DID CHARLES MANSON RECEIVE A FAIR TRIAL PART IV

 

45 YEARS AGO TODAY

JUDGE STRIPS MANSON OF PRO PER RIGHT

March 6, 2015
Jason Slater - TLB Radio
As we continue to explore the topic of if Charles Manson received a fair trial for his Tate-LaBianca murder convictions,
at this point Manson has been acting as his own attorney since Christmas Eve 1969 when granted his pro per right by Judge William Keene.


And while most of his motions have been denied and called "outlandish" by the court, Manson seems to have received any due rights as any other inmate or accused would receive.

However, it appears as Manson's "outlandish" motions are about to catch up with him.

As you will read below, forty-five years ago today, things are about to change for Charles Manson in court.



Below is the complete transcript for the entire day of March 6, 1970.

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - FRIDAY, MARCH 6, 1970, 2:10 P.M.
(Upon the above date, the defendant Manson appearing in propria persona, the People being represented by Aaron Stovitz and Vincent Bugliosi, Deputy District Attorneys of Los Angeles County, the following proceedings were had before the Honorable William B. Keene, Judge Presiding in Department 107)

THE COURT: All right. This case of People versus Manson, I'll have the record
reflect the appearance of the defendant, the presence of both Mr. Stovitz and Mr. Bugliosi.

Mr. Manson, you've filed with this Court a document on the 4th day of March,
1970, which you entitled a Notice of Motion to Compel Reasonable and Effective Representation, Depositions and Commission for Modernization of Trial
Procedure.

This is a document that consists of some seventeen pages and someone has
apparently prepared for you a memorandum of points and authorities consisting
of some two pages-- three pages, which I have read and considered.

You ask that the matter be set down in this court for a hearing and that's the purpose for my setting the matter in court this afternoon, Mr. Manson.

However, your document filed in this court has precipitated me to undertake a complete review of the file in this case since I first met you in Department 100 back in December of last year.

Have you read this motion, Mr. Manson?


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Certainly I've read it.

THE COURT: Did you read it and understand it?


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: These are basically my thoughts. Not as many words as I know. I am not capable of making a motion as good as this but basically this is my thinking.


THE COURT: Can you actually read, Mr. Manson?


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Certainly.


THE COURT: Can you?



THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Sure.


THE COURT: And you can actually write; is that right?

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Yes. Not real good but I can. You know, enough to get along.


THE COURT: Let's take page five. Do you have a copy of the document there?

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Uh-huh.


THE COURT: Take page five. Read me from line eight through line twelve.
 
THE DEFENDANT MANSON: From line eight through line twelve. That I ask the Court will you require under the consideration of fairness and equality that the Deputy District Attorneys in charge of the trial be incarcerated for a period of time under the same circumstances that I have been subject to prior to their entering this-- or, entering the courtroom.

MR. STOVITZ: I have the word "conditions," your Honor, on line eleven rather than "circumstances."

THE COURT: That is good, Mr. Manson, except for that one "condition"-- that one word, "condition." Are you serious in asking this Court that question?
 
THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I mentioned this in order for the District Attorney and the courtroom to take a look through my eyes. You know, like the situation that I am in, being held in the County Jail, it is almost impossible for me to-- to offer any sort of defense.
The phone calls-- I'm not privileged with phone calls. I'm not privileged with anything but twenty-five or thirty times taking my clothes off a day, and my attention being broke about twenty or thirty times a day.

You know, Mr. Keene, I say this to the Court in all sincerity. There is a Constitution.

You know, I wasn't aware of the Constitution until I was arrested this time.

And I look at the Constitution and I don't see the Court nor the District Attorney protecting their Constitution.

It's not me that's on trial here as much as this Court is on trial, also.

It's on trial for the atmosphere that's created in a procedure strucken mechanized jail that is so mired down with procedures and security and-- that you can't-- you can't move around, you can't move around without the subliminal effects and the under effects of the dehumanizing, "Stand over there. Not there, over here. Get over there and take your clothes off. Do this. No, you can't do that. Yes, you can do this. No, you can do this today but tomorrow we change the rule. You can't do that tomorrow. You can't bring witnesses in. You can't pass that out. Let me read that." And I say, "I don't want you to read this." And they say, "We read everything that goes in and out of here."



