Menendez brothers could get freedom under California law signed by Gavin Newsom: expert
Roger Bonakdar, a California-based attorney, shared with Fox News Digital that after nearly 35 years behind bars, Erik and Lyle Menendez were given new hope to leave prison behind thanks to former Los Angeles County George Gascon and the passing of AB 600.
The law allows individuals who remain incarcerated under sentences that were imposed when harsher, less flexible laws were in effect, to petition for a review of their sentences, so they can benefit from more recent legislative reforms that focus on rehabilitation, according to the law's text.
"What's happening is that the prior DA Gascon, infamous for certain policies and practices that he instituted in LA County which many credit with the explosion of violent crime and theft in LA, had filed a motion with the court to have the Menendez brothers re-sentenced," Bonakdar explained.
Bonakdar said that Gascon's argument was that the Menendez brothers are "allegedly no longer a threat to the community and that they've served their debt to society," because of their ages at the time of their conviction and sentence.
"Gascon also apparently made a point of their defense, which didn't fly at trial, about their alleged sexual abuse at the hands of their now-murdered father. So, what's happening now is that the current DA has sought leave of court to withdraw or to take back Gascon's motion because he doesn't believe that the Menendez brothers are worthy or deserving of re-sentencing, and that's what's before the court."
Bonakdar said what makes this hearing even more interesting is that the judge's powers are "pretty broad" and he can "re-sentence them based on an offense that they weren't convicted of."
"The judge can even sentence them according to what is called a lesser included offense. That means an offense that acts are part of, or otherwise included in, the charge they went to trial on, which could include second-degree murder, even voluntary manslaughter, arguably under the statute. I would imagine the judge would be hard-pressed to go that far. But the powers that are given to a judge under the new statute are pretty sweeping. His discretion is very broad."
The Menendez brothers and their supporters have been pushing for a resentencing hearing, saying the brothers were unfairly convicted to life in prison in 1996 for murdering their two parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home in 1989.
Their first trial ended in a mistrial, when jurors couldn't agree on their fate. After a second trial in the mid-1990s, in which some of their evidence about the alleged sexual abuse was excluded, jurors agreed with prosecutors that their motive was greed.
If the judge decides to resentence the Menendez brothers, it will then be up to the state parole board to consider their release.
Because they were under 26 years old at the time of the murders, under current California law, new sentences of 50 years to life would immediately make them eligible for a parole hearing.
"If this goes fully their way, they could be granted parole and be released. Their sentence could be commuted," Bonakdar said. "And the reason for that is there have been certain changes in California law which allow certain offenders, if they were young enough at the time they were convicted to seek re-sentencing under these compassionate release rules that say that, for example, if you were under the age of 26 at the the time of the commission, or if you had certain other mitigating circumstances, you're eligible to apply to the court for relief."
Bonakdar added that what's unique here is that Gascon affirmatively filed for the relief, and that the judge rejected current DA Nathan Hochman's attempt to pull back Gascon's motion.
"This is pretty important because under the new law, it says that where the government, where the prosecutor moves for the release, it actually entitles the defendant, the convict, to the benefit of a presumption, meaning that the person who's seeking the reduction of sentence starts off with a presumptive that they are eligible or that they should be granted parole. So that's something that's pretty unique and is not clear from what the judge ruled when rejecting Hochman's request to withdraw that initial motion," Bonakdar said.
What also sets this whole hearing and saga apart from others is that the Menendez brothers "definitely have a leg up over your average criminal defendant," Bonakdar said.
"First of all, obviously they had resources going into this. They had hired top flight lawyers. They threw everything in the kitchen sink at this trial," Bonakdar said about their trials in the '90s. "They went the distance and even testified in their criminal trials. So it's not surprising that a defendant who had that level of resources and put in that level of effort might be seeking relief now."
Bonakdar said that the biggest thing, though, is that Gascon affirmatively filed the motion.
"There is the argument that these defendants could have sought the clemency otherwise or filed a motion based on the change in the statute. The fact that Gascon, the former district attorney, filed this independently and affirmatively on behalf of these defendants really gives them a leg up going into the hearing. Most other defendants won't have that benefit," Bonakdar explained.
SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER
Hochman has strongly opposed the resentencing, put in motion by Gascon, but said he would consider it if both brothers "sincerely and unequivocally admit, for the first time in over 30 years, the full range of their criminal activity and all the lies that they have told about it."
He said in a previous statement that the brothers "have chosen to stubbornly remain hunkered down in their over 30-year-old bunker of lies, deceit, and denials," and that it's up to the court to factor in whether the "lack of acceptance of responsibility for their murderous actions" is enough to decide whether the Menendez brothers pose an unreasonable risk of danger to the community.
Bonakdar said, in his opinion and viewpoint, that there are "aggravating factors out there that the judge could consider and probably should" before making his decision in May.
"Premeditated murder is an extremely serious and obviously by its nature, violent offense. And particularly, if you've got the mental ability to process the idea of murdering both your parents in cold blood, that's a grave public safety concern," Bonakdar said. "The arguments on the other side are that at some point, time does heal wounds and that people can be rehabilitated and everyone is worthy of redemption. This is the argument that will be made on behalf of the Menendez brothers. While that may be true in some instances, I guess that remains to be seen for the Menéndez boys."
One of the roadblocks holding up the hearing stemmed from the Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA) report, which was a psychological exam ordered by Newsom's office and has become the biggest hurdle for the defense to overcome.
The brothers' attorney, Mark Geragos, filed a recusal motion against Hochman following Judge Michael Jesic's decision to reschedule their hearings until May. A recusal motion requests that the individual steps away from a case because of a potential conflict of interest or bias that prevents them from operating impartially.
GO HERE FOR REAL-TIME UPDATES FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB
There was also an accusation of a Marsy's Law violation, which protects victims' families, that took place when prosecutors showed graphic crime scene photos of the murder, that led to the hospitalization of an elderly aunt of the brothers, and something that family members claimed that they had never seen in 35 years.
Hochman's office said prosecutors did not intend to "cause distress or pain" to those in attendance at the hearing.
"To the extent that the photographic depiction of this conduct upset any of the Menendez family members present in court, we apologize for not giving prior warning that the conduct would be described in detail not only in words but also through a crime scene photo," Hochman's office wrote in a previous statement shared with Fox News Digital.
The judge declined the Menendez team's request for the DA to be admonished for showing the crime photos, but asked both sides to provide warning.
"It is extremely rare…where you have victims also supporting the defendants," Jesic said. "I didn't even think about it when the picture went up."
"It was a gruesome murder," he continued. "If anyone is uncomfortable, maybe they shouldn't be here."
Lyle and Erik Menendez will be back in court on May 9 as the decision of whether they will be released hangs in the balance.
They are already scheduled to appear before the parole board on June 13 as part of the CRA report ordered by Newsom, who is considering the brothers' clemency request – a separate potential path out of prison.
Fox News Digital reached out to Newsom's office for comment.
