Newsom’s Controversial Consideration: Why the Menendez Brothers Don’t Deserve a Pardon
Current Controversy – Nathan Hochman vs. Gavin Newsom
Los Angeles’ new District Attorney, Nathan Hochman, withdrew former District Attorney George Gascon’s request for resentencing of the infamous Menendez brothers.[1] This signals a shift from the soft-on-crime policies that Gascon previously favored, to a more conservative view of criminal justice under Nathan Hochman. Governor Gavin Newsom on the other hand has directed the state parole board to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of the Menendez brothers, who have been imprisoned since 1996. This initiative aims to evaluate whether the brothers would pose an unreasonable risk to public safety if released, which gives us a hint toward his potential commutation of their sentences.[2]
So…Who ARE the Menendez Brothers?
Erik and Lyle Menendez were born and raised in New Jersey before they eventually moved to California in 1987 with their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. The Menendez family was very wealthy due to Jose’s career in the film and music industries.[3] The brothers lived a privileged life, evidenced by the mansion they moved into in Beverly Hills in 1988.[4]
On August 20, 1989, Lyle – who was 21 years old, and Erik – who was 19, committed what would become one of the most shocking and notorious crimes in Beverly Hills history. That evening, the brothers entered the den of their family home armed with shotguns and opened fire on their parents as they were watching television.[5] They shot them up close, 13 times.[6] The attack was brutal and deliberate, resulting in the immediate deaths of both parents.
Lyle Menendez then made a frantic 911 call, reporting that someone had killed his parents.[7] Initially, the brothers tried to deflect suspicion by saying they had simply found their parents dead, and suggesting to the police that the killings might be connected to their father's business dealings. However, investigators quickly became suspicious of the brothers. In the days following the murders, Lyle and Erik engaged in lavish spending sprees, purchasing expensive items and living extravagantly. This behavior raised red flags for detectives, who began to focus their investigation on the brothers as primary suspects.[8]
The police investigation eventually led to the brothers' arrests, which came after months of investigation that revealed inconsistencies in the brothers' stories and evidence pointing to their involvement in the murders.
Their case became famous when their first trial began in 1993, nearly four years after the murders.[9] Each brother had his own separate jury, even though they were tried simultaneously. The proceedings quickly became a media sensation, with cameras in the courtroom broadcasting the trial to a national audience, making it one of the most watched criminal trials of its era. During this first trial, the defense strategy centered on the claim of self-defense. The brothers alleged they had suffered years of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse by their father.[10] Their defense attorneys argued that the killings were motivated by fear that their parents were going to kill them to prevent the alleged abuse from becoming public.
The prosecution, however, presented a very different narrative. They argued that the brothers were motivated purely by greed and a desire to inherit their parents' multimillion-dollar estate. Prosecutors disputed the abuse claims, characterizing them as fabrications designed to justify premeditated murder.
After months of testimony and deliberation, the first trial ended in a mistrial when both juries deadlocked, unable to reach unanimous verdicts. This outcome necessitated a second trial.[11]
The second trial began in 1995.[12] This time, significant changes were made to the trial structure and the evidence that would be permitted. The judge limited the testimony allowed related to the brothers' claims of sexual abuse, a decision that would prove crucial to the outcome.[13] Without the ability to present the full scope of their abuse claims, the defense faced greater challenges in arguing their case. The prosecution maintained their position that the murders were financially motivated, emphasizing the brothers' spending after the killings and what they characterized as a premeditated plan to eliminate their parents to gain their inheritance. On March 20, 1996, after deliberations in this second trial, both Lyle and Erik Menendez were found guilty of first-degree murder, nearly seven years after the crimes were committed.[14]
On July 2, 1996, Lyle and Erik Menendez were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.[15] This harsh sentence reflected the jury's rejection of the defense's arguments and acceptance of the prosecution's characterization of the crimes as calculated, premeditated murders motivated by greed rather than fear or self-defense.
Why Does This Matter in California Politics?
Since the trials, there have been books and documentaries covering the case of the Menendez Brothers. What does this have to do with California politics? There has been a great deal of discourse in recent years and months about potentially retrying, resentencing, and even commuting the Menendez brothers. This case has a great deal to do with politics because the players at the center of it are our very Governor and Los Angeles’ District Attorney – both representatives who you vote for. Their stances on the future of the Menendez brothers gives us significant insight in their definition of criminal justice.
