Connect with us

News

Menendez Brothers Resentenced to Life With Parole, Paving Way for Freedom

Published

on

Menendez Brothers Resentenced to Life With Parole, Paving Way for Freedom

Lyle and Erik Menendez were resentenced on Tuesday to life in prison with the possibility of parole, setting the stage for their possible release after more than three decades behind bars for killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion.

The decision, by Judge Michael V. Jesic of Los Angeles Superior Court, came after a day of testimony by family members, who said the brothers had turned their lives around inside prison through education and self-help groups. They urged the court to reduce the brothers’ sentences for the 1989 killings.

“This was an absolutely horrific crime,” Judge Jesic said as he delivered his ruling. But as shocking as the crime was, Judge Jesic said, he was also shocked by the number of corrections officials who wrote letters on behalf of the brothers, documented support that clearly swayed his decision.

“I’m not suggesting they should be released,” he said. “That’s not for me to decide.”

But, he continued: “I do believe they have done enough over the last 35 years to get that chance.” The brothers’ futures, he said, would now be in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom and state parole-board officials.

Advertisement

While Judge Jesic’s decision was the most important legal step so far in the brothers’ long effort to win release, it is not the final step. In reducing the brothers’ sentences, the judge has allowed them to be immediately eligible for parole.

Now the attention will be on the state’s parole officials. The brothers were already scheduled to appear before the board on June 13 as part of Mr. Newsom’s consideration of clemency, a separate process that has unfolded in parallel to the resentencing effort.

It was unclear if the June hearing would address both the resentencing and clemency request. A spokesperson for Mr. Newsom said his office was reviewing the judge’s decision and determining next steps.

Lawyers for the brothers made only brief statements after the hearing, thanking supporters.

Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the brothers who testified on Tuesday, faced the dozens of cameras assembled outside the courthouse. “I have been crying all day long. These are tears of joy, for sure,” she said.

Advertisement

Nathan J. Hochman, the Los Angeles district attorney who has opposed resentencing for the brothers, did not provide statements after the ruling. He and his team have argued repeatedly that the brothers failed to demonstrate that they have “full insight” into their crimes. The brothers, they argued, never renounced their claim that they killed their parents because they feared their parents would kill them first, which prosecutors maintained was a lie.

The decision to resentence the brothers is a remarkable turn in a saga that has gripped the nation’s attention for decades. The brothers tried unsuccessfully to appeal their convictions for many years, and they had said that over time, their hopes of being released had diminished. As the years passed, the brothers evolved into cultural icons in their own right, amassing a loyal following as a series of docudramas and documentaries retold their stories for a younger audience.

In 1989, the story of sexual abuse and murder in one of America’s ritziest cities was irresistible to the media and public, and it foreshadowed an even greater obsession with another Los Angeles story — the murder case against O.J. Simpson.

The brothers said they burst into the den of their Beverly Hills mansion on a Sunday evening in 1989 and killed their parents with shotguns because they had endured years of sexual abuse from their father. They said they feared their parents would kill them to keep the abuse secret. At the time, Lyle was 21 and Erik, 18.

Now two middle-aged men, the brothers appeared remotely at the resentencing hearing on Tuesday from their prison near San Diego, sitting stoically in blue jumpsuits while witness after witness testified on their behalf.

Advertisement

After Judge Jesic said that he would resentence the brothers — but before he said what the new sentence would be — the brothers made statements. Through a video feed, they took responsibility for the crimes and apologized to their relatives in the courtroom, who could be heard softly sobbing.

Lyle spoke first, saying that all the choices he made in August 1989 were his own, including “the choice to reload, return to the den and run up to my mother and shoot her in the head.” And he took responsibility, he said, for making a “mockery of the criminal legal system” by lying to the police and trying to solicit others to lie for him on the witness stand at trial.

He said that at the time, he was a young man “scared and filled with rage,” who was too ashamed of the sexual abuse happening in his house to find someone and ask for help.

Erik also took responsibility for the crimes and said he had spent a long time wondering what his parents must have been thinking the night they were murdered, and “the terror they must have felt when their own son fired a gun at them.”

Back then, the case played out as a sort of reckoning of the policies and culture of the 1990s: the tough-on-crime measures that left California’s prisons overcrowded; the societal attitudes about sexual abuse that eyed the brothers’ story with skepticism; the gavel-to-gavel televised trial coverage; and the late-night comics who regularly mocked the brothers as privileged dilettantes.

Advertisement

Their first trial, in 1993, landed during a tumultuous time in Los Angeles. Officers in the beating of Rodney King had been acquitted of assault, catalyzing deadly riots.

After their first trial ended in mistrials — the brothers were tried together with separate juries — they went on trial a second time after Mr. Simpson’s acquittal.

