California AG Opposes Push to Remove DA in Menendez Brothers’ Resentencing Fight

The legal battle over the fate of Erik and Lyle Menendez just took another sharp turn, and California’s top law enforcement official is making his stance clear. Attorney General Rob Bonta is pushing back against a motion to remove the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office from the brothers’ resentencing case, calling the request weak and legally unsupported.

In a detailed 22-page filing, the AG’s office argued that the Menendez legal team has failed to present any serious grounds for disqualification. The defense had claimed that the DA’s office has a conflict of interest and has violated the rights of the Menendez family under Marsy’s Law, a California victims’ rights statute. But the state says there’s simply not enough substance behind those accusations.

“The defense hasn’t identified a disqualifying conflict that would show the prosecutors can’t act fairly,” the filing stated. “There’s also no evidence that the alleged conflicts would lead to unfair treatment if the DA’s office stays on the case.”

Defense Accusations of Bias Fall Flat

The defense, led by attorney Mark Geragos, has been vocal in accusing the DA’s office — now under District Attorney Nathan Hochman — of having a biased position on the case. They argue that the new administration is reversing course on resentencing and retaliating against prosecutors who previously supported the brothers’ request.

In an earlier motion, Geragos said Hochman should recuse himself, citing a “conflict of interest” and claiming that his view on resentencing is inherently hostile. According to Geragos, the DA’s current position denies the decades-long claims that the Menendez brothers were sexually abused as children — an argument that shaped both public opinion and early jury deadlock.

“If there’s no recognition of the abuse, there’s no room for rehabilitation,” Geragos said. “This goes to the core of whether these defendants can receive a fair hearing.”

Behind the Motion: Personnel and Politics

One major point of contention centers around Kathleen Cady, an attorney recently hired by Hochman to lead the DA’s Office of Victims’ Services. Cady previously represented a Menendez family member who opposed resentencing and submitted a legal brief stating as much.

The defense says this hiring, along with the reassignment of two deputy DAs who supported resentencing, shows a clear shift in favor of a more punitive stance. But Bonta’s office dismissed this as insufficient to warrant an office-wide recusal, stating that Cady has been “walled off from the case” entirely.

Meanwhile, Hochman responded with sharp words of his own, saying the defense is simply trying to “sidestep the real issue” — whether the brothers deserve a second chance. “Just because the defense disagrees with our stance doesn’t make it a conflict,” he added. “That’s not how justice works.”

Decades After the Crime, the Debate Continues

The Menendez brothers have spent more than 30 years behind bars for the brutal 1989 killings of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, inside their Beverly Hills mansion. The case has remained in the public eye for decades, fueled by high-profile trials, multiple documentaries, and a surge of online support from a younger generation.

Now, their legal team is hoping for a resentencing based on what they say was overlooked trauma and abuse. Supporters argue that their original trials didn’t give enough weight to the psychological toll of years of sexual and emotional abuse, while prosecutors continue to maintain that the motive was purely financial.

If the judge sides with the Menendez defense, a resentencing hearing could be scheduled, potentially reducing their life sentences. But that’s just the beginning. The California Parole Board would then have to weigh their risk to society — a step Governor Gavin Newsom is also monitoring closely as part of a larger clemency review.

A ruling on the DA’s recusal is expected after a hearing this Friday. Meanwhile, the brothers are scheduled to appear for a parole review on June 13, where a comprehensive risk assessment will be evaluated.

The decades-old case continues to spark fierce debate — not just about justice, but about whether past abuse, if proven, should earn a chance at redemption. And in this courtroom battle, every word and every filing still matters.