Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. And before I begin speaking, I want to also introduce some other people that are here with me, and I hope I’m pronouncing the names right because I’ve handwritten part of it. But I have Anamaria Baralt, Jose Menendez and niece, Karen VanderMolen and Kitty’s niece. They’re all here with us.
(00:44)
Also with us here is Brock Lunsford. He’s the assistant head deputy for the post litigation conviction unit and Nancy Theberge who is the deputy district attorney in charge of the resentencing unit. Let me begin by telling you that this is a case where we’ve had many people in this office spend a great deal of the time review on the case. I have to tell you unequivocally that we don’t have a universal agreement.
(01:17)
There are people in the office that strongly believe that the Menendez brothers should stay in prison the rest of their life and they do not believe that they were molested. And there are people in the office that strongly believe that they should be released immediately and that they were, in fact, molested.
(01:40)
I have to tell you that after a very careful review of all the arguments that were made for people on both sides of this equation, I came to a place where I believe that under the law resentencing is appropriate, and I am going to recommend that to a court tomorrow.
(02:04)
What that means in this particular case is that we are going to recommend to the court that the life without the possibility of parole be removed and that they will be sentenced for murder, which because there are two murders involved that will be 50 years to life.
(02:24)
However, because of their age under the law, since they were under 26 years of age at the time that these crimes occurred, they will be eligible for parole immediately.
(02:41)
The teams that have worked on this, on the resentencing side of it, have spent literally probably hundreds of hours by now looking at this case. These cases were originally presented on the habeas side of it, which I’ll explain in a moment what that is, last year.
(03:01)
And then the request for prosecutor initiator resentencing occur earlier this year. And there have been people in this office working in these cases from the very beginning as well as many other cases that we have.
(03:20)
The reason why I’m here today and why I came in front of all of you about 10 days ago is because there was a more recent documentary about the case that again, brought a tremendous amount of public attention. And we know there have been other documentaries. So this is not the first, this is a more recent one. And frankly, our office got flooded with requests for information.
(03:49)
And even though this case was already scheduled to be heard in late November, I decided to move this forward because quite frankly, we did not have enough resources to handle all the requests. And one of the things that I thrive to do in this office is to be very transparent in everything that we do.
(04:12)
In this case, we review the prison files. And you have to understand that the way the process works when you’re talking about a resentencing under the law, it really focuses, not necessarily on what the original crimes were, but it focuses on has the person been rehabilitated, number one and number two, can they be released safely into their community?
(04:48)
Under that rubric, since I’ve been in office, we have resentenced over 300 people, including 28 for murder. Only four have re-offended. If that was a regular recidivism rate in this country we would be the safest nation on the world, but we know that it’s not. In fact, somewhere between 40 and 50% of the people that go to prison re-offend and get re-arrested. That’s why we have so many problems.
(05:19)
However, when you look at the case of the Menendez brothers, you see two very young people. One was 19 and the other one was 21 when they committed this horrible acts. And I want to underline, there were horrible acts. There is no excuse for murder and I will never imply that what we’re doing here is to excuse that behavior because even if you get abused the right path is to call the police, seek help.
(05:53)
But I understand also how sometimes people get desperate. We often see women, for instance, that have been battered for years and sometimes they will murder their abuser out of desperation. I do believe that the brothers was subjected to a tremendous amount of dysfunction in the home and molestation.
(06:20)
But they went to prison for life without the possibility of parole, which meant that certainly under the law at that time, they had no hopes of ever getting out. They could have done what many other people do, which is basically said, “You know what? I’m here for the rest of my life, so I’m going to do whatever.”
(06:41)
“I’m going to misbehave. I’m going to join gangs, I’m going to live the life of the prison”. But they never did that. To the contrary, even though they didn’t think that they would ever be left free, they engaged in a different journey. A journey of redemption and a journey of rehabilitation.
(07:07)
And often the people that begin their journey of rehabilitation and redemption in prison is often very internal in what they do. And one of our lawyers pointed out this today is usually the path as people try to further their education, do things for self-improvement, which the brothers have done by the way.
