DA says he would reconsider resentencing only if Menendez brothers admit to 'lies'

Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman said he would reconsider resentencing Lyle and Erik Menendez only if the brothers admitted to what he said are decades of lies, doubling down on his stance in a new interview with ABC News on Wednesday.

"If they 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," Hochman told ABC News chief national correspondent Matt Gutman that he would then be willing to recommend resentencing.

The remarks come after Hochman announced last week that he's asking the court to withdraw his predecessor's motion for resentencing, arguing that the brothers do not meet the standards for resentencing or rehabilitation because they "persist in telling these lies for the last over 30 years about their self-defense defense."

Asked by Gutman if he has a checklist of each individual lie, Hochman said, "I actually do."

"The essence of that checklist is that they'd have to finally admit after 30 years, they killed their parents willfully, deliberately and in premeditated fashion, not because they believed that their parents were going to kill them that night," Hochman said.

Hochman said his office has identified 20 lies that they have told since the day of the murder, and that the brothers have admitted to four of them while there are 16 additional lies "that are the essence of their self-defense" that remain unacknowledged.

The brothers are serving life without the possibility of parole for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Kitty and Jose Menendez.

Asked if he believes the brothers deserve to die in prison, Hochman said, "My personal belief is completely irrelevant."

"What I do is I follow the facts and the law in each case," he said.

Hochman deflected on whether the brothers were definitively sexually abused by their father, as they, and surviving family members have stated for decades. But Hochman stressed that sex abuse was never their defense.

"There was no additional corroboration of anyone in 12 years -- whether it was another adult, a friend, a coach, a teacher -- who reported on any recipient information that the sexual abuse occurred during those 12 years. But was there evidence presented at trial? Yes. Was it the defense that the Menendezes used to first-degree murder? Absolutely not," Hochman said. "That is what we have focused on."

Menendez family members who want the brothers released have said the brothers endured horrific abuse, have admitted guilt and apologized, and have pushed back against Hochman's insistence that the brothers weren't sexually abused, with one cousin calling the district attorney's tone "hostile, dismissive and patronizing."

Asked by Gutman if he understands the family's desire to have the brothers released, Hochman said, "I do."

"I do absolutely see the sincerity of their belief, that they want the Menendez brothers out. 100%," he said.

A hearing on the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office's motion to withdraw the resentencing petition is scheduled for April 11.

Depending on what the court decides then, a resentencing hearing may be set for April 17 and April 18, the district attorney's office said.

On whether he would appeal if the judge decides that the brothers should be seen by a parole board, beginning the pathway for resentencing, Hochman said, "We would certainly look at the judge's justification for any resentencing, and if the judge does his job and looks at all the factors and reaches a different conclusion than us, but one that the law also would support, we would not be in a position to appeal that."

If the case moves forward, a parole board would submit their recommendation to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who can then accept or reverse their recommendation, or have the entire parole board weigh in, Hochman said.

Hochman initially announced the move to withdraw the motion for resentencing on March 10, calling the brothers' claims of self-defense part of a litany of "lies." Following the press briefing, Lyle Menendez posted on Facebook that "of all those 'lies' [Hochman] talked about, several of them were admitted/stipulated to in the first trial. ... And several other 'lies' were absolutely disproven or reasonably disputed."

Hochman's predecessor, George Gascón, announced in October that he supported resentencing for the brothers. Gascón recommended their sentences of life without the possibility of parole be removed, and said they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they would be eligible for parole immediately with the new sentence.

The DA's office said at the time that its resentencing recommendations take into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the work Lyle and Erik Menendez did behind bars to rehabilitate themselves and help other inmates.

Weeks after Gascón's announcement, he lost his race for reelection to Hochman. When Hochman came into office on Dec. 3, he promised to review all the facts before reaching his own decision.

Besides resentencing, the brothers have been pursuing two other paths to freedom.

One is their habeas corpus petition, which they filed in 2023 for a review of two new pieces of evidence not presented at trial: a letter Erik Menendez wrote to his cousin eight months before the murders detailing his alleged abuse from his father, and allegations from a former boy band member who revealed in 2023 that he was raped by Jose Menendez.

Hochman announced in February that he's asked the court to deny the habeas corpus petition, arguing the new evidence isn't credible or admissible.

The third path to freedom is through the brothers' request for clemency, which has been submitted to Newsom.

On Feb. 26, Newsom announced that he's ordering the parole board to conduct a 90-day "comprehensive risk assessment" investigation into whether the brothers pose "an unreasonable risk to the public" if they're granted clemency and released.