors, family members, and other observers. In this documentary, the original trial prosecutor, Pamela Bozanich, states that “The only reason we are doing this special is because of the TikTok movement to free the ‘Menendi’”. A social media frenzy that has arisen since the “Monsters” series aired.

The prospect of a retrial has since emerged, sparking discussions about how the case might have unfolded differently if mitigating factors such as their abuse had been more thoroughly considered—particularly when viewed through the lens of our legal system.

Sentencing and Mitigating Factors: US vs UK

The various British and US criminal justice systems all share a common law foundation but differ significantly in structure and approach. England and Wales operate a more centralised system with distinct legal procedures across its nations, emphasizing standardised sentencing and rehabilitation, with police typically unarmed and prosecutions led by the Crown Prosecution Service. The legal systems in the other home nations, Scotland and Northern Ireland, while also common law jurisdictions, have important differences to the English and Welsh system (for example, in Scotland there is no equivalent to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, otherwise known as PACE).

By contrast, the US system is decentralised, with state and federal jurisdictions, harsher sentencing practices, and a high reliance on jury trials and elected prosecutors, often heavily influenced by local and national politics. The US corrections system focuses more on punishment, leading to a larger prison population. One of the most important differences is that following trials, American juries are often asked to decide the appropriate sentence, which is a role reserved for Judges in the UK. 

The Court here decide the appropriate sentence for all criminal offences. They refer to sentencing guidelines that require the consideration of relevant mitigating factors, which can reduce the severity of the outcome for the defendant. Mitigating factors may include mental health issues, evidence of duress or manipulation, the defendant’s background (such as prior abuse), whether the defendant acted alone or as part of a group, or the absence of premeditation for example. These factors can significantly influence whether a defendant receives a lesser sentence than what is typically prescribed for their crime.

Had the Menendez case occurred in England and Wales, the brothers’ defence of enduring prolonged abuse could have played a more prominent role. The abuse could have been considered a mitigating factor, potentially leading to a conviction for manslaughter rather than murder. England and Wales courts might have acknowledged that their actions, while still criminal, were a direct response to the extreme provocation and duress they allegedly faced from their father. Instead of life imprisonment, the Menendez brothers could have been sentenced to a reduced term based on diminished responsibility, a legal concept in the England and Wales that reduces murder to manslaughter when a defendant’s mental functioning is impaired.

The Menendez brothers were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in California, where the US justice system is less flexible in its consideration of mitigating factors for premeditated murder. In England and Wales, however, the appeals process could provide an opportunity to reassess that sentence, particularly if new evidence emerges that challenges the safety of the original conviction or suggests the trial was unfair.

The Appeals Process: Grounds and Retrial

Criminal cases here are appealed to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), which reviews appeals from defendants convicted in the Crown Court. Grounds for appeal in England & Wales include:

1. There being an error when the judge gave out the verdict or sentence;
2. Discovery of a technical issue in how the case was handled;
3. Evidence of misconduct, including leading witnesses, misleading the court or bullying jurors;
4. Circumstances that prevented the accused from receiving a fair trial; or
5. New evidence coming to light that was not available at the time of the original trial or conviction.

Appeals in criminal cases must generally be made within 28 days of the conviction or sentence, and permission from the Court of Appeal is required to proceed.

The presentation of new evidence, particularly compelling evidence that wasn’t available at trial but could have affected the outcome, can form a strong basis for appealing both the conviction and the sentence. This new evidence must meet strict criteria, being credible, admissible, and so compelling to be capable of substantially altering the original verdict.

If the Court of Appeal finds that an original conviction was unsafe or determined that new evidence justified a retrial, the case could be referred for fresh trial, potentially leading to a different outcome. The Court could also reduce the sentence if they deemed that mitigating factors had not been properly considered in the original sentencing.

What if the Menendez Brothers were Tried in England & Wales?

If the Menendez brothers’ case had been tried in this country, and if an appeal had been lodged based on the mitigating factor of abuse, their sentences might have been significantly lighter. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for murder and manslaughter place significant weight on the defendant’s mental state and the circumstances leading to the offense. For instance, in cases where abuse or severe provocation is proven, defendants can receive reduced sentences where diminished responsibility or loss of control is established. Rather than life imprisonment without parole, the Menendez brothers might have faced fixed prison terms with significant reductions to the minimum tariff (i.e. the minimum period they would need to serve in order to be released by a Parole Board if no longer considered a danger to the public).

What could happen next in the Menendez story?

As talks of a potential retrial for the Menendez brothers circulate in the US, particularly based on the emergence of new witness statements about their abusive upbringing, the eventual outcome may be more in line with what we would expect from a Court in England and Wales where full life sentences are exceptionally rare. A retrial could lead to reduced charges, possibly from first-degree murder to second-degree murder or even manslaughter, depending on how compelling the evidence of abuse is deemed. This could result in the brothers receiving significantly reduced sentences, potentially offering the possibility of parole.

Conclusion

The Menendez brothers’ case is extreme is every sense of the word. But it also underscores the importance of evidence of abuse, which can drastically alter the outcome of criminal cases. On both sides of the Atlantic the appeals process should allow defendants to appeal convictions and sentences where new and compelling evidence is introduced that is likely to render the original verdict unsafe.

Had the Menendez brothers’ been tried here however, it is very likely that their sentences would have been lighter, with their abusive past serving as a significant mitigating factor in their favour. The possibility of a retrial in the US demonstrates how the evolving attitudes over time can challenge even the most established convictions, highlighting the need for a responsive judicial system that carefully weighs the circumstances surrounding each case.