VAN NUYS, CA – Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman has filed a formal opposition to the motion by Erik and Lyle Menendez seeking to recuse the DA’s office from their pending resentencing proceedings. In the filing, the DA’s office argues that the motion lacks legal merit and is driven by dissatisfaction with the prosecution’s current stance on the brothers’ eligibility for a reduced sentence.
The opposition was filed in advance of a May 9 hearing before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic, who will determine whether the District Attorney’s Office should be disqualified from handling the case moving forward.
The Menendez brothers were convicted in 1996 for the 1989 murders of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez, and sentenced to life without parole. In 2023, then–District Attorney George Gascón filed a motion recommending a reduced sentence of 50 years to life, which would have made the brothers eligible for parole. That motion was filed in alignment with recent changes in California law requiring resentencing reviews for individuals convicted as young adults who demonstrate rehabilitation.
However, after Hochman took office in 2024, he sought to withdraw the resentencing motion, citing concerns that the brothers had not taken full responsibility for their actions and continued to promote what he described as an unsubstantiated self-defense narrative. A judge denied the motion to withdraw, allowing the resentencing proceedings to continue.
The current motion by the Menendez defense team asks the court to disqualify the District Attorney’s Office from participating further, citing concerns about fairness and potential bias. The defense points to the DA’s public statements, the decision to consult with only some family members, and the presentation of graphic crime scene images at a prior hearing as evidence that the office may not exercise its discretion in a neutral and evenhanded manner.
In its opposition, the DA’s office argues that the defense’s motion represents an attempt to shift focus away from the central issue of resentencing eligibility. “The entire defense argument over recusal boils down to the defense not being happy with the current District Attorney’s position,” the filing states. It emphasizes that the office remains committed to a fair review of the case based on legal standards, not personal or political motivations.
District Attorney Hochman clarified his office’s position in a written statement accompanying the filing: “Our position on resentencing is not yet, rather than never. It depends on whether the Menendez brothers demonstrate genuine accountability and insight into the gravity of their crimes.”
The filing also commends the work of Assistant Head Deputy Habib Balian and Deputy District Attorneys Seth Carmack and Ethan Milius, who are leading the case for the prosecution. Hochman praised their dedication and professionalism and stated that their work honors the memory of the Menendez parents.
California law has evolved significantly over the past decade with respect to sentencing and post-conviction review. Legislative reforms now require courts to consider mitigating factors such as age at the time of offense, background trauma, and evidence of rehabilitation. These changes reflect a broader shift in criminal justice policy toward individualized review and second chances for qualifying individuals.
The Menendez brothers were 18 and 21 years old at the time of the crime. Supporters of resentencing argue that they have spent more than three decades incarcerated, have maintained good behavior, and have demonstrated personal growth. Critics argue that the gravity of the offense, combined with the circumstances of the killings, continues to justify their original sentence.
Earlier this year, Governor Gavin Newsom ordered a comprehensive risk assessment to evaluate whether the Menendez brothers would pose a public safety risk if resentenced. That assessment has been completed, though Judge Jesic has not yet reviewed it. The results are expected to play a role in the court’s determination of whether a reduced sentence is appropriate under state law.
In court filings, the Menendez legal team argues that a balanced and complete evaluation should include not only the facts of the original offense, but also the brothers’ conduct during incarceration and their psychological assessments. They maintain that any resentencing should be evaluated within the legal framework now in place, which aims to promote rehabilitation and reintegration where possible.
The defense’s recusal motion also notes that some members of the Menendez family have expressed support for resentencing. The defense contends that the DA’s office consulted primarily with those opposing the brothers’ release, raising concerns about impartiality. In response, the DA’s opposition filing affirms that prosecutorial discretion includes weighing input from victims and family members, but ultimately rests on legal standards and the interests of justice.
During a recent court hearing, the presentation of crime scene photographs drew strong reactions from some family members. A written statement submitted by members of the Menendez family expressed distress over the images and called for more sensitivity. The District Attorney’s Office has not commented publicly on that specific incident but has reiterated its commitment to transparency and procedural fairness in court proceedings.
As the May 9 hearing approaches, both sides are preparing to present arguments about the recusal request. Judge Jesic will determine whether the concerns raised by the defense warrant removing the DA’s Office from the case—a step rarely taken in California criminal proceedings.
Legal experts note that judicial disqualification of a prosecuting agency is uncommon and generally requires a clear showing of conflict of interest or evidence that would undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Most such decisions hinge on whether the prosecution can carry out its role with impartiality and in accordance with the law.
Regardless of the outcome of the recusal motion, the court will continue to evaluate the Menendez brothers’ eligibility for resentencing under the state’s new legal standards. The hearing process will allow both the defense and prosecution to present relevant evidence and arguments, including the results of the risk assessment and documentation of the brothers’ conduct during incarceration.
