Menendez Brothers Seek Disqualification of LA DA in Resentencing Battle

Menendez Brothers Seek Disqualification of LA DA in Resentencing Battle

The legal team for convicted murderers Erik and Lyle Menendez has initiated steps to disqualify Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman and his office from handling the state’s case in the brothers’ resentencing effort.

Attorney Mark Geragos, along with co-counsels, filed a motion on Friday which points to a significant conflict of interest as the basis for their request. This motion is currently under consideration by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic, who oversees the relevant proceedings.

Both brothers are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole for murdering their parents in 1989, and they are actively pursuing a reduction in these sentences.

The next hearing in this case is set for May 9.

The motion, detailed in their filing, references the constitutions of the United States and California, as well as California Penal Code 1424. It argues that the existing conflict of interest could compromise the fairness of the hearings and treatment of the brothers throughout the legal process.

If the court denies this motion, Geragos plans to request an evidentiary hearing. This hearing would aim to substantiate the alleged conflict by bringing Hochman and other involved parties into court to testify.

Basis of the Legal Challenge

At the core of the motion is the recent hiring of an attorney by Hochman to work within his office.

Last year, former District Attorney George Gascon indicated he was considering a motion for resentencing the Menendez brothers. Following this announcement, over 20 relatives advocating for the resentencing convened with deputy district attorneys Nancy Theberge and Brock Lunsford.

Conversely, Milton Andersen, the only family member opposing the resentencing, did not attend this meeting. Instead, he submitted an amicus brief through attorney Kathleen Cady, expressing his dissent against any change in sentencing.

Changes in DA’s Office

After Hochman’s victory over Gascon in the November elections, he began restructuring his office, reportedly including staff members who are opposed to the brothers’ resentencing. According to the motion, Hochman reassigned Theberge and Lunsford—viewed as sympathetic to the Menendez brothers—to different roles.

Additionally, Hochman hired Cady to lead the district attorney’s Office of Victims’ Services, despite recognizing the conflict of interest given her previous representation of Andersen against the resentencing.

Conflict of Interest Allegations

The document submitted by the Menendez brothers’ legal team alleges that Cady’s conflict extends beyond the courtroom. Geragos disclosed that Cady serves as a board member for a group known as Justice For Murdered Children which recently hosted a rally headlined by Hochman, during which the organization publicly denounced the brothers’ attempt to obtain a reduced sentence.

Furthermore, the filing claims that Cady has failed to properly engage with Menendez family members in her capacity within the Victims’ Services office. This neglect purportedly includes failing to inform family members about potentially distressing imagery from the murder scene that would be shown during an April 11 hearing related to the resentencing.

A Complicated Legal and Emotional History

Erik and Lyle Menendez have been incarcerated for 35 years following their conviction for the murders of their mother, Mary “Kitty” Menendez, and their father, Jose Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home. The brothers claimed that extensive sexual abuse from their father motivated their actions.

Their initial trial in 1994 resulted in a mistrial, while a subsequent trial in 1996 led to their convictions and the severe sentences they currently serve. The brothers’ legal journey continues to evolve as they strive for a chance at resentencing.

The Path Forward

The outcome of this legal challenge will significantly impact the future of Erik and Lyle Menendez. Their battle for re-examination is not solely about legal consequences; it encompasses their personal story of trauma and the enduring consequences of their family’s past.

As the court prepares to address the motion for disqualification, both legal teams brace for what promises to be a pivotal moment in this high-profile case.