This time, the brothers faced different rules in the courtroom. Cameras were banned, and the judge limited testimony and evidence about sexual abuse. The jury convicted the brothers of murder, and they were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In recent years, the brothers have drawn sympathy from many young people who were not alive at the time of the crimes. Learning about the case online, they have come to believe that the brothers were mistreated by the criminal justice system and the media, and have rallied to their cause on social media.

Laurel Rosenhall contributed reporting.

Advertisement

News

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Published

on

Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live

Trump says US stockpiles mean “wars can be fought ‘forever’”

In a late night post on Truth Social, Donald Trump said that the US munitions stockpiles “at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better”.

He added that the US has a “virtually unlimited supply of these weapons”, meaning that “wars can be fought ‘forever’”.

This comes after Trump said that the US-Israel war on Iran could go beyond the four-five weeks that the administration initially predicted. The president also did not rule out the possibility of US boots on the ground in Iran during an interview with the New York Post on Monday.

Advertisement

“I rebuilt the military in my first term, and continue to do so. The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!,” he wrote.

Share

Key events

During his opening remarks, Senate judicicary committee chairman, Chuck Grassley, blamed Democrats for the ongoing shutdown Department of Homeland Security (DHS) but highlighted four agencies: the Secret Service, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and the Coast Guard.

Democrats are demanding tighter guardrails for federal immigration enforcement, but a sweeping tax bill signed into law last year conferred $75bn for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which means the agency is still functional amid the wider department shuttering.

Share
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

Published

on

Supreme Court blocks redrawing of New York congressional map, dealing a win for GOP

The Supreme Court

Win McNamee/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Monday intervened in New York’s redistricting process, blocking a lower court decision that would likely have flipped a Republican congressional district into a Democratic district.    
  
At issue is the midterm redrawing of New York’s 11th congressional district, including Staten Island and a small part of Brooklyn. The district is currently held by a Republican, but on Jan. 21, a state Supreme Court judge ruled that the current district dilutes the power of Black and Latino voters in violation of the state constitution.  
  
GOP Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, who represents the district, and the Republican co-chair of the state Board of Elections promptly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to block the redrawing as an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander.” New York’s congressional election cycle was set to officially begin Feb. 24, the opening day for candidates to seek placement on the ballot.  
  
As in this year’s prior mid-decade redistricting fights — in Texas and California — the Trump administration backed the Republicans.   
 
Voters and the State of New York contended it’s too soon for the Supreme Court to wade into this dispute. New York’s highest state court has not issued a final judgment, so the voters asserted that if the Supreme Court grants relief now “future stay applicants will see little purpose in waiting for state court rulings before coming to this Court” and “be rewarded for such gamesmanship.” The state argues this is an issue for “New York courts, not federal courts” to resolve, and there is sufficient time for the dispute to be resolved on the merits. 
  
The court majority explained the decision to intervene in 101 words, which the three dissenting liberal justices  summarized as “Rules for thee, but not for me.” 
 
The unsigned majority order does not explain the Court’s rationale. It says only how long the stay will last, until the case moves through the New York State appeals courts. If, however, the losing party petitions and the court agrees to hear the challenge, the stay extends until the final opinion is announced. 
 
Dissenting from the decision were Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Writing for the three, Sotomayor  said that  if nonfinal decisions of a state trial court can be brought to highest court, “then every decision from any court is now fair game.” More immediately, she noted, “By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election.” 

Monday’s Supreme Court action deviates from the court’s hands-off pattern in these mid-term redistricting fights this year. In two previous cases — from Texas and California — the court refused to intervene, allowing newly drawn maps to stay in effect.  
  
Requests for Supreme Court intervention on redistricting issues has been a recurring theme this term, a trend that is likely to grow.  Earlier last month  the high court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map.  California’s redistricting came in response to a GOP-friendly redistricting plan in Texas that the Supreme Court also permitted to move forward. These redistricting efforts are expected to offset one another.     
   
But the high court itself has yet to rule on a challenge to Louisiana’s voting map, which was drawn by the state legislature after the decennial census in order to create a second majority-Black district.  Since the drawing of that second majority-black district, the state has backed away from that map, hoping to return to a plan that provides for only one majority-minority district.    
     
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the Louisiana case has stretched across two terms. The justices failed to resolve the case last term and chose to order a second round of arguments this term adding a new question: Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?    
Following the addition of the new question, the state of Louisiana flipped positions to oppose the map it had just drawn and defended in court. Whether the Supreme Court follows suit remains to be seen. But the tone of the October argument suggested that the court’s conservative supermajority is likely to continue undercutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.   

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Published

on

Map: Earthquake Shakes Central California

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

A minor earthquake with a preliminary magnitude of 3.5 struck in Central California on Monday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 7:17 a.m. Pacific time about 6 miles northwest of Pinnacles, Calif., data from the agency shows.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Source: United States Geological Survey | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Monday, March 2 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Monday, March 2 at 11:18 a.m. Eastern.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending