Latest news with #resentencing
Associated Press
4 days ago
- General
- Associated Press
New district attorney in California county withdraws from historic death penalty resentencing
Alameda County's new district attorney is rejecting her predecessor's recommendations to resentence people on death row — recommendations triggered by a historic review of systemic prosecutorial misconduct. Records obtained by CalMatters show at least four cases in which District Attorney Ursula Jones Dickson has moved to withdraw resentencing motions filed under Pamela Price, who was recalled from office in November. Price launched the review roughly one year ago, after U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria mandated that her office investigate 35 death penalty cases for prosecutorial misconduct dating back to the 1980s. His order cited 'strong evidence that, in prior decades, prosecutors from the office were engaged in a pattern of serious misconduct, automatically excluding Jewish and African American jurors in death penalty cases.' Price ultimately recommended resentencing 30 people, the majority people of color, after finding that their constitutional rights had been violated. Of those, 20 people have had their day in court and were resentenced to terms less than death under Alameda County Superior Court Judge Thomas Stevens. But that effort came to a halt when Price was ousted. Her resentencing team was disbanded, according to court records and interviews with former staffers. And the 10 resentencing recommendations awaiting a ruling were reassigned to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Armando Pastran, a former prosecutor. The Alameda County Board of Supervisors appointed Jones Dickson, a former judge, to her post in February. Her office began filing motions to withdraw recommendations less than two months later, contending that Price and her team made flawed legal arguments and failed to sufficiently contact victims and their family members. The 'motion is based on a substantive reevaluation of the facts of the case, legal analysis…consideration of petitioner's prior crimes, and new information about the victims' wishes,' wrote deputy district attorney Emily Tienken in one of the filings. The decision to reverse course signals one of the first major policy changes the office has adopted since Price's departure. 'It's absolutely disgraceful,' said Michael Collins, senior director at Color of Change, a racial justice organization that called on the Attorney General's Office to support Price's review and launch its own investigation. 'It's scandalous that this has happened and now they're trying to bury the cases. The people whose lives were destroyed — the people who were given unconstitutional trials are not getting any indemnification.' In an interview with CalMatters, Price said her office was looking to achieve justice and it was not driven by politics. 'It was very disturbing,' said Price. 'If this is the practice and you're doing it in these types of cases, what's to say you're not doing it in other types of cases as well? So our concern was that we had a huge task ahead of us.' The Alameda County District Attorney's Office did not respond to requests for an interview for this story. At a press conference marking her first 100 days in office, Jones Dickson on Thursday did not directly answer a question about her stance on the death penalty cases. 'I don't have a plan to specifically review any death penalty cases that are pending,' she said. 'We are already in the midst of doing that. It looks like the prior administration started that process and so there are cases that are still pending that we're reviewing and evaluating and filing motions on and doing the things that lawyers do. But I don't have a policy at this point regarding choosing cases to pull for resentencing.' Jonathan Raven, an executive at the California District Attorneys Association, said not every district attorney is going to agree on a specific case. 'Any district attorney is always going to review policies and practices, and review the decisions of the prior district attorney, which I think is what the voters would want – or certainly, the board of supervisors,' he said. Disparities in death penalty sentences Decades of research has documented racial bias in the application of the death penalty. In a brief submitted to the California Supreme Court challenging the administration of the state's death penalty scheme, legal advocacy organizations wrote that Black and Latino defendants are roughly six to nine times more likely to be sentenced to death than all other defendants. Gov. Gavin Newsom cited that legacy when he suspended the death penalty in California six years ago. But voters have consistently upheld the death penalty as a policy, and almost 600 people incarcerated in state prisons have been sentenced to death. Allegations of racially discriminatory jury selection practices in Alameda County were first raised in 2005 by a former prosecutor in a sworn declaration. Roughly 20 years later, Price announced that her office had uncovered evidence of those violations. Jury selection notes disclosed by Price's office revealed that past Alameda County prosecutors had been illegally tracking and striking potential jurors on the basis of race and religion for decades. In one instance, prosecutors described a prospective Black female juror as a 'Short, Fat, Troll.' Prosecutors wrote of another prospective juror, 'I liked him better than any other Jew but no way.' Those findings served as the basis for Judge Chhabria's order and quickly became priority for Price's team, which had already been resentencing many other types of cases. According to Price and former staffers, the office assembled a team of victim witness advocates who contacted all of the survivors they were able to identify. Appeal reached California Supreme Court The team spent months reviewing cases, including the conviction of Grayland Winbush. Winbush, a Black man, was sentenced to death in 2003 following the murder of Erika Beeson during a robbery. He was 19 at the time of the crime. In court filings, attorneys for Winbush argued that his