A judge approved a plan Friday to move more than 100 youths out of a troubled Los Angeles juvenile hall that has been the site of riots, drug overdoses and so-called “gladiator fights” in recent years.
Los Angeles County Superior Judge Miguel Espinoza signed off on the L.A. County Probation Department’s plan to relocate dozens of detainees from Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, months after a state oversight body ordered the hall to be shut down.
The Downey facility, home to approximately 270 youths, most of whom are between the ages of 15 and 18, has been under fire since last December, when the Board of State and Community Corrections ordered it closed because of repeated failures to meet minimum staffing requirements. The probation department has faced a years-long struggle to get officers to show up to work in the chaotic halls.
But the probation department ignored the state board’s order to shut down. Since the body has no power to enforce its own orders and the California Attorney General’s Office declined to step in, Los Padrinos continued to operate in defiance for months. In that time frame, several youths suffered drug overdoses, a teen was stabbed in the eye and 30 probation officers were indicted for allegedly organizing or allowing brawls between youths.
Roughly three-quarters of the youths at Los Padrinos are awaiting court hearings connected to violent offenses including murder, attempted murder, assault, robbery, kidnapping and gang crimes, according to the probation department.
The probation department made its plan to de-populate Los Padrinos public earlier this month, promising to remove 103 detainees from the facility by June.
Under the department’s plan, youth who are awaiting trial on cases that could land them in the county’s Secure Youth Treatment Facility will be moved to Barry J. Nidorf Hall in Sylmar. Others will be moved out of Los Padrinos and into the lower-security camps, where some juvenile justice advocates say teens perform much better and are far less likely to act violent.
“This plan reflects our continued commitment to balancing public safety, legal compliance, and the rehabilitative needs of the young people in our care,” the department said in a statement. “It is key to note that the court denied an indiscriminate mass release of youth, and that Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall will not be fully depopulated or closed.”
Espinoza originally weighed shutting down the facility last year when the public defender’s office questioned the legality of its continued operation in defiance of the BSCC. On Friday, he declined to adopt a plan from the Probation Oversight Commission that could have resulted in the release of some youths through a review process.
Some members of the oversight body expressed frustration that Espinoza’s order won’t solve the larger issues that have plagued the probation department for years. Milinda Kakani, a POC board member and the director of youth justice for the Children’s Defense Fund, also noted the moves might cause some youths to backslide by returning them to Nidorf Hall after they had already graduated from the prison-like SYTF, which some derisively refer to as “The Compound.”
“I imagine it’s deeply damaging to a young person to go back to the facility they had worked so hard to get out of,” Kakani said.
Espinoza warned he could take further action if the department’s plan does not bring it into compliance with state regulations. It was not clear when the next BSCC inspection of Los Padrinos would take place and a spokeswoman for the oversight body did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The probation department must provide Espinoza with an update on conditions at Los Padrinos by July.
Life, death, crime, kitsch, nostalgia, immigrant aspirations and witty design — all of these elements converge in the world of motels, which didn’t exist before 1925.
Here are five facts and phenomena from the century of history.
The motel turns 100. Explore the state’s best roadside havens — and the coolest stops along the way.
Where Magic Fingers are found
From the late 1950s into the ’80s, thousands of motels proudly advertised their Magic Fingers — a little collection of vibrating electric nodes under your mattress that would give you a 15-minute “massage” for 25 cents, inspiring creators from Kurt Vonnegut to Frank Zappa. Alas, their moment passed. But not everywhere. Morro Bay’s Sundown Inn, which gets two diamonds from the Auto Club and charges about $70 and up per night, is one of the last motels in the West that still features working Magic Fingers, offered (at the original price) in most of its 17 rooms. “We’ve owned the hotel for 41 years, and the Magic Fingers was here when we started. We just kept them,” said co-owner Ann Lin. Ann’s mother- and father-in-law immigrated from Taiwan and bought the property in 1983.
