Menendez brothers could get freedom under California law signed by Gavin Newsom: expert
As the fate of the Menendez brothers is paused for another month, a legal analyst and trial lawyer says the fact that their freedom is even a discussion is thanks to a new law signed in by Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Roger Bonakdar, a California-based attorney, shared with Fox News Digital that after nearly 35 years behind bars, Erik and Lyle Menendez were given new hope to leave prison behind thanks to former Los Angeles County George Gascon and the passing of AB 600.
The law allows individuals who remain incarcerated under sentences that were imposed when harsher, less flexible laws were in effect, to petition for a review of their sentences, so they can benefit from more recent legislative reforms that focus on rehabilitation, according to the law's text.
"What's happening is that the prior DA Gascon, infamous for certain policies and practices that he instituted in LA County which many credit with the explosion of violent crime and theft in LA, had filed a motion with the court to have the Menendez brothers re-sentenced," Bonakdar explained.
Menendez Brothers Case: What's Next For Killers After Defense, Da Spar Over Resentencing
Bonakdar said that Gascon's argument was that the Menendez brothers are "allegedly no longer a threat to the community and that they've served their debt to society," because of their ages at the time of their conviction and sentence.
Read On The Fox News App
"Gascon also apparently made a point of their defense, which didn't fly at trial, about their alleged sexual abuse at the hands of their now-murdered father. So, what's happening now is that the current DA has sought leave of court to withdraw or to take back Gascon's motion because he doesn't believe that the Menendez brothers are worthy or deserving of re-sentencing, and that's what's before the court."
Bonakdar said what makes this hearing even more interesting is that the judge's powers are "pretty broad" and he can "re-sentence them based on an offense that they weren't convicted of."
"The judge can even sentence them according to what is called a lesser included offense. That means an offense that acts are part of, or otherwise included in, the charge they went to trial on, which could include second-degree murder, even voluntary manslaughter, arguably under the statute. I would imagine the judge would be hard-pressed to go that far. But the powers that are given to a judge under the new statute are pretty sweeping. His discretion is very broad."
The Menendez brothers and their supporters have been pushing for a resentencing hearing, saying the brothers were unfairly convicted to life in prison in 1996 for murdering their two parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home in 1989.
Menendez Brothers Attorney's Focus On Grisly Photos Part Of Strategic Defense Play To Free Killers: Experts
Their first trial ended in a mistrial, when jurors couldn't agree on their fate. After a second trial in the mid-1990s, in which some of their evidence about the alleged sexual abuse was excluded, jurors agreed with prosecutors that their motive was greed.
If the judge decides to resentence the Menendez brothers, it will then be up to the state parole board to consider their release.
Because they were under 26 years old at the time of the murders, under current California law, new sentences of 50 years to life would immediately make them eligible for a parole hearing.
"If this goes fully their way, they could be granted parole and be released. Their sentence could be commuted," Bonakdar said. "And the reason for that is there have been certain changes in California law which allow certain offenders, if they were young enough at the time they were convicted to seek re-sentencing under these compassionate release rules that say that, for example, if you were under the age of 26 at the the time of the commission, or if you had certain other mitigating circumstances, you're eligible to apply to the court for relief."
Bonakdar added that what's unique here is that Gascon affirmatively filed for the relief, and that the judge rejected current DA Nathan Hochman's attempt to pull back Gascon's motion.
Menendez Brothers' Aunt Hospitalized After Da Shares Graphic Photos In Court: 'There Was No Warning'
"This is pretty important because under the new law, it says that where the government, where the prosecutor moves for the release, it actually entitles the defendant, the convict, to the benefit of a presumption, meaning that the person who's seeking the reduction of sentence starts off with a presumptive that they are eligible or that they should be granted parole. So that's something that's pretty unique and is not clear from what the judge ruled when rejecting Hochman's request to withdraw that initial motion," Bonakdar said.
What also sets this whole hearing and saga apart from others is that the Menendez brothers "definitely have a leg up over your average criminal defendant," Bonakdar said.
Follow The Fox True Crime Team On X
"First of all, obviously they had resources going into this. They had hired top flight lawyers. They threw everything in the kitchen sink at this trial," Bonakdar said about their trials in the '90s. "They went the distance and even testified in their criminal trials. So it's not surprising that a defendant who had that level of resources and put in that level of effort might be seeking relief now."
Bonakdar said that the biggest thing, though, is that Gascon affirmatively filed the motion.
"There is the argument that these defendants could have sought the clemency otherwise or filed a motion based on the change in the statute. The fact that Gascon, the former district attorney, filed this independently and affirmatively on behalf of these defendants really gives them a leg up going into the hearing. Most other defendants won't have that benefit," Bonakdar explained.
SIGN UP TO GET True Crime Newsletter
Hochman has strongly opposed the resentencing, put in motion by Gascon, but said he would consider it if both brothers "sincerely and unequivocally admit, for the first time in over 30 years, the full range of their criminal activity and all the lies that they have told about it."