constitutional rights were violated when prosecutors removed all Black prospective jurors and relied on racial stereotypes to characterize him as a superpredator. In January, Price's office recommended that he be resentenced to 30 years to life, acknowledging that his case had 'become a reference point in discussions of jury selection misconduct.' In return, Winbush agreed that he would no longer continue appealing his sentence. But roughly three months later, Jones Dickson withdrew the original recommendation 'based on carefully considered victim impact and up-to-date legal analysis.' Attorneys for Winbush held that the office has no factual or legal ground to revoke its recommendation, maintaining that 'withdrawing a recommendation on a whim or based on 'a change in the political winds'' is not valid. The motion 'perpetuates, rather than confronts and remedies, the widespread race-based misconduct that led a federal judge to direct the office to review its death penalty cases,' wrote appellate defense attorney Rebecca Jones. 'The original resentencing petition filed by the (Alameda County District Attorney's Office) is a piece of its attempt to redress systemic bias reflected by the jury selection in Mr. Winbush's case.' Alameda County Superior Court Judge Pastran will decide whether to grant Jones Dickson's revocation of Winbush's resentencing recommendation in the months ahead. In another case, Jones Dickson is pulling the resentencing recommendation for Giles Albert Nadey, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2000 for murdering a young woman. The case came up for argument in the California Supreme Court last year, around the same time that Price's office had surfaced evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, but did not consider that evidence and ultimately upheld the death sentence. In a divided opinion, the court looked at a prosecutor's decision to dismiss five of six Black women from Nadey's jury pool and determined the deputy district attorney had valid reasons to strike them, such as his perceptions of their political leanings. 'We conclude in each instance the prosecutor's reasons were inherently plausible and supported,' the court ruled in a 5-2 decision, citing evidence from jury questionnaires and the prosecutor's questioning of the stricken jurors. In a dissent, Justice Goodwin Liu referred to the federal court ruling that directed Price to review death penalty cases. The 'decision is particularly jarring given what has come to light in federal court regarding capital jury selection in Alameda County around the time that Nadey was tried,' Liu wrote. ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Yahoo
The Menendez brothers got a major win in their fight for freedom. But it's not over yet.
A judge's ruling to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez last week gave the siblings something they've not had in more than three decades: a chance that they could leave the Southern California prison where they're incarcerated. The brothers, who had been serving life sentences without the possibility of parole after a pair of sensational trials ended with convictions for their parents' 1989 murder, can seek their release from California's parole board after Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic found they do not pose an 'unreasonable risk' if released from prison. Jesic resentenced the siblings to 50 years to life, endorsing the recommendation of former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon and denying the position of his successor, Nathan Hochman, who opposed their resentencing. Here's what could happen next in the case, which highlighted a debate over a key issue in the criminal justice system — rehabilitation — and gained renewed attention after a Netflix miniseries and documentary about their lives. Jesic's ruling allows Erik, 54, and Lyle, 57, to make their case for freedom at a hearing aimed at determining whether they're suitable for parole. Those proceedings are scheduled for June 13 — a date previously set aside for hearings in a separate effort seeking clemency from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to a spokesperson for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which oversees the parole system. 'Since the ruling makes them immediately eligible for parole consideration as youth offenders, it is the Board's intent to convert the June 13, 2025, clemency hearings to initial parole suitability hearings,' Scott Wyckoff, executive officer of Board of Parole Hearings, stated in a letter obtained by the Los Angeles Times. In an email, the corrections department spokesperson said the board is allowing people to raise objections to the change. Although the hearings are no longer for clemency, the brothers' application with the governor remains active. If the parole hearing takes place, parole commissioners will be tasked with determining whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger. Prosecutors, victims' relatives and others can weigh in on the question. Hochman told reporters Wednesday that someone from the district attorney's office will attend. That representative's level of participation will likely be dictated by the parole board, he said. Even if the commissioners find the brothers suitable for parole, that 'proposed' decision is subject to Newsom's approval. Asked Wednesday what he would do if the board recommends parole, Newsom declined to answer but said he often refers recommendations to the full parole board for review. He can also reverse a recommendation, he told reporters. 