Motels, hotels and Patels
Many motels and small hotels are longtime family operations. Sometimes it’s the original owner’s family, and quite often it’s a family named Patel with roots in India’s Gujarat state. A recent study by the Asian American Hotel Owners Assn. found that 60% of U.S. hotels — and 61% of those in California — are owned by Asian Americans. By one estimate, people named Patel own 80% to 90% of the motels in small-town America. The beginnings of this trend aren’t certain, but many believe that one of the first Indians to acquire a hotel in the U.S. was Kanjibhai Desai, buyer of the Goldfield Hotel in downtown San Francisco in the early 1940s.
Motels, media and murders
There’s no escaping the motel in American pop culture. Humbert Humbert, the deeply creepy narrator of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel “Lolita,” road-tripped from motel to motel with his under-age victim. Edward Hopper gave us the disquieting 1957 oil painting “Western Motel.” In the film “Psycho” (1960), Alfred Hitchcock brought to life the murderous motel manager Norman Bates. When Frank Zappa made a movie about the squalid misadventures of a rock band on tour, he called it “200 Motels” (1971). When the writers of TV’s “Schitt’s Creek” (2015-2020) wanted to disrupt a rich, cosmopolitan family, they came up with the Rosebud Motel and its blue brick interior walls. And when executives at A&E went looking for a true-crime series in 2024, they came up with “Murder at the Motel,” which covered a killing at a different motel in every episode.
The Lorraine Motel, before and after
The 1968 assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made the Lorraine Motel in Memphis globally notorious. But before and after that day, the Lorraine played a very different role. Built as a small hotel in 1925 and segregated in its early years, the property sold to Black businessman Walter Bailey in 1945. He expanded it to become a motel, attracting many prominent African American guests. In the 1950s and ’60s, the Lorraine was known for housing guests such as Count Basie, Cab Calloway, Roy Campanella, Ray Charles, Nat King Cole, Aretha Franklin, Lionel Hampton, Wilson Pickett, Otis Redding and the Staples Singers. After King’s assassination, the motel struggled, closed, then reemerged in 1991 as the National Civil Rights Museum, now widely praised. Guests follow civil rights history through the building, ending at Room 306 and its balcony where King was standing when he was shot.
The man upstairs in the Manor House
In 1980, a Colorado motel owner named Gerald Foos confided to journalist Gay Talese that he had installed fake ceiling vents in the Manor House Motel in Aurora, Colo., and for years had been peeping from the attic at guests in bed. The man had started this in the 1960s and continued into the ’90s. Finally, in 2016, Talese spun the story into a New Yorker article and a book, “The Voyeur’s Motel,” sparking many charges that he had violated journalistic ethics.
It also means a new murder investigation has been launched to find Diane’s killer.
Mr Sullivan, who held his hand to his mouth and appeared tearful as the decision was handed down, said he was “not angry” and would “begin repairing what I made from the driftwood that is my life”.
In a statement released through his solicitor, Sarah Myatt, moments after the verdict, he said: “As God is my witness, it is said the truth shall set you free. It is unfortunate that it does not give a timescale.”
The victim of Britain’s longest miscarriage of justice left prison a free man last night.
Compensation from the Ministry of Justice is capped at £1million, which Mr Sullivan is now in line for.
The MoJ said: “Peter Sullivan suffered a grave miscarriage of justice, and our thoughts are with him and the family of Diane Sindall.
“We will carefully consider this judgment, looking at how this could have happened and making sure both Mr Sullivan and Diane’s family get the answers they deserve.”
Mr Sullivan’s release comes after new tests ordered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed his DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.
On the night of her murder, Diane had just left her shift as a part-time barmaid at a pub in Bebington when her small blue van ran out of petrol.
I was wrongly jailed for rape – I’ll have to wait for years for paltry compensation, Andrew Malkinson says
She was making her way to a garage when she was beaten to death and sexually assaulted in a “frenzied” attack.
Her body was discovered partially clothed on August 2 in an alleyway.
