It is expected that a judge domine Friday about the effort to remove the leading prosecutor of Los Angeles County from the attempt by Erik and Lyle Menendez of reducing his arrest sentences after his defense team accused the public prosecutor of prejudice.
Judge Michael Jesic of Los Angeles County County should also decide whether a “risk assessment” can be admitted as evidence in his resentment hearing.
Prison and parole officials conducted the assessment, which examines the risk that brothers may pose to the public if they are released from prison as part of a separate request from Clemency that Erik, 54, and Lyle, 57, were made to California governor Gavin News.
The brothers are fulfilling life sentences without the possibility of parole for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. They claimed that the murders were in self -defense after Lyle Menendez confronted her father about sexually abusing her younger brother.
Prosecutors described the murders as cold blood and financially motivated.
The brothers’ first trial ended with a Hung jury in 1994. They were convicted of first -degree murder after a second trial two years later.
His resentment effort – which could make them eligible for parole immediately if granted – was supported by the Los Angeles County -District, George Gasco, who said he was exceptional prisoners over the more than three decades that have passed behind the bars.
Many of the brothers’ relatives – and some celebrities – defended their cause and cited their achievements behind bars, including their assistance to disabled prisoners, university courses they have completed and a “beautification” project of the green space they carried out in the prison of Southern California, where they are incarcerated.
Gascon’s replacement, Nathan Hochman, opposed resentment, saying that there are 16 “unrecognized lies” about the murders that the brothers were not responsible. Among them, he said, was the report that they killed their parents in self -defense.
Jesic will determine if they should be resentful.
Hochman moved to withdraw his predecessor’s request, but the effort failed, and the opponents should convey their differences during a two-day audience last month. Hours after the process, Jesic postponed the resentment offer and said he would consider risk assessments – which were not disclosed – and the defense argument that Hochman’s office should be expelled from the case.
In a document, the defense pointed to a lawyer who previously represented a Menendez relative who opposed the brothers’ resentment and was later hired by Hochman to manage his victim’s service unit. The lawyer does not seem to have been properly walled from the case and did not treat other relatives fairly, according to the registration.
“No one from the District Prosecutor’s Victim Services Department contacted a single family members whose opinions conflicted with the opinions” of the lawyer’s former client, says the document.
The filling also cites photographs of “terrible” criminal scenes that were shown at a hearing last month without notice, while members of the Menendez family were in court.
Hochman apologized for the photos, but called the effort to remove his office from the case of a “drastic and desperate step” that loses what he described as one of the central issues in the brothers’ resentment – assessing if they have taken full responsibility for their crimes.