Menendez Brothers’ Attorney Seeks Recusal of District Attorney From Resentencing, Citing Bias

The Menendez brothers’ battle for freedom is bringing their attorneys to court in Los Angeles again for a Friday hearing as the the incarcerated duo, who have been behind bars for over 30 years after being found guilty of the shocking 1989 Beverly Hills double murder of their parents, seek to boot the L.A. District Attorney’s Office from the case entirely, citing the new D.A.’s bias and a conflict of interest.

Friday’s court hearing will be the latest in a series regarding the potential resentencing of Erik Menendez, 54, and his older brother, Lyle Menendez, 57. It comes a month after Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic refused District Attorney Nathan Hochman‘s request to toss out his predecessor George Gascón’s request that a resentencing for the brothers be considered.

The brothers were not allowed to use their “imperfect” self-defense argument in their second joint trial, or any evidence that they’d been abused sexually and emotionally by José Menendez for most of their lives. Recent compelling evidence that indicated the brothers were telling the truth about the abuse they suffered has caused a sea change in how their extended family and the public at large view the case.

Hochman, who said he spent a great deal of time poring over the case since taking office last year, is not one of those compelled by the new evidence and has stated that the brothers can not be released until they admit their motivation was greed, not self-preservation. His office’s assessment points to 16 “unacknowledged” lies that they say the brothers have told about the murders; Hochman has shown a staunch refusal to acknowledge any form of abuse was talking place in the Menendez home and like the prosecutors in their second trial, views the murders as a cold-blooded money grab from the boys from a wealthy family.

Because Hochman does not consider the new evidence in the case valid, he refuses to consider resentencing for the brothers; he believes that they have not “accepted complete responsibility for their actions.” This and other factors are why, in a recent court filing, the Menendez brothers’ attorneys wrote, “absent recusal, a conflict of interest would render it likely that the defendants will receive neither a fair hearing nor fair treatment through all related proceedings.”

Defense attorney Mark Geragos has also said a prosecutor in the case violated Marsy’s Law by showing a crime scene photo during a hearing. The shock of seeing this sent one of the Menendez brothers’ relatives to the hospital from the courthouse hearing last month. There’s also the removal, by Hochman as he overtook the L.A. D.A.’s office, of two prosecutors who worked under Gascón on the Menendez case and supported their resentencing. Both are suing D.A. Hochman after they were quickly moved out of the department where they looked at cases for potential resentencing, saying they were demoted in retaliation for their support of the Menendez resentencing bid. In addition, Hochman has hired an attorney who had represented a Menendez family member who opposed their resentencing.

Erik and Lyle Menendez are serving life prison sentences without the possibility of parole for the Aug. 20, 1989, shotgun killings of their parents, José and Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez. White their claims of abuse and threats to their lives from their parents were it to be revealed led to the killings were not admitted in their second joint trial, a letter Erik wrote to his late cousin surfaced decades later that confirmed the abuse and around the same time, a former member of the Puerto Rican boy band Menudo came forward to claim he was also abused by the Menendez patriarch, who had led RCA Records in the 1980s and signed the group to a $30 million deal.

“Erik and Lyle Menendez are entitled to a fair resentencing process,” the brothers’ attorneys wrote in their motion to see Hochman removed from the case. “José and Kitty Menendez’s family members — regardless of what position they take as to resentencing — are all entitled to a fair sentencing process. The public is entitled to a process that appears fair.”

The D.A.’s office has refuted the attorneys’ claims of bias, writing, “Other than the fact that they do not agree with, or like, the current legal position of the District Attorney’s Office, the defense has completely failed to articulate any legitimate conflict of interest which would create a likelihood that the defendants would be treated unfairly.”

The California Attorney General’s Office wrote in a filing this week that it agrees with Hochman’s office and that the moving around of the two prosecutors and hiring the attorney who worked with a relative doesn’t create a “disabling conflict of interest.”

A statement from the Menendez family-led initiative focused squarely on the D.A, stating that recusal is “about accountability and ensuring [District Attorney] Nathan Hochman’s office stops crossing ethical lines and starts respecting our rights as victims under Marsy’s Law.”

Also to be discussed Friday is the state parole boards’ assessments of the Menendez brothers vis-a-vis their clemency request. Separate hearings will be held on June 13 for the brothers, and then the reports will be sent to California Gov. Gavin Newsom for a possible clemency decision from the term-limited state leader. Newsom has signaled that he supports the brothers regaining their freedom but has been meticulous and by-the-book in moving forward the process at the state level.