Transcript of Los Angeles prosecutors to review new evidence in Menendez brothers’ 1996 murder conviction

It was one of the most notorious murders in American history. Now, new evidence is being examined in the case of Eric and Lyle Menendez, the brothers convicted of shooting and killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989. Cnn's Camilla Bernal is in Los Angeles. Camilla, fascinating case. What are you learning?

Absolutely, Jim. So the attorney representing the brothers now says he's very optimistic about the district attorney reviewing evidence in this case. So the question is not whether or not these two brothers killed their parents. They admitted to doing so, doing it in that mansion in Beverly Hills back in 1989. The question is, should they be serving a life sentence? Their attorney does not think so, which is why he has been pushing for this sentence and this conviction to be vacated and also pushing for a review of this evidence. He says, Because the evidence proves the sexual abuse allegation. This all, especially after so much interest in this case, thanks to social media, thanks to documentaries, thanks to that Netflix docudrama. A lot of people talking about this case and also talking about the sexual abuse allegation in this case, because that is the central argument of the defense. They say that these two brothers killed their father because he was sexually abusing them. So part of the new evidence that the defense team is putting forward, they say, proves that sexual abuse. One of the things is a letter that they say they have written by Eric to a cousin, and they say this letter details that sexual abuse before the murder.

The other thing that they're reviewing is an allegation from a member of the boy band Menudo, and he says he who was sexually abused by the brother's father, Jose Menendez. And so that's why the district attorney now says, yes, he will review these. He has not made a decision. And remember, George Gascón is currently running for a re-election here in Los Angeles. So this is in the midst of all of this. And I do want to point out, though, that one of the things that both the defense and the district attorney have said, essentially, is that if this case was viewed today, that sexual abuse allegation would have been seen differently, Jim.

Very interesting. All right, Camilla Bernal, thank you very much. And joining us for a perspective on this is Los Angeles County district Attorney, George Gascone. Mr. Gascone, what about this new evidence presented in the petition filed by lawyers for the Menendez Brothers. How is this evidence discovered and what's your take on all of this?

Well, hi, Jim. First of all, thank you for having me here. Look, we have two different petitions, and I know it gets a little complicated, but basically, as Camilla indicated, one is basically asking the court as a havius petition. It's asking the court to take a quick look and see if there's evidence that had that evidence been presented to the jury on the court during the trial, the outcome might have been different. The other one is a resentencing motion, and that basically is asking to take a look at the original sentence and see whether there should be a different type of sentence given that they have rehabilitated, and there's a whole list of things that they have listed. I started looking at this case very closely several months ago, and I have increasingly became concerned that it was critical that we reviewed the new evidence that has been presented it, as well as evidence that had been suppressed during the second trial. This is a case that hung the first time around when the jury was given information on sexual molestation, and then the prosecution in the second time around suppressed much of that evidence that was not presented in the second case, and they were convicted, and they were sent to prison with life without the possibility of parole.

George, a lot to unpack there. But obviously, these murders were brought to life in this recent Netflix series and other documentaries. But is this recent attention having some bearing on how this case is being reexamined and how you're looking at it? I mean, it sounds as though you may be predisposed to thinking that maybe this needs a second look and maybe that something needs to happen here.

Well, the petitions were filed by the defense about a year ago. We go through a very thorough process. We have a photocopy of a letter that allegedly one of the brothers sent to a cousin talking about molestation. We have the evidence that came out a couple of years ago about the menudo van member talking about his molestation. We have done about 300 resentencing cases since I've been in office, and only four have reoffended. And the reason that I attribute to that is we're very careful about looking at all the circumstances in the case. The reason why we have become more public is because after the documentary, we began to get many, many requests from media and others about where was the case. The case is actually scheduled for a hearing on November 29th. But for the documentary, quite frankly, we probably would not be talking at this point. We may be talking later, but that certainly has increased the attention by the public, and that's why we're being public about where we are.

And, George, let's talk about the aspect of this that is really coming to light once again, although you did say it came up in the criminal trial, and that is that these brothers, it's believed they were sexually abused. They say they were sexually abused. Do you think it's possible that folks looking at these allegations now will say, Okay, these murders happened, but because of these circumstances, maybe these two brothers have served enough time and they should be able to be free and move on with their lives?

I Jim, even if you look at the first trial, the first jury hung when some of that evidence was presented. So clearly, even 35 years ago, people had concerns, but there is no question that our sensitivity to sexual assault is much more significant. Today, we also, I think, has been clearly established that both men and women can be sexually assaulted, or boys and girls. I think 35 years ago, cultural norms were a little different. So I do agree with you, and Camilla raised that issue, that there is There's no question that a jury today would look at this case probably very differently, that a jury didn't 35 years ago. But even 35 years ago, when some of this evidence was presented, there was certainly doubt as to whether they were guilty of first-degree murder. Again, there's no question that they committed the killing. The question is, to what degree of culpability should they be held accountable, given the totality of the circumstances.

I do want to have you listen to this comment from Mark Garagos, attorney for the Menendez Brothers, and we'll talk about on the other side.

They've been modeled prisoners. They have worked tirelessly in the face of literally no ability or expectation that they would ever get out to reform. And now we fast forward 35 years later. We've got a much more robust and evolved understanding of abuse that, yes, abuse can occur, both with females and with males. I think it's time. Their family thinks it's time.

Yeah, George, what do you think about what Mr. Garigot says there?

Well, I think Mark Races points that there is no disagreement on my end. First of all, we don't know that both Bais and girls, men and women, can be sexually assaulted. I believe that the issue of their efforts to rehabilitate appeared to be very valid, and that's one of the things that we're checking into, because absolutely, they had no prospect of getting out of prison. They probably thought they would be there for the rest of their life. So that certainly speaks very highly to their commitment to be a different human being, perhaps if they were 35 years ago. And I think that that all plays a role in what will be my final decision.

And I don't want to push you on a final decision too much right here, but to read between the lines, George, it does sound as though that you feel like this needs another look.

Well, Jen, unquestionably, and that is the reason why we started to take another look months ago. But clearly, that is a reason why I'm speaking to you and others today, because look, we have both a moral and unethical obligation. If there was evidence that should have been presented, and if it were presented to a jury, would that have brought a different outcome? We have an obligation to take that into consideration as we move forward.

All right, George Gascone. Thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. Please keep us posted on this fascinating case. Thanks for your time, George.

I will. Thank you, Jim. Take care. Bye-bye.