He said in a previous statement that the brothers "have chosen to stubbornly remain hunkered down in their over 30-year-old bunker of lies, deceit, and denials," and that it's up to the court to factor in whether the "lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions" is enough to decide whether the Menendez brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.
Bonakdar said, in his opinion and viewpoint, that there are "aggravating factors out there that the judge could consider and probably should" before making his decision in May.
"Premeditated murder is an extremely serious and obviously by its nature, violent offense. And particularly, if you've got the mental ability to process the idea of murdering both your parents in cold blood, that's a grave public safety concern," Bonakdar said. "The arguments on the other side are that at some point, time does heal wounds and that people can be rehabilitated and everyone is worthy of redemption. This is the argument that will be made on behalf of the Menendez brothers. While that may be true in some instances, I guess that remains to be seen for the Menéndez boys."
Watch On Fox Nation: Menendez Brothers: Victims Or Villains?
One of the roadblocks holding up the hearing stemmed from the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) report, which was a psychological exam ordered by Newsom's office and has become the biggest hurdle for the defense to overcome.
The brothers' attorney, Mark Geragos, filed a recusal motion against Hochman following Judge Michael Jesic's decision to reschedule their hearings until May. A recusal motion requests that the individual steps away from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or bias that prevents them from operating impartially.
GO HERE FOR REAL-TIME UPDATES FROM THE Fox True Crime Hub
There was also an accusation of a Marsy's Law violation, which protects victims' families, that took place when prosecutors showed graphic crime scene photos of the murder, that led to the hospitalization of an elderly aunt of the brothers, and something that family members claimed that they had never seen in 35 years.
Hochman's office said prosecutors did not intend to "cause distress or pain" to those in attendance at the hearing.
"To the extent that the photographic depiction of this conduct upset any of the Menendez family members present in court, we apologize for not giving prior warning that the conduct would be described in detail not only in words but also through a crime scene photo," Hochman's office wrote in a previous statement shared with Fox News Digital.
The judge declined the Menendez team's request for the DA to be admonished for showing the crime photos, but asked both sides to provide warning.
"It is extremely rare…where you have victims also supporting the defendants," Jesic said. "I didn't even think about it when the picture went up."
"It was a gruesome murder," he continued. "If anyone is uncomfortable, maybe they shouldn't be here."
Lyle and Erik Menendez will be back in court on May 9 as the decision of whether they will be released hangs in the balance.
They are already scheduled to appear before the parole board on June 13 as part of the CRA report ordered by Newsom, who is considering the brothers' clemency request – a separate potential path out of prison.
Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's office for comment.
Fox News Digital's Sarah Rumpf-Whitten and Michael Ruiz contributed to this report. Original article source: Menendez brothers could get freedom under California law signed by Gavin Newsom: expert

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Washington Post
28 minutes ago
- Washington Post
National Guard troops have temporarily detained civilians in LA protests, commander says
WASHINGTON — National Guard troops already have temporarily detained civilians in the Los Angeles protests over immigration raids , the commander in charge said Wednesday, but they quickly turned them over to law enforcement. Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, speaking in an interview with The Associated Press and one other media outlet, also said about 500 of the National Guard troops have been trained so far to accompany agents on immigration operations . Photos of Guard soldiers providing security for the agents have already been circulated by immigration officials.


Fox News
31 minutes ago
- Fox News
Kim Kardashian says immigrants in LA suffering 'fear and injustice' thanks to Trump immigration plan
Despite working with President Donald Trump on issues in the past, Kim Kardashian indicated on Friday she does not support his administration's immigration policy. In a recent Instagram post, the reality TV star condemned operations conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), calling them "inhumane." "When we're told that ICE exists to keep our country safe and remove violent criminals — great. But when we witness innocent, hardworking people being ripped from their families in inhumane ways, we have to speak up. We have to do what's right," she stated in an Instagram story Friday. The Los Angeles native shared the post as her hometown continues to be shaken by violent anti-ICE riots that started last week in response to the federal law enforcement agency detaining illegal immigrants. DHS said ICE raids in L.A. over the weekend resulted in "hundreds of illegal aliens [being] arrested by ICE officers and agents," including "many with a criminal history and criminal convictions." Protests and clashes outside multiple locations in downtown L.A. have grown so chaotic that Trump ordered National Guard troops into the city, followed by several hundred U.S. Marines, to restore order. Some California officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, have accused the administration of exacerbating the situation. Despite the attacks on cops and other law enforcement officials by rioters, Kardashian argued in her post that immigrants are dealing with "fear and injustice" at the hands of the federal government. She added, "Growing up in LA, I've seen how deeply immigrants are woven into the fabric of this city. They are our neighbors, friends, classmates, coworkers, and family. No matter where you fall politically, it's clear that our communities thrive because of the contributions of immigrants. We can't turn a blind eye when fear and injustice keep people from living their lives freely and safely." "There HAS to be a BETTER way," Kardashian declared, concluding her post. The celebrity followed that post by sharing a video of pop star Doechii bashing Trump and ICE while accepting the of best female hip hop artist award at the BET Awards on Monday night. During her acceptance speech, the musician stated, "There are ruthless attacks that are creating fear and chaos in our communities in the name of law and order," she said. "Trump is using military forces to stop a protest, and I want y'all to consider what kind of government it appears to be when every time we exercise our democratic right to protest, the military is deployed against us." Despite Kardashian's harsh stance on Trump's immigration agenda, she has had a constructive relationship with him in the past. In 2019, she appeared at the White House alongside Trump to promote his criminal justice reform policies, calling them "magic." By that point, Kardashian had been at the White House several times to discuss criminal justice reform issues and successfully lobbied President Trump to pardon Alice Marie Johnson, who was serving life without parole for drug offenses. The White House did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.


