This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. I just know that on a day like today, that redemption is possible.
Thirty five years after they were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the cold blooded murders of their parents, a remarkable turn for Eric and Lyle Menendez. They now have a chance of getting out of prison. Family members have supported the brothers throughout the years, and they were in court yesterday at the re sentencing hearing to testify that not only were Eric and Lyle rehabilitated, but they helped other prisoners, including by starting support groups.
Ultimately, we are here today with this result because of Eric and Lyle, because they had They chose to live their lives with clarity and a purpose of service that the judge was impressed by.
This is something my grandmother, Joan, has fought for her for thirty five years. I really wish she was here today, but I'm really excited to give her the news.
LA District Attorney Nathan Hoffman had attempted to block the resentencying at every turn, arguing repeatedly that Eric and Lyle had not admitted to lies told during their trial about why they killed their parents, nor have they taken complete responsibility for their crimes.
Whether it's some Menenda's brothers or anyone who basically engaged in a horrific, brutal killing of their parents, shotgunning their parents over thirteen times when they were adults eighteen and twenty one years old, I would have concern whether it's the Menenda's brothers or anyone it fits that profile.
Both Eric and Lyle addressed the court and took responsibility for the murders of their parents and the lies they told in court. Eric said, I have profound sorrow for the tragedy I created. I took the lives of my mom and dad. My actions were criminal, cruel, and cowardly. Lyle said, I killed my parents. I offer no excuse
and I don't blame my parents. Judge Michael Jessic resentenced the brothers, reducing their sentences from life in prison without parole to fifty years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. But there's still a long road ahead that goes through the parole board and the governor. Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney and managing partner of Dave Arenberg Law. Dave, let's talk about
what this resentencing hearing was and what it wasn't. It wasn't about re litigating the murders, but it was about whether the brothers have been rehabilitated.
The hearing was surely for the judge, that is, whether or not the Menendez brothers can be resentenced, and he heard testimony from family members and decided that in the interest of justice, that Menanda's brothers would be resentenced under the rules of the time, which permitted someone who committed such a horrific offense who's under the age of twenty
six to be eligible for parole. The thing is, at the time they were sentenced to life in prison without parole, but now they're changing it to with pearol, and now the Menendez brothers can go before the parole board to let him out early.
Nathan Hoffman, the LA District attorney, opposed to resentencing and attempted to block it in every way he could. Why was he so opposed to it?
He ran on a law and ordered platform and he got elected to be tougher on crime as opposed to the predecessor Gassone, who was seen as one of those Soros reform prosecute. So this is in line with Takman's brand to be tough on crime, and he represented what I considered like this press the silent majority, not the celebrities who came out and masked to support the Menendez brothers, but people who said, I remember this horrific crime and
they were sentenced a life in prison. To get life in prison, and that didn't mean thirty five years in prison.
The testimony was from family members of the Menendez brothers and it was about how they have rehabilitated themselves in prison.
The family members were the biggest supporters of an early release. Now all the family members but seemingly one who passed away, wanted them out early. But the district attorney does not represent the victim, does not represent the family members. They represent the people. That's why it's usually the people versus
Menendez or the state versus Menendez. And in this case, the decision of the district attorney was that it is in the interest of the people of California that the Menenda's brothers stay behind bars.
So they were model prisoners. Apparently, Lyle had absolutely no you know, write ups for violence in the years they were in prison. Apparently Eric had won. That was twenty five years ago, So there really was no evidence that they hadn't reformed themselves, was there.
Well, there was a report that showed that they did have contraband inside the prison, which was cell phone and potential drugs. That's part of a report, and whether or not that means they have not been reformed. Well, when it comes to violence, they clearly did not commit anything like that in prison. They were different people behind bars, they helped others. But yet there are a lot of people who find God behind bars and they help others, and they don't get released early from a life sentence.
So it seems that the celebrity in this case, the power of celebrity made a real difference.
I wonder if this would have happened if you hadn't had that Netflix documentary that sort of introduced a whole new generation of people to the Menendez brothers in a sympathetic way.
I agree the power of streaming, the power of celebrity. I think the Menendez brothers became a cause celeb and as a result, they got some benefits from it. They got all this worldwide attention they had the best lawyers possible for them, and they were able to convince the district attorney to side with them to get a resentencing. And then that district attorney lost the election, but the judge went ahead with it anyways, And now it's up to the pro board and the governor, and I think
they will be let out early. I don't think there are any risk of reoffending any violent crime. I think they did get reform behind prison walls. But on the other hand, how many other people in their situation get this benefit, get sentence to life in prison and they get out early because they were good prisoners. Not many. But this case was treated differently because of the celebrity involved, because of the notoriety, and that's the issue I have.
