News Releases

LOS ANGELES — Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman announced today that the District Attorney’s Office has filed a reply on the resentencing matter for Lyle and Erik Menendez in response to the opposition submitted by the Menendez brothers to the District Attorney’s Office request to withdraw its resentencing motion.

The resentencing hearing for the Menendez brothers is scheduled for April 11, 2025, in Van Nuys, with Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic presiding. 

“After a thorough and exhaustive review of over tens of thousands of pages of trial transcripts from two months-long trials, of the thousands of pages of prison records, of the hundreds of hours of videotaped trial testimony, of all relevant pleadings, exhibits and statements, as well as interviewing victim family members, defense counsel, prior prosecutors, and law enforcement and the applicable law, the District Attorney’s Office is prepared to proceed forward with the hearing on the Court’s initiation of resentencing proceedings for the Menendez brothers if the court deems it has jurisdiction, but we are requesting that the prior District Attorney’s motion for resentencing be withdrawn,” District Attorney Hochman said.

“Though the defense argues that this decision is political, such an argument is devoid of merit. The basis for this withdrawal request is that the prior DA’s motion did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes by continuing for the past over 30 years to lie about their claims of self-defense, that is, their fear that their mother and father were going to kill them the night of Aug. 20, 1989, justifying the brutal murders of their parents with shotgun blasts through the back of their father’s head, a point-blank blast through their mother’s face, and shots to their kneecaps to stage it as a Mafia killing. As a full examination of the record reveals, the Menendez brothers have never come clean over the past three decades and admitted that they lied about their self-defense as well as suborned perjury and attempted to suborn perjury by their friends for the lies, among others, of their father violently raping Lyle’s girlfriend, their mother poisoning the family, and their attempt to get a handgun the day before the murders.

“The Court must consider such lack of full insight and lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions in deciding whether the Menendez brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.

“The Court may look for guidance to the recent case of Governor Newsom’s denial of parole to Sirhan Sirhan, the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy. In that case, the parole board had recommended parole focusing on the facts that Sirhan Sirhan had spent over 50 years for the 1968 murder, was in his late 70s, was 24 at the time of the murder, came from a troubled and violent upbringing, had no prior arrests or convictions, engaged in extensive rehabilitation efforts in prison including getting educational degrees and being involved in numerous prison and community programs, received supportive letters from prison officials and victim family members, was in diminishing health, and had the lowest prison risk score. Notwithstanding these factors, Governor Newsom determined that Sirhan Sirhan posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the community because he had failed to exhibit insight and completely accept responsibility for his murder of Kennedy and reversed the grant of parole.

“Here, the Court must similarly analyze whether the Menendez brothers’ lack of full insight and lack of complete responsibility for their murders overcomes, like it did in Sirhan Sirhan’s case, the other factors justifying a resentencing like the Menendez’ length of time in prison, their age at the time of the murders, their upbringing and any sexual abuse they experienced, their extensive rehabilitation efforts in prison including getting educational degrees and involvement in community and prison programs, any supportive letters from prison officials and victim family members, their health, and the low prison risk score. The case for rehabilitation of the Menendez brothers is arguably weaker than Sirhan Sirhan’s since, unlike the Menendez brothers, Sirhan Sirhan never lied about any claims of self-defense nor suborned or attempted to suborn perjury by enlisting others to testify to a series of lies to cover up his actions.

“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.

“The People want to make clear that its request to withdraw its resentencing motion is based on the current state of the record and the Menendez brothers’ current and continual failure to show full insight and accept full responsibility for their murders. This includes their recent interview from prison where they again chose not to accept full responsibility for the lies, deceit, and perjury they have committed over the past 30 years. If they were to finally come forward and unequivocally and sincerely admit and completely accept responsibility for their lies of self-defense and the attempted suborning and suborning of perjury they engaged in, then the Court should weigh such new insight into the analysis of rehabilitation and resentencing — as will the People.

“Though this pathway to resentencing has been offered to the Menendez brothers, they have chosen to stubbornly remain hunkered down in their over 30-year-old bunker of lies, deceit, and denials.

“I want to thank the attorneys in my office — particularly Assistant Head Deputy Habib Balian and Deputy District Attorneys Seth Carmack and Ethan Milius — who dedicated countless hours to reviewing this matter with the diligence and professionalism that the people of this county expect and deserve. Their commitment to upholding the law and seeking justice has been exemplary.”

Access the reply to the resentencing response here.