THE COURT: People versus Beausoleil.

MR. SALTER: We have a motion to be made. May we make it in chambers?

THE COURT: The defendant has not come yet. Where is Beausoleil?

THE BAILIFF: He is not here yet.

THE COURT: Is this motion that you are making going to require his presence?

MR. SALTER: Not really, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let us go into chambers.

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had in chambers outside the presence and hearing of the jury.)

THE COURT: First of all, let the record show that due to a failure in communication, the defendant Beausoleil was not brought out at the usual time this morning. He is en route from the county jail and will be here shortly.

At this time his counsel has indicated that he has a motion to make but that he feels that it can be made in the absence of the defendant.

MR. SALTER: That is correct, your Honor.

THE COURT: We are in chambers.

MR. SALTER: First of all, I would like to introduce as defendant's A, for purposes of this motion only, not, of course, to go in front of the jury, an article, and Counsel will stipulate that this article was in Friday's evening Outlook.

MR. ROSS: I will not stipulate. I will take your word for it.

MR. SALTER: It was in Friday's evening Outlook. This is the article plus a picture.

The Court remembers that about the 13th of October, Mr. Lester of our office, at my request, presented the Court with a written Order restricting the release of information pending in the trial, and requested that the Court sign the Order and make such an Order; and at that time the Court in its judgment decided not to.

THE COURT: I will tell you just exactly what the Court did. I got the perfunctory paper indicating a standard, order directing that nobody give out any prejudicial information with regard to this case, and at that time the Order was laid on my desk, and I did not sign it, because there was no showing that there was any need for it, and so did not sign it.

MR. SALTER: Well, anyhow it wasn't signed. Anyhow, as a result, there is, at the end of the article, a reference to certain statements made by another individual in which this other individual refers to things that my defendant, Mr. Beausoleil, had allegedly did.

I would make the following motion: First of all, I would ask for a change of venue at this time to some area outside the Santa Monica area. Secondly, I, would ask for the Order to restrict the releasing of information pending trial, that is, an Order in which the press is ordered not to release information other than what is presented in the witness stand in front of the jury. Thirdly, I would ask the Court to inquire of the members of the jury whether any of them have read any articles relating to this case since they have been impanelled as a jury. Fourthly, to order them not to read any articles relating to this case.

THE COURT: The motions are all denied.

MR. SALTER: The Court is not going to even inquire of the jury?


MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I would ask for a mistrial in this matter, in that some jurors could have read this article, and this article would be so prejudicial to defendant's case as to his having a fair trial.

THE COURT: That motion will likewise be denied, and I am not asking for the very reason that it would attract attention to the thing.They have previously been advised not to look at any articles pertaining to this case, and I am going to act on the assumption that they are following my instructions in that regard.

To make this request at this time as to whether or not anybody has done this, in violation of the Order, would merely attract attention to it and emphasize it so that I will act on the assumption, based upon experience that I have had for many years, that jurors do follow the Court's instructions.

Publicity does not affect jurors' verdicts.

MR. SALTER: May the article be admitted into evidence for purposes of this motion?

THE COURT: It will be received as a special Exhibit for the purpose of this motion only.

MR. SALTER: And not to go to the jury.


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

THE COURT: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. We have had an unfortunate breakdown in communications this morning which delayed us somewhat, but at least we can get under way again.

Are you ready to proceed?

MR. ROSS: Sergeant Whitley, you may take the stand

THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to give you a little illustration of what can happen. Now, I have told you not to discuss the facts in this case outside the jury room with anyone, and also I have instructed you to leave out reading any newspapers.

I will give you an illustration of what can happen. I had a civil case going here in which there was a woman who had slipped and fallen in a market, and one of the jurors, very innocently and over a weekend, is talking to a nurse friend of hers about the case. Now, it was all very innocent, and the nurse said, "Oh, I remember her. She is the gal that slipped on the mayonnaise." There was no mayonnaise involved at all. It was just completely and totally erroneous.

I mention this to you because it shows how easy it is to get misinformed by sources outside of the courtroom.

That is why we urge you to avoid any contact outside of the courtroom. Just depend upon what you hear here, because this is the only thing that you can rely upon.

I point that out to you because it is important. Please bear that in mind.

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

THE CLERK: Would you please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that 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?


THE CLERK: Be seated and state your full name, please, for the record.

THE WITNESS: Paul J. Whitley.

THE CLERK: Thank you.


Q:Officer, is this the knife and scabbard that have been speaking of in 15 and 15a?

A:That is correct.

Q:Those were the ones that were shown on the two pictures I had shown to you earlier; is that correct?


Q:You had identified this Fiat automobile from the pictures that we had had here earlier, and these were taken under your direction; is that correct?

A:That is correct.

Q:Did you go through the car rather thoroughly?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Did you find in it anything which appeared to be blood or blood spots?

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I am going to object to the question, unless he proceeds in a manner in which he took tests and such as an expert.

THE COURT: I think that is a matter of cross-examination.


Q:Did you observe anything that appeared to be blood, or blood spots?


