This communication was one in a long line sent by the serial killer who On January 25, , the Continental Congress authorizes the first national Revolutionary War memorial in honor of Brigadier General Richard Montgomery, who had been killed during an assault on Quebec on December 31, Montgomery, along with Benedict Arnold, led a On January 25, , in Paris, delegates to the peace conference formally approve the establishment of a commission on the League of Nations.
President Woodrow Wilson insisted on chairing the commission—for him, the establishment of the League lay squarely at the center of Live TV. This Day In History. History Vault. Cold War. World War II. The defendants were charged with murder-conspiracy in the August slayings of the beautiful actress and four visitors to her mansion, and in the killings a night later of a wealthy merchant couple.
Manson, 36, was accused of ordering the killings to touch off a race war he believed was heralded in a Beatles song, after which he expected to take over power. Miss Van Houten was charged with conspiracy in all the killings, but with murder only in those of market owners Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The defendants, banished from court Dec. The women wore prison uniforms with ribbons in their long hair. Manson wore a rumpled white shirt with a blue scarf. His hair was disheveled, and he sported a new goatee.
All arose and walked out quietly after the verdicts — read one by one for each of the 27 counts — were finished. Deputy Dist. The deciding factor? The Supreme Court ultimately overturned the conviction. Fitzgerald said the defense would argue at the penalty trial that pretrial publicity hurt the defendants.
He said he will plead for a sentence of life imprisonment on grounds there is still some doubt as to guilt. Maxwell Keith, representing Miss Van Houten, said he had felt she had a fighting chance if not for acquittal, for second-degree murder: Miss Van Houten was not a member of the killer party at the Tate home.
She seemed more solicitous of me. Steccone 36 Cal. Wheeler 23 Cal. Finch Cal. While there he became associated with young [61 Cal. He obtained a Volkswagen bus, collected some of his female companions, and began traveling about the country. Ultimately, he established a commune of about 20 people at Chatsworth, California. Composed of Manson's companions from Haight-Ashbury and others, the members were mostly young women, three of whom had young children. The group became known as the "Family" even though none were related by blood or marriage except for the mothers and children.
The Family, a community unto itself, rejected conventional organizations and values of society. At Chatsworth the Family occupied portions of an established horse ranch owned and operated by George Spahn. Spahn permitted the group to live there in exchange for the young women doing certain domestic and secretarial work and the young men maintaining the ranch trucks. The Family used certain bunkhouses, and other buildings, fn.
Without doubt, Manson was the leader of the Family. The scope of his influence ranged from the most simple to the most complex of matters. He decided where the Family would stay; where they would sleep; what clothing they would have, and when they would wear it; when they would take their evening meal; and when they would move.
Additionally, he concerned himself with the structure and composition of the Family. Manson directed that the children not be cared for by their natural mothers because he believed the children should be freed of their mothers' "ego. Manson ordered one of the male members of the Family, Paul Watkins, to get more females and bring them to him. Instructing the female members of the Family to provide sexual favors to members of the commune, and to do the same for outsiders for the purpose of [61 Cal.
Manson established an elaborate system of security. At his direction female members were ordered to stand guard. Members were ordered to dye T-shirts black for use at night. Walkie talkies were set up and used to connect the different campsites on the ranch.
Camouflage was used to cover some of the property. Clearly, Manson's directions were designed to insulate the Family from the outside world. Manson's position of authority was firmly acknowledged. It was understood that membership in the Family required giving up everything to Manson and never disobeying him. His followers, including the co-appellants, were compliant. They regarded him as infallible and believed that he was a "God man" or Christ. Family member Danny DeCarlo testified that each co-appellant said that "Charlie sees all and knows all.
We know that what he is doing is right. The Family's willingness to follow Manson's directions is salient to the People's theory of the case. The establishment and retention of his position as the unquestioned leader was one of design. A fundamental method used by him to inculcate the Family with his views of life, values, and philosophy was to address them after evening meals. On these occasions Manson would do most of the talking or play his guitar and sing songs, many of which purported to carry profound messages.
Manson firmly believed these gatherings were necessary. He frequently repeated to members of the Family including the co-appellants, collectively or individually exhortations on the relationship between love and death. Manson's preoccupation with the subject is vividly revealed in a statement by Manson to Paul Watkins: "In order to love someone you must be willing to die for them and must be willing to kill them, too.
You must be willing to have them kill you. You must be willing to experience anything for them. Manson had a fascination with the Beatles fn.
