Menendez Brothers Family Takes on District Attorney in New Plea
According to the article, a cousin of Lyle and Erik Menendez is slamming Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, accusing him of being "hostile, dismissive and patronizing" to the family and asking for him to be removed from the case.
“Menendez Brothers’ Cousin Asks for D.A.’s Removal from Case”
The cousin, Tamara Goodell, said Hochman's conduct "eroded any remaining trust" in the D.A.'s office and she wants the case turned over to the attorney general's office.
D.A. Hochman’s Meeting with Menendez Family Members
During Hochman's January 2 meeting with over 20 Menendez family members who want the brothers released, the relatives emotionally shared their "ongoing trauma and suffering," Goodell said in a recent letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office Civil Rights Division. But she said Hochman "proceeded to verbally and emotionally re-traumatize the family by shaming us for allegedly not listening to his public press briefings."
Hochman's "hostile, dismissive, and patronizing tone created an intimidating and bullying atmosphere, leaving us, the victims, more distressed and feeling humiliated," she said.
Goodell alleged Hochman focused on how he was treated rather than the victims.
"The lack of compassion was palpable, and the family left feeling not only ignored but further intimidated and revictimized," she said.
Marsy’s Law
Goodell cited her rights as a victim under Marsy's Law -- California's bill of rights for victims -- specifically noting it states that a victim is entitled "to be treated with fairness and respect" and be "free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse."
One day after that initial meeting with Hochman, Goodell said she and her son met with Hochman, other prosecutors in the D.A.'s office, the brothers' attorney and the family's attorney -- and she said she left that meeting feeling "disregarded and disrespected."
Concerns Regarding D.A. Hochman’s Impartiality
Goodell said when she raised concerns about the D.A.'s office's impartiality, Hochman "became visibility agitated, dismissive and aggressive."
Goodell said her son witnessed the DA's "abusive, belittling, and unprofessional conduct, further compounding the emotional toll on our family."
Goodell also alleged that Hochman said the brothers' attorney "has represented 'horrible people." "This inappropriate remark reinforced his bias," Goodell said.
Besides asking for Hochman to be removed and the case turned over to the attorney general's office, Goodell said she wants Hochman "held accountable" for his behavior.
She said she also wants Kathleen Cady -- who was appointed by Hochman as director of the DA's Bureau of Victim Service -- removed from the case and "a new, unbiased" representative assigned to victim services.
Cady was formerly the attorney for Milton Anderson, the one Menendez relative pushing to keep the brothers in prison. Anderson died last week.
Goodell said that when she brought up her concerns about Cady in the second January meeting, "Hochman coldly dismissed me," and "interrupted me, speaking in a condescending and hostile manner."
Hochman said in January that Cady is "walled off from the Menendez case."
The D.A. declined to comment on Goodell's letter.
The Crimes
The Menendez brothers are serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez. Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were 21 and 18, respectively, at the time, admitted to the murders but claimed they acted in self-defense after enduring years of sexual abuse by their father.
Three Possible Paths to Freedom
The brothers are pursuing three possible paths to freedom.
One is a request for clemency to California Governor Gavin Newsom. The governor announced in February that he's ordering the parole board to conduct a 90-day risk assessment investigation into whether the brothers pose "an unreasonable risk to the public" if they're granted clemency and released.
Another path is a habeas corpus petition the brothers filed in 2023 for a review of two new pieces of evidence not presented at trial. Hochman in February asked the court to deny the habeas corpus petition, arguing the new evidence was not credible or admissible, and saying their claims of sexual assault do not justify killing their parents in self-defense.
The third is resentencing.
In October, then-L.A. County District Attorney George Gascón announced that he was recommending the brothers' sentence of life without the possibility of parole be removed, and 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 D.A.'s office said its resentencing recommendations consider 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.
Hochman, who became D.A. in December, is expected to release his position on resentencing imminently.
Discussion Questions
1. Does it strike you as unusual that over 20 Menendez family members are claiming they are victims in this case? Explain your response.
This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary. In your author’s opinion, this does appear unusual, since the term “victim’s rights” is usually associated with the person harmed by the defendant in a criminal case, and/or the person’s family. In the Menendez brothers’ case, the family of the original victims, murder victims Jose and Mary Louise Menendez, are also the family of the defendants Lyle and Erik Menendez, the two sons of Jose and Mary Louise Menendez.
2. Explain Marsy’s Law.
Marsy’s Law is a “bill of rights” for crime victims that states, inter alia, that a victim must be “treated with fairness and respect” and must be “free from intimidation, harassment, and abuse.” It originated in the State of California, and to date, 12 states (California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) have incorporated some version of Marsy’s Law into their state constitutions.
For more information regarding the origin of Marsy’s Law in California, please see the following web address:
https://www.marsyslaw.us/about-marsys-law
For more information regarding Marsy’s Law in California, including California’s 17 enumerated victims’ rights, please see “Teaching Tip 2” (“Victims’ Rights Under Marsy’s Law”) of this newsletter.
For an article critical of Marsy’s Law, please see the following web address:
3. Of the three possible “paths to freedom” for the Menendez brothers, which do you believe has the greatest likelihood of success? Explain your response.
This is an opinion question, so student responses will likely vary.
As outlined in the article, the Menendez brothers have three possible “paths to freedom”: (1) clemency granted by California Governor Gavin Newsom; (2) a habeas corpus petition the brothers filed in 2023 for a review of two new pieces of evidence not presented at trial; and (3) resentencing.
In your author’s opinion, although all prospects appear “dim,” the Menendez brothers’ best chance for freedom is resentencing. In terms of the first option, governors are usually reluctant to interfere with a court’s judgment by granting clemency, which is compassion or forgiveness in judgment or punishment. A governor who grants clemency could be viewed as “soft on crime.” In terms of the second option, the habeas corpus petition (which challenges the legality of imprisonment) is based on two “new” pieces of evidence offered by the Menendez brothers. If this evidence was available to be introduced at trial, or if it is deemed not credible or not admissible, the evidence will not likely “move the dial” in terms of releasing the Menendez brothers. In terms of the third option, resentencing, the article indicates that the L.A. County D.A.’s office appears receptive to the notion that the Menendez brothers have already spent 35 years in prison; that they have rehabilitated in prison; that they suffered abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime; and that they have assisted other inmates while incarcerated. Taking collectively, that may be enough for resentencing, although ultimately, that is a decision for the court to make (with or without the recommendation of the D.A.’s office).