THE COURT: Mr. Manson, let's take page sixteen. Read me from line three to line six.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I think it would be a good experience for the District Attorney just to go in there for a couple of days. He could see what pressures are being administrated.

What line, sir?



THE COURT: Three to line six. That's your third request.

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: That I respectfully request that I be free to travel to any place I should deem fit in preparing my defense consistent only with the minimum necessary security precautions.


THE COURT: You're serious in that request, also?
 
THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Serious in the respect that if we all would be-- if we would all be real with ourselves and look at the publicity and look at the case and look that I no longer have a defensive position, that anyone that could possibly say that you could find a fair jury, would be impartial himself to even make such a statement, considering of the over-all picture, I think it wouldn't be unfair to offer some sort of bail, to offer some sort of freedom of-- For example, I have three witnesses that I am afraid to call into the County Jail. If I call them into the County Jail, they're on inspection.

And every witness that I have called in the County Jail so far Mr. Stovitz has taken the liberty to question and go over with the witness anything that I may have said to that person.

These people are afraid, your Honor. They're afraid. They're afraid of the case. They're afraid of the situation. They're afraid of the publicity. They're afraid of the name that I have.

And it would take someone with a very understanding of the long hairs and the generation gap to get to these people and talk with them and ask them to come in and offer their testimony. Now, I can't send someone to do that.



THE COURT: All right, Mr. Manson. I am satisfied in your taking this time to read to me a couple of portions of this document that you filed that you were, in fact, serious when you signed this document and sent it to the Court.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: May I interject one more thing, your Honor?


THE COURT: Let me interject a few things here on the record that I want to say.

As I indicated, Mr. Manson, when I received this document I read it and I was appalled that that type of a document would be filed in a case such as this and making those requests, which I think to anybody were outlandish.

Now, as a result of this, when I did read it, took the time to completely review the file in this case, as I have indicated to you, from the date that I first met you back in December in Department 100.


And I am sure you will recall the number of times, and I trust that you will recall the number of times that you were in Department 100 before I permitted you to act as your own attorney.


And you were in-- to refresh your memory, as a review of the file indicates to me, and I have gone over it and made some notes, that you were in the court on December 11th, December 17th, December 22nd.


In a review of the transcripts-- I have not only reviewed the file, I have reviewed the transcripts of what has been said by the Court, what has been said by the various attorneys who appeared, and certainly what has been said by you, and, as I say, the Court.


I have read the transcripts not only of what has transpired in my court but also what has happened in the courts presided over by Judge Dell and Judge Lucas.



THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Your Honor--


THE COURT: I want to review this with you because I want you to clearly understand--


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Yeah, I think I can see where you're headed.


THE COURT: You listen to me and if we wind up in the same place, fine.

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Okay.


THE COURT: On December 22nd you indicated to me that you had the funds to hire an attorney.

That was on December 22nd. On December 24th, when I did grant you the pro per privileges, this was after our many conversations about the pitfalls that I felt that you were going to fall into if I did permit you to go in pro per.

I implored you at that time not to take a step which I felt was a tragic step. I went so far as appointing Mr. Joseph Ball to give you what I considered to be sound advice, as I know Mr. Ball's reputation, and after all that I'm sure you will recall that morning you and I had further conversation and I permitted you at that time to act as your own attorney.

At that time I gave you, at your request, three weeks to enter your plea.

I gave you the transcript, at that time, of the proceedings in front of the Grand Jury and then at that time I then came to Department 107 and Judge Dell was my successor in the master calendar court.


However, I have not lost contact with this case because I have had some further proceedings with it.

Now, after I left Department 100 and now again reviewing the file, I find that you filed on the 14th day of January a document that is--




THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I apologize.



THE COURT:-- that is outlandish. You filed a motion to associate fellow prisoners.

This was ruled on by Judge Dell and I'm sure that Judge Dell restrained himself at the time he made his ruling in that type of a document where you sought to incorporate something that you called (X) Felo DE SE (X).


