Family of Erik and Lyle Menendez Underscore DA Hochman’s Flawed Arguments in Motion to Withdraw Resentencing Pathway Ahead of Hearing
Family is confident that legal standards, not politics, will prevail as judge considers DA Hochman’s reversal request
(April 10, 2025, Los Angeles) The Justice for Erik and Lyle Coalition, a family-led initiative advocating for the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez, today issued key legal context in advance of a hearing schedule for April 11, 2025. This hearing will determine whether Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman can legally withdraw a resentencing motion previously filed by former DA George Gascón under California Penal Code 1172.1
On Friday, District Attorney Hochman must prove his claim that “fresh evidence” supports the notion that DA Gascón failed to consider the facts and record of Erik and Lyle Menendez’s case. The legal team representing the brothers’ have stressed that Penal Code 1172.1 was created to ensure that prosecutors could reevaluate past cases when new evidence, rehabilitation, or changes in law warranted a review. They further underscore that DA Hochman does not have grant carte blanche to undo efforts simply because a different administration is in office. They argue that DA Hochman’s review was based on outdated arguments, a misleading presentation of facts, and a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of the resentencing process itself.
“The DA’s entire motion reads like a campaign document, not a legal one,” said Anamaria Baralt, cousin of Erik and Lyle Menendez. “The law requires fairness, not personal vendettas. Erik and Lyle have not only taken responsibility, they’ve become the kind of men this system is supposed to help create. If rehabilitation doesn’t matter here, when does it?”
Key Facts Countering DA’s Arguments Presented in the Motion:
DA Hochman’s claims that Erik and Lyle have not taken full accountability for their crimes are false. They have admitted to the core facts: that they killed their parents, hid the weapons, and lied to law enforcement and others afterward. They have since accepted full accountability for those acts – which form the basis for all the “19 lies” Hochman cites. They have also taken responsibility for their actions with the survivors of the crime and have demonstrated expressions of remorse. To continue fixating on past statements made as traumatized young men ignores their decades of documented remorse, rehabilitation as well as modern laws and understanding of trauma.
The DA’s brief exaggerates outdated and minor rule violations and includes at least one significant factual error. The brief includes infractions such as 25-year-old citation for hugging a visitor and talking too long on the phone. The most significant error is a mischaracterization of a prison rules violation report (RVR) in Erik Menendez’s file that was later overturned as unsubstantiated. This type of misstep casts serious doubt on the depth and accuracy of the DA’s so-called review.
The DA’s argument that the brothers lack insight because they continue to reference abuse ignores the legal and historical record. Sexual abuse was the centerpiece of the original trials – a fact that was acknowledged by both the prosecution and defense at the time. Jurors were tasked with determining the brothers’ state of mind, and abuse was central to that inquiry.
DA Hochman compares the brothers’ case to that of Sirhan Sirhan – a convicted political assassin who has consistently denied responsibility. But Erik and Lyle have done the opposite: they have taken responsibility and rebuilt their lives through education, peer mentoring, and community service within prison. Equating them with someone who continues to deny their crime is not only factually inaccurate, it undermines the entire concept of rehabilitation.
“Erik and Lyle have apologized, taken responsibility, and expressed sincere remorse, again and again, with no underlining motive other than to grow, mature, and rehabilitate,” said Tamara Goodell, cousin of Erik and Lyle Menendez. “They recognize the wide scale impact their actions have had on us, their family. Since then, we have seen their relentless commitment to emotional growth, earning degrees and uplifting those around them. That is the definition of rehabilitation in my eyes.”
Possible Outcomes on April 11, 2025:
The court could deny the motion, meaning DA Gascón’s resentencing motion would stand, and the court will proceed with the hearing as scheduled on April 17-18.
The court could grant DA Hochman’s motion but choose to pursue resentencing independently under AB 600, which allows judicial initiation of the process when laws or circumstances have changed.
DA Hochman’s motion could be granted and resentencing dismissed. This is the least likely outcome, which would remove both paths to resentencing entirely.
To learn more about the Justice for Erik and Lyle Coalition and support our efforts, visit www.justiceforerikandlyle.org.