Q:During the course of the investigation, you also found that Mr. Hinman had another automobile; is that correct?

A:That is correct.

Q:From what did you determine this?

A:From a registration that I found in the house and also from his employer, Mr. Krell, and also some of the friends.

Q:What kind of an automobile was that?

A:It was a Volkswagen, microbus.

Q:I show you here the registration. Is this the registration that you found in the house?

A:Yes, it is.

Q:What is the license number there?

A:Paul, George, Edward, 388.

Q:It is PGE 388?

A:That is correct.

Q:I have here a colored photograph of several views of what appears to be a Volkswagen-type van. Have you seen this before?

A:Yes, I have.

Q:What does that show?

A:That is a Volkswagen microbus with a thunderbird on the side, license number Paul, George, Edward, 388.

Q:That is the one we have been referring to; is that correct?

A:That is correct.

MR. ROSS: May that picture be marked number 31?

THE COURT: It will be received and so marked.


Q:I want to go back a moment to the house itself. Where were you in Old Topanga on the 1st of August or the late evening of the 31st of July?

MR. ROSS: I have here a letter from the Department of Motor Vehicles, in Sacramento, with a date on it. May this be marked number 32?

THE COURT: Very well.


Q:I show you a letter here with the name of Robert Kenneth Beausoleil on it and an address in San Francisco. Have you seen that before?


Q:When and where did you first see that?

A:I found this letter in a night stand on the porch almost at the bottom of the drawer.

Q:That is the one that was depicted in the photographs earlier?


THE COURT: You mean, the night stand that was depicted?

MR. ROSS: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. ROSS: I have here another small black and white photograph of the kitchen area. May this be number 33, your Honor?

THE COURT: It will be so marked.


Q:I show you another photograph marked as number 33. Does that scene appear familiar to you?

A:Yes, it does.

Q:What is that?

A:This is the kitchen area. This photograph here is a reverse negative. The icebox belongs on the opposite side.

Q:But on the other side it shows the scene but just reversed; is that correct?

A:That is correct.

Q:Directing your attention there to the sink area that is shown, were there any dirty dishes there in the sink?

A:In the sink, no.

Q:Are there any nearby or adjacent to it?

A:There were dishes that were washed out and placed in this drainer.

Q:And the brush that appears on the wall there, was that hanging there at the time?


MR. ROSS: I have here a number of certified documents from the Department of Motor Vehicles pertaining to a Volkswagen, license number PGE 388. May these be marked as Exhibit number 34?

THE COURT: Are these documents that you sent for in order to show the registration?

THE WITNESS: Yes, they are.

THE COURT: These are certified copies?

MR. ROSS: They are certified. It says right here "certified."

THE COURT: Number 34.


Q:Sir, I show you what has been marked now as Exhibit number 34 for identification. Have you seen those?


Q:Where did you get those from?

A:I received these from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Q:These pertain to the Volkswagen bus we have been speaking about, do they not?


Q:These were sent at your request from the Department of Motor Vehicles; is that correct?


Q:When you were at the location, did you see a telephone there?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Did the telephone appear to be in working order when you were there?

A:Yes, I used it.

Q:Were there any other knives, large-type knives found at the house?


Q:Where were they found?

A:One was found at the bottom of the stairway leading into the porch.

Q:Would you describe that for us?

A:It is in the box there. It has a wooden handle. The blade is approximately half an inch in width by four inches in length.

Q:Did you find any other knives other than just kitchen knives?

A:There were some small knives in the kitchen, but they were steak knives and such, very small.

Q:I show you here a knife with a wooden handle. Is this the one that you are referring to?

A:Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Where did you find that knife?

THE WITNESS: This was at the bottom of the stairs, outside.

THE COURT: The stairs that are in the photograph on the outside of the house?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Was this on the ground, then?



Q:That is on the outside of the house, not inside; is that correct?

A:That is correct.

MR. ROSS: May I have that marked number 35?

THE COURT: It will be so marked.


Q:Let's get back to San Luis Obispo. It stated that you had gone back up there, and that at the time you saw the defendant it was in the early morning some time on the 7th of August?

A:It was on the 6th of August --

Q:Excuse me.

A:-- at approximately 10:00 p.m. at night.

Q:Was that when you saw the defendant?


Q:At the time that you saw the defendant, how was he dressed?

A:He was in jail clothes.

Q:Did you pick up from the booking officer there the clothes and property that had been booked to the defendant?


Q:Did you go through that property?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Did you find any money in that property?

A:Yes, there was a small amount.

Q:Change, or what?

A:I believe so. I don't think it was more than a dollar and a half.

Q:I also show you the Exhibit that we have marked here as number 6, this pink slip for the Fiat. Did you also get that?

A:Yes, this was in his property.

Q:Was there anything unusual about his physical condition at that time?

A:Yes. He had small scratch marks in the throat area and on the chest.

Q:Would you describe those a little more fully, if you can?

A:They were very thin scratch marks. He told us that.

Q:Well, I didn't ask you that. Would you describe those?