I just don't think they were treated like everyone else.
But in their second trial, the judge limited the testimony about the allegations of abuse, and it's possible the jury would have come out with a verdict of manslaughter instead of murder if the abuse allegations had gotten a full hearing.
Well, that was a judge's determination at the time, and the crimes were not overturned on appeal. I mean the proper venue. If you think that the judge made a bad decision is to appeal it. But the appellate courts did not agree, thought that they got a fair trial. And as far as being led out, the real reason why they're being led out, apparently, at least according to the previous DA, was because of their good behavior behind bars.
But there are a lot of people behind bars who act with good behavior and they don't get let out early. The difference here to me is the celebrity aspect of it that doesn't exist in other cases.
The DA Hawkman had complained over and over that they hadn't taken responsibility for the crimes, but both brothers made these remarkable statements accepting full responsibility for the murders. Lyle said that all the choices he made were his own, including quote the choice to reload, return to the den, and run up to my mother and shoot her in the head. And he apologized for making a mockery of
the criminal legal system by lying. Does that seem like the kind of apology that the LADA was looking for.
It does, and that's something that I thought has been underreported. I'm glad you brought it up to gen because Hawkman had asked for a real apology, said enough of this abuse, excuse take responsibility for your actions. Stop saying that you had to kill your parents because they would have killed you first. That was a lie all along. And I do believe with their statements that they went a long way towards meeting Kachman's request, and that's why I think
that they will be released earlier. I do think that this was as close to a full fledged apology acknowledgment of guilt that we have ever seen from them. It was something different than before, and I think that's going to lead to their early release.
The judge called the crime shocking. He said he was also shocked by the number of corrections officials who wrote letters on behalf of the brothers, and that seemed to be an important part of his decision.
It was something that corrections officials and family members all sided with them, and I do think the celebrity part of it has something to do with it. The Netflix shows the movement behind them. Yeah, I think that did persuade people. But I do think also there's really little doubt that they are different people today than they were back there. They were real spoiled, selfish kids. Who acted in a brutal, horrific way. I mean the fact that the mother who did not engage in sexual abuse but
may have helped cover it up. But she was crawling away after being shot by a shotgun, and then the brothers went outside to reload to continue to come in and shoot her ten times, including in the face. There was so much blood on the scene that the cops thought this was a mafia hit, and yet they lied about everything. They went on a spending spree. Only after spending seven hundred thousand dollars in quick turn did they attract the attention of law enforcement and then were eventually arrested.
But they got away with it for a while. They got what they wanted, and I thought they deserved their sentence. But you know, they are reformed, and if the system lets them out early, I don't think they will reoffend.
Coming up next on the Boomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Dave Arenberg. We'll talk about the three paths to freedom the Menendez brothers have right now, and an update on their racketeering and sex trafficking trial of Seawan Combe's I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg, Eric and Lyle Menendez have been given their first chance at freedom in decades. A Los Angeles judge reduced the brother's sentences from life in prison without parole to fifty
years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole. But there's a long road ahead. The brothers now have three potential paths to freedom, through the Parole Board, which could grant them parole, through the governor, who could grant them executive clemency, and through a petition for habeas corpus, where a judge could grant them a new trial. I've been
talking to former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave, their clemency hearing is already set for June thirteenth, and as part of the clemency hearing, the Parole Board already conducted an evaluation to determine what dangers the brothers may pose if released. It's called a comprehensive risk assessment. Here's what la DA Nathan Hoffman said about the findings.
We have this additional new information coming in from the border Parole senior psychologists that have assessed that risk as a moderate risk, not a high risk. Not a low risk, but a moderate risk.
So what do you think is the best path for them to get released.
I was actually surprised when I saw that moderate risk. I don't think they will REAFFCD. I mean, there's so many eyeballs on these guys. They're going to go on the speaking circuit, they're gonna go through reality shows. I mean, I think it's unfair because they're going to be treated in a way that others are not. They're going to get super celebrity and make a lot of money off this,
and no one should profit off their infamy. But I do think that the two tracks will lead to their early release, whether it's the Governor Newsom track of the clements see board and then signed by the governor or the parole board, which is what the judge just sanctioned. So either way, I think they're headed towards the release.
And if the parole board does deny parole, it has to do so for a period of three, five, seven, ten or fifteen years, so it could deny parole and then say, well, come back in three years.
I would think that would be probably the best case scenario for those who want Meananda's brothers to stay behind bars. I do not envision them remaining behind bars that much longer, so three years may be the outer limit.
