When Crime Becomes Entertainment: The Menendez Brothers and Media Frenzy

13 May 2025

This influence on justice lies in the way media coverage framed the narrative long before a jury deliberated. Public opinion, shaped by headlines and talk shows, blurred the line between evidence and speculation, arguably affecting the fairness of the trial itself.

More than three decades later, their story is back in the spotlight. Netflix’s new show about the case is sparking fresh debates about whether these brothers were ruthless killers or victims of unimaginable abuse.

A similar media-fueled resurgence is happening in the UK, where the Lucy Letby case has reopened questions around justice, media portrayal and systemic failure. Both cases, though quite different in nature, reveal a recurring issue: how media narratives can entrench public perceptions before a fair hearing is even complete.

Other notorious trials like that of O.J. Simpson and Amanda Knox also underscore this problem. Simpson’s trial, described as the first true “media event” of the modern era, captivated global audiences and blurred entertainment with justice. Similarly, Amanda Knox was portrayed by tabloids as a “man-eating murderer”, illustrating how sensational media coverage can profoundly influence both public sentiment and legal proceedings even across international borders.

The Media Circus Begins

The Menendez brothers’ trial was a media phenomenon from the very start. Every moment of their legal battle was broadcast on Court TV, captivating audiences across the USA. Initially, the media painted a damning picture of the brothers: spoiled rich kids who murdered their parents to inherit millions.

Tabloids and talk shows emphasised their spending spree after the murders – designer watches, luxury vacations, and Porsche cars. It was a story tailor-made for sensationalism: privilege gone horribly wrong.

But things changed during the trial. The defence alleged that Lyle and Erik had endured years of sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of their father. Suddenly, the brothers were not just villains. They were victims. And the public could not look away.

Sensationalism on Trial

The abuse claims divided public opinion. Some saw the brothers as traumatised young men pushed to the edge. Others thought the allegations were fabricated, a desperate ploy to avoid life sentences.

The trial became a show, with endless analysis of the brothers’ tearful testimonies, courtroom outbursts, and even their outfits. Sensational coverage blurred the line between justice and entertainment. Even the juries became victims of the prosecution-biased media mockery.

This was not just courtroom drama – it was prime-time TV. And it mattered. The overwhelming media attention made jury selection difficult and likely influenced how both the prosecution and defence shaped their strategies. John Callahan’s cartoon, which appeared in the LA Times Magazine during the first trial in 1993, put it succinctly, saying: “You’ve read the tabloids. You’ve seen the TV movie. You’ve watched the talk shows. It’s up to you.”

On July 2, 1996, the Menendez brothers were sentenced to life in prison, without the possibility of parole, after being convicted of the first-degree murders of their parents.

Netflix and the Case’s Revival

Fast-forward to 2024. A new generation is discovering the Menendez brothers’ story, thanks to Netflix’s ‘Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story’. The controversial series caused mayhem on social media, where thousands are debating whether the original trial ignored critical evidence of trauma. As a result, many have fallen down the rabbit hole of this viral topic.

Fans have mobilised. Petitions with thousands of signatures demand re-sentencing or retrials, arguing the brothers’ case reflects a broader failure to understand the psychological impact of abuse.

This cultural shift has had real-world consequences. In early 2024, the Los Angeles District Attorney reopened the Menendez case, citing new evidence that could support abuse claims.

Beyond Beverly Hills: The Global Impact

While media sensationalism often skews justice, sometimes media attention can drive positive change. A recent example is the TV drama ‘Mr Bates vs The Post Office’, which highlighted the devastating Horizon IT scandal. Public anger following the series led to political action and widespread support for wrongly convicted sub-postmasters. This shows that, although media involvement can distort trials, it can also be a catalyst for righting historic wrongs when handled responsibly.

The Menendez case is not the only example of media sensationalism shaping justice. In the UK, Lucy Letby’s trial in 2023 became a media spectacle, too. Letby, a neonatal nurse, was convicted of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder another seven.

