- Menendez brothers seek removal of LA prosecutors in resentencing bid
- Conflict centers on DA Nathan Hochman’s alleged bias and staff changes
- Case highlights modern debates about trauma-informed justice vs. legal accountability
- Marsy’s Law violations claimed in rare office-wide recusal request
The decades-long legal saga of Erik and Lyle Menendez enters uncharted territory this week as a Los Angeles Superior Court judge considers whether District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s office should be barred from handling the brothers’ high-profile resentencing. Now in their mid-50s, the Menendez siblings have spent 33 years behind bars for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents – crimes they maintain stemmed from lifelong sexual abuse rather than financial greed.
Legal analysts note this hearing represents more than procedural wrangling. We’re witnessing a collision between 1990s-era tough-on-crime policies and modern trauma-informed jurisprudence,explains criminal justice reform advocate Dr. Mara Simmons. California’s 2022 Assembly Bill 960, which requires courts to consider intimate partner violence evidence during resentencing, looms large over proceedings despite not being retroactive.
Hochman’s office faces multiple conflict allegations:
- Hiring Kathleen Cady, attorney for late family opponent Milton Andersen
- Reassigning original prosecutors Nancy Theberge and Brock Lunsford
- Alleged violations of victims’ rights under Marsy’s Law
The defense’s 87-page motion paints Hochman as personally invested in blocking parole eligibility, citing his attendance at anti-resentencing rallies and refusal to communicate with surviving family members. Prosecutors counter that staffing decisions and policy disagreements don’t constitute legal conflicts – a position supported by California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office.
This case mirrors 2021’s People v. Garcia, where LA County successfully defended against recusal despite replacing prosecutors mid-case. However, the Menendez team argues new factors like Cady’s hiring create institutional animusexceeding typical adversarial tensions. With Governor Newsom awaiting parole board assessments before potential clemency, Friday’s ruling could accelerate California’s broader sentencing reform debates.