(07:32)
But it’s more unique or more less usual, I guess, when people not only do that, but they also begin to engage in ways to make life for others better. And in this case, the brothers have been doing so for a very long time. Creating groups to deal with how to address untreated trauma.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Creating groups to deal with other inmates that have physical disabilities and may be treated differently. Even in one case, Lyle negotiating for other inmates as to their conditions that they live under during prison. And all this was done by two young people. Now they’re not as young. They had no hopes of ever getting out of prison. They have been in prison for nearly 35 years. I believe that they have paid their debt to society and the system provides a vehicle for their case to be reviewed by a parole board. And if the parole concurs with my assessment and it will be their decision, they will be released accordingly. I must underline however, this case will be filed in court tomorrow. The final decision will be made by the judge.
(09:22)
Court has to agree with my conclusion that they deserve to be resentenced. It is very possible that they may be members of this office that will be present in court, opposing the resentencing, and they have a right to do so. And we encourage those that disagree with us to speak and the court is the appropriate place to do it. We certainly feel we’re very sure, not only that the brothers have rehabilitated and that they’ll be safe to be reintegrated in our society, but that they have paid their dues, not only for the crimes that they committed, but because of all the other things they have done to improve the life of so many others.
(10:21)
So again, we will be filing for resentencing tomorrow. We’re seeking that they would be sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, as opposed to life without the possibility of parole, which they currently have. That means that they would have 50 years to life, because there were two murders. But because of the age upon which they were convicted under 26, under current law, that means they’re eligible for youthful parole. I think there is also important to have some introspection today, because I think that often for cultural reasons, we don’t believe victims of sexual assault, whether they’re women, whether they’re men.
(11:18)
We saw on their first trial, which by the way, they were tried twice. The first trial, huh? Meaning a jury could not come to a conclusion. And in fact, about half of the jury wanted to convict them of manslaughter, which if that would have been the case, they would have been off prison a long time ago. And then there was a second trial. And then they were convicted of murder with special circumstances, which led to the life without the possibility of parole. But it’s salient to understand that are only implicit and sometimes explicit bias around sexual abuse and sexual assault, often leads us to severe injustice in our community.
(12:08)
And I want to speak to those that are victims of sexual assault now, whether you’re a man or a woman. Know that we’re here for you if you’re a victim of sexual assault in this community. And by that we’re talking about LA County, not just LA City, you can come for help. Whether you’re prepared to prosecute or not, we will be here for you. We have services for you. And if you’re prepared to move forward with the prosecution, we’ll evaluate it as we do any other case. And if we believe that the evidence is there to present a credible case in front of a jury that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we will proceed accordingly. You do not have to suffer alone, you don’t have to keep it to yourself. And help is here unconditionally. I’m going to say a few words in Spanish, because I know there’s tremendous amount of interest from the Spanish media, and I know that there are going to be other speakers today. And then we’re going to open it up for questions.
(13:15)
[Spanish 00:13:17]…
Speaker 2 (17:31):
[foreign language 00:16:05]. Ana Maria, you’re going to talk next.
Ana Maria (17:38):
Good afternoon. My name is Ana Maria Baralt and I’m the niece of Jose Menendez. Erik and Menendez are my cousins. I would also like to acknowledge the other family members here, some standing, some seated, Joan Vandermolen is here, Kitty’s sister, as well as Diane Vandermolen Hernandez, Kitty’s niece. Thank you for joining me everyone. Today is a day filled with hope for our family. We are here because District Attorney Gascon has taken a brave and necessary step forward by recommending a re-sentencing for Lyle and Erik. The DA’s decision reflects the truth that is hidden for so long, and I am grateful for his leadership in making this choice. We stand united in our hope and gratitude. Together we can make sure that Erik and Lyle receive the justice they deserve and finally come home. Thank you to District Attorney George Gascon for his courage and leadership. This step gives us all hope that the truth will finally be heard and that Lyle and Erik can begin to heal from the trauma of their past. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Thank you Ana Maria.
Ana Maria (18:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
Jose Menendez is going to say a few words.
Ana Maria (18:51):
This is the niece of Kitty Menendez.
Speaker 2 (18:53):
I’m sorry.
Ana Maria (18:53):
Joan Vandermolen.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Yeah.
Joan (18:58):
Hi. Thank you for coming. We are here today because district Attorney Gascon has taken a brave and compassionate step forward by recommending re-sentencing for my cousins Erik and Lyle. And we wish to offer our deepest gratitude to DA Gascon. This decision is not just a legal matter. It is a recognition of the abuse my cousins endured. And we are grateful for the DA’s leadership in putting justice over politics.
