THE COURT: Are we ready to proceed in the matter of People versus Beausoleil?

MR. SALTER: Yes, your Honor. At this time, Counsel and I request, along with Mr. Beausoleil, that we have a short hearing inside of chambers with the reporter present.

THE COURT: Let's go into chambers.

(Whereupon a conference was held in chambers.)

THE COURT: Let the record show that we are in chambers. The defendant is present with Counsel.

MR. SALTER: At this time I would like to have Mr. Beausoleil sworn for purposes of a motion.


called as a witness in his own behalf, having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?



Q: Mr. Beausoleil, what time did you go to bed last night or early this morning?

A: I got back to my module around 1:15; approximately 1:15.

THE COURT: Last night?



Q: What time did they wake you up to come to court?

A: 3:30.

Q: At this time do you feel that you are in a position to proceed with the trial without having had sufficient rest?

A: No.

Q: Do you feel that you are alert because of two hours sleep?

A: No.

MR. ROSS: May I cross-examine him? He is under oath.



Q: Mr. Beausoleil, you are drinking your coffee. How do you feel now?

A: I have only taken a couple of sips out of it.

Q: Do you think after you have had your coffee that you would feel up to selecting a jury today?

A: I think so.

THE COURT: How old are you?

THE WITNESS: I just turned 22.

THE COURT: The only problem is, you kids aren’t used to getting up that early or going to bed that late.

Why didn’t you get to bed until 1:30?

THE WITNESS: I don’t know. It took them that long to get -- sometimes it takes that long. It could be anywheres from 10:00 o’clock to like it was last night, 1:15, 1:30 sometime. It depends on how busy they are, and I don’t know.

MR. SALTER: May I inquire, your Honor?



Q: Mr. Beausoleil, have you information regarding the routine at the new County jail, that is, the one down on Bouchet Street?

A: I went to court there several times.

Q: What is the routine there? What time do you got back to your module there?

A: You wake up at approximately the same time, a little bit later, so you don't have to make the transportation trip.

Q: What time do you usually get to bed there?

A: About approximately an hour after you get back from court.

THE COURT: I am going through this routine all the time.

MR. SALTER: The deal is, under the routine of the old County jail, I do not feel I have a defendant, who is facing a life imprisonment sentence, who can be alert enough to go through the trial.

THE COURT: I am not concerned about the hogwash of what he is faced with. I know that.

What is the situation in the jail? Why is it that one jail is so miserable and the other one is not?

MR. SALTER: That I don't know.

THE COURT: Well, I mean, this warrants a little Grand Jury investigation, then?

MR. SALTER: I am not here to ask for Grand Jury investigation.

THE COURT: Why is it if a man is in trial, as he is, that there is a difference in the way they treat him in the two jails?

MR. SALTER: Evidently, as far as the time element, there is a difference.

THE BAILIFF: It appears that if the person is in the old County jail, which the defendant is in, they have to be gotten up earlier in the morning, because most of the buses start from the new County jail.

THE COURT: Why don't they have him in the new County jail?

THE BAILIFF: I don't know. They usually try to keep the people who are awaiting trial in the old County jail.

MR. SALTER: Of course, Mr. Elder, who happens to be sitting here, is in the new County jail, so there are people from the new County jail that come out to these courts.

THE COURT: Except for one thing: My function is to see that this thing is handled properly,

MR. SALTER: I understand.

THE COURT: That is all I am concerned with, but it is not my function to tell the Sheriff how to run his jail.

MR. SALTER: I think it is the Court’s function, when a fair trial is being interfered with, to order that he be put in another jail.

THE COURT: I am going to see what I can do to correct it.

Number one, the motion to continue will be denied. When I was 22, there were lots of nights when I did not have any sleep, so I am not too concerned about that, but I am concerned with the trial as it progresses.

Number two, will you check and see if there is going to be any insurmountable transportation problems in so far as having this boy confined to the new County jail during the trial of this case?

THE BAILIFF: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: We will see what changes can be made.

MR. SALTER: Thank you, your Honor.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were held in open court within the presence and hearing of the jury.)

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I think we are ready to proceed.