Let’s go through the more recent events that have taken place around their case. In 2023, the brothers filed a motion seeking a new hearing based on new evidence in their case.[16] As a result, the previous Los Angeles County District Attorney, George Gascón, announced that his office would review the possibility that the Menendez brothers could be entitled to have their case reheard or to be resentenced. Gascón stated that the brothers had been model prisoners and recommended they be resentenced to 50 years, which would make them immediately eligible for parole consideration given their time already served.[17]
However, Gascón was voted out of office in November 2024, and the new District Attorney, Nathan Hochman, just recently stated that he opposes both the resentencing request and the petition to overturn their convictions. He reminded the public that the self-defense claim was found to have been fabricated and that the brothers have displayed “lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions.” He urged the court to remember the string of lies told during the trial and maintained over their three decades behind bars.[18]
Most recently, just in February, Governor Gavin Newsom ordered the parole board to conduct a "comprehensive risk assessment" investigation to determine whether the brothers would pose "an unreasonable risk to the public" if released.[19] This is the first step toward clemency – or commuting their sentences, which would mean they would be released from prison.[20]
This matters because you need to be aware of the policy positions taken by the leaders in our state and how they align with your values. George Gascon was notoriously soft on crime, and there is a reason that he lost the election last year. Californians do not want these kinds of policies. Hochman defeated Gascon in November by over 20 points[21] – that is a very clear message being sent by voters! Those within Los Angeles County are tired of seeing criminals walk free, they are tired of the shoplifting, of the violent crime, of being afraid to leave their houses and enjoy being out and about in Los Angeles. If they liked Gascon’s policies, they wouldn’t have voted him out.
Nathan Hochman is listening to voters. He understands the clear directive he has been given by them, and he is committed to cracking down on the crime problem across the county in their interest. Gavin Newsom, however, is not listening to voters, putting him and Hochman on opposite sides of the issue.[22]
Why Is This Coming Up Now?
Why is all of this coming up now? Why is Newsom mentioning a potential commutation of their sentence while Hochman is reducing their chances of resentencing?
It all comes down to the abuse defense that the brothers argued in their trials decades ago, and this is where we need to be informed and clear on the facts. If you hear about this case in the news, or in conversation, then you need to be equipped as to why you either agree or disagree with Gavin Newsom. To be equipped, we must understand the arguments for commutation of their sentences, and then we need to respond to those arguments.
What is being argued is that there is new evidence of abuse in the Menendez case, that, if it had been known at the time, might have reduced the charges or even acquitted them altogether. There is also the argument that we know more about abuse now than we did in the 1980s, and so we can better understand and respond to situations like the one of the Menendez murders. But we need to be clear on what is true, what has bearing on the legal implications of their case and make our judgement from there.
The problem is that over the course of two trials and seven years, the defense strategy of self-defense due to abuse did not work. The jury overwhelmingly condemned the actions of the Menendez brothers, and they were found guilty of first-degree murder – not self-defense, not voluntary manslaughter, and not even lack of capacity or insanity. This is the point that Nathan Hochman is making, in opposition to Newsom. He is saying that these brothers lied again and again throughout the course of the investigation, the case, the trials, and even in years to follow. Their defense was given fair hearing two times over yet was rejected because it was blatantly untrue. For those reasons, Hochman refuses to accept the idea that a judge should potentially resentence them to anything less than the sentence they are serving now.
How can we be so confident that the Menendez brothers deserve punishment? There are a few reasons to support this.
Remember that the Judge in the second trial limited the brothers’ testimony of instances of abuse, and he did so for several, important reasons to consider. He permitted testimony about abuse only so much as it directly related to the brothers' state of mind at the time of the killings. Detailed accounts of early childhood abuse were considered irrelevant to their mental state during the incident, and so it was excluded.[23] The judge also determined that there was insufficient evidence to support the brothers' claim of self-defense, because it was clear they were not in immediate danger.[24]
The point made by the court was that even if these brothers had suffered abuse at some point in their lives, that at the time of the killings they were adults with complete agency and capacity, and they had a choice. They didn’t choose to move out of their parents’ household, they didn’t choose to report allegations of sustained abuse, they chose to take guns and shoot their parents numerous times and then cover up the crime.[25]
That choice is what makes them guilty of a crime, and it is a crime that requires punishment if there is to be true justice. We may never fully know the extent of what happened in their childhood, but being the victim of one crime does not grant you immunity to commit another crime. The Menendez brothers must be held accountable for their murderous decision.