The X's at that time were in parentheses, which somehow came out as The Family of Infinite Soul, Inc.

At that time other documents have been filed with the court prior to the time that you were in front of Judge Dell, and this was the three weeks that I gave you to consider the transcript and enter your plea.

You signed a document indicating that you did not know how to type; that your grammar was limited. This was in support of your seeking some type of a tape recorder.

You wanted some type of a licensed investigator paid for by the County of Los Angeles after you told me that you had the funds to hire your own lawyer.

Judge Dell ruled on these motions that you had made, or someone had made on your behalf, which you signed.

You at that time requested an additional two weeks to plead to this charge. Judge Dell granted you that additional two weeks, so you had a total of five weeks to study the transcript and enter your plea.

Now, five weeks later back on the 29th-- 28th day of January, you made another appearance in Department 100, and as I have indicated to you, I have read your performance in court at that time.

I have had a chance to evaluate your appearance in Judge Dell's court, your appearance in Judge Lucas's court, and, of course, I know of your appearances over which I have presided.

Now, at that time there were other documents that I have reviewed here that you filed. After Judge Dell had denied for you the right to associate as counsel these apparent inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail, you then sought to demur again to the indictment and you did so in the name of (X) Felo DE SE (X) again.

You signed some document about the interviewing of witnesses. You filed some type of a motion for pretrial discovery. You filed a writ of habeas corpus in which you put into that writ an aka, and that is you are also known as Jesus Christ.

This was signed, along with you, by these gentlemen that I assume are your fellow inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail pro per module, Messrs. Nash, Moorehead, Austin, Townes, Collier and Sheppard. You specifically at that time asked Judge Dell to give you a motion under Section 995 of the Penal Code.

Judge Dell, as I review the file, ruled on two of your motions. He denied your demurrer. He gave you certain privileges in the pro per module above and beyond those which are granted to the usual prisoner.

He told you that your motion for a pretrial discovery would have to be taken up with the trial court, which is what the procedure of this court is, and he set for you in Judge Lucas's court on the 6th day of February a writ of habeas corpus motion to be heard there.

That's the one where you put your name in along with your other fellow members of the corporation, Family of Infinite Soul, and set the 995 hearing.

Now, I have reviewed the file on February 6th, that's in 106. I think that was the first time that you met Judge Lucas.

At that time you came into court without any paper, you didn't have any pencils, you didn't have any books, and you told Judge Dell (sic) apparently that you just got out of the disciplinary tank and you and Judge Lucas then had some proceedings which were recorded by the court reporter, transcribed, and which I have read and considered.

I have read and considered that transcript.



Now, you told Judge Lucas at that time, after having told Judge Dell that you wanted a motion under 995, that you didn't want a motion under 995.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: No, the motion for 995 was suggested. I asked to demur the plea.

THE COURT: I won't take the time now, Mr. Manson, to read to you what your words were in Judge Dell's court.

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I said I want one of those, too.

THE COURT: Yes. All right.

Now, your performance in that court, after having told Judge Lucas that you never asked for a 995, is, in my opinion, hopelessly inadequate as far as someone who is charged with the charge that you are charged with and the seriousness of this offense, and yet apparently it was Daye Shinn at this point because I see his letterhead, his legal letterhead throughout the file, prepared for you and filed a motion to dismiss the Information-- to dismiss the Indictment under 995, and that is about an eight-page motion that I have also read and considered.


You-- In just reviewing what has happened to you since I granted you pro per privileges, Mr. Manson, what you've turned into as far as your court appearances are concerned is some type of an errand boy where you take into the courtroom the various motions that are prepared for you by people, and I don't know who has been preparing these motions for you.
I am satisfied on the basis of what you told me here, one, that you told me that you can read, that you can read. I trust that your statement is correct that you do understand what has been filed, although I don't understand much of it.

At any rate-- and the hearing that you had with Judge Lucas, your motions were denied, and then the next thing that is in the file is some document for discovery that was signed by you and dated February 3, and that's-- I don't know who prepared that for you, but that's also in the file. All right.

The next thing that I find in the file as I go through it is that I saw you on February 9th and at that time you made several demands totally inconsistent.