Telling the Family and others that the Beatles were speaking to him and warning of imminent conflict between the blacks and the whites, Manson gave the name Helter Skelter to a chimerical vision of a race war. To the Family, Helter Skelter meant the occurrence of a revolution started by blacks to gain control of the world to subdue the conventional establishment of the college educated, wealthy white community and power structure.
These whites were referred to by Manson and his followers as "Pigs. Manson frequently discussed this revolution with members of the commune, describing in detail how whites would be atrociously murdered by blacks. The killings would be marked by the symbolic ritual of writing with the blood of the victims. A major theme of Helter Skelter was that Manson would lead his followers to safety during the apocalyptic event and, at its conclusion, he and the Family would emerge from this place of safety -- a bottomless pit located in Death Valley -- and take control of the world and restore order.
Connected to the aberration of Helter Skelter was Manson's equation of himself to Jesus Christ, his followers as the true Christians and members of conventional white society as the Romans -- otherwise designated "Pigs. A further facet of this fantasy included Manson's pronounced interest in death. One witness aptly testified, "Death is Charlie's trip.
It really is. With the passage of time, his concern became intense. He finally proclaimed he would have to cause the revolution. There is specific evidence that Manson declared the belief that he would have to show the "nigger" how to do it. Family member Dianne Lake testified that in the summer of Manson told her " Quite obviously, a fundamental part of life in the commune entailed exposure to Manson's obsession with Helter Skelter.
To amplify the extent of Manson's influence on the Family, testimony of certain sexual activities was presented. Kasabian testified that on one occasion an unidentified year old girl, clad only in bikini panties, was placed in the center of a room.
Many of the Family members were present, including appellants. Manson made advances to this girl. She bit him.
He struck her in the face, knocking her to the ground, and committed an act of sexual intercourse with her. He then bid the other male and female members to engage in sexual acts with the girl. Manson then directed all the members of the Family to take off their clothing and to "make love" together.
They followed his directions. Barbara Hoyt, a witness for respondent, was a member of the Family. She described an incident where she was ordered by Manson to orally copulate Juan Flynn, a frequent associate of the Family. Hoyt testified that she did not want to perform the act, but did so because she was afraid of Manson. We find no error. However, such evidence may be properly admissible if it is offered to prove a fact material to the charged crime and meets the general tests of relevancy as to such fact.
Durham 70 Cal. While the evidence is less than flattering, its prejudicial character is outweighed by its evidentiary value showing Manson's involvement in the murders. Randolph 4 Cal. The only direct evidence tying appellants to the commission of the Tate-La Bianca murders was the testimony of Family member Linda Kasabian. She testified that on the evening of August 8, , at the Spahn ranch, Manson told her, "Now is the time for Helter Skelter.
Kasabian complied and when she returned with those articles Manson told her " Watson was standing next to the driver's side talking with Manson. Atkins and Krenwinkel were in the back seat.
Kasabian and Watson then got in the car and began to leave. At that moment Manson called for them to stop and they did.
Manson went up to the car, put his head in and said, "You girls know what I mean, something witchy. He then turned the vehicle around and parked it. Kasabian held three knives and one gun which Watson had asked her to discard if they were stopped en route. The car was parked and all four got out. With Watson carrying some rope, they proceeded up a hill, over an embankment or fence and into the outer premises of a private residence.
A car approached towards a gate opening onto the street. As it stopped, Watson leaped forward with gun in hand. The driver said, "Please don't hurt me I won't say anything. Tex turned off the ignition. They proceeded to the house. Watson ordered Kasabian to go to the back to look for open doors or windows.
She did as directed, found none, and returned to the front of the house. Kasabian saw Watson cut a window screen. She did not, however, see anyone enter the house as Watson then told her to return to the "car" to stand lookout. Within a few minutes Kasabian heard screams and the words "No, please, no" coming from the house.
She ran to the house. She saw a man exiting with blood on his face. The man fell to the ground. Atkins came out and Kasabian said "Sadie, please make it stop. He was attacked by Watson who stabbed and clubbed him. Kasabian observed Krenwinkel with a knife in her hand chasing a woman. Kasabian ran back to the car Watson had parked.
Eventually Krenwinkel, Atkins and Watson returned to that car. They had blood on their clothes. Watson got behind the wheel, the others got in, and they all left. Kasabian discovered they no longer had her knife with them and that a portion of the grip of the gun was broken.