(19:34)
We know this wasn’t an easy decision, but is the right one. This is about truth, justice, and healing. It is time for Lyle and Erik to come home, and I ask all of you to join us in this fight for justice. We stand united in our hope and in our gratitude. Together we can make sure that Erik and Lyle receive the justice they deserve and finally come home. Thank you again to District Attorney George Gascon for his courage and leadership. This step gives us all hope that truth will finally be heard, and Erik and Lyle can begin to heal from the horrors of their past. We hope this will also shed light and increase awareness and help others who have been victimized by sexual violence. Thank you all so much for being here today. We are grateful for everyone’s support.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
Is there anyone else speaking?
Ana Maria (20:53):
No, that’s it.
Speaker 2 (20:54):
Okay. Okay. And I apologize. I’m reading notes here and I’m trying to understand all the notes. Yes, ma’am.
Speaker 3 (21:02):
Can you explain, so you go tomorrow, you file a case for re-sentencing. Then what happens after? Are the brothers going to be there tomorrow? And when is the role of the parole board going to come in?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
Right. And you know what, I’m going to actually have the people that are handling the case walk you through all of it. The brothers will not be there tomorrow. The role of parole board comes later. But Nancy, why don’t you walk everybody through.
Nancy (21:23):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
Yeah.
Nancy (21:26):
So what we’ll do is we we’ll file-
Speaker 3 (21:29):
Can you say your name and your title?
Nancy (21:31):
My name is Nancy Thaburge. I’m the deputy in charge of the re-sentencing unit. This is Brock Lunsford, assistant head deputy of the Post-Conviction Litigation Division. So what will happen is tomorrow we will file the actual petition requesting re-sentencing with the legal arguments and accompanying exhibits as to why we think it’s appropriate. It’s just a filing. No one’s going to physically be in the courtroom. From there, we’ll also serve the defense with our motion and our paperwork so that they’ll have their copies. And from there we will coordinate with the defense to set up a court date with the court so that the petition can be heard. Now, whether or not that’s a setting or a hearing will be decided between us and the defense and the court once everybody gets an idea of what we filed.
(22:18)
Then from there at the hearing, the defense can either decide to have the defendants, the Menendez brothers physically brought into court. They can ask that the individuals appear by video or audio WebEx, kind of a Zoom participation, which we all kind of adapted to because of COVID. And then from there we will do the hearing and submit all the written and legal and oral arguments and any evidence that needs to be admitted at the time. And then the court will rule at that point. But we don’t have that court date yet because we’re just starting the process tomorrow but it’s our intention to have that go forward before the habeas, because if the judge grants it, that may impact the defense’s decision to proceed on the habeas. So we’re going to try it just as a matter of economy of time to stack it one before the other.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
And the parole board?
Speaker 4 (23:09):
Have the brothers found out about this in real time or were they told about this beforehand? Or what was their reaction if they were-
Nancy (23:15):
No, this was-
Speaker 2 (23:16):
No is, actually, the family was only invited to come. They were not aware of what the final decision was until a few minutes ago. The brothers maybe actually seeing you guys on TV or social media. But no one knew other than a very small number of people in this office. And by the way, I should tell you that actually the final decision was just made about an hour ago.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
[inaudible 00:23:39] parole board after a judge ruled? If the judge ruled in favor?
Speaker 2 (23:42):
Right. Then it goes back to the prison system and then the parole system takes over that. That’s correct.
Speaker 4 (23:48):
Would there be a parole or probationary period? Would they have to live in a halfway house or simply be released if they’re allowed to be released?
Speaker 2 (23:56):
Those are really completely, entirely up to the parole board.
Speaker 5 (23:59):
[inaudible 00:24:00].
Speaker 2 (00:00):
Speaker 1 (24:01):
We’ll try-
Speaker 7 (24:02):
[inaudible 00:24:02] You had mentioned all the-
Speaker 8 (24:02):
What was the factor that made the final decision? You said the final decision was just made. Was it the letter, was it the Menudo confession? What was it that puts you over the top to make the decision?
Speaker 1 (24:12):
No, what it was is I was evaluating the arguments that were being made within my office, both pro and against the release.
Speaker 7 (24:18):
DA, can I ask you?
