Page 1
L.A. D.A.’s Office Denies Allegation of Retaliatory Transfers
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Office of Los Angeles County District Attorney has insisted in a memorandum of points and authorities that the reassignment of two prosecutors who recommended the resentencing of Erik and Lyle Menendez—convicted of the 1989 murders of their parents and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole—had nothing to do with the stance they took in that case.
Deputy District Attorney Brock Lunsford and former Deputy District Attorney Nancy Theberge have brought suit against District Attorney Nathan Hochman in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming retaliatory demotions. However, according to the District Attorney’s Office, Lunsford could have stayed on in the Menendez resentencing matter but chose not to do so, and Theberge was simply transferred back to the Public Defender’s Office along with other attorneys Gascón had brought over to his office.
Hochman yesterday issued a statement on why he’s withdrawing the resentencing recommendation by his predecessor, George Gascón—saying it was not founded on an analysis of the brothers’ lack of remorse and candor—and urging that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael V. Jesic, who will preside tomorrow over a hearing on the request, look at the same actors Gov. Gavin Newsom did in denying parole to Sirhan Saran, slayer of Robert Kennedy. The statement, as posted on the District Attorney’s Office website, has a link to the memorandum of points and authorities filed Friday in reply to the defense’s opposition to the withdrawal of the resentencing request.
Routine Assignment Changes
In that memorandum—authored by Deputy District Attorneys Habib A. Balian, Ethan J. Milius, and Seth Carmack—there is a denial of the defense’s allegation that Theberge and Lunsford were shunted from the case and former Deputy District Attorney Kathleen Cady was rehired based on her sentencing views. Cady, after leaving the office, served as a pro bono victims’ rights attorney and expressed views, in briefs and in articles, critical of Gascón, including the resentencing request.
Friday’s reply says:
“[T]he transfers and hires in 2024 are entirely independent of the facts of this case. Theberge and Lunsford’s evaluation of the case and the transfers in 2024 obviously had no bearing on Lyle and Erik’s decision to lie repeatedly throughout the trial, to solicit witnesses to lie on their behalf, or to continue to lie about the self-defense and suborning perjury over the past 30 years. The District Attorney’s evaluation of this resentencing motion was separate and apart from Theberge and Lunsford’s evaluation.”
It continues:
“The foundation of the People’s analysis rests on Erik and Lyle’s lack of insight. In fact, it appears that neither Lunsford nor Theberge even considered insight in their initial analysis, or downplayed it so significantly that it was never even raised in the moving papers. Focusing on the crucial issue of lack of insight and lack of complete acceptance of responsibility for one’s actions is not a ‘political’ decision by a District Attorney; it is demanded by the facts and the law and a legitimate basis on which to change course on a resentencing motion.”
(In yesterday’s press statement, Hochman said: “Though the defense argues that this decision is political, such an argument is devoid of merit.” The statement appears, in full, below this story.)
A footnote in Friday’s brief sets forth:
“Every District Attorney has the right to assign the administrative staff of his choosing. Not surprisingly, this happens in every change of administration. Upon assuming the office of District Attorney, dozens of people were transferred. The District Attorney attempted to transfer the career deputy public defenders who were brought to our office under the prior District Attorney and lacked prosecutorial experience back to the Public Defender’s office or another subdivision of the county. Theberge was among the career deputy public defenders who were transferred back to the Public Defender’s office.”
Lunsford’s Transfer
Addressing the transfer of Lunsford, the footnote relates:
“Lunsford’s position as Assistant Head Deputy of the Post Conviction Litigation and Discovery division was eliminated and he was transferred to a different position at the same grade and step level, earning the same pay. Prior to making any decision on this case, the District Attorney met with Mr. Lunsford to learn his thought process in recommending resentencing. Mr. Lunsford told the District Attorney that his analysis was based primarily on his review of the prison records. In his analysis, Lunsford assumed that the abuse allegations were lies and that what the original trial prosecutors said at trial about the Menendez brothers and their lies were true. Mr. Lunsford’s analysis therefore did not include an in-depth analysis of whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited true insight into their crimes. The District Attorney disagrees with any analysis of resentencing which does not also include a thorough analysis of whether an inmate has exhibited full insight into their crimes. He believed that a lack of insight is an important and legitimate factor that should be given serious consideration.”
The footnote then announces that Lunsford voluntarily exited the Menendez case, saying:
“Notwithstanding Mr. Lunsford’s approach to resentencing in this case, the District attorney again met with Lunsford and specifically invited him lo participate on the current Menendez team reviewing the original resentencing motion. Mr. Lunsford stated that he had already provided his thinking on the resentencing issues in the pleading he had filed and did not accept the offer to join the team.”