In the course of traveling away from the residence Watson, Atkins and Krenwinkel changed clothes. At Watson's direction Kasabian threw the removed clothing out of the car and later did the same with the remaining knives. The group returned to the Spahn ranch to find Manson outside waiting for them. He asked if they felt any remorse and they said no. He directed them not to talk about the event with anyone at the ranch and to get some sleep. They then retired. After dinner on the following day, Kasabian was with appellants Krenwiel and Van Houten at the Spahn ranch.
Manson told the three women to get a change of clothes and to meet him at the bunkhouse. Manson told them they were going out again that night. He said the killings of the preceding night were too messy and he was going to show them how to [61 Cal. As they all entered the car Manson gave Kasabian a leather thong. With Kasabian driving and Manson giving directions, they drove about in a random fashion, making some stops to permit Manson to check out locations for the ostensible purpose of locating victims to murder.
After driving about through a maze of roads, Manson ordered Kasabian to stop the car in front of a residence on Waverly Drive. Kasabian recognized the home as belonging to Harold True, a man known to some of the Family. She told Manson he could not go there. Manson stated he was going next door the La Bianca residence. Manson got out and left the others. Several minutes later he returned. He said that he had tied up a man and a woman. Manson then spoke directly to Van Houten, Krenwinkel and Watson, advising, "Don't let them know you are going to kill them.
After the others exited, Manson got back in the car with Kasabian, Atkins and Grogan. Manson handed Kasabian a wallet, telling her he wanted to dispose of it so that it would be found by a black person who would use the credit cards. His expressed hope was that the blacks would be blamed for the crime. They stopped at a gas station where Kasabian hid the wallet in a restroom. Manson then drove to the beach where he spoke to Kasabian about an actor she had met.
Manson gave Kasabian a small pocket knife and instructed her to kill the actor. She showed Manson the apartment house where the actor lived. After telling all three to hitchhike back, Manson told Atkins to go to the Waterfall when she returned.
Manson then left. Kasabian claimed she wanted to abort the suggested killing and succeeded in doing so. She testified that she purposely led the other two to the wrong apartment.
Kasabian, Grogan and Atkins then started their return and arrived back at the ranch mid-morning of the next day to find Manson asleep in the parachute room. From the outset of her testimony -- July 27, -- Kasabian made it clear that she had been tendered a grant of immunity Pen. Code, [61 Cal.
However, no written request for her immunity was filed with the court until August 10, , after the completion of direct examination. On that date the trial judge signed the order requiring her to answer questions. Walther 27 Cal. Under such circumstances the evidence of a coconspirator should be examined with great care.
When a codefendant who is a coconspirator has been offered immunity from prosecution in reward for his testimony, the cause should be promptly dismissed against him. Otherwise, the maintenance of the action against him throughout the trial may serve to intimidate the witness and furnish an inducement for him to color his testimony. We do not interpret Walther as standing for an inflexible rule of law.
Walther instructs that pending charges should be promptly dismissed. We therefore hold that the admissibility of testimony of a witness who has been offered immunity must turn on the facts of each case.
In contrast to the Walther court, the Supreme Court confronted a similar situation with a different result in People v. Lyons 50 Cal. In Lyons, the defendant complained that his accomplices had been induced to testify untruthfully against him. Prior to testifying the accomplices had entered a plea of guilty to certain charges. The court had postponed the sentencing of the accomplices until they had testified against the defendant.
The prosecution conceded that the accomplices had been induced to testify by promises of reduced sentences. We are of the opinion that no meaningful distinction exists between testimony obtained as the result of a grant of immunity and testimony obtained as the result of a plea bargain. Both "furnish the defendant [61 Cal.
Neither is necessarily unfair as a matter of law. It is naive to suggest that an offer of immunity is not enticing to a witness who would otherwise be exposed to serious criminal charges. It is equally naive to suggest that the immunity should be given entirely, completely and finally without first obtaining the testimony that invited the grant of immunity in the first place.
A fundamental purpose of Penal Code section is to make possible the prosecution of criminal conspiracies. Pineda 30 Cal. Authority cited in support of appellants' contention is not applicable. The evidence does not show that Kasabian was offered immunity on the condition that her testimony produce a conviction see People v.
Green Cal. See Rex v. Robinson 30 B. Medina 41 Cal. There is absolutely no evidence that the offer of immunity to Kasabian was conditioned on anything other than her testifying fully and fairly about her knowledge of the Tate-La Bianca murders.