Granting resentencing, or even commutation, in this high-profile case not only would be a complete miscarriage of justice, but it would set a precedent that could lead to similar appeals from other convicted individuals, potentially undermining the consistency and integrity of the justice system. That is wrong, and it is foolish.
How Should We Think About This?
My response to all the controversy and discussion over the Menendez case is very simple but very important – we cannot allow our government leaders to call evil good and good evil. Murder cannot go unpunished. Government must protect the people under its care, and it does that by removing dangerous criminals from society and punishing them for their crimes.
The actions of our Governor, our District Attorneys, and our Courts across California deeply matter. Why? Because they are supposed to care about seeking justice and upholding the rule of law. True justice does not let the evildoer walk away without penalty, without remorse, and without punishment. Gavin Newsom is considering commuting the sentences of two notorious, brutal murderers, who murdered their own parents. That is not a small thing, and it can’t go unnoticed. Of course this is a danger to society, regardless of what his risk assessment concludes, because any time you let out known murderers and criminals back into society, especially when they have never taken responsibility for their crimes, then you are putting the people around them at risk. But it isn’t just the physical safety of the people in their specific area who are in danger, it’s also our very concept of justice and morality in our state. Now, this has been true in California for a long time – criminals have walked freely way too easily here – but we should never let that numb us to outrage at injustice being done. We should never become so complacent that we come to expect evil over good.
Murder violates God’s design and the sanctity of life. Every human life is sacred, and when it is taken in cold blood by another, then God gives the government the authority to bear the sword. The government, our law enforcement agencies and courts, do not inflict punishment just because they are in charge – they have been given authority by God to carry out His justice. To refuse to carry out this justice through punishment is an abdication of their responsibility and mocks the true justice that God demands.
This is a prime example of why local and state elections matter. You have the power to vote in your county’s District Attorney, and it is critical that you have full confidence that they will be committed to punishing evil rather than justifying it. Their work has direct impact on your life because they have the power to punish criminals and secure your safety, or the power to betray your trust and stand on the side of evil. We also see that a Governor must be committed to seeing through the punishments that evil requires. A Governor cannot be willing to put the interests of one person or group of people over the greater good of society.
You need to be informed so that when you hear Gavin Newsom give a quick update on such an important case, you know exactly what he is talking about, and you are prepared with a response. What Gavin Newsom is considering in this case is evil, and it’s time to speak out.
Action Items
What can you do? You can take action against this, and you should! You can reach out directly to the Governor’s office through a website form, through the mail, or even over the phone to let him know that you are completely against his actions to move toward commuting the Menendez brothers, and that you stand with Nathan Hochman’s decision. I will link resources at the bottom of this article for how to contact the Governor and a template of what to say. If his office is flooded with all your responses making your voices heard, he will see that this is not what the people of California want.
Then, as always, you can remain informed and refuse to be manipulated. Some may say that we should simply have compassion for the Menendez brothers. Or, if they have served decades in prison already, surely we should extend grace to them and desire for their reform rather than insist they stay in prison for the rest of their lives. But this is not true justice; this is a softening of justice for the sake of empathy that is only directed toward one side.
For my fellow Christians, we can clearly see true justice in the case of murder clearly outlined for us in the Bible. The New Testament offers hope for anyone, even murderers, through repentance and faith in Jesus, but it does NOT undo the earthly consequences that must be carried out to achieve true justice and to protect innocent life. This means that we absolutely can have compassion for anyone who is in prison and who wants to change their lives and find forgiveness for their past crimes. We can pray for the Menendez brothers and for their hearts. But that does not mean that we then just let them out of prison. Their crime still demands justice, demands punishment, and greater society must still be protected. If they truly repent, they will experience the freedom and grace offered in Christ, while also acknowledging the real consequences of their sin that is deserved in this life. So, don’t be fooled or manipulated by anyone who tells you that you aren’t being Christlike or kind or fair to criminals like the Menendez brothers. Stand on what you know is true.
