Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced Monday that he is asking the court to withdraw the motion for resentencing previously filed by the former district attorney for Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were convicted of murdering their parents in 1989. Hochman’s decision comes as the brothers continue to seek a reduction in their life sentences, which were handed down after they were convicted for the shotgun killings of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez.
During a press conference, Hochman sharply criticized the Menendez brothers’ claims of self-defense, describing them as part of a long list of “lies” that he believes should preclude the brothers from receiving a new sentence. “Our position is that they shouldn’t get out of jail,” Hochman said. “We bring that position to the court. The court can agree with it, the court can disagree with it or modify it in some respect.”
The hearing for the Menendez brothers’ resentencing is scheduled for March 20 and 21, marking another pivotal moment in a case that has captivated the public for more than three decades. The brothers, who were convicted for the murders of their parents, are currently serving life sentences without the possibility of parole.
The DA’s Position on Resentencing
Hochman, who was elected in December 2024, reviewed the details of the case and indicated that the brothers’ refusal to take full responsibility for their crimes remains a significant barrier to any potential resentencing. He said his office is “prepared to go forward” with the hearing, emphasizing that the brothers’ continued insistence on self-defense as their motive for the killings undermines any claims of rehabilitation.
“The brothers persist in telling these lies for the last over 30 years about their self-defense defense and persist in insisting that they did not suborn any perjury or attempt to suborn perjury,” Hochman stated. “They do not meet the standards for resentencing. They do not meet the standards for rehabilitation.”
Hochman outlined that if the Menendez brothers were to fully and sincerely accept responsibility for their crimes and acknowledge that their self-defense claim was false, the court might reconsider their status for resentencing in the future. “If the Menendez brothers, at some point, unequivocally, sincerely and fully accept complete responsibility for all their criminal actions, acknowledge that the self-defense defense was phony, and their parents weren’t going to kill them… in the future, the court can weigh these new insights into making a determination as to whether they now qualify for rehabilitation and resentencing,” Hochman added.
The Menendez Brothers’ Case: A History of Claims and Denials
The Menendez brothers gained national attention after they were convicted in 1996 for the 1989 murders of their parents in Beverly Hills. At trial, the brothers claimed that they shot their parents in self-defense, alleging years of sexual abuse and claiming that they feared for their lives. This defense, however, was met with skepticism by prosecutors, who argued that the killings were premeditated.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hochman pointed to evidence suggesting that the murders were planned. He referenced the brothers purchasing shotguns with fake IDs in San Diego days before the killings, as well as their efforts to create an alibi by going to a movie theater after the murders. He also claimed that after killing their parents, the brothers shot them again in the kneecaps to try to make the murders appear as though they were part of a gang-related incident.
“The brothers also had the presence of mind to pick up all the shotgun shells to try to hide their fingerprints, and then they ditched their bloody clothes and the weapons,” Hochman said.
The Menendez brothers initially tried to convince the police, their family, and the public that they were innocent, even suggesting that the murders might have been linked to mafia activity. It wasn’t until Erik Menendez confessed to his therapist that the truth about their involvement emerged. Hochman pointed out that the brothers’ defense evolved over time, including the addition of claims about sexual abuse at the hands of their father. These later claims, Hochman argued, were part of a series of fabrications meant to protect the brothers and distance themselves from responsibility for the murders.
“The next iteration of the story was when Lyle Menendez allegedly asked his girlfriend to claim Jose Menendez drugged and raped her,” Hochman said. “The brothers later said Erik Menendez was raped by their father and Lyle Menendez was raped by their mother.”
However, according to Hochman, the self-defense claim was never mentioned in Erik’s confession to his therapist. Instead, Erik said his father was a controlling figure, and that his mother had to die because she would have been a witness to the crime. He further claimed that his mother was “miserable” due to his father’s affair.
The Menendez Brothers’ Lies and Their Legacy
Hochman was particularly critical of what he described as the brothers’ “lies,” highlighting that the brothers testified at trial that they believed their parents were going to kill them, but expert testimony contradicted this claim. According to Hochman, expert testimony demonstrated that the parents were seated on the couch or wounded when shot, challenging the brothers’ account of a self-defense situation in which they allegedly feared for their lives.
ADVERTISEMENT
Hochman said that the brothers’ testimony about the night of the murders, particularly their claims that they were unable to see their parents clearly because it was too dark, was fabricated. He also argued that the claim that the parents were threatening them during a family fishing trip, just one day before the murders, was another lie.
After Hochman’s press conference, Lyle Menendez responded on Facebook, arguing that several of the alleged “lies” cited by Hochman had been either admitted or disproven during the original trial. Menendez also suggested that the DA was ignoring the brothers’ history of abuse, which the family says led to the killings.
The Family’s Response
Family members advocating for the brothers’ release have expressed frustration with Hochman’s stance. In a statement, they accused the DA of disregarding the abuse the Menendez brothers endured and insisted that the brothers have atoned for their actions. “Erik and Lyle are not the same young boys they were more than 30 years ago,” the family said. “They have apologized for their actions, which were the result of Jose’s sexual abuse and Kitty’s enablement. They have apologized for the horrific actions they took. They have apologized to us.”
The family also condemned Hochman for what they perceived as an outright dismissal of the brothers’ abuse claims. They argued that his stance sends a harmful message to abuse survivors, particularly boys who may fear coming forward with their stories.
Future Legal Paths for the Menendez Brothers
In addition to the resentencing hearing, the Menendez brothers are pursuing other legal avenues to secure their release. They have filed a habeas corpus petition, requesting a review of new evidence that was not presented during their trial. This evidence includes a letter from Erik Menendez to his cousin, written months before the murders, which allegedly details the abuse he endured at the hands of his father. The brothers are also citing the testimony of a former boy band member who has accused Jose Menendez of sexual abuse.
Hochman has already opposed the habeas petition, asserting that the new evidence is neither credible nor admissible. Meanwhile, the brothers’ clemency petition remains under review by California Governor Gavin Newsom. On February 26, Newsom announced that the state parole board would conduct a 90-day comprehensive risk assessment to determine whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if they are granted clemency.
Hochman pointed to the recent case of Sirhan Sirhan, the man convicted of assassinating Senator Robert F. Kennedy, as a precedent for how the court should approach the Menendez brothers’ resentencing. In Sirhan’s case, despite his decades of rehabilitation efforts, Governor Newsom denied parole because Sirhan failed to show full insight and responsibility for his actions.
Hochman argued that the Menendez brothers must demonstrate similar accountability before their case can be reconsidered for resentencing. He added that the court should carefully analyze various factors, including the brothers’ rehabilitation in prison, their age at the time of the murders, their history of abuse, and their low risk of recidivism.
As the March 20 and 21 resentencing hearing approaches, the Menendez brothers’ quest for freedom remains contentious. With both sides of the case entrenched in their positions, the court’s decision will ultimately determine whether the brothers will receive a new sentence, potentially giving them the chance for parole after serving over 30 years in prison. Meanwhile, the brothers continue to pursue clemency and other legal options, hoping for a chance at redemption and a second chance at life outside of prison.