Self Defense
The memorandum stresses that while the Menendez brothers claimed, mendaciously, at trial that they killed their parents in self defense and have stuck with their story through the years, their lawyers are now claiming that their action was the product of sexual abuse they had suffered. It says:
“Thirty-five years have passed. The iPhone was invented. 911 happened. Covid happened. And, the Menendez Brothers are still lying. They still falsely maintain that, on August 20, 1989, their parents were going to rush out of the family den with firearms and murder them. They still falsely claim that, due to their fear of imminent death, they had no choice but to rush in first and execute their parents with shotguns. Erik maintained these obvious lies in 2024 when he unequivocally announced on Netflix, ‘All I had in my head was if my mom and dad exit (hat room before I get there, I’m going to die.’…Lyle similarly maintained this false narrative in 2017 when he emphatically told Keith Morrison on Dateline that he feared his father would kill him. Lyle responded to Mr. Morrison’s questioning of why Lyle didn’t just leave the home on August, 20, 1989 by stating, ‘[L]eave and do what? Leave and just wait for yourself to be killed in a parking lot?’…
“Even though Erik and Lyle continue, in public, to maintain this counter-factual self- defense story, Defendants’ Reply to People’s Motion to Withdraw Motion Requesting 1172.1 Recall of Sentence & Resentencing Hearing…completely ignores this fact and never even mentions the term ‘self-defense.’ Even though Erik testified, at both trials, that he killed his parents, not because of any sexual abuse, but because he feared they would kill him….Even though Lyle testified, unequivocally, that he ran to get his gun because he believed, ‘It’s happening. They’re going to kill us.’…No mention of self-defense. Not even once.”
★★★★
Text of District Attorney Hochman’s Statement
After a thorough and exhaustive review of over tens of thousands of pages of trial transcripts from two months-long trials, of the thousands of pages of prison records, of the hundreds of hours of videotaped trial testimony, of all relevant pleadings, exhibits and statements, as well as interviewing victim family members, defense counsel, prior prosecutors, and law enforcement and the applicable law, the District Attorney’s Office is prepared to proceed forward with the hearing on the Court’s initiation of resentencing proceedings for the Menendez brothers if the court deems it has jurisdiction, but we are requesting that the prior District Attorney’s motion for resentencing be withdrawn.
Though the defense argues that this decision is political, such an argument is devoid of merit. The basis for this withdrawal request is that the prior DA’s motion did not examine or consider whether the Menendez brothers have exhibited full insight and taken complete responsibility for their crimes by continuing for the past over 30 years to lie about their claims of self-defense, that is, their fear that their mother and father were going to kill them the night of Aug. 20, 1989, justifying the brutal murders of their parents with shotgun blasts through the back of their father’s head, a point-blank blast through their mother’s face, and shots to their kneecaps to stage it as a Mafia killing. As a full examination of the record reveals, the Menendez brothers have never come clean over the past three decades and admitted that they lied about their self-defense as well as suborned perjury and attempted to suborn perjury by their friends for the lies, among others, of their father violently raping Lyle’s girlfriend, their mother poisoning the family, and their attempt to get a handgun the day before the murders.
The Court must consider such lack of full insight and lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions in deciding whether the Menendez brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.
The Court may look for guidance to the recent case of Governor Newsom’s denial of parole to Sirhan Saran, the murderer of Robert F. Kennedy. In that case, the parole board had recommended parole focusing on the facts that Sirhan Saran had spent over 50 years for the 1968 murder, was in his late 70s, was 24 at the time of the murder, came from a troubled and violent upbringing, had no prior arrests or convictions, engaged in extensive rehabilitation efforts in prison including getting educational degrees and being involved in numerous prison and community programs, received supportive letters from prison officials and victim family members, was in diminishing health, and had the lowest prison risk score. Notwithstanding these factors, Governor Newsom determined that Sirhan Saran posed an unreasonable risk of danger to the community because he had failed to exhibit insight and completely accept responsibility for his murder of Kennedy and reversed the grant of parole.
Here, the Court must similarly analyze whether the Menendez brothers’ lack of full insight and lack of complete responsibility for their murders overcomes, like it did in Sirhan Sirhan’s case, the other factors justifying a resentencing like the Menendez’ length of time in prison, their age at the time of the murders, their upbringing and any sexual abuse they experienced, their extensive rehabilitation efforts in prison including getting educational degrees and involvement in community and prison programs, any supportive letters from prison officials and victim family members, their health, and the low prison risk score. The case for rehabilitation of the Menendez brothers is arguably weaker than Sirhan Sirhan’s since, unlike the Menendez brothers, Sirhan Saran’s never lied about any claims of self-defense nor suborned or attempted to suborn perjury by enlisting others to testify to a series of lies to cover up his actions.
The decision to resentence is profound since the Court is asked to change a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, received almost 30 years ago following first-degree murder convictions with special circumstances for the brutal slaying of their parents—a sentence that has been repeatedly upheld by five different appellate courts that have reviewed it—to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole.
The People want to make clear that its request to withdraw its resentencing motion is based on the current state of the record and the Menendez brothers’ current and continual failure to show full insight and accept full responsibility for their murders. This includes their recent interview from prison where they again chose not to accept full responsibility for the lies, deceit, and perjury they have committed over the past 30 years. If they were to finally come forward and unequivocally and sincerely admit and completely accept responsibility for their lies of self-defense and the attempted suborning and suborning of perjury they engaged in, then the Court should weigh such new insight into the analysis of rehabilitation and resentencing— as will the People.
Though this pathway to resentencing has been offered to the Menendez brothers, they have chosen to stubbornly remain hunkered down in their over 30-year-old bunker of lies, deceit, and denials.
I want to thank the attorneys in my office—particularly Assistant Head Deputy Habib Balian and Deputy District Attorneys Seth Carmack and Ethan Milius—who dedicated countless hours to reviewing this matter with the diligence and professionalism that the people of this county expect and deserve. Their commitment to upholding the law and seeking justice has been exemplary.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company