Will you please rise at this time to take your oath regarding your qualifications as jurors.

THE CLERK: You, and each of you, do solemnly swear that you will well and truly answer the questions asked you, touching upon your qualifications to act as trial jurors in the cause now pending before this Court?

(Whereupon the prospective jurors indicated in the affirmative.)

THE COURT: Now, ladies and gentlemen, as your names are called, will you fill in the jury box under the direction of the bailiff.

You may call a jury, Mr. Clerk.

(Whereupon voir dire examination of prospective jurors was begun.)

MR. ROSS: We will take the panel.

MR. SALTER: Defendant will accept the jury as now constituted, your Honor.

THE COURT: Will you please rise, ladies and gentlemen, to take your oath as jurors.

(Whereupon a jury was duly impaneled and sworn to try the cause.)

THE COURT: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I am going to take about a five-minute recess.

Please do not discuss the facts in issue in the case. We will reconvene in about five minutes.

(Short recess.)

THE COURT: You are impaneled now as a jury, and we have a matter to take up at this time so I will excuse you for this evening. We will take our evening recess at this time and reconvene tomorrow morning at 10:00 o'clock. Please return at that time.

I must admonish you that during the course of the trial, you are not to discuss the facts in issue in the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else.

You are to retain an open mind throughout the trial and not arrive at any conclusion in the matter until it is finally submitted to you. Please bear that in mind at all times.

I don't think you are going to see anything in the paper, but if you should, just skip over it. Don't pay any attention to it and avoid contact with anyone that has anything to do with the case. Thank you and good night.

(Whereupon at 4:00 o'clock p.m. an adjournment was taken until Friday, November 14, 1969, at 10:00 o'clock a.m.)

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had between the Court and Counsel in open court outside the presence and hearing of the jury.)

MR. ROSS: Do you wish to proceed with the officers?


MR. ROSS: At this time we have an officer that will testify, and the Court will have to make a determination on certain issues out of the presence of a jury.

We are now out of their presence, and I am calling Officer Humphrey on this issue.

THE COURT: Will you come forward, Officer Humphrey

Officer, you were previously sworn yesterday so that you are still under oath.


called as a witness by and on behalf of the People, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: State your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Forrest Humphrey.


Q: You testified in connection with a motion in this case yesterday, and as the Court has reminded you, you are still under oath in this matter.

I am going to over many of the same things that we did yesterday, and I will start by asking you again, have you seen the defendant, Mr. Beausoleil, before?

A: Yes, I have.

Q: Do you have a report concerning that incident?

A: A copy of it.

Q: Was that made by you?

A: Yes.

Q: You have referred to it to refresh your recollection?

A: Yes.

Q: When and where was it that you saw the defendant, on what date?

A: On August 6, 1969, at approximately 10:50 p.m. -- a.m. on Highway 101, approximately three miles north of San Luis Obispo.

Q: What were your duties at that time?

A: I was a uniform State traffic officer. My primary duty was to enforce the Vehicle Code.

Q: This was on your CHP patrol area?

A: Yes.

Q: What time was it approximately that date that you first observed an automobile where the defendant was?

A: I can't exactly determine the exact time that I first saw the vehicle. I went to work at 7:00 that morning. I get out of the office about 7:30 in the morning, and I had driven north; and sometime shortly after that, I observed a vehicle that the defendant was in parked on the side of the road.

Q: Would you describe that vehicle for us?

A: It was a 1965 Fiat station wagon, white in color.

Q: What was the license number?

A: OYX 833.

Q: You had observed this car sometime before you approached it; is that correct?

A: Before the 10:50?

Q: Yes.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Then you did come over to it about 10:50; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir. The first time I saw -- I had seen it, I went on by it and went on north up the road patroling.

Q: It was pulled off the major traveled portion of the road?

A: Yes, sir. It was in a wide spot on the cast of the roadway.

Q: It was facing what, north or south?

A: North.

Q: That would be toward San Francisco; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Why did you go over to the car?

A: To check it out.

Q: What did you do when you got over to the car?

A: Well, as I approached the car, the defendant raised up from the back area of the vehicle.

Q: What was he doing at that time?

