Tate Juror ‘Mentality’ at Issue in Trial

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 29 – A hearing to determine whether a member of the Tate-LaBianca jury, sequestered more than seven months, has been “mentally affected” by the tight security and sensational publicity surrounding the case, today was scheduled for next Friday as the penalty phase of the trial dragged forward.

The five-woman, seven-man jury, who Monday returned a guilty verdict against hippie leader Charles Manson and three of his girl friends, now is hearing evidence in Los Angeles Superior Court on whether the four should live or die for the seven brutal murders.

Manson’s attorney, Irving Kanarek, today filed a motion for an evidentiary hearing as to whether Mrs. Evelyn J. Hines, a dictaphone operator from Los Angeles, has been so affected by the trial that she is not capable of rendering a decision.

The motion was based on a television interview with Mrs. Hines’ husband, William, in which he said that his wife had “taken to drink” since becoming a member of the jury.

In the interview, Hines said his wife had become argumentative, prone to hysterics, and insisted on having a drink before dinner. He said that she previously had been “dead set against drinking.”

Bailiffs, who regularly are with the jury, indicated, however, that Mrs. Hines drank far less than other jurors and said her drinking “would not shock anyone.”

Meanwhile, an alternate juror, Kenneth Daut Jr., an engineer with the State Department of Highways, was excused from the panel because his wife was involved in an auto accident and was unable to care for herself.

The trial continued with Kanarek cross-examining the first prosecution witness in the penalty phase, Bernard J. Crowe. Crowe, on the stand for the second day, claims he was shot by Manson and left for dead shortly before the Tate murders.

The trial was dull today in comparison to Thursday’s session in which Manson slugged Kanarek and was thrown out of court.

The slug-fest, which left the cult chieftain’s attorney cowering in his seat, was witnessed by the shocked jury.

Only one of many disturbances during the marathon trial, the fracas began as Crowe took the stand.

Wearing a red shirt and faded blue jeans, Manson had appeared calm and collected until he was denied his request by Judge Charles Older that he serve as his own attorney for the penalty phase of the trial.

As Crowe, a 28-year-old Negro trumpeter took the stand, Manson struck out at Kanarek, slugging him on the left shoulder and muttering, “I can’t communicate with you.”

As bailiffs jumped to Kanarek’s aid, restraining the angered Manson, Judge Older ordered the long-haired cult chieftain from the courtroom.

But Manson didn’t quit there.

As Crowe began telling of a meeting with Manson on Aug. 1, 1969 in which the “family” leader shot him, Kanarek continued to object, claiming the material was irrelevant, immaterial and hearsay.

“Let him go ahead, Irving, and tell the truth,” Manson shouted through a small grilled window in his holding cell adjacent to the courtroom.

His client’s statements however failed to stop Kanarek who continued to make objections until finally Manson shouted out again: “Would you be quiet, man. You’re cutting my throat! Shut up!”

Judge Older ordered the small window closed with a wooden shutter, cutting off Manson’s voice and view.

Throughout the melee Manson’s three co-defendants — Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkel and Leslie Van Houten — sat quietly.

Manson, who had made a veiled threat on the judge’s life when the guilty verdict was returned
against the four rose quietly Thursday to plead that he be allowed to handle the penalty phase of the trial himself.

He mentioned that the trial had gone on for eight months and he had no more money with which to pay his attorney, and had information that could help substantially in the penalty phase.

“This has been considered a half-dozen times since the case began by at least four other judges,” Judge Older said. “I have no reason to change my mind. You cannot serve as your own attorney, but if you have information which might help you I suggest that you give it to your attorney.”

“No man can speak for this man standing in front of you,” Manson said raising his voice. “These
attorneys wouldn’t understand a defense if it was put on in front of them.”

Then, continuing to interrupt the judge who was ordering him to sit down and be quiet, Manson said:

“We wanted to put on a defense…I wanted to put on a defense from the time I was arrested.

“The sheriff has more power than you have. You say something. The sheriff does another. Your orders don’t flow.

“I ask to be allowed to put on this penalty phase…as clumsy and inadequate as it may be, you’ll
see it’s a defense.”

“I’m supposed to sit here like a dummy…There’s no justice here, Older.”

Judge Older warned Manson that he would be removed if he continued and it would be “in your best interests if you remained.”

Manson, with a giant sigh, mimicked the judge as he dropped into his chair. “My goodness…In my best interests…My goodness. You’ve already convicted me of something that I haven’t done. If you let me go in there (indicated serving as his own attorney) I’d tear that little boy apart (indicating chief prosecutor Deputy Dist. Atty. Vincent Bugliosi) and you know it, too.”

Further comment from Manson was interrupted by his own attorney who rose to object that one of the jurors had “taken to alcohol” since being sequestered.

It was shortly thereafter that Manson hit his 55-year-old attorney

By MARY NEISWENDER

This entry was posted in Archived News. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recently Added to the Archive

The People of the State of California Vs. Charles Tex Watson
Assassins...Serial Killers...Corrupt Cops...: Chasing the News in a Skirt and High Heels Get Archive and News Updates via Twitter