Steel Notes Magazine
July & August 2016
People v. Manson
http://law.justia.com/cases/california/courtof-appeal/3d/61/102.html [Crim. Nos. 22239,
24376. Court of Appeals of California, Second
Appellate District, Division One. August 13,
1976.] THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHARLES MANSON et al., Defendants and Appellants (Opinion by Vogel,
J., with Thompson, J., concurring. Separate
concurring and dissenting opinion by Wood,
P. J.) COUNSEL Albert D. Silverman, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, Daye
Shinn, Maxwell S. Keith, Kanarek & Berlin,
Irving A. Kanarek and Roger Hanson for
Defendants and Appellants. Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, S. Clark Moore,
Assistant Attorney General, Norman H.
Sokolow and Howard J. Schwab, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Everyone who has studied the trial knows
it was a sham. The defense rested without
calling a single witness. Manson’s lawyers
declined to cross examine most witnesses for
the prosecution, and Manson was prevented
by the judge from cross examining them himself, although he had asked to represent himself. There was no real
evidence against Manson, and the prosecution even admitted he wasn’t at the murder scene and didn’t take part
in it. He was convicted of masterminding it, not committing it. He was convicted solely on the basis of testimony
of his fellow alleged perpetrators, who turned on him under duress from the State. This testimony came from a
group of young girls who had done so many drugs they could bare ly speak. It was admitted that the main witnesses for the prosecution had taken as many as 300 acid trips in their short lives, so their brains were basically
fried. The lead witness was Linda Kasabian, who also didn’t take part in the actual murders, but was nonetheless
charged with seven counts of murder in order to scare her. She was given immunity for her testimony. Another
main witness was Susan Atkins, who was given immunity from the death penalty for testimony against Manson,
which she initially gave. However, Atkins sobered up for a moment later on and repudiated all that testimony.
Kasabian revealed clear signs of coaching during the trial, and was obviously just repeating a story given to her
by the State. The judge allowed magazine articles from LIFE and other places to be entered as evidence, even
though those articles had pre-judged Manson and the other defendants based on hearsay. So why was this Nixon
headline such a big deal? To be consistent, the judge should have just taken the newspaper out of Manson’s hand
and entered it as “evidence.” Bugliosi tells us that Manson has been denied his writ of habeas corpus because he
was not pro per (or pro se) at the time. What that means is that Manson wasn’t allowed to petition the court because he was not representing himself. Bugliosi tells us that Manson’s attorney needed to petition the court, since
Manson had no standing. But that is all false, since anyone can petition a judge for habeas corpus. Every prisoner automatically has standing to file habeas corpus, and it has nothing to do with whether you are representing
36
Steel Notes Magazine
www.steelnotesmagazine.com