The press focused on her personal life, handwriting and chilling notes, framing her as a “monster nurse”. Critics argued that sensational headlines overshadowed systemic failures and hospital oversight that had also been brought to light by the case.

This case is still going through intense media scrutiny today, drawing further comparisons to the Menendez case. If the media cycle continues, what could the dramatisation be in some years? Could it also become a public obsession?

In the UK, laws like the Contempt of Court Act 1981 are intended to prevent reporting that could prejudice legal proceedings, ensuring juries decide cases purely on evidence presented in court. However, the rise of social media presents major challenges.

Instances of jurors conducting independent online research or being influenced by social media discussions have already led to mistrials and even criminal penalties. Maintaining an impartial jury in an internet-saturated society is becoming increasingly difficult, threatening the fairness of high-profile cases.

Like the Menendez brothers, Letby’s case shows how media coverage can distort complex issues, turning them into oversimplified stories of good versus evil, often causing an uproar from spectators.

Legal experts have raised serious concerns about how key medical evidence may have been misinterpreted, with some suggesting the original conviction could be unsafe. In the UK, an ‘unsafe condition’ refers to a verdict that may be undermined by procedural errors, unreliable evidence or new facts not considered during trial.

The Letby case is currently under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), and if an appeal proceeds, it could reveal how media-driven narratives might have prematurely swayed public belief and even judicial outcomes.

Both cases expose a troubling truth: when media coverage becomes the loudest in the room, justice risks becoming an afterthought. In a world driven by headlines, how much room is left for doubt, complexity or fairness?

The Verdict on Sensationalism

The Menendez brothers were more than just defendants. They became characters in a media-fueled drama. And the media did not just report the story; it shaped it, influencing the public perception and questionably the outcome of their trial.

Leslie Abramson, their lawyer, recently said:

“Thirty years is a long time. I'd like to leave the past in the past. No amount of media, nor teenage petitions, will alter the fate of these clients.”

Her words serve as a stark reminder of the limitations of public outcry in overturning judicial decisions, no matter how much media attention resurfaces. These are real people, real lives. Facts, over baseless opinions, should prevail in the courtroom.

Despite this, the impartibility of a jury – whether due to intimidation or allegiance – is difficult if not impossible to guarantee. How do we know that juries in media-influenced cases are not victims of brainwashing themselves?

Indeed, as seen from multiple examples, including jurors being disciplined for breaching rules during trials, the risk of social media contamination has become a real problem for justice systems. Courts are now grappling with the realities of a digital age where isolating jurors from external influence is harder than ever before.

This raises the question: if the media can shape narratives and alter perceptions, what does that mean for the very foundation of justice? At the end of the day, those who uphold justice are human too.

As the Menendez case reopens, it becomes clear that their story is not just about murder. It is about trauma, justice, and how the media has the power to mould both.

At the same time, cases such as Letby’s in the UK present a different, yet equally complex, media and legal landscape. While the Menendez narrative has seen evolving public sentiment over time, Letby’s case has generated immediate and widespread condemnation.

The contrast between these reactions highlights how public empathy and perception are often shaped by the way cases are reported, as well as the nature of the allegations themselves.

This raises broader questions about how we form opinions on high-profile criminal cases, especially when those opinions are influenced by online content and viral discourse.

It also prompts reflection on whether all individuals, regardless of the severity or type of crime, receive equal consideration in the public eye when claims of abuse, mental health issues or systemic failures are involved.

In the end, the Menendez brothers remind us that in a world of inflammatory headlines and viral hashtags, the truth often gets lost in the noise. Whether they are monsters or victims – or a little of both – one thing is certain: their story is far from over.

By Andrea Souza Amadeu, Student Blog Writer at QMLAC and LLB Law Student. 

