Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman repeated his opposition Wednesday to resentencing for Lyle and Erik Menendez, two days before a judge will consider starting proceedings that could reduce their current prison terms of life without parole.
LA County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic scheduled the Menendez brothers resentencing hearing for Friday in Van Nuys.
In a court filing Wednesday, Hochman again sought to withdraw a resentencing motion by previous District Attorney George Gascón, who Hochman defeated in the November election. The county’s new DA responded Wednesday to a court filing by Menendez defense attorneys opposing his withdrawal of Gascón’s resenting motion.
“Though the defense argues that this decision is political, such an argument is devoid of merit,” Hochman said in a statement. “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.
“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,” Hochman continued.
He asked the court to note the brothers’ “lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions” in deciding whether they would pose a risk to the public if they were paroled or released.
Hochman’s “request to withdraw (the) 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,” the DA said. “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.”
Hochman pointed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s recent denial of parole for Sirhan Sirhan, who was convicted of murdering Robert F. Kennedy in 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles.
“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,” Hochman said. “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.”
He said the judge must similarly determine “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. … 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.”
Hochman’s court filing is available for viewing online.
Prosecutors for Menendez resentencing sue Hochman
Two longtime Los Angeles County prosecutors filed a lawsuit against Hochman on Monday, alleging they were wrongfully demoted for supporting Menendez resentencing during Gascón’s tenure, according to published reports.
Deputy District Attorneys Nancy Theberge and Brock Lunsford filed separate legal complaints in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging whistleblower retaliation, discrimination, harassment, defamation, both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and violations of the state Labor Code.
The District Attorney’s Office did not respond to a request for comment.
When the Menendez resentencing motion was filed in October, then-DA Gascón was supportive. Theberge believed resentencing them was required by law and that it would be unlawful to not bring a resentencing motion, the suit states.
But when Hochman took office, he removed Theberge and Lunsford from the case, and both were demoted almost immediately, according to the suit.
Theberge, a unit leader, was transferred out of the DA’s Office and reassigned to the Alternate Public Defender’s Office, which the complaint described as a “clear punitive move.”
Lunsford, a prosecutor for 25 years, lost supervisory duties and was reassigned to a low-level calendar deputy position in a remote branch court, according to the suit.
Deputy District Attorney John Lewin was also named as a co-defendant. He allegedly accused Theberge of being dishonest in breach of her duty of candor to the court, which according to the suit was a “baseless and slanderous attack on her integrity.”
After Lunsford spoke out in Theberge’s defense and reaffirmed the legality and appropriateness of the resentencing motion, a senior official publicly ridiculed both plaintiffs, calling them a “quisling,” a term comparing someone to a Nazi collaborator, the lawsuit alleges.
Theberge received worse treatment than Lunsford, who is male, younger and remains with the DA’s Office, the suit argues.
Lunsford and Theberge seek unspecified compensatory damages and punitive damages against the individual defendants.
