California Gov. Gavin Newsom has ordered the state parole board to conduct a “comprehensive risk assessment investigation” on Erik and Lyle Menendez to determine whether they pose “an unreasonable risk to the public” if released from prison. 

On Wednesday, Newsom made the announcement during a segment on his podcast, “This is Gavin Newsom.” 

“The question for the board is a simple one — do Erik and Lyle Menendez, do they pose a current, what we call `unreasonable risk to public safety,”‘ Newsom said.

“The risk assessment will be conducted as they typically are conducted — by experts in public safety as well as forensic psychologists.”

NEW LOS ANGELES DA NATHAN HOCHMAN DOES NOT SUPPORT OVERTURNING MENENDEZ BROTHERS’ MURDER CONVICTIONS

Newsom described the assessment as a “common procedure carried out by the state.” 

“After that, there’s going to be a hearing that works like a standard parole hearing, providing the District Attorney and the victims a chance to be part of the process,” the governor’s office shared in a statement.

Newsom’s office explained that the legal standard in California for release on parole is whether an inmate poses an unreasonable risk to public safety, which has to be determined before the governor can make a decision on their commutations. 

“This process doesn’t mean there’s any guaranteed outcome, but it shows we’re doing our due diligence, ensuring transparency, keeping public safety at the forefront, making sure the process is fair for everyone involved, and getting closer to a conclusion,” Newsom’s office said. 

Back in November, Newsom indicated he would defer any decision on the Menendez brothers’ case to local courts and prosecutors. 

“The Governor respects the role of the District Attorney in ensuring justice is served and recognizes that voters have entrusted District Attorney-elect Hochman to carry out this responsibility,” Newsom’s office said in a previous statement. “The Governor will defer to the DA-elect’s review and analysis of the Menendez case prior to making any clemency decisions.”

Newsom’s office told Fox News Digital that the governor’s decision is part of a larger announcement on executive clemency actions that he will be releasing later on Wednesday.

MENENDEZ BROTHERS’ RESENTENCING: WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Newsom said the results of the risk assessment will be shared with the Los Angeles Superior Court judge presiding over the case, as well as Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman and defense attorneys.

“There’s no guarantee of outcome here,” Newsom said. “My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis, but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case, as well as provides us more due diligence before I make any determination for clemency.”

Newsom’s announcement comes less than a week after Hochman asked the court to reject the Menendez brothers’ request for a new trial.

Hochman cited issues with the evidence, claiming it didn’t meet a high enough standard for a new trial.

This comes months after former DA George Gascon cited new evidence in the form of a letter suggesting the brothers may have been abused by their father as a reason for a new trial. 

LETTER AT CENTER OF MENENDEZ BROTHERS’ BID FOR FREEDOM CALLED INTO QUESTION

“We looked again at the credibility of the letters, particularly this Andy Cano 1988 supposed letter weighed in the continuum of lies, and it calls into drastic question whether this is in fact a 1988 letter written by Erik Menendez to Andy Cano about this sexual abuse,” Hochman said Friday in a news conference. 

The letter was allegedly written eight months before the murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in 1989 by Erik Menendez to his cousin Andy Cano, and detailed alleged sexual abuse by their father. 

The letter wasn’t found until several years ago, the Menendez brothers’ attorney said. 

The Menendez brothers’ family condemned Hochman’s decision in a previous statement shared with Fox News Digital by their legal team. 

“District Attorney Nathan Hochman took us right back to 1996 today. He opened the wounds we have spent decades trying to heal,” the statement said. “He didn’t listen to us. We are profoundly disappointed by his remarks, in which he effectively tore up new evidence and discredited the trauma they experienced. To suggest that the years of abuse couldn’t have led to the tragedy in 1989 is not only outrageous, but also dangerous. 

MENENDEZ BROTHERS RESENTENCING HEARING POSTPONED DUE TO RAGING LOS ANGELES FIRES

“Abuse does not exist in a vacuum. It leaves lasting scars, rewires the brain, and traps victims in cycles of fear and trauma. To say it played no role in Erik and Lyle’s action is to ignore decades of psychological research and basic human understanding.” 

The statement added that it was “absurd” for Hochman to say that the evidence should have been submitted at the trial. 

Hochman also noted that Newsom has the clemency petition on his desk and “he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and we will be dealing in the next couple of weeks with the resentencing issue.”  

If Hochman’s office continues down the resentencing road, Newsom still has the final say. If the brothers’ sentences are reduced to something that would make them eligible for parole, the governor has veto power over parole board decisions. He could also issue clemency or a pardon on his own.

The resentencing hearing was pushed back nearly two months due to California’s devastating wildfires.

Lyle and Erik Menendez were found guilty in 1996 of the 1989 killing of their parents at their ritzy Beverly Hills home and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

The brothers claim they shot their father, former RCA Records executive Jose Menendez, in self-defense, arguing they thought he was going to kill them after they warned him they planned to expose him as a child sex abuser. 

They also killed their mother, Mary “Kitty” Menendez, who was sitting next to Jose eating ice cream in their living room when they opened fire.

Their first trial ended in a mistrial, when jurors couldn’t agree on their fate. After a second trial in the mid-1990s, in which some of their evidence about the alleged sexual abuse was excluded, jurors agreed with prosecutors that their motive was greed.

Fox News Digital’s Michael Ruiz, Michael Dorgan and Brie Stimson contributed to this report.