'Obviously, I have great respect for their judgment and the very relatively small percentage of parole applications they actually approve,' he said. Newsom said the process of determining whether someone is eligible for clemency or parole is similar. As part of the siblings' clemency application, the governor asked the board to determine whether the brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger if released. Part of that evaluation has already been made public. During resentencing proceedings, Hochman said forensic psychologists found that the brothers posed a 'moderate' risk of committing violence outside prison. Those findings were based in part on psychological evaluations and recent prison violations, Hochman said. A lawyer for the brothers, Mark Geragos, has downplayed the violations — which include using smuggled cellphones after the resentencing proceedings were initiated — and said they do not constitute a 'superstrike,' or the kind of serious crime that could suggest they pose an unreasonable risk. Hochman opposed the brothers' release in part because of the evaluation. He also said they had not taken full responsibility for their crimes and cited 16 'unacknowledged lies' that he said the brothers told about the murders for decades. He reiterated that position during a news conference Wednesday. 'If they can deal with the issues that cause their risk level to be increased and then finally come clean with all their lies, fraud and deceit, then they should be appropriate candidates for parole,' he said. Speaking after their resentencing, the brothers said they had taken full responsibility and offered no justification for killing their mother, Kitty, or their father, Jose, on Aug. 20, 1989. At trial and in media interviews afterward, including in a 2017 interview with 'Dateline,' the brothers said they killed their parents in self-defense after Lyle confronted his father about sexually abusing his younger brother and Jose appeared to threaten him. Prosecutors have long disputed this account. They described the killings as calculated and horrific — Lyle Menendez reloaded his shotgun before shooting his mother in the face — and motivated by financial gain. Speaking Tuesday, Lyle Menendez told the court that he was 'deeply ashamed' of who he was 35 years ago. The brothers have also sought their freedom through a third path — a petition that seeks to overturn their convictions based on what the brothers' defense attorneys have described as new evidence in the case. The petition, which includes a photocopied letter that Erik said he wrote to a cousin and which Geragos has said confirms Jose's abuse of the younger sibling months before, was filed after the release of Peacock's 'Menudo + Menendez: Boys Betrayed,' which included a former member of the Puerto Rican boy band accusing Jose Menendez of raping him. (Peacock is owned by NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC News.) At the time, Jose Menendez was an executive with RCA Records, which had a multialbum contract with the band. Hochman has said the evidence does not meet the standard required for a judge to order a new trial and that he opposes the petition. This article was originally published on
Fox News
14-05-2025
- Fox News
Menendez brothers resentenced as experts blast 'indefensible' bid for killers freedom
LOS ANGELES – In a bombshell decision, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic slashed the Menendez brothers' original life-without-parole terms to 50 years-to-life, making Erik and Lyle eligible for parole. Judge Michael Jesic ruled Tuesday that both brothers received a reduced sentence of 50 years to life with the opportunity for parole for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. "I'm not suggesting they should be released [on parole]. That's not for me to decide," he said. Their fate now lies in the hands of the parole board and Calif. Gov. Newsom. Former Assistant U.S. Attorney Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital that Erik and Kyle Menendez "will likely be freed in a matter of months," adding that he does not expect "the parole board or Governor Newsom" to block their release. Rahmani noted that the resentencing decision rests on whether the brothers pose "an unreasonable risk of committing another violent crime," and he believes the evidence weighs heavily in their favor. Pointing to Judge Jesic's ruling, Rahmani explained that because former LA County District Attorney George Gascon initiated the resentencing request, new LA DA Nathan Hochman "couldn't pull it back," and the court could only deny resentencing if the risk threshold wasn't met. "That wasn't the case," he said, saying that "prison guards and other inmates testified that they were model prisoners." Rahmani also highlighted the unprecedented support from the Menendez family, observing that "every living family member of Jose and Kitty Menendez also supported their release, which is something that never happens. Victims do not support resentencing." Judge Jesic made this point while handing down the reduced sentences, saying he had given a lot of thought to the sentence, while acknowledging "the horrific crimes the brothers committed." He added that he was "equally shocked by letters of support he received from prison officials" who spoke highly of the brothers' actions behind bars, calling it "remarkable." Jesic stated the original sentence of life without parole was appropriate, but given the change in state law allowing for resentencing, Jesic said, "They've done enough over 35 years to get that chance." Rahmani stressed that such broad victim-family backing made it all but impossible for the current district attorney to derail the process. "The bottom line is that there was too much support for the Menendez brothers, both inside and outside the courtroom, for Hochman to prevent their resentencing," he said. It just goes to show the power of a Netflix series." He added that "the Menendez brothers should send Netflix and former LA County DA Gascon nice cards this holiday season." The resentencing hearing comes after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County DA George Gascon then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings follow the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. Gascon recommended resentencing the brothers to 25 years to life for each count of first-degree murder, so a total of 50 years to life for each brother. Because of their age at the time of the murders, that sentence would make them eligible for parole. Gascon cited "a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding sexual violence" and "Erik and Lyle's continuous rehabilitative efforts." During the morning session on Tuesday, three Menendez family members