Stepheny Price is a writer for Fox News Digital and Fox Business. She covers topics including missing persons, homicides, national crime cases, illegal immigration, and more. Story tips and ideas can be sent to stepheny.price@fox.com
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
44 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Key player in California's water wars embraces controversial pact
After decades of deterioration and ecological collapse in the heart of California's water system, state regulators embraced the Newsom administration's controversial plan to overhaul how farms and cities take water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and rivers that feed it. It's a major development in a long-running battle over how much water must flow through the Delta for the survival of iconic Chinook salmon, sturgeon and other species — and how much can be tapped for tens of millions of Californians and vast tracts of Central Valley farmland. On one side are conservationists, the fishing industry, Delta communities and Native tribes: They want stringent rules requiring cities and farms to take less water from the imperiled watershed. On the other are Gov. Gavin Newsom, major urban and agricultural water suppliers, and the state and federal agencies tasked with exporting Delta water to farms and cities further south. They back a $2.9 billion pact reached three years ago that would allow water users to help restore fish habitat and forgo some water, rather than face strict requirements mandating how much water must remain in the rivers. On Thursday, staff with the State Water Resources Control Board threw their support behind the pact as the major path forward in a long-awaited update. Next comes a period of public comment and hearings before the water board's five governor-appointed members will consider adopting the plan. The pact, backed by $1.5 billion in state funding, is called the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program but better known as the 'voluntary agreements.' Under the plan, if adopted, those who don't sign on to the deal would face minimum flow requirements, which the water board may also consider adopting if the voluntary agreements fail to show 'sufficient benefits' at the end of an eight year term. The stakes are high for revamping the Delta's rulebook as fish populations plummet, commercial salmon fishing faces an unprecedented third year of shutdowns, and farmers struggle with unpredictable water supplies and restrictions on groundwater pumping. Participants in the deal — including Westlands Water District, the nation's largest agricultural supplier — say the Newsom-backed voluntary agreements will keep water flowing for farms and cities, and promote restoration of floodplains and other river features. 'It's a false narrative that it's people in cities, against agriculture, against fish. I think we as Californians need all of that to be able to function,' said Allison Febbo, general manager of Westlands Water District. 'We can actually maintain water delivery for our cities and our farms, but we can actually also be pretty thoughtful for our ecological systems.' But opponents are dismayed. They say that the voluntary agreements provide too little water and too little habitat to protect the fragile Delta ecosystem and the fish, industries and residents that rely on it. 'This latest plan is a shocking display of cowardice,' said Jon Rosenfield, science director of San Francisco Baykeeper. 'Even if the pledged water is delivered as promised, which is a big if, it barely moves the needle on the lack of adequate flows for fish, wildlife, fisheries and the communities that depend on those things,' Rosenfield said. Newsom also said today that he intended to use the budget process to push through a bill that would waive requirements under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act for water quality control plans like this one. Lawmakers punted on Newsom's bill earlier this summer during the thick of budget negotiations, but could still take it up before the end of session. Environmental groups fear that, if the bill passes, it could limit disclosures about how the plan would affect the Bay-Delta, and their ability to sue. Ashley Overhouse, water policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, said the exemption is 'bordering on undemocratic because you are cutting out the public in an important process … For the Bay-Delta, that is particularly important.' Rosenfield added: 'If it's such a great plan, why would you want to hide the results from the public?' Epicenter of water wars California's Bay-Delta has long been the epicenter of the state's water wars. The watershed, formed by the Sacramento and San Joaquin river systems, stretches from about Fresno to beyond the Oregon border and drains about 40% of California. It's the core of the state's water supply, supports much of the state's imperiled commercial salmon fishery, and is home to hundreds of native plant and animal species. For years, state regulators have warned that the Delta is experiencing an 'ecological crisis' with a 'prolonged and precipitous decline in numerous native species,' including endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and the tiny Delta smelt. Current requirements have 'failed to protect fish and wildlife' and must be updated 'in an expedited manner to halt and reverse the ecosystem collapse,' according to a 2017 fact sheet from the water board. But the rulebook hasn't been meaningfully updated in 30 years. State regulators adopted new flow requirements in 2018 for portions of the Lower San Joaquin River and its major tributaries, but they have been tied up by litigation and, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, by 'consideration of (voluntary agreements).' They have not yet been implemented. Now, regulators are considering updates for the rest of the watershed. This much larger portion includes the Sacramento River and its tributaries as well as the Calaveras, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne Rivers and the San Francisco Bay-Delta. Newsom has long pushed for a deal with water-users over mandates. 