Diane’s belongings were later found close to where a small fire had been started – with a man seen running from the scene.
Mr Sullivan was said to have spent the day of the murder drinking heavily.
Following his arrest in September 1986, he was quizzed 22 times and denied legal advice in the first seven interviews – despite requesting it.
Mr Sullivan later “confessed to the murder” in an unrecorded interview a day after his arrest.
He then made a formal confession but the court was told this was “inconsistent with the facts established by the investigation”.
How do you get a conviction overturned?
PETER Sullivan was able to get his conviction overturned after receiving help from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
The CCRC is an independent body that investigates potential miscarriages of justice.
They will examine a case and decide whether it reaches the threshold for a miscarriage of justice.
If so, the case will be referred to the Court of Appeal – the only court that can overturn a conviction or sentence.
It can order a retrial in cases where a judge has made an error.
Any case sent for appeal must be heard by the courts but there is no guarantee the convictions will be quashed.
For the CCRC to be able to refer a case, there would need to be new information that may have changed the outcome of the case if the jury had known about it.
It also went against his earlier interviews, with Mr Sullivan retracting the admission later that day.
Since his conviction, questions have been raised about whether he had proper legal representation during his interviews.
Evidence related to bite marks on Diane’s body has also been called into question.
At the time of the case, DNA technology was not available and subsequent requests for new tests were refused.
Mr Sullivan first went to the CCRC for help in 2008 but they did not refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.
He then launched his own appeal bid in 2019, which judges dismissed after ruling the bite mark evidence was not central to the prosecution at trial.
In 2021, Mr Sullivan went back to the CCRC and raised concerns over police interviews, the bite mark evidence and the murder weapon.
The independent body revealed Mr Sullivan’s DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.
This led Merseyside Police to confirm they were “carrying out an extensive investigation in a bid to identify who the new DNA profile belongs to”.
The force revealed they had no matches on the police database but were contacting people previously identified in the original probe to request new samples.
The Crown Prosecution Service yesterday told the Court of Appeal the new evidence was enough to cast “sufficient” doubt on the conviction.
It also agreed the fresh clue was “reliable” and that the CPS “does not seek to argue that this evidence is not capable of undermining the safety of Mr Sullivan’s conviction”.
Duncan Atkinson KC, for the CPS, said: “The respondent considers that there is no credible basis on which the appeal can be opposed, solely by reference to the DNA evidence.
“On the contrary, the DNA evidence provides a clear and uncontroverted basis to suggest that another person was responsible for both the sexual assault and the murder.
“As such, it positively undermines the circumstantial case against Mr Sullivan as identified at the time both of his trial and his 2021 appeal.”
The judge said: “Strong though the circumstantial evidence undoubtedly seemed at the trial, it is now necessary to take into account the new scientific evidence pointing to someone else – the unknown man.
“If the new evidence had been available in 1986, the evidence as a whole would have been regarded as insufficient.
“In the light of that evidence it is impossible to regard the appellant’s conviction as safe.”
Peter Sullivan was dubbed the “Beast of Birkenhead” for the 1986 murder of 21-year-old Diane Sindall in Bebington, Merseyside.
The day after Diane’s murder some of her clothes were found burning in a small fire on nearby Bidston Hill.
Passers by told police they recognised a man called “Pete” running out of bushes.
They also failed to pick him out of a line up.
More witnesses later came forward with descriptions matching Peter.
He was arrested for murder on September 23 after he gave officers a number of “completely different” accounts of his movements.
Sullivan later “confessed to the murder” in an unrecorded interview a day after his arrest.
He withdrew the apparent confession later that day.
Peter was not given a lawyer at this point because the police said it would have been a “hindrance to the enquiry”.
He was only given a solicitor two days after his arrest.
The prosecution during his trial focused on his confessions, which were withdrawn, and supposed evidence from a dental expert that matched a bite mark on Diane to Peter’s teeth.
Why was Peter Sullivan cleared?
