www.steelnotesmagazine.com
Steel Notes Magazine
The prosecution’s case provided an example of how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Aranda ruling is applied in cases
involving multiple defendants. The trial was one of the longest and costliest in California history. Prison inmates
similarly told authorities that their cellmate Susan Atkins had described to them in horrifying detail how she and
fellow members of the “Family” had killed Tate and her guests, the LaBiancas, and others. In return for a promise of immunity, Atkins repeated her story to a grand jury in December 1969, implicating Manson and others in
the Tate- LaBianca killings. Ironically, Manson was already in jail. He had been arrested in October and charged
with receiving stolen property. “Family” members Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten were indicted on
murder charges and arrested. Charles “Tex” Watson, whose bloody fingerprint was found at the Tate house, was
arrested at his parents’ home in Texas. Watson’s attorney forestalled his extradition for nine months, arguing that
pretrial publicity made it impossible for Watson to get a fair trial in California. The Los Angeles district attorney
decided to prosecute the others charged in the Tate-LaBianca slayings without waiting for Watson’s arrival.
Prosecutors lost Atkins’ cooperation in March 1970, three months before the case came to trial. After a short
meeting with Manson in jail, she retracted her confession and declared that she had invented the story implicating him, Krenwinkel, and Van Houten before the grand jury. Although the four “Family” members were to be
tried together, the prosecution was required to abide by the rules of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1965 Aranda decision. Statements made by one defendant, such as the
stories Atkins told her cellmates about the “Family’s”
bloody deeds, could not be introduced as evidence
against her co-defendants. The prosecution’s task
was further complicated by the fact that Manson had
not been present at the Tate house the night of the
slayings. Deputy District Attorneys Aaron Stovitz
and Vincent Bugliosi had to try to convict Manson
on the seven murder counts based on the theory that
the cult leader had ordered the killings.
Manson’s request to be allowed to represent himself
was denied. At first angered by this refusal, Manson then accepted Irving Kanarek as his attorney.
Worldwide publicity about the case made finding
an unbiased jury unusually difficult. When Judge
Charles H. Older read a press account of a conference in his chambers, the infuriated judge moved to
limit public speculation, about the case. He imposed
a “gag order” barring the lawyers and witnesses from
speaking to the press about matters not entered as
evidence. Stenographers and other court officials
were forbidden from giving or selling transcripts of
the case to the press.
When testimony began July 24, 1970, Manson arrived in court with an “X” scratched on his forehead.
He considered the trial a “game” in which he was
Steel Notes Magazine
www.steelnotesmagazine.com
27