'Our first task is to cross the finish line on real agreements to save the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay Delta,' he said in his first State of the State address. 'We must get this done — for the resilience of our mighty rivers, the stability of our agriculture sector, and the millions who depend on this water every day.' State officials say that they expect this approach will engender more cooperation and avoid lawsuits that could delay action. 'Sometimes people say, 'Well, isn't it just politics and not science that's driving this?'' Wade Crowfoot, California Secretary of Natural Resources, which supports the agreements, told CalMatters in April 2024 before a series of workshops about the agreements. 'And I say, 'Well, ultimately, in California water, the decisions are often validated through legal challenge.'' The voluntary agreements are the culmination of years of negotiations with powerful urban and agricultural suppliers such as the Westlands Water District and the agencies that make up the State Water Contractors. Though called 'voluntary,' water board executive director Eric Oppenheimer says they would still be legally enforceable. The proposal meters out an average of up to 700,000 acre-feet of water in certain years, according to state officials — enough to supply up to 2.5 million households for a year. The amount varies, though depending on how wet or dry the year. Water users have not committed to leaving any additional water in several rivers including the Sacramento, Yuba, and Feather in critically dry years. It also calls for restoration of around 45,000 acres of spawning, rearing and floodplain habitats, backed by about $1.5 billion in state funding, $600 million from the water providers, and $740 million expected from federal funds, according to Jennifer Pierre, general manager for the State Water Contractors. By also promoting habitat restoration under the voluntary agreements, 'we think we can achieve significant ecosystem improvements, and we think it can be done with a lower water supply impact,' said Eric Oppenheimer, executive director of the State Water Resources Control Board. But, he said, at the end of eight years, if the 'board made a determination that the voluntary agreement pathway wasn't achieving sufficient benefits, it could then start a process to shift over to the regulatory pathway.' The regulatory pathway, by contrast, calls for maintaining flows of 35% to 55% of the amount of water that the rivers would have carried were they not dammed or diverted — an amount called unimpaired flow. For some, rain-fed tributaries that provide municipal supplies, there would be no flow requirement at all in the driest conditions. Water suppliers say such mandates would strike a major blow to their ability to provide water for cities and farms, and touted the habitat projects supported by the voluntary agreements. 'We're talking … about significant reductions in delivery to the San Joaquin Valley during dry years,' Pierre said. 'I would never argue that fish don't need water. They of course do. But in that water are things like refuge and food and adequate temperatures that are really being promoted.' Like a fish needs water Opponents, however, say there is far too little water provided in the voluntary agreements, and that the updated flow requirements are also far weaker than previous proposals. State officials did not provide a comparison between the two pathways. Oppenheimer said that the comparison is not 'apples to apples' because of the inclusion of habitat restoration efforts under the voluntary agreements. 'I know everybody wants to know how the two compare when you compare flow. But you know, from my perspective, it's not a valid comparison,' he said. 'There is no translation between habitat and water.' That, environmentalists say, is the problem. Fish habitat, they say, needs to be wet. 'For fish, flow is the habitat. There is no evidence that restoring floodplains or tidal marshes, in the absence of adequate flow, produces any benefit,' Rosenfield said. Conservationists and fishing organizations also fear that the voluntary agreements would pave the way for more water to be diverted from the Delta by future water projects such as Sites Reservoir and the deeply controversial Delta tunnel. A state analysis, published in 2023, reported that without additional protections, 'existing flows may be reduced in the future, particularly with climate change and additional water development.' Opponents have also warned that thousands of acres of the habitat restoration promised under the voluntary agreements are already in the works, which they say reduces how much the deal would benefit fish species. (Pierre counters that this is a plus of the agreements, and reflects early action during negotiations.) And critics say that the voluntary agreements require money and cooperation from a federal government that has slashed environmental programs and called for 'Putting People over Fish' in a memorandum issued on President Trump's first day in office. 'This is a sad day for the State Water Board and one more on a long list of bad days for salmon,' Scott Artis, executive director, Golden State Salmon Association, said in a statement. 'Commercial fishing in California has been closed for three years because of unsustainable water diversions. This looks like a plan to kill California's most important wild salmon runs and fishing jobs.' ___ This story was originally published by CalMatters and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Fox News
44 minutes ago
- Fox News
California man accused by feds of scamming $2 million from people on dating apps
A California man was federally charged for allegedly scamming more than $2 million from people over popular dating apps by posing as someone who was "financially successful and knowledgeable about investments," prosecutors said. Christopher Earl Lloyd, 39, of Whittier, is now facing a 14-count federal indictment in connection with the alleged scheme he carried out for nearly three years on dating apps such as Tinder, Hinge and Bumble, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Central District of California. "According to the indictment that a federal grand jury returned on July 2, from April 2021 to February 2024, Lloyd used dating apps and websites to befriend and engage in romantic relationships with his victims. Lloyd lied to his victims to give them the impression that he was financially successful and knowledgeable about investments," the Attorney's Office said. "Lloyd fraudulently induced his victims to provide money and property to him, including in the form of purported investments, by telling them he knew of investment opportunities that would benefit them. Lloyd also told his victims that he would invest their money, that they would receive regular returns on these investments, and that they could withdraw these investments at any time," it added. However, Lloyd used the money that his victims sent him for his own personal benefit, prosecutors said. "For example, in May 2023, Lloyd allegedly withdrew $40,000 in funds a victim sent him to write a check to a Lexus car dealership in Mission Viejo," according to prosecutors. They said Lloyd helped sell the scam by telling his victims that "he had closed on multiple properties, that he had been a financial manager for years, that he was the vice president of a company called Planet 13 Holdings, and that he worked for an investment company called Landmark Associates." "None of these statements was true," the Attorney's Office said. It added that Lloyd "supported his false statements by signing contracts with victims that specified the investments that the victims were to make and setting a false schedule of investment returns" and that they then "sent him money, including via wire transfers, Cash App, Zelle, or cash payments." Lloyd was charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and one count of engaging in a monetary transaction in property derived from the fraud. "If convicted, Lloyd would face a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison for each wire fraud count and up to 10 years in federal prison for the monetary transaction count," prosecutors said. "The FBI is investigating this matter."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Yuga Labs dispute over NFT trademarks heads to trial. ‘Not monkey business,' court says
Beneath the speculative non-fungible trading frenzy that erupted in 2021 was a deeper fight over digital ownership and intellectual property. Now, that battle is heading back to court. The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday revived Yuga Labs' high-profile trademark lawsuit against conceptual artist Ryder Ripps and developer Jeremy Cahen. The court ruled that a jury must decide whether the duo's parody NFT collection misled consumers. The ruling reversed a $9 million judgment issued last year in favour of Yuga Labs, the creator of the Bored Ape Yacht Club. The appeals panel said the trial judge had improperly decided on disputed facts without a jury. The judges stopped short of siding with Ripps and Cahen, but made clear that questions over source confusion and domain name misuse must go before a fact-finder. 'Some factors indicated a likelihood of confusion, some did not, and some were neutral,' the court wrote, concluding that a trial is required. In a wink to the NFTs in question, the panel added: 'Yuga's NFTs are not merely monkey business.' The court also affirmed that NFTs can be protected under the Lanham Act as 'goods,' rejecting arguments that they're too intangible to qualify for trademark protection under US law. 'The Ninth Circuit confirmed: BAYC NFTs are protectable trademarks,' Yuga Labs co-founder Greg Solano wrote on X, calling it 'an important win for every NFT holder.' He added: 'We'll win in the district just like we won before. Onward.' The court also upheld the dismissal of Ripps and Cahen's counterclaims, including a failed attempt to argue that Yuga had misrepresented copyright ownership when filing takedown requests. The case stems from a 2022 spoof collection called RR/BAYC, which mimicked the Bored Ape NFTs while claiming to criticise the project's alleged connections to hate symbols — accusations Yuga has denied. The original court ruling had ordered the defendants to hand over any infringing NFTs and IP and pay millions in legal fees. The ruling lands just as the NFT market is showing signs of life after a multi-year slump. Top collections like CryptoPunks, Bored Apes, and Pudgy Penguins have seen a resurgence in trading activity, and the total NFT market cap has nearly doubled over the past month to more than $6 billion. Crypto market movers Bitcoin has gained 0.1% in value over the past 24 hours and is trading at $118,665. Ethereum is down 2% in the same period to $3,605. What we're reading Judge allows controversial testimony in Roman Storm trial — DL News 5 crypto sectors booming unexpectedly — Milk Road Crypto's big bang will revolutionise finance — The Economist New Solana Treasury Company Raising $1.5 Billion to Be Led by Joe McCann — Unchained Why institutions are wary of Ethereum treasury plays — for now — DL News Kyle Baird is DL News' Weekend Editor. Got a tip? Email at kbaird@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