A: He was inside of his sleeping bag.

Q: Was anyone else in the car?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did you observe any other objects in the car?

A: A sleeping bag that he was in, and there was a guitar and a jacket. That is all I saw.

Q: What did you do then when he raised up?

A: I said hello to him, and I asked him if there was anything wrong.

Q: What did he say?

A: He said that he had broken down during the night and that there was something wrong with his car.

Q: What occurred then?

A: I asked him if he had his driver's license and the registration to the car.

Q: What was the purpose of that?

A: Just to find out if it was his vehicle.

Q: What occurred then?

A: He got -- he produced a wallet and gave me the registration card and the ownership to the vehicle.

Q: Did it have a name on it?

A: The registration card, yes, sir. It was registered to a Gary Allen Hinman.

Q: Did he say anything about that, that is, the defendant?

A: At this time the defendant told me that he had bought the vehicle approximately a week ago from a colored man.

Q: Did he say where?

A: No, sir.

Q: What did you say?

A: I asked him for his driver's license, and he didn't have one, and I asked him if he had any identification at all; and as he was going through the wallet, he did have a credit card.

Q: Did you ask him his name?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: What did he say?

A: He told me his name was Daniels, Jason Daniels.

Q: What occurred then?

A: At this time I went back to the patrol vehicle and ran the license number through my dispatcher.

Q: Why did you do that?

A: To check to see if there was any warrants on this vehicle.

Q: Was it some kind of an unusual vehicle?

A: Apparently the original engine had been removed and a larger engine had been installed in this vehicle. The grill had been removed from it, and the front of the engine protruded further forward than the original engine had.

Q: Did you run that over then through your mind?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What did you ask?

A: My dispatcher called back and told me that the vehicle was stolen.

Q: What occurred then?

A: I got out of my patrol vehicle and went back up to the Fiat and told the defendant to get out of the vehicle, and I would see if I could help him find out what was wrong with it.

Q: What did he do?

A: He got out of the vehicle.

Q: What occurred then?

A: I drew my service revolver, and I told him to walk over and put his hands on one side of the vehicle.

Q: You were alone, or was there another officer with you?

A: I was alone at this time.

Q: What then happened?

A: I placed him under arrest for auto theft and patted him down and handcuffed him.

Q: Did you advise him of some rights at that time?

A: After I handcuffed him.

Q: Did you have any more conversation?

A: No, sir.

Q: He was taken back to the station subsequently and booked?

A: The San Luis Obispo County Jail.

Q: Did you have any further conversation with him, at least, pertaining to this matter?

A: Not anything that I can recall.

Q: Thank you, sir.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.


Q: Just prior to discussing who the car belonged to in your discussion with the defendant, you felt there was a possibility it may have been stolen because it was not registered to him; is that correct?

A: After I had -- after he had given me the registration card, and it wasn't registered to the person he said it was, yes, sir.

Q: Then you were suspicious of the possibility of its being a stolen vehicle?

A: I thought it warranted investigating out.

Q: Then you started discussing as to who owned the car, you and the defendant?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Prior to that discussion and after having the suspicion that the car was possibly stolen, did you give him his rights?

A: I am not sure of the time element that you are talking about now. I didn't advise him of his rights.

Q: You never advised him of his rights, did you?

A: I read this card to him after I arrested him.

Q: You read that card to him after he had made these statements about his getting the car and paying $200 for it; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So it was after that that you gave him his rights; that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: It was before he made the statement about buying the car for $200 that you became suspicious that it was a stolen vehicle, isn't that correct?

MR. ROSS: I object to that as assuming facts not in evidence. The officer hasn't testified to that.

THE COURT: Sustained.


Q: Were you suspicious that it was a stolen vehicle?

A: At what time?

THE COURT: When did you first become suspicious of the fact that it might have been a stolen vehicle?

THE WITNESS: When I had the registration card showing that it was registered to Gary Hinman, and the defendant told me his name was Daniels.


Q: Was it after you had the registration card showing Gary Hinman's name on it, and after the defendant told you his name was Daniels, that this conversation about buying the car for $200 took place?

A: I think so.

Q: This conversation about buying the car for $200 took place before you gave him his rights; isn't that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You made out an investigation report as a result of this arrest; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: That is File No. 60-470-69; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How long after the conversation that you have related that you had with the defendant; that is, about buying the car for $200, did you make out this investigation report?

A: I started it approximately an hour later.

Q: On this investigation report you put down some writing regarding statements that the defendant made to you; isn't that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: When you wrote that down, did you write that down from memory or from other notes that you had taken?

A: The only other notes that I -- well, I did have some notes.

Q: Did those notes include conversions you had with the defendant?

A: No, sir.

Q: In other words, the part of the investigation report relating to a conversation you had with the defendant regarding buying the car from a colored man about a week ago and paying $200, this was written down as a result of your memory and not as a result of anything you had written down before that?

A: That is correct.

Q: After you had arrested the defendant, did you take him to the station or did someone else take him to the station?

A: Another officer accompanied me in the vehicle. We both took him to the station.

Q: During your ride to the station, did you have some conversation with the defendant about various things?

A: I am sure there were some things said between the time we left the scene and got to the jail, yes, sir.

Q: When you made out this investigation report, was this after you had found out that the car was -- strike that.

Prior to making out this investigation report, had you any information as to warrants as far as the automobile was concerned?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What was that information?

A: The first information I received was not to get inside of the vehicle but just to store the vehicle with the lock-up.

Q: Then you made out this investigation report?

A: No. Before I got -- hardly got started on the report, I got a copy of an all points bulletin that was issued by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

Q: To what effect was that?

A: I have a copy of it here. Do you want me to read it?

Q: Yes, please.

A: The entire thing?

Q: No, just what you received.

A: "Vehicles wanted and occupant held for questioning of murder, 187 P.C., supplementary to 54 L.S.H. 8-1-69, APBDC - 10, approximately 7-25-69. Gary Hinman was murdered, 9610 Topanga Road, Topanga. Victim's vehicle is missing from location. Last seen driving a '65 Fiat, four-door station wagon. Vehicle has Toyota motor protruding out the grill and radiator is cocked at a 45-degree angle. No front grill. License number OYX 833.

Number two, 1958 Volkswagen, red and white in color, with large eagle painted on both sides, license number PGE 388. License numbers may be interchanged on vehicles.

If located, please impound vehicles and hold for prints and hold all occupants for questioning."

Q: "Special attention Malibu Sheriff's Station" right?

A: Right.

Q: Did you have this before you questioned the defendant regarding how he got the automobile?

A: No, sir.

Q: Did you have this before you made out your investigation report?

A: When I originally started, I didn't have it.

Can I explain that answer?

Q: Yes, go ahead.

A: The first page of this, parts of it, I filled out at the jail. As far as the defendant's name, the address, he gave me a description, and then after I got to my office, I received this copy of this all points bulletin.

Q: Then you put down the same statements; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.


Q: In speaking to the defendant at the time that you were at the scene, before he was arrested, what was your purpose in talking to him?

A: Originally?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, originally when I saw -- when first walked up to the vehicle, I thought it was abandoned; and then when the defendant raised up, originally I wanted to see if I could help him after he had told me that he had car trouble.

Q: At any point in the conversation that you had with him -- strike that.

I have no further questions.

MR. SALTER: I have one point.


Q: After you found out about the car trouble, there was one point in the conversation as you were talking to him that you became suspicious of an auto theft, and it was subsequent to that that you had that conversation which he said he bought the car for $200; is that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.


Q: The defendant had not been arrested up until the time that you told us about, that is, after it came back as a stolen?

A: No, he had not been arrested.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you.

I see that you are going to have to go through all of this for the jury.

MR. ROSS: Well, just as to the statements, if the Court makes a ruling as to its admissibility; and I would submit that it appears to be admissible on the basis of what has been said.

MR. SALTER: I would submit that he hadn't been given his rights at the time he had suspicion of -- that he was investigating an auto theft at the time, and that his rights should have been given. Therefore, the statements are not admissible.

THE COURT: Motion denied. The ruling is that they are admissible.

Will we be ready to proceed in the morning?

MR. ROSS: Yes.