New tests ordered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission revealed his DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.
The judge said: “Strong though the circumstantial evidence undoubtedly seemed at the trial, it is now necessary to take into account the new scientific evidence pointing to someone else – the unknown man.
“If the new evidence had been available in 1986, the evidence as a whole would have been regarded as insufficient.
“In the light of that evidence it is impossible to regard the appellant’s conviction as safe.”
The Crown Prosecution Service today told the Court of Appeal the new evidence was enough to cast “sufficient” doubt on the conviction.
It also agreed the fresh clue was “reliable” and that the CPS “does not seek to argue that this evidence is not capable of undermining the safety of Mr Sullivan’s conviction”.
Sullivan first went to the CCRC for help in 2008 but they did not refer the sentence to the Court of Appeal.
He then launched his own appeal bid in 2019, which judges dismissed after ruling the bite mark evidence was not central to the prosecution at trial.
In 2021, Sullivan went back to the CCRC and raised concerns over police interviews, the bite mark evidence and the murder weapon.
The independent body revealed Sullivan’s DNA was not present on samples preserved at the time.
This led Merseyside Police to confirm they were “carrying out an extensive investigation in a bid to identify who the new DNA profile belongs to”.
How often are convictions overturned in Britain?
In Britain, convictions are overturned in a small percentage of cases.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) reviews cases where there’s a concern about a miscarriage of justice.
They only refer around 3.5% to the Court of Appeal.
Of those referred, approximately 70% are successful, resulting in a total overturn rate of about 2.5% of all cases presented to the CCRC.
Compensation
The Miscarriage of Justice Compensation Scheme enables some people in England and Wales who have had their conviction overturned (or quashed) by the courts to apply for compensation.
To be eligible to apply for compensation, any of the following must apply:
The individual’s appeal was successful and it was submitted 28 days or more after their conviction in the Crown Court, or 21 days or more after sentencing for a conviction in a magistrate’s court.
The individual’s conviction was overturned after it was referred to the Court of Appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).
The individual has been granted a free pardon.
6
Diane, 21, was beaten to death and sexually assaulted in a “frenzied” attack
6
She had been walking to get petrol for her van when she was murderedCredit: Unpixs
6
A new investigation has been launched to find Diane’s killerCredit: PA
Erik and Lyle Menendez, the infamous brothers convicted of brutally murdering their parents more than three decades ago, have had their sentences reduced today in Los Angeles
02:24, 14 May 2025Updated 02:44, 14 May 2025
(Image: AP)
Two brothers who murdered their parents more than three decades ago have their sentences cut.
Erik and Lyle Menendez had been caged for life without parole but this punishment has been slashed to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law. The law applies to those who committed crimes under the age of 26 — Erik was 18 and Lyle 21 when they killed Jose and Kitty Menendez in 1989.
And Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic told the packed courtroom in Los Angeles: “I’m not saying they should be released, it’s not for me to decide. I do believe they’ve done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.”
The brothers, who appeared via livestream, remained largely stoic — though Erik cracked a smile when a cousin praised his recent A+ grades in college courses behind bars.
Appeared via livestream video, they spoke for the first time in court before the ruling. Lyle said in a statement to the court: “I killed my mom and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification. The impact of my violent actions on my family … is unfathomable.”
The ruling paved the way for the brothers’ potential release(Image: AFP via Getty Images)
The ruling means the decision now lies with California’s parole board, who will determine whether the pair still pose a risk to the public.
The sensational case remains one of America’s most talked-about family tragedies, reignited recently by hit Netflix dramas and a wave of public support.
Attorneys for Erik and Lyle Menendez must prove the pair have been rehabilitated during their time in prison and deserve a lesser sentence of 50 years to life.
Such a ruling that would make them eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law, since both were under 26 when they killed their parents.
Their high-profile defence lawyer Mark Geragos told reporters outside court that he wants the charges dropped to manslaughter, and for the brothers to be given time served.