were called to the stand by the defense to try and convince the judge that the brothers had shown remorse and had been rehabilitated. All three witnesses were asked whether they thought their male cousins would in fact commit another heinous crime. "There is no chance," Anamaria Baralt said. "I would bet my life on it." "They are not going to commit a [serious crime]. Because they have too many plans to give back to the world," Tamara Goodall said. "Absolutely. No. None. They are extremely remarkable people now," Diane Hernandez said. SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER Mark Geragos, the attorney for the Menendez brothers, said the family's unified plea for the brothers' resentencing is a "unicorn." The brothers, now 57 and 54, were dressed in blue jail garb, and flashed big grins following their resentencing, and waved to family and friends in attendance. Erik and Lyle Menendez appeared in court via video camera from the San Diego prison where they are incarcerated and were each given a chance to address the court prior to their sentencing. Each brother spoke for about 10 minutes and offered full admission to the crimes. Lyle Menendez spoke first and took responsibility for the cold-blooded killing of his parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989. GO HERE FOR REAL-TIME UPDATES FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB "I take full responsibility. I killed my parents. I made the choice to kill my mom and dad in their own home." "I made the choice to make a mockery of the justice system. I offer no excuse and I don't blame my parents," he said. "I was impulsive and immature, and I bottled up my own emotions and anger. I was scared, but also filled with rage," he continued. "Had I had the coping skills and trusted others, I would have not done this. Even after I killed him (Jose), I still heard his voice." "I'm deeply ashamed for what I did," he said. After his older brother addressed the court, Erik Menendez spoke, expressing his "profound sorrow." "I fired all five rounds at my parents and went back to reload. I lied to police. I lied to my family. I'm truly sorry," he said. "My actions were criminal, selfish and cowardly. I take full responsibility. I am truly sorry. My parents should be alive. There can never be full healing for my crime," he continued. Geragos took a victory lap following the bombshell ruling for the killers brothers' resentencing. "I never thought two years later we'd be standing here after 35 years with this wonderful family that I have grown to love like my own family," Geragos said. "And now we see the pot at the end of the rainbow, so to speak." Following the judge's decision, LA District Attorney Hochman shared his response to the ruling and said "Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community, and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the Court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the Court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison, but are now eligible for parole. Both Lyle and Erik are already scheduled to appear before the board on June 13th as part of a comprehensive risk assessment report (CRA) ordered by California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is considering the brothers' clemency request – a separate potential path to freedom. Fox News is told the two types of parole hearings cannot be combined. The parole board is expected to submit its clemency recommendation to Newsom on the June date. Newsom can also commute their sentence at any time.
CBC
14-05-2025
- CBC
Menendez brothers to be eligible for parole after resentencing
Erik and Lyle Menendez were resentenced to 50 years to life in prison on Tuesday by a Los Angeles judge, making them eligible for parole. Neama Rahmani, lawyer and co-founder and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, breaks down the case and how their parole eligibility has changed.
RNZ News
14-05-2025
- RNZ News
Judge grants re-sentencing bid by Menendez brothers for 1989 shotgun murders
By Lisa Richwine , Reuters Erik Menendez (R) and brother Lyle listen to court proceedings during a May 17, 1991 appearance. Photo: Reuters: Lee Celano Lyle and Erik Menendez, serving life sentences for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents in their Beverly Hills, can be re-sentenced for their crime, a Los Angeles judge ruled on Tuesday, paving the way for the brothers' possible release from prison. The ruling capped a day-long hearing in which several relatives, a retired judge and a former fellow inmate testified in support of defence efforts to shorten the brothers' sentence to time already served, or at least gaining their eligibility for parole . The brothers themselves, now 57 and 54, appeared at the proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court via live video feed from prison in San Diego. The brothers were found guilty in 1996 of first-degree murder and sentenced to two consecutive life in prison terms without the possibility of parole for shooting to death their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, on August 20, 1989, as the couple watched television in the family room of their home. At trial the brothers admitted to committing the killings but insisted they did so out of fear that their parents were about to kill them following years of sexual abuse by their father, a wealthy entertainment industry executive, and emotional battering by their mother. Former District Attorney George Gascon petitioned for a re-sentencing last autumn, citing new evidence purported to bolster the brothers' claims that they were molested and a prison record showing they had achieved rehabilitation while incarcerated. Gascon said the pair had paid their debt to society and should be eligible for parole under the state's youthful offender statute since they were younger than 26 at the time of their offence. Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18. But Gascon's successor as DA, Nathan Hochman, opposed the re-sentencing after taking office earlier this year, arguing the brothers have yet to fully acknowledge and accept responsibility for the killings. - Reuters