They also filed the habeas corpus petition seeking a new trial. Is that still in play?
That was always the most unlikely thing to happen. Of the three of the three choices, three real choices. They had the resentate thing, they had the clemency, and then they had the habeasts. But the Habeasts was sort of a dead end. The other two, though, bore fruit, and I think that that's going to lead to their early release. But you know, I just wonder had there not been Netflix documentaries, would they be in this situation, had Kim Kardashian others not taken up their cause, would they be
in this situation? They committed a horrific, brutal murder and lied about it for years, and now they're ready to be released after thirty five years of serving a life sent.
I mean, new evidence had emerged. Did that play any part in this resentencing hearing?
I think it did, because the judge took everything into account. It was more than the good behavior. It was the fact that there was evidence that the sexual abuse from Jose did occur, not conclusive evidence, but we had a letter that one of the Menanda's brothers wrote to a cousin that mentioned it. There was also the Menudo boy band member who said that Jose engaged in sexual abuse with him. So yeah, there is evidence, and that's why it could be a manslaughter case instead of a murder
case as it applies to Jose. And I'm okay if they want to let him out early for the murder of Jose because of this new evidence, because it been good prisoners. The problem I had is the murder of them mother Kitty, who did not engage in sexual abuse, and they said, well, she enabled them, But here are their parents sitting watching TV with their backs turn eating ice cream, getting blown away with shotguns by these boys who meticulously planned this brutal murder, and then they went
on a shopping spree after covering it all up. And the way they murdered Kitty was so horrific and so cold calculated and cruel that I don't think that's a manslaughter case. I think that's a murder conviction and should stay as a murder conviction. But as I said before, this case was really never treated the same as other cases from the beginning.
We'll see what happens with the clemency hearing in about a month. Let's turn for a moment to the Sean Diddy Combe's trial. It's day three of Combe's trial. He's charged with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. His former girlfriend, Cassie Venture, is on the stand for the second day, talking about her decade long relationship with Colmbs that she says was plagued by jealousy, violence,
and humiliating sex. The prosecution seems to have a wealth of evidence of violence of violent acts. Is that enough in this case?
Well, it's not enough just for there to be violent. There needs to be more, and I think they have more.
They've got more because they have more than one witness who's going to testify to These freak coughs and the freak COFs are in themselves not necessarily illegal, but it is illegal when it involves involuntary sexual conduct, when it involves alleged human trafficking, when it involves a racketeering an ongoing criminal enterprise to service ditty and committing various crimes along the way, like arson and obstruction of justice, witness intimidation,
and all these other types of crimes that fit under the racketeering ruber. So, you know, standing alone, maybe there are not all times that would have been prosecuted. The defense is that this is the domestic violence case, this is not a racketeering case, this is not a human trafficking case. But taken all together, it does look like
they have enough evidence to sustain the conviction. And Cassie taking the stand yesterday and today has been devastating for the defense because she is the one who connects all the dots in this case, and she's been a very compelling witness, not to mention she's also eight months pregnant, so she's a very sympathetic witness as well.
During the opening statements, the defense attorney claimed that Combe's accusers were motivated by money, and she said that Cassie Ventura demanded thirty million dollars when she sued him. Quote, I want you to ask yourself, how many millions of reasons does this witness have to lie? So we can assume that that's going to be part of the cross examination and why she didn't report it to police and instead file the civil suit. Against him.
She set this all emotion by suing him. It's something that takes a lot of courage to be able to file something. And it wasn't a money grab when you have the other party selling it within a day like essentially, they keep her quiet. So if he wants to bring up that this is a civil case of money grabbed, it's a look bad for him to say, yeah, I settled with it a day. That's something you don't do unless you know you've done it. So it cuts both ways. Yes, you can say why didn't you report this to the
police and why did you just sue? Well, okay, but look what happened. She sued and then the police got involved, and so that led to the criminal charges. It's because of Cassie that this whole trial is even a current. And then he also lied about the fiscal violence all of a sudden, he admitted to it only after that
horrific video came out. That video is very telling. They played it already in front of the jury and the jury must be appalled by it because that's the only thing is it ever admitted to, it seems, is the physical violence on that day at that moment, because that was the act that was caught on video.
I read that Diddy was offered a plea deal and turned it down. I don't know what he was offered, but it does seem like this defense is going to be an uphill battled to say the least. So what's the defense going to look like?