This move would effectively grant them immediate release. At least seven family members are expected to testify in support during the hearings, highlighting the level of backing the brothers continue to receive.
While Los Angeles County prosecutors are opposing the resentencing, arguing the pair haven’t fully accepted responsibility, Geragos fired back:
“The purpose of resentencing is to encourage rehabilitation — that is the law, not relitigate the facts of the crime as the D.A. wants to do.”
Former District Attorney George Gascón has already paved the way, citing new understandings of trauma and the brothers’ lengthy rehabilitation behind bars, including their educational achievements and support work with fellow inmates.
The resentencing hearing for brothers Erik and Lyle Menendez kicked off Tuesday morning with emotional testimony from family members, one of whom testified in court that they should be freed from prison for the shotgun killing of their parents more than 30 years ago.
Annmaria Baralt, often wiping away her tears, testified that the relatives of victims Jose and Kitty Menendez want a judge to give the brothers a lesser sentence than life without parole for the 1989 murders inside their Beverly Hills mansion.
“Yes, we all on both sides of the family say 35 years is enough,” she told Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic in a Van Nuys courtroom. “They are universally forgiven by both sides of their families.”
Baralt, whose mother was Jose Menendez’s older sister, said the family had endured decades of pain from the scrutiny of the murders.
“From the day it happened… it has been a relentless examination of our family in the public eye,” she said, beginning to cry. “It has been torture for decades.” She said the family was the butt of repeated jokes on “Saturday Night Live” and lived like outcasts who wore a “scarlet M.”
The Menendez brothers have been in prison for more than 35 years after being sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in the gruesome 1989 murders. The brothers bought shotguns with cash and opened fire as their mother and father watched a movie. Jose Menendez was shot five times, including in the kneecaps and the back of the head. Kitty Menendez crawled on the floor, wounded, before one of the brothers reloaded and fired a fatal blast, jurors heard at their two trials.
On the stand Tuesday, Baralt echoed the brothers’ justification for killing their parents — saying it was out of fear their father was going to kill them to cover up his past sexual abuse of the boys.
She told the judge that she believes they have changed and are “very aware of the consequences of their actions.”
“I don’t think they are the same people they were 30 years ago,” she said.
If Jesic agrees to resentence them, the brothers would become eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law, since the murders happened when they were under 26. If the judge sides with Los Angeles Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, they would still have a path to freedom through Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is weighing a clemency petition. Regardless, Erik and Lyle would still have to appear before the state parole board before they could walk free. Jesic on Tuesday emphasized that the bar to keep them from being resentenced is high, and that they would have to still pose a serious danger to the public.
Prosecutor Habib Balian spent the morning trying to punch holes in the brothers’ relatively clean reputations they’ve gotten behind bars.
Under cross-examination, Baralt admitted that she never thought her cousins were capable of killing their parents until they’d done it, and that prior to their criminal trial decades ago, Lyle Menendez had asked a witness to lie for him on the stand.
Nearly two dozen of the brothers’ relatives, including several who testified Tuesday, formed the Justice for Erik and Lyle Coalition to advocate for their release as interest in the case reignited in recent years. The release of a popular Netflix documentary on the murder, which included the unearthing of additional documentation of Jose Menendez’s alleged sexual abuse, helped fuel a motion for a new trial.
The family has become increasingly public in its fight for Erik and Lyle’s release after Hochman opposed his predecessor’s recommendation to re-sentence them. They have repeatedly accused Hochman of bias against the brothers, called for him to be disqualified from the case and alleged he intimidated and bullied them during a private meeting. Hochman has denied all accusations of bias and wrongdoing, and says he simply disagrees with their position.
Kitty Menendez’s brother, Milton, was the only member of the family opposed to Erik and Lyle’s release, but he died earlier this year. Kathy Cady, who served as his victims’ rights attorney, is now the head of Hochman’s Bureau of Victims’ Services, another point of aggravation for the relatives fighting for the brothers release.
