Steve Palmer: All right, here we are, Lawyer Talk back at you. Another session of q and a. We are Lawyer Talk Off The Record, on the air. A couple quick comments before I get to this week's q and a or question first. Uh, thank you, everybody, for listening. The numbers are going up. People are checking us out on social Media. People are checking us out on, uh, uh, the podcast website, which is Lawyer Talk podcast.com dot. My dog is peeking his head up above the table because I have dad dog duty today. Uh, please forgive me, but I am human and I love dogs anyway, so check us out. Uh, and those who are, uh, we really appreciate it. If you have your own question, obviously, you can just go to lawyertalkpodcast.com and submit a question there. But look, feel free. If it's easier for you to submit a question in the comments, or if you've got a different answer to what I have suggested, uh, go ahead and take your best shot. Stump the lawyer. I mean, I am no more perfect than anybody else, so I am happy to engage in discussions in the comments or elsewhere. We'll get to it. We, uh, have Julia, uh, she is writing, uh, from Ohio. I'm not going to say where, but it looks like she's from Ohio, or at least near Ohio, or has a connection to Ohio. Uh, and Julia's question, what are the current legal avenues available to the Menendez brothers as they seek to appeal their sentences or achieve a reduction in their prison terms? All right, so this is a hot topic. Why? Because, one, uh, there's been some new developments in the case, and two, netflix or one of these other big companies are making all sorts of documentaries about it. Um, I think people love these kind of things. People love these kind of, uh, uh, cases where there's some. There's some all sorts of, uh, emotion. Uh, and this was an emotionally charged case. I actually remember when it was tried. Uh, so basically, the history is this. The Menendez brothers killed their parents. Uh, there were two different trials. Um, the first one had two different juries, I think, and they both hung, meaning the juries could not reach a decision. Now, it wasn't about whether they were whether the Menendez brothers were guilty or innocent. It was about whether they were guilty of something called manslaughter or first degree murder. Think the difference this way. First, uh, degree murder, prison for the rest of your life, maybe even the death penalty, manslaughter, you've got more of a determinate or a, uh, set sentence. You can get out earlier. So, in Ohio, for instance, manslaughter would give you maybe eleven years if, uh, you used a gun. Add three, uh, if straight, uh, murder or ag murder is more like 20 to life, 25 to life, 30 to life, or even life without parole or even the death penalty. So that's what the jury hung on. There were two separate juries in the first go around that both hung. Um, the prosecutor opted to retry it. Now, they don't. The prosecutor didn't have to retry the case, but the prosecutor opted to retry it. And this Time there was one jury over. Objection. And, uh, after a lengthy deliberation period, where I believe they had to have some substitution of jurors. Cause it went on so long. Meaning, uh, the alternates were called in. Uh, the both brothers were found guilty of aggravated or first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. Um, now go back a little bit. The defense was basically this, uh, the Menendez brothers said, look, we have been abused by our father all these years, uh, uh, sexually, uh, uh, it's been such a horrible experience. This is. This is basically a. I'm going to call it an imperfect self defense. Meaning it's not like their lives were in immediate danger at the Time of the killing. But this ongoing abuse resulted in some sort of pro. Post traumatic stress syndrome, or, um. Um, uh, uh, there's a. There's an equivalent in the context of a marriage called battered women syndrome, where anybody who watched burning bed with, um, um, farrah Fawcett, I think, back in the day was, uh, uh, that's a good example of that. But anyway, there is a psychological defense. Like, look, we've been abused so much that we're protecting ourselves from further abuse. Uh, the prosecutor said, hogwash. This was more about the fact that their father was disappointed, uh, in them and was cutting them or had cut them out of the will, and therefore they weren't going to inherit any money. And these spoiled brats killed their parents, uh, in order to get the money. There's even evidence, I think the prosecutor tried to present, that, uh, the boys hacked into a computer and was. They were trying to change the will. I don't know all the nuances of it, but. So they were convicted the second time around, and now it's been, what, 20, I don't know how many years later, lots of years later. How can they possibly get out? Well, here's what's happened. Uh, some new evidence has emerged, and that comes in the form of a letter, a letter written, uh, by one of the Menendez boys to his cousin. And the letter basically says, I've been abused for so long, this abuse is horrible. Um, um, you know, basically outlining the sexual abuse that was occurring in the house. And this is contrary to the prosecutor's theory that the abuse was hogwash and it wasn't happening. And the letter predated the murder by, you know, a good enough period of Time where it was, uh, it would have been relevant. So basically you have newly discovered evidence. Now, what does all that mean? Well, it's still a tough road to hoe. It's not easy just to go back into court after 20 years in prison. The typical appellate remedies, I call it the appellate ladder, uh, has already expired. Right. You've done your direct appeal, you lost, you went to the supreme court, you lost. Maybe even you try to get into the US supreme court, you lost. Uh, and then on the other side of things, you have something called collateral attacks, which is like, uh, outside The Record. You still try to pursue remedies, so it's typically dead, but this is something called newly discovered evidence. And I guess it was found in a storage locker by the cousin, who is now deceased, and, uh, the cousin's mother or somebody in the Family found it and, uh, produced it. Now, uh, there's two things going on. Uh, one, you have estate habeas corpus. For those historians out there, that basically means have the body, uh, let me have the person here so we can review this to make sure it's fair. And this is that collateral attack. This means it's outside The Record. Uh, everything is expired. Everything is done. But California has a provision for a State of court habeas corpus, meaning a, uh, place where you can sort of present this newly discovered type evidence. Each State has some unique version of this. I'm, um, working on a case in Virginia right now that has it. In Ohio we have a State habeas corpus, uh, process, but typically we call it post conviction. Here in Ohio, in federal court, there is habeas corpus. That's a little bit different and much more, uh, difficult to get into a federal habeas situa or a federal habeas case, uh, for all sorts of reasons I won't go into, but. So there's a State habeas court or habeas case going on where the lawyers for the Menendez brothers are saying, look, this isn't fair. Uh, this evidence should have been admitted or would be relevant to the defense. And we need to vacate the convictions or vacate the sentencing and go back and reconsider it. And at the same time you have this prosecutor, um, out there named Gascon. Gascon is looking at this, and he's got sort of a re sentencing committee, uh, uh, where their office is reviewing cases like this, and Ohio does not have anything like this. Um, but I guess under California law, there's a way that a prosecutor can petition to resentence somebody and basically bring them back and shorten the sentence. And apparently the committee within the prosecutor's office is, um, reviewing this and trying to, uh, figure out if they want to make a recommendation to resentence the Menendez boys and bring them back and get them out early. So there's really two things going on. I'll be interested to see how it plays out. Now, I will say this. I have reviewed the habeas corpus petition. It's lengthy, and there's lots of legalese in there that, uh, I didn't want to break down here for the purposes of this q and a. Maybe I'll do a breakdown on it. Maybe I'll do some more on, uh, the Menendez case. If you want me to leave, uh, me a comment and ask me to, and maybe that'll convince me to get off my backside and do some, uh, deeper dive into this. Uh, otherwise, submit any question you have, Menendez or otherwise, I'll be happy to give it a shot right here on Lawyer Talk. Q and a each and every week, off The Record, on the air, at least until now.