Will the Menendez brothers’ resentencing effort be allowed to move forward?

Prosecutors and defense lawyers for Erik and Lyle Menendez argued Friday over the effort to reduce the brothers’ prison sentences for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents during a sometimes-heated hearing in a Los Angeles courtroom.

The judge presiding over the case is expected to rule on the matter ahead of a two-day resentencing hearing that could determine whether the siblings should receive lesser penalties for the murders of Jose and Kitty Menendez at their Beverly Hills home on Aug. 20, 1989.

It isn’t clear if the hearing will move forward as scheduled April 17 and 18.

Wearing blue prison uniforms, the siblings appeared at Friday’s hearing via video link from the San Diego prison where they are serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole.

During the hearing, a prosecutor with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office recounted the “severity” of the killings — at one point he showed crime scene photos — and echoed comments previously made by top prosecutor Nathan Hochman, who said last month that he was withdrawing his predecessor’s recommendation to reduce the brothers’ prison sentences to 50 years to life in prison.

If approved by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic, that sentence would make the men eligible for parole immediately.

Hochman has said that Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have served 35 years in prison and are now 54 and 57, respectively, should not be resentenced because they have not exhibited full insight into the murders or taken complete responsibility for their crimes.

In a court filing, prosecutors cited more than a dozen alleged lies they said the brothers have not acknowledged about the killings, including that they were defending themselves against an abusive father when they fatally shot their parents.

In a separate filing, defense attorneys countered that Hochman’s statements were “patently meritless” and said that the previous DA, George Gascón, considered and rejected them.

During Friday’s hearing, deputy district attorney Habib Balian said that three decades after the murder, the brothers are “still telling the same lies they were back then.” He also suggested Gascón’s decision last year to recommend the reduced sentence was intended to help boost his faltering reelection campaign.

Gascón, who was voted out in November, has denied this and said he made the decision because the brothers have been “exceptional” prisoners and “poster cases” for the DA’s resentencing unit.

Jesic and defense attorney Mark Geragos appeared frustrated at times with the length of Balian’s presentation, though the judge said he would allow both sides to continue and “flesh it out.”

“If it doesn’t get finished today, I’m going to cry a little,” Jesic added.

Geragos said it was “outrageous” that prosecutors had shown the crime scene images with Menendez family members in the courtroom.

“Victims are being re-traumatized all for political purposes,” he said.

The siblings were convicted of first-degree murder after two trials in the 1990s. They said they fatally shot their parents after Lyle confronted their father about alleged ongoing abuse of Erik and threatened to expose the entertainment company executive. Lyle has said his father responded with what he viewed as a threat.

Prosecutors have previously disputed the brothers’ abuse claims, calling them false and saying the killings were cold-blooded and financially motivated.

The Menendez brothers have also sought their freedom through two other legal pathways — a request for clemency from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and a petition challenging their convictions. 

In February, Newsom directed the state’s parole board to conduct a “risk assessment” looking at whether the brothers would pose an unreasonable public safety risk if released. That review is expected to finish in June.

The petition, filed in May 2023, includes what the brothers’ lawyers have described as a critical piece of evidence confirming that Jose Menendez was sexually molesting Erik in the months before he was killed. 

Hochman has said that evidence — an undated photocopy of a letter that Erik has said he sent to a cousin in December 1988 — does not meet the standard required for a judge to order a new trial.