Lastly, as always, pray for our state. Pray for our leadership. Pray that good, righteous District Attorneys would be in power across the state to carry out justice. Pray for faithful prosecutors who would see the law clearly and would be determined to carry it out. Pray that these efforts would deter future crime and ensure for us a safe, and well-ordered society where we can live our lives, raise our families, and serve our God. And pray that Governor Newsom would be struck with unrest over this decision and would change course to punish the evildoer and reward righteousness in the state that he has been given to steward.
How to Contact Governor Newsom:
Online Form: https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/
Mail:
Governor Gavin Newsom
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
What to say:
References:
[1] “Timeline of the Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case,” AP News, March 10, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/menendez-brothers-california-resentencing-timeline-26c22d948e2dc56a7127a19dab901dd3.
[2] Downing, Jared. “California Gov. Gavin Newsom Orders Parole Board to Review Menendez Brothers’ Case After New Trial Denied.” New York Post, February 26, 2025. https://nypost.com/2025/02/26/us-news/california-gov-gavin-newsom-orders-parole-board-to-review-menendez-brothers-case/.
[3] Geoghegan, Tom, and James FitzGerald. “Erik and Lyle Menendez: Who Were Their Parents and What Do We Know About Family?” BBC, November 25, 2024. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7dzy2pdjgo.
[4] Roby, India. “The Menendez Brothers’ Beverly Hills Mansion: Everything You Need to Know.” Architectural Digest, September 25, 2024. https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/the-menendez-brothers-beverly-hills-mansion-everything-you-need-to-know.
[5] Diaz, Jaclyn. “The Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case Is Getting a Fresh Look. Here’s Why.” NPR, November 25, 2024. https://www.npr.org/2024/10/05/nx-s1-5140056/menendez-brothers-case-review-explained.
[6] Sehdev, Jeetendr. “The Menendez Brothers Mania: America’s Obsession With Bad Boys.” Forbes, October 28, 2024. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeetendrsehdev/2024/10/28/the-menendez-brothers-mania-americas-obsession-with-bad-boys/.
[7] Stelloh, Tim. “What Is Next for the Menendez Brothers?,” March 10, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/menendez-brothers-timeline-trials-murders-free-prison-effort-rcna179362.
[8] Ibid.
[9] City News Service and The Associated Press. “Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case: A Timeline of Key Events.” ABC7 Los Angeles, October 4, 2024. https://abc7.com/post/lyle-erik-menendez-brothers-murder-case-timeline-key-events/15391075/.
[10] Diaz, “The Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case Is Getting a Fresh Look. Here’s Why.”
[11] Ibid.
[12] City News Service and The Associated Press, “Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case: A Timeline of Key Events.”
[13] Diaz, “The Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case Is Getting a Fresh Look. Here’s Why.”
[14] City News Service and The Associated Press, “Menendez Brothers’ Murder Case: A Timeline of Key Events.”
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Stelloh, “What Is Next for the Menendez Brothers?”
[18] Wolfe, Elizabeth. “Los Angeles County DA Opposes Resentencing Request for Menendez Brothers and Accuses Them of Lying About Self-defense.” CNN, March 10, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/10/us/menendez-brothers/index.html#:~:text=Hochman%20called%20the%20self%2Ddefense,their%20three%20decades%20behind%20bars.
[19] Gutman, Matt, and Emily Shapiro. “Menendez Brothers: Newsom Orders Parole Board to Investigate Whether They’d Pose ‘unreasonable Risk’ to Public if Released.” ABC News, February 26, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/menendez-brothers-newsom-orders-parole-board-investigate-pose/story?id=119206346.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Queally, James, and Connor Sheets. “Hochman Beats Gascón in Los Angeles County D.A. Election - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-11-05/2024-california-election-la-da-race-hochman-gascon-race-election-night.
[22] McCarthy, Will. “California Democrats Try to Change the Subject From Shoplifting to Drugs.” Politico, September 16, 2024. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/16/newsom-california-proposition-36-00179189.
[23] Pergament, Rachel. “The Second Trial — the Menendez Brothers, Notorious Killers of Their Parents Crime Library — Crime Library,” n.d. https://www.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/famous/menendez/trial_17.html
[24] “Menendez Brothers on Trial: Closing Arguments Begin - CNN.com,” n.d. https://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/10/court.archive.menendez7/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
[25] Pergament, “The Second Trial — the Menendez Brothers, Notorious Killers of Their Parents Crime Library — Crime Library.”
