Menendez brothers resentencing hearing postponed. Here's why and what's next

A long-awaited resentencing hearing for Lyle and Erik Menendez ground to a halt Thursday just hours after attorneys arrived at the courthouse in Van Nuys, partly over a risk assessment report on the brothers that was was not intended for this week's court proceeding.

A motions hearing is now scheduled for May 9 after Judge Michael Jesic postponed the scheduled two-day resentencing hearing, which had already been delayed due to the January wildfires and a request by the Los Angeles County District Attorney to get up to speed on the process initiated by his predecessor.

At issue are two motions -- one to recuse the LA County District Attorney's Office from the case and another on whether a comprehensive risk assessment report on the brothers is admissible as part of the resentencing hearing. Judge Jesic said both matters need to be addressed before the resentencing hearing can move forward.

"Today was a little bit disappointing for us as a family," Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the brothers, said outside the courthouse. "There have been some delays in this process that were unforeseeable, like the wildfires, that, of course, we have great patience for. This is another delay that is not so much, but we will continue to show up as a family."

The risk assessment report ordered by Gov. Gavin Newsom was not intended for consideration at this week's hearing, but quickly took center stage in the courtroom. The confusion began Wednesday night when prosecutors said they had seen the report, which was ordered for a separate June 13 parole board hearing. Neither the judge nor the brothers' attorneys had seen the governor's report, leading the judge to call a lengthy midday recess to review the matter.

“I need clarification from the governor's office,” Jesic said. “This is stupid.”

The brothers' attorney, Mark Geragos, prosecutors and the judge returned to the courtroom in the afternoon, but the judge opted to delay the resentencing hearing until after the motions are addressed.

The brothers' attorneys claim the brothers served enough time in prison for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents in the family's Beverly Hills mansion.

The long-awaited and re-scheduled hearing followed a contentious court proceeding last week at which Los Angeles County prosecutors aggressively argued against resentencing for the brothers, who are serving life sentences without parole after two murder trials three decades ago. The judge decided to move ahead with the resentencing process, despite assertions from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office that the brothers killed Jose and Kitty Menendez for a multimillion-dollar inheritance and have not admitted to lies during their trials nor taken complete responsibility for the crime.

Defense attorneys claim the brothers acted in self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father.

The path to the the hearing, delayed by the January wildfires and a prosecution request for more time to review the case, took another twist late Wednesday with a request from the district attorney's office for a delay. The DA’s office said it was important for the court to obtain a copy of comprehensive risk assessments being completed at the behest of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The governor's office said the assessments being prepared for a hearing in June are not complete.

The matter derailed Thursday's scheduled hearing.

Prosecutors said they've seen the report, which was ordered for a separate June 13 parole board hearing. Neither the judge nor the brothers' attorneys had seen the governor's report, leading the judge to call a recess to review the matter and the eventual postponement.

Erik, 54, and Lyle, 57, Menendez were ages 18 and 21, respectively, when they were sentenced in a crime that commanded the public's attention, which was renewed with the release of the Netflix drama "Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story" and the documentary "The Menendez Brothers," released in the fall of 2024.

Sixteen tickets were given out lottery-style for a seat Thursday in the courtroom. No cameras were allowed in the courtroom.

The road to the hearing began in October when then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón asked a judge to change the brothers' sentence from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life. That would make them immediately eligible for parole because they committed the crime when they were younger than 26.

But Gascón was defeated by Nathan Hochman in the November election. After asking for time to review the case, Hochman made it clear his office would not support resentencing and withdrew his predecessor's request.

At last week's hearing, Deputy District Attorney Habib Balian said a key issue with Gascón’s resentencing petition was that it did not fully address rehabilitation and missed key elements of the original crime committed. He argued they were "hunkered down in their bunker of deceit, lies, and deception."

Balian said the killings were motivated by greed when the Menendez brothers learned they would be taken out of the will, citing psychiatrist's notes that he said showed "this was not self-defense."

During the resentencing hearing, the district attorney's office will likely revisit many of the arguments made at Friday's hearing. Arguments both for and against resentencing also are laid out in hundreds of pages of filings that have been reviewed by Jesic.

"The Menendez's have not yet been fully rehabilitated," Hochman said this week in an interview with NBCLA. "The Menendez brothers have been given numerous chances to come clean over the last 30 years and admit the full range of their criminal, and they've chosen not to."

The hearing is an opportunity for the brothers to demonstrate to a judge that they have lived a life in prison that's worthy of resentencing as outlined under California law. If the judge agrees, their sentence could be reduced to a penalty less than life without the possibility of parole before their case is considered by a parole board.

Geragos described the prosecution's presentation last week, which included the bloody crime scene photos that are the subject of a complaint by the family, as a "dog and pony show." He called the proceeding "nothing more than political cover" as a result of Hochman defeating Gascón in the district attorney’s race.

Speaking Thursday during a court recess, Geragos told reporters that the district attorney's office has "jumped the shark."

Geragos expressed frustration over Hochman's comments about the risk assessment report outside of the courthouse prior to Thursday's proceedings. Geragos said he is "very close to filing a motion to recuse the DA."

"This is another in a series of the DA's office abdicating their role," Geragos said. "They have… I will say it again, they have jumped the shark."

The DA's office addressed the motion for recusal in a statement Thursday.

“We are aware of the defense’s concerns and welcome the opportunity to address them in court,” District Attorney Hochman said. “Our office remains committed to ethical and impartial prosecution. We believe the facts will demonstrate that our conduct has been professional, appropriate, and in the interest of justice.”

Geragos argued last week the judge had full authority to proceed with resentencing under a California law passed in 2023 that allows a court to recall a sentence and initiate resentencing at any point in time. Under the law, courts can reduce penalties based on a variety of factors, including a prisoner's age and their conduct while incarcerated.

The brothers have two other paths to freedom.

They submitted a clemency plea to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who ordered the state parole board to assess whether the brothers could pose a public risk if released. The risk-assessment process is standard practice in parole cases and used to determine whether an inmate poses a threat to public safety if they were released.

The brothers also submitted a petition for habeas corpus in May 2023 asking the court to grant them a new trial in light of new evidence presented. Hochman's office also filed a motion opposing the petition.

In the court petition, attorneys for the brothers pointed to two new pieces of evidence they contend corroborate the brothers' allegations of long-term sexual abuse by their father. The evidence included a letter allegedly
written by Erik Menendez to his cousin Andy Cano in early 1989 or late 1988 and recent allegations by Roy Rosselló, a former member of the Puerto Rican boy band Menudo, that he too was sexually abused by Jose Menendez as a teenager.