I think also indicative of your ability to represent yourself. You came into this court and you demanded that we go to trial on that date of February 9th.
That's on one hand.

On the other hand, at the same time you demanded discovery, which you got. This Court gave you more discovery than you asked for, consistent with all other defendants in this case.

You asked for a change of venue. You asked for associate counsel. You asked for a dismissal.

You gave me notice that another writ of habeas corpus would be filed tomorrow and you wanted to engage me in a question and answer period as to the correctness of Judge Dell entering a plea of not guilty for you at the time that you would not enter the plea on your own behalf when asked to do so by Judge Dell.

We set the matter for trial at that time in this court on the 30th day of this month and your objections to that were noted in the record, and then we had the proceedings in this court where the District Attorney stood up and called upon the various people who were in the back of the courtroom who were potential witnesses and asked me to order that those witnesses be ordered to return to this court on the 30th day of March, and I did so, and the record reflects at that time your inability to understand, I think, the concept that witnesses are not People's witnesses or defendant's witnesses, as such, but certainly witnesses, many times, are called on behalf of both sides to a lawsuit.

Nothing unusual in that procedure, although you certainly seemed to think so by your performance in court on that date in my reading of the transcript.
The next thing that's in the file in going through it is your ineptness, again, I think clearly shown of your ability to act as an attorney in attempting to order transcripts of proceedings that have gone on in this matter.

Here, again, having told the Court that you, in fact, had funds to hire a lawyer, although you subsequently filed conflicting documents in that regard asking for a declaration of indigency.
You did indeed file another petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 11th, and that's the one you told me was going to be filed on February 9th when you were in this court on the one hand demanding that you go to trial, on the other hand demanding that you have a change of venue, that you have discovery.

On the petition for a writ of habeas corpus that I read and considered and summarily denied, you indicated to the Court in your petition, which you signed, that you were incapable of following the most fundamental and rudimentary rules and regulations of the Sheriff's Office in running the Los Angeles County Jail. Things such as eating. Things such as taking a shower.


And then you made a suggestion to Peter Pitchess, et al, and to the County of Los Angeles and the Superior Court that proceedings be established in the Los Angeles County Jail for an evidentiary hearing every time any one of the thousands of inmates in the Los Angeles County Jail breaks a minor rule of that institution.


You talk in that petition for a writ of habeas corpus of manful hearts which must rebel. You talked about the glorious leaders of the thirteen colonies, and that petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied.


Going through the file again you next appeared in the courtroom of Department 106, Judge Lucas, on the 16th of February.

The transcript in that procedure consists of some twenty-seven pages, which I have read, and that transcript reflects your performance at that time.

This is the hearing that I trust that you recall where you asked for a public opinion poll conducted of all Los Angeles County, and then you wanted one conducted of the State of California at County expense.
Next, you had the motion for a change of venue, which at this point you termed as trivial, to use your word. You said in the transcript, "I trust that's the right word that I want to use."
You-- Once again, reading the transcripts, it indicates that you can go into court, you can carry a document prepared for you by someone else and then when you get into the courtroom you can't pursue yourself-- or, can't pursue the point any further by any type of meaningful, logical argument on that particular subject.

You say in these proceedings, "The document will speak for itself." And you have no further comments to Judge Lucas when he invited you to give him some indication, offer of proof, as to what you had in mind as far as the change of venue is concerned.

Next, we have motions to dismiss, motions of all types that have been filed and signed by you. The most encouraging thing I found in the later stages of your petitions and motions is that you had dropped the request that they be filed in the name of the corporate family body that you and your fellow inmates attempted to structure.
And then finally we get to this document that precipitated this hearing this afternoon, this seventeen-page document which you have indicated to me that you have read and considered and filed with this court in all seriousness. Mr. Manson, when I permitted you back in--
THE DEFENDANT MANSON: May I respond before you go any further?


THE COURT: I don't think there's any point at this point to respond because I want to tell you what I have concluded; tell you at this point what I'm basing my conclusions on.

I want to tell you, at this point, what I have concluded based upon your performance in Department 100, your performance in Department 106, and your performance in Department 107.