Her testimony was properly admitted. Collaterally, Manson points out that prior to calling Kasabian as a witness, she was interviewed by the prosecution. From that he invites the conclusion that her testimony is nothing more than a script written by respondent.
The fact of her interview is hardly startling. Common sense generally compels lawyers to interview witnesses prior to calling them. Pragmatic lawyers do not call witnesses unless they expect favorable testimony. Manson was not deed a fair trial by reason of the interview. The declaration of A. Tweed, M. Doctor Tweed identifies himself as a psychiatrist; his declaration renders the opinion that habitual long term use of LSD can affect an individual's ability to perceive and otherwise adversely affect mental orientation and declares that a psychiatric examination of Kasabian "would be an important tool to evaluate" her mental status and ability "to give a picture as undistorted as possible.
By her own admission Kasabian had used LSD approximately 50 times since She used other hallucinogenics as well. However, she testified that, with one possible exception, she did not use any LSD or other hallucinogenic between May and August, She admitted to the use of marijuana during this period. Relying on Ballard v. Superior Court 64 Cal. Each time the motion was made it was denied. To clarify the issue we note that appellants' contention has two parts: 1 that Kasabian was incompetent because she was so disabled by the use of LSD that she could not perceive that about which she purported to testify; and 2 that the use of LSD had so disabled Kasabian's mind that her testimony was not credible.
The trial court is vested with the responsibility to determine competence People v. Blagg 10 Cal. Here our main concern is with Evidence Code section that "the testimony of a witness concerning a particular matter is inadmissible unless he has personal knowledge of the matter. Against the objection of a party, such personal knowledge must be shown before the witness may testify concerning the matter.
The code requirement of "personal knowledge" includes the capacity to perceive accurately and the capacity to recollect what has been perceived. Jefferson, Cal. This standard points to two time frames: 1 the time of perception; 2 the time of recollection. In the instant case there was no evidence that Kasabian was under the influence of any hallucinogenic at the time of the critical events about which she testified or at the times she testified. Notwithstanding Dr. Tweed's declaration concerning the possible affects and delayed reactions -- flashbacks -- that attend the use of LSD, the record does not support a disqualification of the witness under the Evidence Code as a matter of law.
While the impeaching effect of her use of hallucinogenics was properly placed before the jury, her competence to be a witness was a question properly resolved by the court. United States v. Barnard 9th Cir. McCaughan 49 Cal. Appellants reliance onBallard v. Superior Court, supra, is misplaced. Ballard and its progeny provide for appointment of a psychiatrist to examine a prosecuting witness in a sex offense case to ascertain credibility.
The procedure, which may result in the psychiatrist testifying to give his opinion concerning the veracity of the witness, is applicable to the subject of impeachment and not to competency.
Whether or not a psychiatrist is appointed is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Russel 69 Cal. The nature of the charges in this case is such that psychiatric testimony for purposes of impeachment would be extraordinary.
Johnson 38 Cal. While we do not suggest that Ballard is necessarily limited to cases involving sex offenses, we here accept the admonition "[that a] psychiatrist's testimony on the credibility of a witness may involve many dangers: the psychiatrist's testimony may not be relevant; the techniques used and theories advanced may not be generally accepted; the psychiatrist may not be in any better position to evaluate credibility than the juror; difficulties may arise in communication between the psychiatrist and the jury; too much reliance may be [61 Cal.
Russel, supra, 69 Cal. The trial court's denial of the motion for psychiatric examination was proper. In 18 days of examination Kasabian testified clearly and comprehensibly. Her descriptions were not unclear and her demeanor was candid. Her testimony in its entirety demonstrates her competency.
Pike Cal. Kasabian's description of her involvement in the Tate-La Bianca murders would have justified her prosecution for those offenses. Accordingly, the trial court properly characterized her as an accomplice as a matter of law.
Consequently, Kasabian's testimony must be corroborated with respect to each appellant. Luker 63 Cal. On the other hand, the standard by which the sufficiency of such evidence is determined has been repeatedly articulated. Hathcock 8 Cal. Commonly a defendant's own statements and admissions are found to be sufficient corroboration to support the testimony of an accomplice.
Negra Cal. This case is no exception. Although appellants' admissions and declarations are not the exclusive corroborative evidence, they are the most substantial. Appellants have asserted various grounds of reversible error with respect to some of this corroborative evidence. These evidentiary objections are here considered in their substantive context with respect to each appellant.