The defense is consent, and consent is a legitimate defense when you're dealing with adults who allegedly are victims of human trafficking. If there were miners consent, it's not a defense. But to get a human trafficking conviction, you need force, fraud or coercion. Well that's where that video comes into play. The force that was used. Her claims a physical violence are buttressed by that video. So if they can prove force, fraud a coorsion, then all you need is one victim
and he goes down. But they're trying to show a pattern of activity to get that racketeering conviction. And then there's the other charges of the man acts by relations, which is when you take individuals across state lines or purposes of the prostitution. So I think the prosecution has enough to win a conviction and to keep Ditty behind bars for the rest of his life. The defense is going to try their best to poke holes in the victims stories and to show that this was a consensual
activity of these freak coughs. But I don't know. I mean, yesterday's and today's testimony, we're going to continue to hurt the defense because Cassy comes across as very credible and the stuff she's saying is so salacious that it has to move the jury.
So did he took videos of these so called freak offs and today they showed the jury stills of them. Do you think that just seeing these graphic images will impact the jury's view of him.
There's a rule of evidence that says that the evidence is not going to be admitted if it's more prejudicial than it is probative, if it's just used for salaciousness, if it's just used to inflame the jury. But here it's part of the charge, so it is relevant, and it is very salacious, and it will have an effect on the jury. How do you not when you hear things that I can't even repeat on this program, it would be believed. You can imagine how the jury feels
that this was real life. So that's why I think that it will come back to haunt Diddy. Now, what's ironic is that our culture now, our society, is that if he gets acquitted, he'll go back to making records and being the super celebrity he is, when in any other time you would think that just these allegations, just this kind of testimony, would destroy someone's reputation in the court of public opinion. But nowadays it seems like even being infamous can get them paid.
I don't know, Dave, Even if he's acquitted, I'm not sure he could make a comeback, but he certainly has the huge hurdle of a jury verdict ahead of him. First, thanks so much for being on the show, Dave. That's Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney. Coming up next on The Bloomberg Last Show, we'll look at whether the US Trade Court might block Trump's Liberation Day global tariffs.
I'm June Grossel. When you're listening to Bloomberg. President Trump's global tariffs are facing a key test in US Trade Court. A group of small businesses is urging the court to block the tariffs, arguing that Trump invoked a bogus national emergency to justify them. The businesses claim that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act or IEPA is an unprecedented and unlawful expansion of presidential authority that would
allow him to impose tariffs without meaningful judicial review. The Trump administration is arguing that the president's emergency declaration is justified, saying the cumulative effects of annual trade deficits are a threat to the US economy and supply chain, and further that the courts don't have the authority to review Trump's
interpretation of what an extraordinary threat is. The fight could impact trillions of dollars in global trade, and comes amid a wave of legal challenges to Trump's executive orders, which are testing the limits of presidential power on everything from federal spending to restrictions on birthright citizenship. Joining me is Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Holly From. First of all, this is a little known federal court. Tell us about this court.
So it's the International Trade Court in downtown Manhattan, and it handles to speaks arising from terroriffts. So any law that provides for a terriff presumably goes to that court. Although there is some dispute about whether these lawsuits are jurisdiction is whether the International Trade Court has jurisdiction over these.
Cases the Trump administration. Eric Hamilton was the lawyer, and he claimed that the question here is a political question and that the Court doesn't have the right to decide it.
That's right. So he's saying that because there's no standard about how the court can determine whether there's an emergency that meets the International Emergency Economic Powers Act standards, which is AEPA. Because there's no standards, there's no discoverable standard, that it's a nonussible question. So only the political branches, Congress and the President have power to decide whether this emergency is trade doesn't sit meet that emergency provision in AEPA.
How did the judges react to that that they don't have the power to decide this.
I think they pretty much disagreed with that. I think that's pretty clear. You know, they said that there is this provision that says, you know that a declaration of emergency is not reviewable. But because they put these two magic words in the statue, which is there has been declaration of emergency that presents an quote unusual an extraordinary threat to national security or the economy. Because Congress put those words in the statute, it was meant for the
judiciary to interpret that. Why else would they put those words in the statue. And what the government argued was that, well, that's for the presidents are determined. That's a limit on the president his self discretion to determine that this emergency falls within that meaning unusual and extraordinary threat. But it's not for the court to decide that.
So let's talk about IPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and the arguments over those words unusual and extraordinary threat tell us what the plaintiffs are claiming here.
So they're saying that the trade deficit is a persistent problem. It definitely doesn't arise to the level of an emergency of that nature. It's been, you know, in insistence for decades. In fact, this is not the largest trade deficit we've
ever seen. And so while the plaintiffs sort of had a difficult time explaining to the court what standard they would use to determine whether this is an emergency that meets this threat, he said, this is so outside the definition of those words that it cannot be possible that this trade deficit falls within that definition. So the court doesn't even need to set a standard. It could just say this is so wildly outside the definition it doesn't meet AIPA.