CBS News
33 minutes ago
- CBS News
Former defense secretary's concern about National Guard in L.A. is "loss of life like we saw in 1970"
As President Trump warned Tuesday that the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Los Angeles is just the start of what he'd do to quell protests against immigration operations, a former defense secretary cautioned about the risk of potentially deadly consequences. In an interview with CBS News' Ed O'Keefe, Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Army veteran who served as defense secretary in the Obama administration, said his greatest concern about having troops deployed in large American cities like L.A. would be "loss of life like we saw in 1970." On May 4, 1970, after days of nationwide protests over the U.S. invasion of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, students demonstrating at Kent State University clashed with Ohio National Guardsmen. Soldiers opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine others. "When the National Guard opened up on students and killed students, partly because they weren't trained, they panicked," Hagel said. The Ohio National Guard troops were called in by Republican Gov. Jim Rhodes against the advice of university and many local officials, according to Brian VanDeMark, a U.S. Naval Academy history professor. While it's unclear exactly why the troops fired into a group of unarmed students, some testified during the investigation that they felt that their lives were in danger. Instead of leading to a decrease in protests around the country, they escalated further. Many colleges and universities shut down their campuses for fear of similar violence. Now, more protests against immigration arrests have popped up across the country, including in Washington, D.C., New York City, Boston, Seattle and Chicago. The National Guard's training has improved significantly in the decades since Kent State, but they are "still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds," VanDeMark wrote for The Conversation, a nonprofit that publishes articles written by academic experts. When asked Tuesday about the conditions for National Guard troops at a House subcommittee hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said troops in the field are "very well prepared" and "responded incredibly rapidly to a deteriorating situation, with equipment and capabilities." But Hagel called the decision to deploy the National Guard and Marines a "grotesque overreach of federal authority" and said it's "clearly politicizing our military." "This is really authoritarian," he said. "You normally — our system works where you have state responsibility, where the governor has responsibility, the mayor has responsibility. We put an emphasis on local control in this country, this issue in Los Angeles is a law enforcement issue. It's an immigration issue. It's not a National Guard or active-duty Marine issue. It's not for our armed forces. We don't use our armed forces against our own citizens, especially you don't use the National Guard." The National Guard is typically called on by the state governors to respond to major incidents or natural disasters. While it's a rare occurrence, presidents have the authority to federalize the National Guard. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy thousands of National Guard troops to L.A. following unrest that broke out after a jury acquitted police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. But he was acting at the request of state officials. The rare instances in which a president called in troops without the governor's cooperation included situations in the 1960s when Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson federalized National Guard troops in order to protect civil rights demonstrators and students desegregating schools. Hagel said it's not the role of the troops to conduct law enforcement activities in the U.S. "They're not trained for law enforcement, he said. "They're not trained for riot in mob control." Defense personnel are generally prohibited from direct law enforcement activities, including arrests of civilians, but they may detain individuals temporarily to protect federal property or personnel under "exigent circumstances." "These people are agitators. They're troublemakers," Mr. Trump said of the protests Tuesday. "And if we didn't get involved, Los Angeles would be burning down right now." California officials, including L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom, have also strongly objected to Mr. Trump sending in the National Guard and Marines. The state is suing the Trump administration, arguing the deployment of troops is unlawful and asking a federal court to block them from coming onto city streets. The Justice Department responded in a filing Wednesday, "There is no rioters' veto to enforcement of federal law. And the President has every right under the Constitution and by statute to call forth the National Guard and Marines to quell lawless violence directed against enforcement of federal law." And Mr. Trump showed no sign of backing down from the show of force. Speculating that the LA protests might be "the first, perhaps of many" protests across the country, the president said Tuesday, "If we didn't attack this one very strongly, you'd have them all over the country, I can inform the rest of the country that when they do it, if they do it, they're going to be met with equal or greater force than we met right here." Mr. Trump's comments have raised the risk for escalation, Hagel said. "When you lay down a challenge like this, and then you send more troops in, active-duty troops into a place, then you are really laying out here some very dangerous dynamics," he said. contributed to this report.