California Governor Gavin Newsom has confirmed that Erik and Lyle Menendez will have their final parole board hearing in June, a key moment that could determine whether the brothers, who have spent more than three decades in prison for the murder of their parents, are granted clemency.
Speaking on his podcast Tuesday, Newsom announced that an independent risk assessment is underway and will conclude by June 13. The assessment, conducted by a team of experts and psychologists, will evaluate whether the brothers pose a risk to public safety. “On June 13, both Lyle and Eric Menendez independently will have their final hearing,” Newsom said, adding that once the assessment report is finalized, it will be submitted to a judge for resentencing consideration. His office will conduct its own review to decide whether to support a commutation of the sentences.
The decision follows a move by Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman, who withdrew his office’s previous support for resentencing the brothers. Hochman’s March 10 announcement stated that the Menendez brothers “do not meet the standards for rehabilitation” and accused them of failing to fully acknowledge their responsibility for the 1989 shotgun murders of their parents, José and Mary Louise Menendez.
Hochman’s stance marks a reversal from his predecessor, George Gascón, who had advocated for resentencing and backed a clemency petition submitted to Newsom last year. Since taking office, Hochman has distanced himself from Gascón’s policies and expressed a preference for the governor to handle clemency decisions in high-profile cases like this one. While Hochman has repeatedly emphasized that Newsom holds “full, constitutional power” over commutation decisions, Newsom asserted that the DA’s withdrawal of support does not change the course of the parole board’s independent review.
The Menendez brothers, who were convicted in 1996 and sentenced to life without parole, have long maintained that their actions were driven by years of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their father, an argument that gained renewed attention in recent years. Public interest in their case surged following true crime series and documentaries, including Ryan Murphy’s Netflix series “Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story.” However, Newsom made clear that he has avoided such portrayals. “I’ve seen a few clips here and there on social media, and I don’t intend to watch these series because I don’t want to be influenced by them. I just want to be influenced by the facts,” he said.
While Hochman’s withdrawal of support has frustrated the brothers’ advocates, their attorney, Mark Geragos, remains confident that they will be released. “The law’s gonna be followed. And if the law’s followed, they should be out,” Geragos told NBC News, emphasizing his focus on highlighting the brothers’ record of good behavior in prison.
Meanwhile, controversy continues to surround Hochman’s handling of the case. Tamara Goodell, a cousin of the Menendez brothers, accused Hochman of treating the family with “dismissive, aggressive, and shaming behavior” during meetings. Goodell alleged that Hochman violated Marsy’s Law, California’s victims’ bill of rights, and has submitted complaints to the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the L.A. District Attorney’s Inspector General. “Instead of responding with compassion, acknowledgment, or support, DA Hochman proceeded to verbally and emotionally re-traumatize the family,” Goodell said, describing his tone as “hostile, dismissive, and patronizing.”
As of March 11, Goodell stated that she had received no response from authorities regarding her complaints. She has suggested that California Attorney General Rob Bonta should take over the case, arguing that Hochman’s handling has been “unprofessional.”
The final parole hearing scheduled for June will be a pivotal moment in the Menendez brothers’ decades-long legal battle. If the parole board recommends resentencing, the decision will then move to the governor’s office, where Newsom will weigh whether to support commutation. The legal and political stakes surrounding the case remain high, as debates over rehabilitation, accountability, and prosecutorial discretion continue to shape its outcome.