And the Trump administration's attorney, what was the response, Well, he.
Was pressed on this also and he says to political question, the court shouldn't even review it. But when pressed further, and when the Court said, assume that we think that we have the power to decide this, he said, well, look at the ordinary definitions of unusual extraordinary re for them to dictionary definition. And he also said in prior cases, the courts have of how those decorations.
Yeah, and so I mean, could you tell which way the judges were leaning on that?
So I think it's hard to say. It's very hard to say, but I think the court is skeptical. We've come out and said we think that these will eventually be upheld, but I think the court is skeptical. And the court even said judges Sani even said one of the judges of the three member panel said, what if there's a shortage of peanut butter? Is that a national emergency because it's unusual extraordinary? So could the president just
declare an emergency? They're like what is the limit? And I think they're skeptical because if they bought the government's argument, there would be no limit on the president's authority and when he could declare a national emergency and what terrorists he compose. And that's where what the plaintiffs are arguing, like, you know, this is the quintessential unlimited exercise of power.
I mean, did the court discuss Congress and that tariffs are you know, within Congress's purview?
They did, They said, this is you know, Congress's domain. You know, the Constitution very clearly says Congress has the power to regulate foreign commerce. Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and there are two separate provisions and they're both with you know, the domain of But the government is saying, well, that's true, but they can delegate that power to the president and they have here and they have before in terms of other statutes that nobody's quibbling about.
So Section two thirty two, which allows the president to impose terrors if imports threat national security, that was delegated to the president. So even though Constitution says yes, this is the power that Congress has, they can in certain circumstances delegate that power to the president, and.
How have they done that in this case?
So with what the government is arguing is that with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, they gave the Presidence the authority to regulate imports, which includes imposing terrorists. If the President declares the national emergency that it imposes an unusual extraordinary threat to national security or the economy.
Usually, if you're asking for an injunction, the planets have to show irreparable harm. Did they discuss whether they would suffer irreparable harm?
They didn't even get into that. So that's why there's this thinking that the court is going to rule on the summary judgment each because there's a and in summary judgment motion too. So for some re judgment you just have to win. In the merits, you don't have to show a reparable harm. So there's this thinking that they're just going to rule in summary judgment motion one way or the other.
President Nixon used a similar emergency law to issue tariffs during a currency devaluation crisis in the early seventies. Tell us about that case and is it precedent here?
So?
Yes, that is by president. What happened there was President Nixon imposed a ten percent tariff on all dutyabul goods to address a balance of payments deficit in nineteen seventy one.
And so there was a court case that arose out of that, and the appellate court at the time, which is the predecessor to the Federal Circuit, which the International Trade Court that's hearing this dispute is bound by the predecessor court, found that under a predecessor statute that mirrors the language in AIPA, the president had power to impose those tariffs, that ten percent tariff on all dutiable goods.
And so that's case the court was talking about, and Dave and said, you know, to the point if that's identical language, the court there found that the president had power to impose terror when the statute said you can regulate imports. So they're bound by that. But the court, even you know, is suggesting that there's many distinctions with that case in terms of you know, what's happening now.
So you gave this a sixty percent chance that the tariffs will be upheld, explain you know what you base that on?
Sixties percent is more likely than than not, but it's very very close. And the reason we think that it will be upheld is because, you know, because there is this US sheet of precedent which says that very clearly that the president has power to regulate imports and that
includes tariff. And then the court is going to have to get into whether there's trede deficit, is an emergency and though they seemed inclined to review whether it's an unusual extordinary threat, we think ultimately, if this goes up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will hold that the president has the power to impose these tariffs and that the court shouldn't be tucking guesting the president when it comes to declaring emergencies.
The plane Offs asked the court to rule on an expedited basis. Are they going to rule on an expedited basis?
I think that they're going to rule relatively quickly. So this is a case that it's suscepting almost everyone and it has national import, So I think they're going to rule.
I've been two q There are other cases over the tariffs, including a case by Democratic Attorneys General. Is that going to go to the Trade Court as well?
Yes, so they filed that in the Trade Court. There is another case that California filed outside of the Trade Court, which is in a federal court in California, because they're contesting the International Trade Court's jurisdiction. But most of these have been filed in the Trade Court and there are pending motions to transfer all the cases outside to the same court to the Trade Court.
Thanks so much, Holly. That's Bloomberg Intelligence Litigation Analyst Holly from and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg