Menendez Brothers’ Resentencing Faces New Challenges Amid Risk Assessment Revelations
The decades-long legal saga surrounding Lyle and Erik Menendez, convicted of the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, has taken another turn as the possibility of their release from prison faces renewed scrutiny. A recently disclosed Comprehensive Risk Assessment (CRA), detailing troubling behavior exhibited by both brothers while incarcerated, has emerged as a potential obstacle to their resentencing process.
The details of the CRA surfaced during a recent court hearing, where Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman made a last-ditch effort to persuade Judge Michael Jesic to halt the resentencing proceedings. Hochman argued that the new evidence presented in the CRA reports raised significant red flags, information he claimed was absent from the initial reports requested by former LA DA George Gascon.
However, Judge Jesic ultimately rejected Hochman’s plea, stating that the CRA did not contain any significantly new information that warranted halting the resentencing process. Despite this setback, Hochman proceeded to outline the reasons why he believed the CRA reports painted a concerning picture of the Menendez brothers’ potential for violence upon release.
The CRA reports, prepared by state psychologists from the state parole office, are designed to assess the overall risk of an inmate committing violence after being released from prison. According to Hochman, the reports indicated that Erik and Lyle were not low-risk individuals, but rather presented an elevated risk.
Hochman highlighted specific instances of rule-breaking by both brothers, citing contraband violations, particularly the possession of cell phones, as evidence of their continued problematic behavior.
Focusing on Lyle Menendez, Hochman pointed to the CRA report’s findings that Lyle’s actions demonstrated "deceit" in relation to the contraband phone. The report also suggested that Lyle had "downplayed his rule-breaking" and exhibited "entitlement and willingness to meet his own needs." Hochman argued that Lyle’s behavior, especially considering his pending resentencing, indicated a propensity to prioritize his own desires and revealed "narcissistic tendencies."
Turning to Erik Menendez, Hochman stated that the CRA report revealed "behavior issues" and a "lack of maturity." The report also suggested that Erik was "vulnerable to negative influence from others — including his brother." Hochman further referenced incidents as recent as January 2025, where Erik was flagged for possessing and dealing drugs, as well as assisting other inmates with tax fraud.
The emergence of the CRA reports and Hochman’s attempt to leverage them in court have sparked debate among legal experts.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, characterized the case as "political," noting that Governor Gavin Newsom had ordered the CRA before Lyle and Erik were resentenced to a sentence that includes the possibility of parole. Rahmani stated that normally the report wouldn’t be ordered, much less available, until parole was even an option. Rahmani noted that Judge Jesic will consider rehabilitation, acceptance of responsibility, disciplinary history in prison, fairness of the sentence, and impact on the victims.
Los Angeles attorney Tre Lovell acknowledged the significance of the CRA but cautioned against overemphasizing its importance. He stated that while the CRA is significant, it is not an end all, be all. Both sides will be able to cross-examine the authors of the assessment, he said. The court will consider it, but will do so mildly, and be more reliant on the cross-examinations and the specific findings of fact derived once its conclusion is tested in court. Witness testimony and expert testimony are also extremely important in terms of deciding resentencing.
Judge Jesic himself acknowledged the limitations of the CRA, noting that the conclusions of the state psychologists are "subjective and not available for cross-examination in his court." He also highlighted the fact that those conclusions can change and flagged the various warnings attached to using the CRA outside the state parole system.
Mark Geragos, the Menendez brothers’ defense attorney, criticized Hochman’s use of the CRA, accusing him of "twisting these conclusions in violation of state parole guidance" and labeling it a "dog and pony show." Geragos downplayed the significance of the cell phone violations, stating that "cell phones in prison are not a super strike." He also invited Hochman to visit the Menendez brothers’ prison to witness their accomplishments during their 35 years of incarceration.
With the resentencing proceedings set to continue, the unresolved issues surrounding the risk assessment report are expected to play a central role. Lyle and Erik Menendez are scheduled to return to court on May 13 and 14 for continued proceedings in their resentencing case, as they seek to reduce their sentences following their conviction for the 1989 murder of their parents.
