VAN NUYS, CA — In a significant setback for Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, a Superior Court judge on Friday denied the DA’s request to withdraw a resentencing motion filed under the prior administration for Lyle and Erik Menendez.
The ruling ensures that a resentencing hearing will move forward on April 17 and 18 at the Van Nuys Courthouse.
The high-profile case, which has drawn renewed national attention in recent years, centers on the Menendez brothers’ 1996 convictions for the murders of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez.
The resentencing motion, initially filed under former DA George Gascón, was part of a broader shift under California law to reconsider lengthy sentences for individuals convicted as young adults.
District Attorney Hochman, who has publicly opposed resentencing in the case, sought to withdraw the motion, arguing that the Menendez brothers had failed to show full accountability for their crimes and continued to promote “lies of self-defense” and a “fabricated narrative” about parental abuse.
“These murders were calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded killings,” Hochman said in a statement. “Until the Menendez brothers finally come clean with all their lies of self-defense and suborning and attempting to suborn perjury, they are not rehabilitated and pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.”
However, Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic rejected the DA’s motion, allowing the resentencing hearing to proceed, while dismissing arguments from the Menendez legal team that the DA’s attempt to withdraw the motion was politically driven.
“Today is a good day. Justice won over politics.” – Mark Geragos, attorney for the Menendez brothers
Speaking after the ruling, Attorney Mark Geragos, who represents the Menendez brothers, welcomed the court’s decision as a long-overdue step toward justice.
“Today is a good day. Justice won over politics,” Geragos said. “This has been a long time coming, and we are proud to represent this family.”
Geragos sharply criticized the prosecution’s stance, calling their opposition a “dog and pony show” and “nothing more than political cover,” according to KTLA. He also accused the DA’s office of attempting to re-litigate the original murder case instead of focusing on the brothers’ conduct and rehabilitation during more than three decades of incarceration.
“They’re not looking at what the law now requires—which is rehabilitation,” Geragos told the BBC, highlighting the evolving legal framework for evaluating individuals sentenced to life as young adults.
The Menendez case has become a flashpoint in California’s ongoing debate over resentencing and criminal justice reform. Under laws passed in recent years, courts are required to consider mitigating factors such as youth, trauma, and demonstrated rehabilitation when reviewing lengthy sentences imposed on individuals under the age of 26 at the time of their offense.
The Menendez brothers were 21 and 18 years old at the time of the 1989 killings. Supporters argue that the brothers have shown remorse, served as model prisoners, and that their original trial did not sufficiently account for alleged abuse within the household—claims prosecutors have long rejected as fabricated.
Hochman has attempted to distance himself from the prior administration’s policies and has made it clear that he opposes resentencing in this case, calling the original motion “deficient” for failing to address what he views as the brothers’ continued denial and lack of full insight into their crimes.
Despite those objections, the court’s decision on Friday affirms that a resentencing hearing will take place—regardless of the DA’s opposition.
The hearing scheduled for April 17 and 18 will allow both the defense and prosecution to present arguments under the state’s new legal standards. It will also provide a public forum for the court to evaluate whether Lyle and Erik Menendez meet the criteria for reduced sentencing, which could eventually lead to parole eligibility or other forms of relief.
In the meantime, Hochman reaffirmed his office’s stance: “Our position remains clear: This case is not ripe for resentencing.”
But for the Menendez brothers and their legal team, the judge’s ruling represents a pivotal moment after decades behind bars.
