Erik and Lyle Menendez’s bid for freedom with the state parole board — and ultimately with Gov. Gavin Newsom — will once again test whether nuanced views of trauma and juvenile crime help overcome the lingering notoriety of a high-profile case that holds the public’s obsession.

A judge’s decision to make the Menendez brothers’ eligible for parole by reducing their sentences to 50 years to life set up a high-stakes parole board hearing scheduled for August.

Should the parole board back their release, Newsom would have 90 days to decide whether to reject parole.

The parole bid itself is possible because the brothers were younger than age 26 when the crime occurred and have spent 35 years in lockup for life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentence.

The state board has become much more lenient when crimes occurred at a younger age, experts say, and those crimes were tied to trauma.

“We are seeing more individuals released on parole,” said Katie Tinto, a UC Irvine law professor and director of the school’s criminal-justice clinic. “That is based on more of an understanding of why people commit crimes, an understanding of trauma, of juvenile brain development and adolescent risk-taking.”

Laurie Levenson, a Loyola Law School professor, said the parole board now takes a more “holistic approach” that considers the background and rehabilitation efforts by release candidates.

“I do think over time the focus of the parole commission has been less on the crime and more on the defendants and who they are now and what responsibility they have taken,” Levenson said.

That acknowledgement of responsibility would likely carry more weight with the parole board than evidence of abuse that has dominated recent media and documentary coverage of the case, Levenson added, with an apology having “much more force than hundreds of pages of legal pleadings.”

“It may be a better story for a film,” she said of the new evidence. “But it is not the better story for going in front of the parole commission.”

A challenge for the parole board and the governor, experts say, is whether to follow those considerations when dealing with high-profile cases when the public’s view of the crime may have long-ago solidified.

Parole may not be the only potential avenue for the brothers’ release: A judge this week ordered Los Angeles prosecutors to explain why the murder convictions should not be re-examined due to new purported evidence supporting claims that their father sexually abused them. If the conviction is overturned, prosecutors would have to decide whether to attempt a new trial.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor now with a private practice based in Los Angeles who has followed the Menendez case, said it is “highly likely” the brothers will ultimately be paroled. He noted that surviving family members support the brothers.

“I can’t recall a case, ever, in my more than 20 years of doing this where all the victims support release,” Rahmani said. “That just never happens. That is what makes it unique.”

Few cases in California history have drawn as much attention as the Menendez brothers’ trial for the 1989 murder of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez in their Beverly Hills home. Prosecutors say the brothers killed their parents to gain access to a multimillion-dollar inheritance, while the defense says that they acted in self-defense following years of sexual abuse.

The tabloid vision of the brothers had them as preppy, wealthy young killers anchoring a trial that aired in its entirety on Court TV. While allegations of sexual and other abuse from their father was a key part of the trial, the public’s thoughts of sexual abuse and its impacts were far different than today’s view.

Rahmani said he believes public support has “shifted dramatically” in the brothers’ favor, particularly following the popularity of a high-profile crime drama and documentary about the case.

“It just goes to show the power of a Netflix series,” he said.

A court petition for a new trial in 2023 cited new evidence corroborating the brothers’ allegations that they suffered long-term sexual abuse at the hands of their father. The judge who agreed to resentence them referred to the work they have done in prison on behalf of fellow inmates. And the brothers themselves gave emotional testimony to the court apologizing for their actions and describing how they have tried to turn their lives around.

But prosecutors — who opposed resentencing — argued the Menendez brothers actually “haven’t found redemption (and) have no insight into their crimes.”

The brothers’ fate will likely rest on whether the parole board and perhaps the governor agree they have properly accepted responsibility.

“The thinking is, if you don’t accept responsibility you don’t understand the risk factors that led to the path of the crime,” Tinto said. “You have to imagine that recidivism is a big concern. The parole board is by nature looking at violent cases.”

Gov. Newsom hasn’t shied away from making sweeping criminal justice decisions, such as declaring a moratorium on the death penalty and shuttering death row. Meanwhile, the governor has denied parole in previous high-profile cases:

—  In 2020, Newsom blocked the release of Leslie Van Houten, who was serving a life sentence for helping the Manson followers carry out the killings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca in August 1969. The governor said she was still a risk to the public. An appellate court ultimately reversed Newsom’s decision, with the governor opting to not fight the ruling. After 50-plus years behind bars, Houten walked out in 2023.

— In 2022, Newsom rejected the release of Robert F. Kennedy assassin Sirhan Sirhan — which parole commissioners had recommended. Newsom — who has described RFK as his “political hero” — said that Sirhan, now 81, poses an unreasonable risk to public safety. The parole board later reversed its recommendation, determining that Sirhan should not be released.

— That same year Newsom reversed a parole board recommendation to release Manson follower Patricia Krenwinkel, who is serving a life prison term for the killings of Sharon Tate, Thomas Jay Sebring, Abigail Ann Folger, Wojciech Frykowski and Steven Earl Parent, as well as for the LaBianca killings. In late May, the parole board again recommended that Krenwinkel, now 77, be released. Newsom hasn’t announced his decision.

Tinto, the UCI law professor, said it is impossible to tell how much of a role, if any, the notoriety of a case plays into a decision by the parole board or the governor.

“One would hope not,” Tinto said. “It is not the individual’s fault that their case picked up media attention due to the facts of the case. …

“I think it is really important for the public to remember there are many thousands of people in prison who made horrible mistakes, horrible choices — often when they were young — and who have done a lot of work through the criminal justice system to change and grow,” she added.