Menendez brothers' lawyers say DA is playing politics with their case

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s opposition to the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez is motivated by political self-interest not legal reasoning as case law requires, the brothers’ attorneys argued in a new court filing Tuesday.

The brothers were convicted in the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home. They were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The case has attracted renewed international attention following the release of two documentaries and a drama based on the murders.

In October, shortly before the election, former District Attorney George Gascón recommended the brothers be resentenced under a California law that allows resentencing if it's “in the interest of justice.” Resentencing would make them eligible for parole.

“I believe that they have paid their debt to society,” Gascón said.

Hochman defeated Gascón in the November election and withdrew that recommendation last month.

Hochman charts a new course

In their court filing, the Menendez brothers' attorneys note Hochman — within days of being sworn in — fired one of the lawyers Gascón had assigned to work on the case and transferred another. Hochman replaced them with attorneys who would eventually recommend against resentencing.

The district attorney also appointed the lawyer representing the lone Menendez family member who opposes the brother’s release to a high-level position in the office.

This happened before Hochman began his review of the case.

“Were these decisions based on proper ‘legitimate reasons’ or simply a change in the political winds?” the brothers' attorneys, Mark Geragos and Cliff Gardner, wrote.

In moving to withdraw Gascón’s resentencing motion, Hochman argued two things: first, that the motion failed to consider whether Erik and Lyle had “complete insight and acceptance of responsibility” into the crime; and second, that it missed significant in-custody rule violations by the brothers while in prison.

Comparison to Sirhan Sirhan case

Hochman has repeatedly compared the brothers' case to that of Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in L.A. in 1968. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom rescinded Sirhan’s grant of parole, saying he lacked insight into his crime.

Sirhan proclaimed his innocence as recently as 2021.

Attorneys for Lyle and Erik Menendez pointed out the brothers have long admitted they murdered their parents and therefore the analogy to Sirhan is wrong.

“From the day they were convicted, and as they matured in prison over the many years since trial, in court filings and public interviews, they have both taken responsibility for the shooting and expressed deep remorse,” the lawyers wrote in their court filing.

Hochman has pointed out that the brothers initially lied about what happened, but the brothers’ attorneys wrote “the case law makes clear that this conduct is of relatively little relevance to the question of current dangerousness.”

They also write the brothers' initial denials “have been eclipsed by extraordinary rehabilitation efforts.”

“The motion to withdraw contains serious factual and legal errors,” the attorneys wrote.

The brothers’ prison violations

The prison violations omitted from Gascón’s resentencing motion involved conduct the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation chose not to punish, the attorneys wrote, or involved “such utterly innocuous conduct as speaking too long on the telephone more than two decades ago, improperly trying to get a new pair of sneakers 15 years ago or possession of a typewriter and stationary 27 years ago.”

These are “minor incidents that are not only decades old but which quite literally have nothing to do with public safety,” they wrote.

The court filing also notes 30 family members of the Menendez brothers, including Jose Menendez's sister, support their release.

Sexual abuse

The attorneys also dispute Hochman’s assertion that the case is not about sexual abuse.

Hochman has said the jury was “never asked to render a verdict on sexual abuse.”

But the attorneys point to statements by both the prosecution and the defense at the time of both trials that the case was very much about the alleged sexual abuse of Erik and Lyle Menendez by their father.

Erik Menendez’s counsel argued in closing arguments that Jose Menendez molested Erik “from the time he was six until the time he was 18,” and that the sexual abuse was “why you cannot convict my client of murder,” according to the court filing. Instead, the lawyer argued for a conviction on lesser manslaughter charges.

Lyle Menendez’s counsel argued Lyle was also molested. The defense attorney argued the murders were a form of self-defense after years of abuse.

Prosecutors at the time said the motivation was greed — that the Menendez brothers were set to collect a multi-million dollar inheritance.

But the prosecutors also acknowledged sexual abuse was a centerpiece of the case.

“The allegations in this case are premised upon ... sexual abuse,” the trial prosecutor stated, according to the court filing. Although he disagreed that the abuse occurred, he said “sexual abuse was what this case was all about.”

Hochman, in contrast, has not only cast doubt on the abuse allegations but also said they are irrelevant to the question of whether the brothers should be resentenced.

What’s next?

Later this month, a judge will consider resentencing the brothers to life in prison. That would make them eligible for parole and early release.

Erik was 18 and Lyle was 21 at the time of the murders. They are now 54 and 57 respectively.

Hochman has also opposed their efforts to get a new trial.

Meantime, Newsom is considering whether to grant the two clemency.