Speaker 1 (24:19):
Hold on. I had a-
Speaker 7 (24:19):
A lot of calls from-
Speaker 9 (24:24):
You have made re-sentencing a cornerstone of your tenure as district attorney here in Los Angeles. There are some people who have accused you of using this very, very highly publicized, clearly case to use it for politics, given how close we are to the election. What’s your response to people who have been making that claim?
Speaker 1 (24:44):
There’s nothing political about this. We have re-sentenced over 300 people, including 28 for murder. And we will continue to resentence people in the future. And that’s all I can tell you.
Speaker 7 (24:56):
But DA, question-
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Yes sir- excuse me, please. You’re, you’re, you’re interrupting.
Speaker 7 (25:01):
Everyone’s interrupting. I’m just wondering how you’ve been for reelection-
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Just please. Yes?
Speaker 10 (25:06):
Could the brothers be home by Thanksgiving?
Speaker 1 (25:09):
I don’t know the answer to that.
Speaker 9 (25:11):
Why did you decide not to go with the reduced voluntary manslaughter?
Speaker 1 (25:15):
That was part of the process that I was still going through up until a couple hours ago. I don’t believe that a manslaughter would’ve been the appropriate charge given the premeditation that was involved in the murders. I believe that this were clearly murders that were premeditated. Now the motivation, that’s where differences of opinion come up, but I didn’t think it would be appropriate to go all the way down to manslaughter. Yes, ma’am?
Speaker 8 (25:41):
Is your bid for reelection impact-
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Would you please stop? I am not going to talk about reelection, okay?
Speaker 8 (25:46):
Okay. So-
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Do you want to talk to reelection? Go outside. We’ll talk later.
Speaker 9 (25:49):
Please stop, stop, relax.
Speaker 8 (25:52):
That’s a fair question.
Speaker 9 (25:52):
No, it’s not.
Speaker 1 (25:53):
I’m sorry, you’re interrupting, sir.
Speaker 7 (25:55):
Be respectful.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Please.
Speaker 11 (26:32):
[foreign language 00:26:33]
Speaker 1 (26:32):
[foreign language 00:26:33]. Yes ma’am?
Speaker 9 (26:35):
Are your office announced the press conference before you made your decision?
Speaker 1 (26:37):
Yes, because we’re going to make a decision one way or the other. It’s just a question what the decision’s going to be.
Speaker 9 (26:42):
Just giving you a timeline-
Speaker 12 (26:43):
If you are no longer in office, what happens to this case? Could a potential successor undo what you’re about to file?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
I don’t think so. Once it’s filed, it’s filed. It’s up to the court to take it from there.
Speaker 9 (26:57):
You mentioned-
Speaker 1 (26:58):
Yes, I’m sorry.
Speaker 8 (26:59):
In a parole situation, obviously you’ve got policy [inaudible 00:27:01] since you’re obviously supporting the push to release here. How would that work with people from post litigation and sentencing, the parole board arguing for the release or-
Speaker 1 (27:12):
No, no. We have a policy that we only send victim services advocate if the victim or the victim’s family wants that support. We don’t send lawyers to our parole boards to re-litigate a case. The parole board is fully aware of what the initial crime was, the crime that led to the conviction. Their work is primarily to evaluate whether they’re rehabilitated and safe to be released and that will be the way here.
Speaker 8 (27:36):
Can you break down the timeline for us? Can we expect a hearing by the end of the year? We know when we might-
Speaker 1 (27:39):
Nancy [foreign language 00:27:42]
Speaker 13 (27:43):
I’m hoping to get it on calendar depending on the defense preparedness. I’d like to see it go to hearing probably within the next 30 to 45 days at the most.There’s not much to argue. Kind a collective.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Okay. There’s one more question please, but related to the case, not to elections, if you want to talk about elections, we’ll do it-
Speaker 7 (28:03):
It’s related to the case.
Speaker 1 (28:03):
Yes sir?
Speaker 7 (28:04):
What would you like to say right now to Eric and Lyle Menendez?
Speaker 1 (28:08):
What we like to say to them, and it’s we, because it’s not a… I’ve made the final decision, obviously, but we have a whole team that worked on it. We have a family here that wants to be reunited, is that we appreciate what they did while they were in prison. While I disapprove of the way they handled their abuse, we hope that they not only have learned, which appears that they have, but that if they get reintegrated into our community, that they continue to do public good.
(28:43)
Thank you so much, everyone.
(28:49)
Thank you so much.
Speaker 9 (28:50):