At the time that I permitted you to go and act as your own attorney, in pro per, I felt that I had a constitutional obligation.
 

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: You still do.


THE COURT: To permit you-- I agree.

I have a constitutional obligation to permit you to act as your own attorney, if I am satisfied, based upon your conduct, that you are capable of making an intelligent waiver of your right to act as an attorney, but there's a corollary that goes with that, Mr. Manson, which I've always known, and that is to observe your performance prior to trial, to determine by what you've attempted to do in these various courtrooms to determine whether or not you are, in fact, capable of making that determination that you want to waive that constitutional right and act as your own attorney.


Now, in my review of the file and my review of your conduct since I initially permitted you to do so, I am satisfied that you cannot act as your own attorney.

I am satisfied, based upon a complete review of everything that I have seen in this file, my personal observations of you, my reading your performances in other courtrooms, that if you went to trial in a courtroom in front of a jury on charges as complex and as serious as those with which you are faced, it would be a fundamental, absolute denial of due process.

And based upon what you have done as far as your attempts to act as your own lawyer, it becomes crystal clear to me and abundantly clear to me that you are incapable of acting as your own attorney.

Now, this, incidentally, is not just my opinion.

I have had occasion, as I felt that I must, to discuss your conduct in the courtrooms of Judge Dell and Judge Lucas, two members of this court that I highly respect, and it is their considered judgment that you are incapable of acting as your own attorney and that your performances and your conduct since the time I permitted you to do so clearly indicate that to them.

Now, those are the only three judges in this County that you have appeared in front of and we are all in unanimous agreement that it would be a fundamental violation of due process if I permitted you to continue acting as your own attorney. So in conclusion, Mr. Manson--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: You're going to conclude before I get to say anything?
THE COURT: I will permit you to be heard. Go ahead.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: The things that you've said are the things that you've said. I can't deny what you say, and I won't try. But again I'll ask the Court if the Court will look through my eyes and look through where I'm at in the situation. You give me three weeks. Very gracious. You give me three weeks to become an attorney.

Now, nobody else will help me. I asked for assistant counsel. It says in the Constitution of the United States that I am allowed assistant counsel.

If your Honor-- if your Judge will remember, I told you that I didn't think I was capable of being a lawyer, that all I wanted to do was maintain my voice, and that's all I've asked for.
Now, I was forced to take the position of a lawyer, and which it's all right if-- rather than lose my voice, I'll go pro per and I will do my best with the mumble jumble of words and confusion to make sense with it.

To me, it doesn't make any sense. What it says in the Constitution, it doesn't say the same thing in the law books.
What it says in one precedent, it's different on the next page.
You know, from day to day I wonder if you people know what you're doing.
You cast shadows on me and you say that I'm not capable of defending myself.
Sir, I cast shadows on you. I wonder if you're capable of knowing what it is to defend yourself.

THE COURT: Mr. Manson--


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Wait a minute, now. Wait a minute.


THE COURT: Mr. Manson--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I didn't interrupt you.


THE COURT: Mr. Manson--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Let me finish.


THE COURT: Mr. Manson--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I'm a man, too, Mister.


THE COURT: Mr. Manson--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I have a voice. Do you hear it?

THE COURT: Mr. Manson, this is one further indication of your inability--


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: My inability.


THE COURT:-- to act as your own attorney.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: My inability.


THE COURT: Because in this courtroom this Court will dictate who will speak and when they will speak, and I will indicate to you at this time, Mr. Manson, that those rules will be heeded and when I speak, or when a judge of this court speaks, you're to remain silent and you're not to tell the judge to wait for a minute.

You're to listen to the judge and he's to speak, and I'm not going to engage with you, at this time, in any type of debating contest.

I've indicated to you what my observations are based upon this record, and this record is clear.

A transcript has been made of every proceeding that has occurred in your case, as far as you are concerned or any of the co-defendants.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Put the ambition that's in your heart on that paper, and you go wash your hands. They're dirty.


THE COURT: Mr. Manson, your status, at this time, of acting as your own attorney is now vacated.

