Unexpected release of audio files will cause Menendez to parole listening drama

This week, Erik and Lyle Menendez fraternity visited parole hearings and were tightly controlled by state prison officials, but the recording that accidentally released was almost Friday’s lawsuit despite efforts to limit external interference and drama.

A recording of the recording of Eric’s parole hearing held Thursday revealed that the hearing of his older brother Lyle was discarded the next night.

A closer look at the hearing gave the Menendez Brothers the opportunity to freedom for their 1989 murder of their parents in Beverly Hills.

The state parole board denied Erik, 54, after a full-day meeting Thursday. The latest news from the news media was provided by a Times reporter who was selected to observe a meeting room hearing at the California Correctional College Rehabilitation Headquarters near Sacramento.

Unless state prison officials, the voice of the hearing was recorded. Media organizations are prohibited from spreading any information in the so-called swimming pool report of Times reporters until the parole board issues a decision.

The same restrictions were also imposed on Friday’s hearing, which was long. But as the hearing ended, the news broke out, which caused complications.

TV station ABC7 released a recording of Eric’s hearing, which was obviously handed over inadvertently in response to a request for public records.

A spokesperson for the correction department confirmed that the audio had been released “incorrectly” but did not elaborate on or answer other questions from The New York Times.

News reports temporarily stopped the hearing, sparking anger, frustration and charges, and prison officials deliberately released recordings to cause “miracle.”

“It’s really disgusting,” said Rev. Tiffani Lucero. “You have misled the family and now make it important to reconcile, you have violated this family and its rights.”

Heidi Rummel, parole lawyer for Erik and Lyle Menendez, asked for a break at the already nine-hour hearing and at one point asked for an adjournment, thinking that it was no longer a fair hearing due to the release of the audio.

“We sit here and ask Mr. Menendez to follow the rules,” she said at the hearing. “In the middle of this hearing, we found that CDCR did not follow its own rules. It was outrageous.”

The fate of Lyle, 57, has not yet been decided, but the board has denied Erik’s release amid widespread doubts about his use of a banned cell phone and other violations of prison rules.

“I don’t think you can understand the emotions this family is experiencing,” Rummel said. “They spend a lot of time trying to protect their privacy and dignity.”

The Menendez Brothers first saw an opportunity on parole after Los Angeles County. Atti. George Gascón asked a judge to reduce his sentence to 50 years.

The move makes them eligible for parole, but new areas. Atti. Nathan Hochman opposed the petition after defeating Gascón in the November election. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic denied Hochman’s request and found that prosecutors failed to prove that the Menendez Brothers were at risk to the public, clearing their path to the parole board.

The case and the brothers’ petition continue to attract national attention, including a social media effort that prompted the release of the Menendez Brothers based on the allegations, both of which were sexually abused by their fathers.

Since the release of audio files has created another roller coaster of speculation and suspicion as it has been under the microscope.

Parole Commissioner Julie Garland said that under the California Public Records Act, audio of hearings can be released, and transcripts of parole hearings are usually published 30 days after the decision is issued under state law.

Rummel noted at the hearing that as a parole lawyer, she used to ask for audio from parole hearings but asked for rejection.

“It’s very unusual,” she said at a hearing Friday. “It’s another attempt to make it a public wonder.”

Lamel opposes the hearing on media access and suggests that media access has led to a “leak.”

Lamel did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is unacceptable,” said Maya Emig, the attorney representing Kitty Menendez’s sister Joan Vandermolen. “Must notify.”

Lamel asked the board if it also plans to release audio from the Lyle Menendez hearing.

“What policy allows this to happen at this hearing, but there are actually no other hearings?” Lamel asked the board. “Never done it.”

Rummel once said she would seek to seal the transcripts of the hearing under Marsy law, which provides rights and protections for victims of crime.

Audio from Friday’s hearing will not be released publicly until Rummel has the opportunity to object or release its release in court.

Not long after, Rummel said several of the brothers’ relatives decided not to testify because of the release of the audio.

“My impression is the impression of a family member, which is not guaranteed enough,” she said.

The two-member parole committee finally decided that the audio incident would not prevent them from ruling Friday evening. They rejected Lyle’s request.

Both brothers will be eligible for parole within three years, but they can have an early hearing within one year.