By JAIMIE DING and ANDREW DALTON, Associated Press
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The resentencing of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have spent 35 years behind bars for killing their parents, will be delayed again, a judge said Thursday.
Prosecutors filed a motion late Wednesday to delay the resentencing hearings so the court can obtain one aspect of the state parole board’s comprehensive risk assessments.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom ordered the assessments in February and the brothers’ final risk assessment hearings are scheduled for June 13. Prosecutors said in their filing that one part of the risk assessment has already been completed.
The brothers’ attorney, Mark Geragos, said he will file a motion to remove District Attorney Nathan Hochman from the case.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 9, when they will discuss the motion to recuse Hochman and the admissibility of the parole board’s risk assessment report.
The brothers’ hearing has been delayed several times. The initial hearing scheduled for January was postponed due to the LA fires and prosecutors’ attempt to withdraw their sentencing request.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge on Thursday paused a resentencing hearing to determine whether Erik and Lyle Menendez deserve reduced sentences — and the chance of freedom — nearly 30 years after they were convicted of murdering their parents.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic called for a long recess in the planned two-day hearing so he and the attorneys can learn from California Gov. Gavin Newsom whether they can use his office’s newly released risk assessment report in the proceedings. Jesic warned that he would not be able to issue a decision quickly.
The brothers were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison without the possibility of parole for fatally shooting their entertainment executive father Jose Menendez and mother Kitty Menendez in their Beverly Hills home in 1989. The brothers were 18 and 21 at the time of the killings. Defense attorneys argued the brothers acted out of self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father. Prosecutors said the brothers killed their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance.
The resentencing hearing is set to center on whether the brothers have been rehabilitated in prison and deserve a lesser sentence of 50 years to life. That would make them eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law because they committed the crime when they were younger than 26.
Arguing in the courtroom
On Thursday, neither the judge nor the brothers’ attorneys had seen the governor’s report that spurred heated arguments in the packed courtroom.
“I need clarification from the governor’s office,” Jesic said. “This is stupid.”
Prosecutors, who had seen the report, argued they should be able to use it, and filed to postpone the hearing so everyone could consider it.
Menendez attorney Mark Geragos angrily denounced District Attorney Nathan Hochman for discussing the report during a morning news conference.
“What has happened here should never happen in a criminal justice system,” Geragos told the judge. He said he might file a motion to recuse the district attorney’s office.
Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian argued that the report, intended for a separate June 13 parole board hearing, was relevant and necessary.
“If there is a report out there assessing the risk of violence, how do we not use it?” Habib said.
No immediate ruling
Jesic said he was inclined to move forward because of all the relatives, witnesses and observers who had traveled here to attend the hearing.
But, he said, given the new issues, “there is no way I’m going to make a decision in the next two days to resentence.”
The governor’s office confirmed that part of the risk assessment was shared with the defense and prosecution for review 60 days before the June clemency hearing, per California law. They also notified the judge of the status of the report and offered to share it if requested, but said it was not a stand-alone risk assessment.
If the judge shortens their sentences, the brothers would still need approval from the state’s parole board to leave prison.
The brothers watched the proceedings via video from a correctional facility near San Diego, and could be seen in their blue prison garb on a screen in the courtroom. They showed no obvious reaction to the arguments.
The case has captured the public’s attention for decades, and the Netflix drama “ Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story ” and a subsequent documentary brought new attention to the case. Reporters from dozens of media outlets crowded outside the courthouse and vied for space inside the courtroom.
Family support
Geragos and attorney Bryan Freedman, who is representing Menendez relatives, also denounced prosecutors for showing gruesome crime scene photos without warning family members who were in the room for a hearing last week to determine whether the resentencing hearing would go forward.
“That’s not dignity,” Freedman said. “That’s disrespect. That’s harassment.”
Balian apologized for the lack of a warning, but added, “Erik and Lyle Menendez caused that carnage, not me.”
Geragos and Freedman also decried the DA’s office for taking over the court’s victims’ services arm, and for the lack of any contact between the office and the surviving Menendez relatives.
The extended Menendez family, with the exception of an uncle who died last month, has said they fully forgive the brothers for what they did and want them to be freed.
A resentencing petition laid out by former Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón focuses on the brothers’ accomplishments and rehabilitation. The brothers’ attorneys say their clients have worked hard over the decades to better themselves and give back to the prison community.
Prosecutors have said the brothers have not admitted to lies told during their trial about why they killed their parents, or that they asked their friends to lie for them in court. Hochman’s office has also said it does not believe that the brothers were sexually abused by their father and that by speaking about their childhood abuse, they have not taken complete responsibility for the crime.