One other thing I wanted to say and put in the record, which I failed to do, at my request, there is a document that I want ordered filed by the Sheriffs, three pages, indicating what your conduct has been while you have been in the Los Angeles County Jail pro per tank.

I think I failed to indicate that I wanted that in the record, which also reflects--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Am I bound and concluded?



THE COURT:-- your inability to abide by the very rules that we have provided or permit people to act as their own attorney in the event they are capable of doing so. Your status as--


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: This doesn't mean anything to you, does it?

THE COURT: Your status, Mr. Manson, is now changed. Your status as acting as your own attorney is now vacated.

You are no longer acting as your own attorney.

This Court will now find, based upon the information contained in the file, that you are perhaps, as you allege, indigent.

At least I will make that finding, that you do not have the funds to secure the services of an attorney and if in the event there is any change in that, as far as any money expended by the County of Los Angeles, insofar as your defense in paying for the attorney that I am about to appoint to represent you, it will be equated in the future.


At this time I am going to appoint an attorney to represent you pursuant to Section 987a of the Penal Code.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I won't accept him.

THE COURT: That may or may not be the case. The attorney that I am going to appoint at this time is a recognized highly capable trial lawyer and I am going to appoint him to represent you in this matter. His name is Charles Hollopeter.

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I won't accept him, your Honor.



THE COURT: He will be your attorney of record.

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: Sorry.


THE COURT: Mr. Manson--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: You can kill me but you can't give me an attorney. I won't take one.



THE COURT: He is going to be your attorney and we will proceed on that basis. Mr. Manson, in the event-- you better hear me out--

THE DEFENDANT MANSON: You've thrown your own rules away.

THE COURT: You better hear me out. In the event that you select your own attorney and in the event that you want to come into this court and indicate to the Court that it is your personal wish that an attorney of your own choosing is to be substituted in and Mr. Hollopeter is to be substituted out, I'll hear that type of motion, but that is the only type of motion I am going to hear.

If you want to select your attorney, you select the attorney and I'll substitute Mr. Hollopeter out and substitute whatever attorney you select into this case.

Do you understand that? Do you understand that you have that right?


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: I understand I have a right to speak in my own defense.


THE COURT: Do you understand what I have told you about Mr. Hollopeter? He is now your attorney of record.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: What you say one day you don't mean tomorrow.


THE COURT: Do you understand, also, that you have the right, if you want to choose an attorney, to come into this court and make a motion to substitute that attorney, or attorneys, into the case.

And if I find that that is a valid request and they are attorneys who can handle this case, I will certainly substitute them in and Mr. Hollopeter out.




DEFENDANT MANSON: Judge Keene, may I sincerely say something?



THE COURT: I think that the hearing is now at an end, Mr. Manson. Mr. Hollopeter is your attorney. He will come to see you in the Los Angeles County Jail.
 
THE DEFENDANT MANSON: There is no love in your courtroom.


THE COURT: Your status as a pro per--

SANDY GOOD: You are a mockery of justice.



THE COURT:-- is now revoked.


THE DEFENDANT MANSON: There is no God in this courtroom.


CATHERINE SHARE: You are a mockery of justice. You're a joke.


MARK ROSS: (Loud laughter.)



THE COURT: Would you please take those four people, I want their names--
 

CATHERINE SHARE: There is no justice in the courtroom.



THE COURT: I am going to find that these four people are in direct contempt of this Court.


CATHERINE SHARE: You said the court was over.


MARK ROSS: You said the court was over, your Honor. We were under the impression you dismissed us.


SANDY GOOD: You wouldn't let him speak anymore, so we can speak.


THE COURT: May I have, please, your name; the first young lady.

CATHERINE SHARE: Catherine Share.

THE COURT: I find that you are in direct contempt of this Court by this outlandish outburst. I find you in contempt of this Court--

CATHERINE SHARE: And everyone.


THE COURT:-- and I sentence you at this time to five days in the Los Angeles County Jail, and I order you remanded to the custody of the Sheriff forthwith. Now, your name, with the beard?
 
MARK ROSS: With the beard? Mark Ross.



THE COURT: Mr. Ross, I find that by your outlandish conduct in this court, you are in direct contempt of this Court.

