Menendez Brothers’ Resentencing Bid Faces Opposition from DA Hochman
Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has filed a motion opposing the resentencing bid of Erik and Lyle Menendez, arguing that their request for freedom overlooks critical case facts and is influenced by political motives, according to their legal representatives.
Background of the Case
The Menendez brothers were convicted in 1996 for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home. Before Hochman’s tenure began in November, his predecessor, George Gascón, had sought to change the brothers’ sentences of life without parole to 50 years to life, considering their young ages—18 and 21—at the time of the crime.
Hochman’s Position and Actions
Since assuming office, Hochman has actively opposed the Menendez brothers’ request for a new trial and has initiated a motion to rescind Gascón’s resentencing request. In his filing, Hochman accused the brothers of lying about the circumstances surrounding the murders, which they attribute to years of sexual and emotional abuse. He raised concerns over the validity of their self-defense claims and pointed to their lack of “complete insight and acceptance of responsibility,” stating they pose a potential danger to society.
Defense Reactions
The defense team, led by attorneys Mark Geragos and Cliff Gardner, has characterized Hochman’s actions as politically driven rather than legally justified. They argue that the decision to withdraw the request for resentencing was influenced by a “change in political winds.” They highlight Hochman’s reassignment of two prosecutors previously involved in the Menendez case, as well as his appointment of Kathy Cady, who represented a relative opposing resentencing.
Legal and Factual Discrepancies
The defense asserts that Hochman’s motion contains significant factual inaccuracies and fails to acknowledge the brothers’ admissions of remorse over the years. They also point out that while the prosecution emphasized the alleged financial motive behind the murders, the defense has consistently maintained that the key issue was the abuse the brothers suffered at the hands of their parents.
Parole Risk Assessments and Public Safety
In his motion, Hochman claimed that Erik, now 54, and Lyle, 57, represent an unreasonable risk to the community. However, the defense counters this assertion by noting that both brothers scored the lowest possible felony risk assessment scores—zero. Additionally, the conduct cited as rule violations by Hochman was considered trivial and occurred over several decades in prison.
Comparative Cases and Public Opinion
Hochman has drawn parallels between the Menendez case and that of Sirhan Sirhan, who was denied parole for the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. However, the defense argues that the Menendez brothers have consistently accepted responsibility for their actions, in contrast to Sirhan’s changing accounts of guilt.
Current Legal Strategies
The Menendez brothers are not solely relying on resentencing; they are also pursuing a new trial based on newly uncovered evidence, including a letter detailing their abuse and allegations from a former member of the boy band Menudo about being similarly victimized by their father. Furthermore, they are seeking clemency from Governor Gavin Newsom, who has initiated a risk assessment to evaluate their potential public safety threat if released.
In conclusion, if the Menendez brothers proceed with their clemency petition, Hochman has stated that he will continue to oppose their release, highlighting the complexities and emotional weight of this long-standing legal battle.
