True Crime, False Narratives: The Menendez Brothers and “Monsters”

Written by Priya Setty.

Netflix’s dramatization of the Menendez brothers case raises serious questions about how the law fails to protect public figures from damaging misrepresentations in true crime media.

In 2024, Netflix released an original series titled Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story, dramatizing the infamous Menendez brothers murder case. Lyle and Erik Menendez were convicted in 1996 for murdering their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, in 1989. They have spent nearly 30 years in prison with no chance of parole. With various theories surrounding the murders, Ryan Murphy, the creator of Monsters, attempted to weave many of them into his dramatic retelling of the crime.

The Menendez brothers’ defense rested on the claim that they killed their parents due to years of sexual and emotional abuse. The release of Monsters has reignited public discourse, leading some to reconsider this defense. This resurfaced attention on their case has led to some benefits for the brothers, including the emergence of new evidence and the opportunity to pursue a legal process for resentencing.

At the same time, however, the show has received backlash, including from the brothers and their family, for incorporating misleading theories and falsehoods that portray the brothers in a negative light. One of the most controversial elements is the suggestion of an incestuous relationship between Erik and Lyle Menendez.

This is certainly not the first time a true crime docudrama has depicted someone’s life in a way the subject believes to be inaccurate. Many true crime movies and TV shows tend to exaggerate or dramatize the personal lives of the convicted. But did Ryan Murphy go too far? Are there legal limitations preventing Netflix and other creators from misrepresenting convicted people for profit?

Though the Menendez brothers are angered by the falsification of their personal lives and traumatic experiences, from a legal standpoint, they would have difficulty protecting their name. Their strongest argument is most likely that Murphy’s work was defamatory. No evidence exists of an incestuous relationship between the brothers, nor did any journalist at their trial ever suggest such a claim. Still, while they could potentially prove this to be a false statement of fact, major obstacles lie in the standard that they would have to meet to prove defamation.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) established that public figures suing for defamation must prove the defendant acted with actual malice—meaning they knowingly spread falsehoods or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. 

The media itself plays a significant role in deciding who becomes a public figure. Certain criminal defendants, like Ted Bundy and Amanda Knox, are elevated to public figure status because of the heightened media attention they receive, while others are ignored. Once the media turns a person into a public figure, that person loses the ability to control how they are represented—even outside of their criminal case.

Courts recognize two types of public figures: general-purpose figures and limited-purpose figures. General-purpose public figures are well-known to the public in all contexts, such as celebrities. Limited-purpose public figures (LPFFs) are well-known within a particular issue, and are known because of the figure’s voluntary participation in a public controversy. Considering that the Menendez brothers gained attention within the context of their highly publicized trial and received media coverage specifically for this controversy, they are likely considered LPFFs. If they are considered LPFFs, they will have to meet the high bar of the actual malice standard set by Sullivan, which may pose a substantial obstacle to their defamation claim.

Additionally, courts have generally dismissed lawsuits against dramatized portrayals of public figures, like they did in Haynes v. Knopf (1993) and Porco v. Lifetime (2021). Courts tend to protect fictionalized interpretations of real events even when they are negative, making it unlikely that the Menendez brothers could successfully sue for defamation. However, in Porco, where a similarly situated defendant sued Lifetime over a film depicting his crimes of murdering his father and attempting to murder his mother, the court acknowledged that the offensive nature of the dramatization could factor into the analysis—though it ultimately avoided engaging with that issue directly. Given the suggestion of incest in Monsters, a particularly damaging and stigmatizing narrative, a court might be more willing to find that the portrayal crosses a line, potentially tipping the analysis in favor of a defamation claim.

Another legal avenue blocked for the Menendez brothers is a right of publicity claim. Generally, California law prevents individuals, including convicted criminals, from having their likeness used for commercial purposes without consent. However, because the brothers are now widely recognized public figures, their story could be considered a historical event, falling under the public interest exception derived from the First Amendment. Just as the court in Haynes found the public interest to outweigh the defendant’s right to publicity or privacy, the brothers may face a similar ruling. This carve-out allows media creators to portray real-life figures without permission as long as the work is expressive rather than purely commercial.

It seems that media creators and producers can easily evade legal consequences when taking creative liberties in their portrayal of public figures. Particularly in the true crime genre, media companies exploit convicted individuals by overdramatizing their stories for commercial gain while those individuals, some of whom are in prison, have little ability to challenge these portrayals or set the record straight. Furthermore, creators can release media depicting individuals without consent or consultation, increasing the potential for misrepresentation. This creates a cycle in which media companies spread inaccuracies, and the people affected by them are powerless to fight back. 

As of now, the Menendez brothers’ legal future remains uncertain. While Monsters played a significant role in reviving interest in their case and pushing for a new hearing, gaps in the law leave room for creators like Ryan Murphy and Netflix to capitalize on real lives, regardless of the accuracy of their portrayals. The brothers have little legal recourse to challenge the show, and as a result, must deal with the negative impact on their reputation and possibly their chances at resentencing.

The controversy serves as a compelling case study on how little protection the law provides to individuals who, through no choice of their own, have become public figures due to the tragedies and controversies in their lives.