LOS ANGELES, CA – Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman announced Thursday that the court will convene a hearing on May 9 to determine the admissibility of recently completed Comprehensive Risk Assessments for Lyle and Erik Menendez. The hearing comes as part of the brothers’ ongoing resentencing proceedings, more than three decades after they were sentenced to life without parole for the 1989 killings of their parents.
In a press release, Hochman framed the delay as necessary to allow Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic time to “thoroughly examine” the reports before deciding on their admissibility.
“A decision of this magnitude demands the most current and comprehensive information available,” Hochman stated, calling the updated assessments “crucial insight into whether the inmates pose an unreasonable risk to public safety today.”
Yet for legal observers and justice reform advocates, Hochman’s emphasis on further delay is part of a broader pattern: a sustained effort to stall, oppose, or undermine resentencing opportunities, particularly when they involve high-profile cases that test the boundaries of carceral tradition.
The Menendez brothers’ case has long stirred public debate, but recent years have brought renewed attention to the circumstances surrounding the original trial. In 2023, California enacted legislation designed to give individuals convicted as youth a second chance under resentencing frameworks, especially in cases involving trauma, abuse, or mitigating psychological factors.
Despite this legislative mandate, Hochman’s office has continuously resisted movement on the Menendez case.
As noted in previous Vanguard reporting, this latest delay follows a series of prosecutorial maneuvers that have, for more than a year, slowed progress toward a hearing that could determine whether Lyle and Erik’s original life-without-parole sentences should be reduced in light of their rehabilitation and the law’s recognition of youth as a mitigating factor .
Advocates argue that the risk assessments, while potentially valuable, are being weaponized as a tool to delay justice rather than as a neutral contribution to the process.
Comprehensive Risk Assessments are often used to evaluate whether incarcerated individuals pose a continuing threat to public safety. While Hochman portrays the reports as a necessary part of informed judicial review, defense attorneys and experts have expressed skepticism about their growing role in resentencing decisions.
“In cases like this, the question isn’t whether the Menendez brothers are still dangerous—it’s whether they were sentenced in accordance with today’s understanding of trauma, youth, and justice,” said one legal analyst. “Risk assessments are useful, but they should not become an excuse to avoid the very hearing the law provides for.”
In addition to determining the admissibility of the risk reports, the court will also hear arguments on the defense’s motion to recuse the District Attorney’s Office from the case entirely. The motion alleges prosecutorial bias and conflict of interest, citing Hochman’s repeated public statements that frame the brothers as irredeemable criminals rather than rehabilitated individuals entitled to a second look.
“Our office remains committed to ethical and impartial prosecution,” Hochman countered in his statement, adding that his team’s actions “continue to honor the memory of Jose and Kitty Menendez.”
But critics argue that such rhetoric undermines the very premise of resentencing. “When you lead with language about honoring victims and praising your prosecutors instead of engaging with the legal standards for sentence review, that’s not neutrality,” said a former public defender. “That’s ideology dressed up as objectivity.”
The May 9 hearing could shape the course of not just the Menendez brothers’ future, but the broader landscape of resentencing in Los Angeles County. A favorable ruling on admissibility could mean that prosecutors will use risk assessments to continue opposing reduced sentences—even when those sentenced as youth have shown clear evidence of rehabilitation.
Moreover, the court’s decision on the recusal motion will signal how seriously claims of prosecutorial bias are taken in an era when progressive reforms have faced organized resistance from within the legal system itself.
Judge Jesic will ultimately determine whether the case moves forward with Hochman’s office at the helm, or whether an independent body must take over the resentencing proceedings. Either way, the Menendez case has become a bellwether for the fate of youth offenders, the limits of second chances, and the political contours of justice in California.
Hochman’s critics say the delay over risk assessments is no anomaly. Since assuming office, the DA has resisted efforts to implement new resentencing laws, often using procedural justifications to stall hearings or question the scope of legislative mandates. In the case of the Menendez brothers, that resistance has played out through protracted reviews, limited disclosure, and a strategy that privileges optics over substance.
One court watcher observed, “This isn’t about public safety. This is about controlling the narrative—keeping ‘tough on crime’ politics alive, even when the law is moving in a different direction.”
At a time when many in California are pushing for more compassionate and evidence-based justice policies, the DA’s stance places him at odds with evolving norms around youth sentencing, trauma-informed prosecution, and restorative justice.
