What to Know
- Hearings on a resentencing motion in the case of Lyle and Erik Menendez are scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday in Los Angeles.
- Attorneys for the Menendez brothers will argue they have been rehabilitated after serving more than 30 years of a life prison sentence for the murders of their parents in Beverly Hills.
- Defense attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to call several witnesses to testify in support of brothers' resentencing.
- The will present the case against resentencing, arguing the Menendez brothers have not taken full responsibility for their crimes.
- If the court recommends resentencing, the state parole board would need to consider the case and issue a ruling on whether to release the brothers from prison.
- As they have for previous court proceedings, the brothers will appear on a video feed from prison.
- Resentencing is just one path to freedom for the brothers, who also could be granted clemency.
Attorneys for will argue for their release this week when a two-day resentencing hearing starts Tuesday that could provide a path to freedom for the brothers, who are serving life prison sentences for the 1989 shotgun killings of their parents in the family's Beverly Hills mansion.
Watch 온라인카지노사이트 5 free wherever you are
WATCH HEREThe hearing, delayed by the January wildfires and a request for more time to review the case by the newly elected county prosecutor, is set for Tuesday and Wednesday at a courthouse in Van Nuys. The central question in the hearing is whether Erik, 54, and Lyle Menendez, 57, have been rehabilitated after serving more than 30 years of a life prison sentence for the murders of Jose and Mary Louise "Kitty" Menendez.
Their attorneys and family members say yes. The brothers have obtained an education, participated in self-help classes and started support groups for other inmates in prison.
Get top local stories delivered to you every morning with 온라인카지노사이트 DFW's News Headlines newsletter.
SIGN UP Defense attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to call several witnesses to testify in support of his claims that the brothers have served enough prison time and should be resentenced and, eventually, released. The Menendez brothers claim the killings were committed after years of abuse, including alleged sexual abuse by their father.
If he's successful and the court agrees, the brothers could immediately become eligible for parole. The state parole board would still need to consider the case and issue a ruling on whether to release them from prison, which would likely take months to complete.
It was not immediately clear when the judge, who has broad discretion in the case, might issue a ruling after this week's hearings.
U.S. & World
As they have for previous court proceedings, the brothers will appear on a video feed from prison.
The will present the case against resentencing. Prosecutors allege the murders were carried out due to acquire their parents' money.
Previous District Attorney George Gascón, defeated in the November election by challenger Nathan Hochman, opened the door to resentencing when he requested in October that the life sentences without parole be reduced to 50 years with the possibility of parole. Gascón arged the Menendez brothers' case and murder trials would have been handled differently today due to current understandings of sexual abuse and trauma, and the brothers' rehabilitation during their 30 years in prison.
The brothers were under 26 at the time of the murders, so they could be eligible for parole through the state's youthful offender law, Gascón argued.
But Hochman, who took office in December, reversed course, firmly stating his opposition to resentencing and arguing that Lyle and Erik Menendez have not taken full responsibility for their crimes because they have not admitted to lies told during their trials. The brothers have admitted to the murders, but Hochman has argued they continue to make excuses for their actions and lie about circumstances surrounding the killings.
"Right now, they are not in a position where we would advocate for re-sentencing," Hochman told the judge at a hearing Friday.
Among the evidence, Hochman claims, are the preliminary results of for Erik and Lyle Menendez, ordered by and conducted by a forensic psychologist. The reports, which have not been made public, said the brothers recently broke prison rules by smuggling cellphones inside. Hochman said the actions demonstrated an inability to regulate their own behavior. The reports also came to the conclusion that the brothers were "moderately more likely" to engage in violence in the community, Hochman said.
The risk assessment, conducted by public safety and forensic psychology experts, is typical procedure in cases involving prisoners up for parole. The Menendez brothers have not been recommended for parole, but Newsom said the risk assessment was started to provide transparency and more information before any next steps.
Geragos had filed a motion to recuse Hochman's office from the case due to what he called a bias against the brothers, but withdrew that motion at a hearing Friday. Hochman has said his office has done nothing wrong, but strongly disagrees with the defense attorneys and their arguments as to why the brothers should be resentenced.
Also at Friday's hearing, Hochman tried to again ask the court to withdraw the resentencing petition. The judge disagreed and set the dates for hearings on the resentencing motion.
A public lottery will be held for 16 public seats -- eight seats in the courtroom and eight seats in an overflow courtroom -- beginning at 8:15 a.m. on both days. Ticket-holders will be under strict courtroom rules, including no photography, video or recordings.
Resentencing is just one path to freedom for the brothers. They're still waiting for the full results of a state parole board risk assessment ordered by Newsom's office, which is just one part of the board's evaluation.
The final hearing, scheduled for June 13, will influence whether Newsom grants the brothers clemency. If, eventually, the brothers were recommended for parole by the state board, the matter would be placed before the governor for a final decision.