This blog is for information only and does not constitute legal advice on any matter. While we always aim to ensure that information is correct at the date of posting, the legal position can change, and the blogs will not ordinarily be updated to reflect any subsequent relevant changes. Anyone seeking legal advice on the subject matter should contact a specialist legal representative.

 

References

Christobek, Kate. “The Menendez Brothers’ Case Under Review: What to Know.” The New York Times, 25 November 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/article/menendez-brothers-case.html.  Accessed 1 December 2024.

Dickson, Susan. “REPORT ON THE DIFFICULTIES OF SELECTING IMPARTIAL JURIES IN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL TRIALS IN THE OVERSEAS TERRITORIES.” Welcome to GOV.UK, May 2009, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f3733e5274a2e87db4803/Report_on_the_Difficulties_of_Selecting_Juries_the_Overseas_Territories_.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2025.

Loofbourow, Lili. “Column | The Menendez brothers are back, but very little has changed.” Washington Post, 10 October 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/2024/10/10/menendez-brothers-ryan-murphy-series-documentary/.  Accessed 15 December 2024.

Moritz, Judith, and Jonathan Coffey. “Lucy Letby: We spent years covering the case – here's why experts are still arguing about it.” BBC, 19 October 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgwx9xprwqo.  Accessed 12 December 2024.

News, Violent crime. “Lucy Letby found guilty of attempting to murder baby following retrial.” The Crown Prosecution Service, 2 July 2024, https://www.cps.gov.uk/mersey-cheshire/news/lucy-letby-found-guilty-attempting-murder-baby-following-retrial.  Accessed 10 December 2024.

Tejada, Alicia. “Inside the story of the notorious Menendez brothers case.” CBS News, 24 October 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/menendez-brothers-inside-the-notorious-case-48-hours/.  Accessed 15 December 2024.

Thornton, Hazel. “The Story of Juror #9.” Hazel Thornton, January 2018, https://www.org4life.com/menendez-juror/my-story.  Accessed 10 February 2025.

WROBLEWSKI, SABRINA, and SARAH OWUSU. “The Menendez brothers, the media and the most controversial: the audience.” The Spectrum, 22 October 2024, https://www.ubspectrum.com/article/2024/10/the-menendez-brothers-the-media-and-the-most-controversial-the-audience.  Accessed 5 December 2024

Holden, Michael. “Experts challenge baby killings conviction of UK nurse Lucy Letby.” Reuters, 4 February 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/experts-challenge-baby-killings-conviction-uk-nurse-lucy-letby-2025-02-04/?utm.  Accessed 12 April 2025.

Adgate, Brad. “There Will Never Be Another Media Event Like Simpson’s Murder Trial.” Forbes, 12 April 2024, https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/04/12/there-will-never-be-another-media-event-like-simpsons-murder-trial/. Accessed 10 April 2025.

Knox, Amanda. “Amanda Knox Says Media Depicted Her as Man-Eating Murderer.” The Guardian, 15 June 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/15/amanda-knox-accuses-media-of-depicting-her-as-maneating-murderer. Accessed 10 April 2025.

Brown, Genevieve Hassan. “Post Office Scandal: How a TV Drama Shook up Britain in Just a Week.” BBC Culture, 12 January 2024, https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20240112-post-office-scandal-how-a-tv-drama-shook-up-britain-in-just-a-week. Accessed 11 April 2025.

Mountford Chambers. “Jurors Behaving Badly.” Mountford Chambers – London Barristers Chambers, 2023, https://www.mountfordchambers.com/jurors-behaving-badly/. Accessed 9 April 2025.

Solicitor Jailed for Making a Rightmove Search on Jury Service Suspended by the SDT for Eight Years. Law Gazette, 28 February 2024, https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/solicitor-jailed-for-jury-internet-search-suspended-for-eight-years/5118483.article. Accessed 9 April 2025.

“Contempt of Court.” GOV.UK, https://www.gov.uk/contempt-of-court. Accessed 8 April 2025.