A Superior Court judge will hear arguments on April 11 on the issue of whether brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez, found guilty of murdering their parents in 1989, will be granted a resentencing hearing. The hearing is in response to Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s request last month to withdraw a motion for resentencing filed by his predecessor George Gascón in October of 2024.
Attorneys Mark Geragos and Cliff Gardner submitted a reply on behalf of the brothers on April 1, asserting that the DA’s motion to withdraw should be denied. The DA, in turn, filed a “reply to the reply,” restating the argument that sufficient grounds exist to withdraw the original motion for resentencing.
Hochman took the unusual step of sending a press release on April 9 in which he reiterated the reasons why the court should grant the request to withdraw the original motion.
“The decision to resentence is profound since the Court is asked to change a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, received almost 30 years ago following first-degree murder convictions with special circumstances for the brutal slaying of their parents—a sentence that has been repeatedly upheld by five different appellate courts that have reviewed it—to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole,” said Hochman.
Gascón’s office filed the motion to resentence on Oct. 24, 2024. It made the argument that, among other factors, the brothers had been rehabilitated during their 35 years behind bars and had demonstrated “exemplary” behavior while in prison. Gascón noted that Erik had “proven himself to be an incredible asset to his prison community” and that Lyle had “established an overwhelming record of rehabilitation.”
Hochman, who defeated Gascón’s reelection bid last November, pledged to study the entire record of the case before deciding how to proceed in the matter. He eventually determined that Gascón’s filing failed to meet two essential requirements for a resentencing. Namely, it failed to provide evidence that the brothers demonstrated sufficient insight into their crime, and it improperly accounted for rules violations committed by the brothers while in custody.
After investigating these omissions Hochman argued that the brothers still pose a danger to the community.
In their April 1 reply, Gardner and Geragos argue that Hochman’s motion to withdraw should be denied because those reasons listed are either “patently meritless or were properly considered and rejected by the prior district attorney, or both.”
On the question of whether the Menendez brothers possess sufficient insight into their crime, their attorneys point to their early admission of guilt and ongoing remorse.
“Erik and Lyle … have continued to admit their role in the shooting, express remorse for the harm they caused and make extraordinary strides in education, programming and rehabilitation while in prison,” write the defense attorneys.
As to the alleged in-custody rules violations that have gone unaccounted for, Gardner and Geragos describe them as “misconduct that does not amount to a serious rule violation.”
In the recently filed “reply to the reply,” the DA argues that the defense attorneys are evading the key fact that the brothers lied in their self-defense argument and have continued to reiterate the same untruth.
Both Erik and Lyle Menendez have repeatedly stated that they feared for their lives when they killed their parents. Hochman maintains that this is a fabrication, and that their ongoing reiteration of it demonstrates an unwillingness to change and, therefore, a continued threat.
“They still falsely maintain that, on August 20, 1989, their parents were going to rush out of the family den with firearms and murder them,” the DA argues. “They still falsely claim that, due to their fear of imminent death, they had no choice but to rush in first and execute their parents with shotguns …. They continue to perpetuate the same self-defense lies that they first uttered almost 35 years ago. To recognize this fact would be to recognize that, at their core, Erik and Lyle have not changed.”
The office of the District Attorney is currently facing a lawsuit alleging that Hochman retaliated against the individuals who authored the initial motion for resentencing. In a complaint filed on April 1, Assistant District Attorneys Nancy Theberge and Brock Lunsford allege that they were demoted in response to their connection to the case.
Theberge also claims that she faced discrimination based on her age and gender.