Predicting a war started by blacks "ripping off" white families in their homes, Manson stated that "Blackie" the blacks would revolt against and kill the "Pigs" the white establishment. From through the summer of Manson told various people about Helter Skelter and what it entailed.
He said Helter Skelter " Dianne Lake testified that in June, July and August of Manson stated to various members of the commune, including coappellants, that they "had to be willing to kill pigs to help the black people start the revolution 'Helter Skelter'. Another witness testified that in July Manson told him: "'Well, I have come down to it, and the only way to get going is to show the black man and the pigs is to go down there and kill a whole bunch of these fuckin' pigs.
Paul Watkins, testifying that Manson told him Helter Skelter would start in the summer of , described Manson's plan: "[T]here would be some atrocious murders; All kinds of just super-atrocious crimes that really would make the white man mad. The blacks would murder the whites by "sneaking around and slitting their throats.
The testimony of these several witnesses tends to confirm that Manson was the originator and purveyor of a warped fantasy. The consistency of the statements reveals an intense obsession on Manson's part to see the fulfillment of his prediction. The similarity between the Helter Skelter prophesy and the manner in which the Tate-La Bianca murders occurred is sufficiently great to be characterized as strong circumstantial evidence to corroborate the testimony of Kasabian.
Alcalde 24 Cal. Wilt Cal. Manson argues that the statements of intent to do a future act were not directed against the victims of the crimes with which he was charged and that it was therefore error to admit them. A similar contention has been rejected by our Supreme Court. It is only necessary that the threats show "some connection with the injury inflicted on the deceased. Wilt, supra, Cal. The declarations of intent attributed to Manson are admittedly general. However, his declarations to foment bloodshed, even without specific reference to a particular victim, are relevant because the actual method and manner of the killings substantially conformed to Manson's predictions.
The indefiniteness of a threat is not necessarily an obstacle to its admission if there is sufficient collateral evidence to bring the ultimate victims within the generic class of the subject of the threat. Craig Cal. Presley Ariz. December The Beatles release their White Album, which proves to be a great influence Manson's thinking.
March 23, Manson visits Cielo Drive the Tate residence looking for Terry Melcher, who he hoped might publish his music. Tate's photographer curtly tells Manson to leave by "the back alley," possibly supplying a motive for the later attack at the Tate home. July 31, A music teacher named Gary Hinman is stabbed to death.
On the wall near the body, in Hinman's blood, was printed "political piggy. As he sends them from the ranch on their mission, he tells them "to leave a sign --something witchy.
August 9, Shortly after midnight, the brutal attack on residents at the Tate residence begins. In all, stab wounds are inflicted on four victims; a fifth victim is shot. The murders are discovered by housekeeper Winifred Chapman the next morning. The four Family members return to Spahn ranch, where Manson criticizes them for doing a messy job. The words "Death to Pigs" and "Healter [sic] Skelter" are found printed on a wall and a refrigerator door.
September 1, Under a bush near his home, a ten-year-old boy finds the gun used in the Tate murders. The boy's father turns the gun over to the LAPD. The LAPD fails to do a proper investigation. October 12, Manson is arrested at Barker Ranch in Death Valley and charged with grand theft auto. He is put in jail in Independence. November 6, While incarcerated in Los Angeles on other charges, Susan Atkins tells a fellow inmate, Virginia Castro Graham , that she participated in the Tate murders.
November 17, Danny DeCarlo implicates Manson in the Spahn ranch murder of Shorty Shea, and also suggests that persons at the Spahn ranch might also have been responsible for the Tate murders--but, he tells detectives, he would be afraid to testify. August 10, Judge Older grants Linda Kasabian immunity from prosecution for the Tate-LaBianca murders in return for agreeing to appear as the prosecution's star witness at the Manson trial.
November 16, The state rests its case in the Manson trial. November 19, The defense announces, without having presented any evidence, that it also rests. November 20, Manson announces that he wishes to testify. He makes a strange statement, saying "The children that come at you with knives are your children. You taught them. I didn't teach them. I just tried to help them stand up November 30, Defense attorney Ronald Hughes fails to show up in court.
He is never seen again, leading to speculation he was murdered by The Family. January 15, Vincent Bugliosi presents the prosecution's closing argument in the Manson trial.
January 25, The jury convicts all Tate-LaBianca defendants of first-degree murder.
0コメント