Menendez Brothers Case Analysis

The 6th amendment states that “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” (“Bill of Rights.” Bill of Rights Institute”). Although the criminal justice system still follows the fundamentals of the sixth amendment, with the advancement of technology the difficulty to supply a trial without a biased jury is increasing. Due to the high media exposure, the public is able to form a preconceived verdict controlled by the press. Despite the belief that all defendants are said to be “innocent until proven guilty” the influence of the media leads the public to counteract the set principles of the criminal justice system.

In one of the most publicized trials, the idea of the
On August 20th, 1989, Erik and Lyle shot and murdered their parents, Jose and Mary Louise. During the 9-1-1 call, the duo stated multiple times that they did not know who killed their parents. Lyle cried to the dispatcher, “'Somebody killed my parents” (Hyatt, Peter. “Statement Analysis ®.” Transcript of 911 Call in Melendez Murder, 1 Jan). Erik and Lyle never planned to confess, instead they created strong albis and attempted to plant the fault on the Mafia. The media caught interest from the beginning for the reasons that Jose was well known, but also because murder in Calabasas seldom happened. Eventually, the brothers were considered suspects. The media reported on the abnormal luxuries Erik and Lyle were purchasing. As well as releasing that the men inherited 14.5 million dollars. The case became controversial when Erik and Lyle admitted to being sexually abused by their father, therefore being able to use the self-defense plea. The media aided the prosecution by painting them as money hungry, affluenza gone wrong and liars. This case also sparked the debate if males could be sexually assaulted, which most people believed that it was not possible. Most of the country believed that Erik and Lyle never experienced abused and wanted to see them in prison or executed. It did not help that the trial was televised on live
When 8 months pregnant Laci Peterson was reported missing, many speculated that Scott was the person behind the crime, especially after her body was discovered. The onset tone for coverage was often against Scott Peterson. Although the art of journalism calls for journalist “to develop a consistent method of testing information – a transparent approach to evidence – precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work” (“The Lost Meaning of 'Objectivity'.” American Press Institute), many journalists embellished details to make Scott look responsible for the disappearance of his wife. The media even aided for Scott’s mistress to come forward to implicate Scott. The dramatization was used to developed a soap-opera feel. Many publications used the drama to boost ratings and views because the media knew that people followed the case not for justice but for entertainment purposes. The country followed the prosecution by the media. The jury was not able to be equitable because there was no room for one to form their own opinion after all the