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
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Fetterman Calls California Protests ‘Anarchy' as He Criticizes Democrats
Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania warned fellow Democrats that they could face a political backlash if they were seen as failing to sufficiently condemn acts of violence by protesters in Southern California, which local officials have said were limited. On Monday, he posted a photo on social media of a car engulfed in flames and a masked, shirtless person waving a Mexican flag. He suggested that Democrats — many of whom have in fact criticized acts of destruction or violence — should go further in denouncing unruly demonstrations. 'This is anarchy and true chaos,' he wrote. 'My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.' Local officials in California have described the violence as limited, under control and exacerbated by President Trump's decision to federalize the National Guard and deploy troops over the governor's objection. 'I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration — but this is not that,' Mr. Fetterman wrote. 'This is anarchy and true chaos.' Mr. Fetterman, elected in 2022, has become one of the Democrats whom Republicans love to quote as he has broken with some of his party's orthodoxies. He checked himself into a hospital for depression early in his first year in office, and his mental health has recently been the subject of both concern and scrutiny. Democrats on Capitol Hill tried to shrug off his latest comments on Tuesday. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion,' said Representative Yvette D. Clarke of New York, the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some praise appeared to arrive, however, from Elon Musk, the owner of the social media site X, where Mr. Fetterman made his comment. Mr. Musk replied to the post with an American flag emoji.
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump's Flawed Message to Los Angeles
President Trump thinks he's sending a message. By deploying waves of National Guard officers and active duty Marines to Los Angeles, he's trying to show that he's powerful and in control, that anyone who protests his policies will pay a price. This is a classic deterrence strategy: hit hard in one place to scare Americans into staying home. But this strategy often backfires. If the majority of protests in Los Angeles reject violence, Mr. Trump may end up proving the opposite of what he intended: that he's afraid, that the protesters are disciplined and that the threat isn't the people — it's him. Counterinsurgency experts have long understood this dynamic. If you want to radicalize a population, there is no faster way than to use disproportionate force against civilians. David Kilcullen, a former senior adviser to General David Petraeus in Iraq, made this clear: Heavy-handed state violence doesn't pacify dissent, it inflames it. Another federal authority, the F.B.I., learned this lesson the hard way. In 1992 at Ruby Ridge in Idaho, an F.B.I. sniper shot and killed the wife of Randy Weaver while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her baby. The F.B.I. had been called in to back up U.S. marshals who were engaged in a standoff with Mr. Weaver, whom they were trying to arrest on a fugitive warrant. A year later in Waco, Texas, federal agents engaged in a 51-day standoff with the Branch Davidians, a religious sect whose leader, David Koresh, was being investigated for alleged child abuse and the unlawful stockpiling of weapons. The siege ended in disaster: The compound went up in flames and more than 75 people, including at least 20 children, died. Public trust in federal law enforcement plummeted. Militias exploded in size and number. Timothy McVeigh later cited Waco as one of the reasons he bombed the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995. Since then, the F.B.I. has trod carefully when confronting American civilians, especially armed ones. In 2014, after the Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy had long refused to pay federal grazing fees and hundreds of armed supporters faced off with federal agents, law enforcement backed down rather than risk another Waco. And two years after that, during the 2016 occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon (this time led by Mr. Bundy's sons Ammon and Ryan Bundy), the bureau showed patience. For weeks agents avoided direct confrontation, choosing instead to wait, negotiate and de-escalate. It turns out that this strategy is more effective in avoiding violence. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Hegseth Defends Deployment of Troops to Los Angeles at Testy Hearing
In response to often sharp questioning from House Democrats on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the Pentagon's deployment of nearly 5,000 active-duty Marines and National Guard members to help the police in Los Angeles quell sporadic unrest. Mr. Hegseth, a former National Guardsman, also suggested in testimony before the House Appropriations Committee that the use of the Guard, part-time citizen soldiers, for homeland defense would expand under President Trump. 'I think we're entering another phase, especially under President Trump with his focus on the homeland, where the National Guard and Reserves become a critical component of how we secure that homeland,' Mr. Hegseth told lawmakers. Officials in Los Angeles, as well as other major cities across the country controlled by Democrats, have expressed concern that the military deployments in California could set a precedent and serve as a test run for other urban areas where the administration's aggressive immigration enforcement could prompt large protests. Mr. Hegseth defended the deployment on Monday of 4,000 California National Guard troops and 700 Marines, telling lawmakers, 'We ought to be able to enforce immigration law in this country.' The secretary had several testy exchanges with Democrats on the committee, who challenged him on the efficacy and cost of the deployments. At one point, he ignored direct questions from Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the committee's defense panel, about the cost to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Instead, Mr. Hegseth used his time to attack Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles and the Biden administration. A clearly frustrated Ms. McCollum yielded back her time. When he was questioned again on the mission's projected costs, Mr. Hegseth deferred to the Pentagon's acting comptroller, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, who said that Marine and National Guard deployments — estimated to last 60 days — would cost about $134 million, mainly for travel, housing and food. John Ismay contributed reporting.