MARK ROSS: I certainly am in contempt of this Court.



THE COURT: I find that you are so. I order that you be remanded to the Los Angeles County Jail for five days for being in direct contempt of this Court, and you are remanded to the custody of the Sheriff. Young lady, your name?

SANDY GOOD: Sandy Good.



THE COURT: Sandy Good, I find that by your outlandish conduct in this court, reported by the court reporter, that you are in direct contempt of this Court. And I order you remanded to the Los Angeles County Jail for five days for being in contempt of this Court.

SANDY GOOD: All right. May I say your conduct has been most outlandish.



THE COURT: May I have your name, please?

CATHY GILLIS: Cathy Gillis.



THE COURT: Did you say something? I'm not sure whether you did or did not. If you did say something, I will give you the opportunity now to repeat it. Did you say anything?

I heard the other three but I didn't hear you. Did you say anything to this Court? If you want to say-- Tell me at this point what you have to say. Go ahead and say it.


CATHY GILLIS: I have nothing to say to you.



THE COURT: All right. In your case I'm not so sure whether you did say anything, you merely stood up with the other three. So in your case at this point I will not find that you are in contempt of this Court. I will excuse you at this time from the courtroom. In the event that you come back into this courtroom, your conduct as a lady will be expected and you will not, at any time, interrupt the proceedings of this Court. You are now excused.



CATHY GILLIS: Thank you.


THE COURT: And I suggest that you walk out of the courtroom at this time and not make any further statement. You're now excused. Miss Gillis, would you please leave the courtroom silently.

Court's in recess. (Whereupon, the proceedings were to be continued.)

__________________________



And so it seems the court interpreted Manson's motions as not only ludicrous but also as signs Manson is inadequate to represent himself therefore stripping Manson of his pro per status.


I can't say I disagree with the court. Manson clearly has no understanding of proper procedure or legal jargon and when you refer to yourself as Jesus Christ and

"Family of Infinite Soul" it may bring into question your sanity and ability to represent yourself in a murder trial. I think the court actually gave Manson more tolerance and latitude than most inmates.


As we continue on, we'll take a look at other issues and incidents that might prove Manson's claim of not receiving a fair trial but at this point I think everything has been fair.




3 comments:

Bill Davies Jr said...

I disagree slightly, what he wanted was to have his pro per as well as council on the side for instruction on the particulars. Instead they made him stand there with no guidance whatsoever, he just didn't want his words changed. Meaning instead of him talking through a lawyer he wanted the lawyer to help him proceed in his own words. I think he should have been granted that. Now if he messed that up as well I would say he had a fair trial all along without question.

Joe Doro said...

My understanding is that during the original pro per hearing is that the judge made it clear that if CM was to be his own attorney then that was ok and that he could have counsel for advice but that in the court there was going to be one attorney speaking, i.e. CM and not several others all being able to speak. So when he appears here, it's up to him alone to correspond with the judge.

In any event, it is incredibly obvious that CM had either no idea as to how a court works or was was just bullshitting everyone and I think the latter. I remember reading the original transcript when all he had to do was enter a plea. It was like the scene from "My Cousin Vinny"!

I've read criticism that he wasn't given unlimited phone privileges, copying, etc. and thus could not represent himself adequately. But that's what being your own attorney in jail means. Why not have the state pay for a legal secretary, private detectives, investigators, etc.? Why should an inmate who chooses to have private counsel have to pay for these services while CM gets them gratis per pro per?

I'm sure I'm an oddity here, but I think that the odds of everyone who testified against him or have made statements since are lying is much less than CM saying "I never told nobody to kill" Freudian slip? (if you believe in such things) The double negative literally means "I told somebody to kill" As they say in Shawshank Redemption "Everybody's in here is innocent. Didn't you know that?"

Robert Runner said...

Charlie never had a trial, more or less a fare one and to this second still never has received a trial. Society at its specific choosing regulates people's existence, they personalize a menu for the misinformed to feed off of, unfortunately The Big People seem to crave back at ya destruction, the" Bug"has passed on recently, a major example of decay. Robert- ATWA

 

Blogger Templates