A:There were extremely thin, superficial scab marks on them. They appeared to be old.

Q:Did you have a conversation with him at that time?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Were the statements freely and voluntarily made by him?


Q:Would you tell us what he said?

A:We asked Mr. Beausoleil what he was doing driving Gary Hinman's car, and he told me that Gary Hinman had loaned him the car; that Gary had signed the pink slip off and gave it to him so that if he got stopped by the law, there would be no problems.

We then told him that we had found a knife in the tire well of the vehicle and that it had blood on it. He told us that the knife belonged to him, and that he had been stopped in Santa Barbara by a police officer and he had hidden the knife in the tire well so that he wouldn't get in any trouble with the law. We then talked to him about it.

Q:Well, just a moment. You stated that you found blood on the knife; is that correct?


Q:Did it appear that you had seen some on it?

A:There was something that appeared to be blood on the knife.

Q:I show you the knife. Are there some kind of spots or anything that might indicate blood to you?

A:Not now.

Q:But there were at that time; is that correct?


Q:So would you continue with your conversation?

A:Where was I?

MR. SALTER: I am going to ask that the jury be instructed that the statement regarding blood not be considered as a fact.

I think this has been very misleading in the testimony that has been presented.

THE COURT: Well, obviously, the statement that there was blood on the knife has not been proven. It is offered to show what these officers told Bobby at that time coupled with the fact that the officer has also testified that at the time he first saw the knife there were some spots that are not on the knife now.

MR. ROSS: Yes, and goes to state of mind. That is all.

Counsel made a point about making a stipulation, and we would so stipulate that any spots that were there were removed by the chemist in making his examination. The coroner testified that he saw no blood spots there at the time.

MR. SALTER: I will so stipulate.


Q:Sir, you mentioned that you had stated to him something about your finding blood on the knife. Would you continue from there.

A:We then asked Mr. Beausoleil why he had told the CHP Officer that arrested him that he had bought the car from a Negro in Los Angeles for, I think it was, $200 or something; and he stated that the officer had lied; that he didn't say anything like that.

Then we asked him when was the last time that he had been up to the Hinman home.

He stated it was approximately two weeks prior to our conversation on the 6th, and that it was on a weekend.

He said that he had hitchhiked to the Old Topanga Canyon address with two girls, arriving some time in the evening hours. That when he arrived, he went in the house, and Mr. Hinman was in the bathroom bleeding from a cut on the ear, on the side of his face. That he told Mr. Hinman to go into the front room and lay down on the floor, and at this time he attempted to stop the bleeding by taking black electrical tape and taping the face together and some dental floss and a needle, attempting to suture the ear together. He said, that the blood subsided, and that he was concerned over Mr. Hinman's condition so that he spent the night.

He slept in a chair alongside of Mr. Hinman, and the two girls stayed in the house. That they stayed all day Saturday, and that Mr. Hinman, in being grateful for his helping him, signed a pink slip off to his car and gave him the keys to the Fiat to use.

He further stated that Mr: Hinman told him, when he first arrived at the house, that he had been jumped by some Negroes in Santa Monica over a political issue, and that they had hit in the face with a knife.

We then asked him if Mr. Hinman had any other wounds on him besides the ones across the face, and he said no, he did not.

We asked him how Mr. Hinman was dressed, and he said he was in a white T-shirt and blue Levi's, and that when he last saw him, he was lying -- the living room floor with a green blanket up over him.

We ask him if there was any writing on the wall. He stated there wasn't.

We asked him why he hadn't called the doctor, and he said that Mr. Hinman did not want a doctor, didn't want any type of medical assistance or for anyone to know what had happened.

We then went back to the blood on the knife, and he stated that at one time that he had killed small animals with the knife, if there was blood on it, but that he had used mainly for spreading peanut butter, and that possibly could be what we saw on the knife.

I then asked him about a credit card that we found on him.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I will object to that. I don't see how that is material at this point.

THE COURT: Sustained.


Q:Did you ask him anything about the name Daniels at any point?


Q:What was that conversation?

A:We asked him why he was using the name of Jason Daniels, when he was first stopped, and then changing his name when he was at the county jail to Robert Beausoleil.

He stated the name Daniels was his professional name what he used, and that he was a musician.

Q:Did you ask him anything further about the car, from where he took it, why he was using it, and so forth?

A:We asked him what his destination was at the time that he was arrested, and he stated San Francisco; that he was going to visit some friends.

We then asked him if Mr. Hinman had given him permission to take the car to San Francisco, and he stated, "Well, no, I don't think he would like that very much."

Q:Did Mr. Beausoleil state where he was staying?

A:No, he refused to.

Q:Did he say what he did with the car, that is the Fiat, after he left Mr. Hinman's house?

A:He said after he left the Hinman house, that he went to stay with some friends, and that then he decided to go to San Francisco, and that he kept the car during this time.

Q:Did he mention anything about his past acquainanceship with Mr. Hinman?

A:Yes. He stated that approximately a year to a year and a half prior to that, he had stayed at the Hinman house for a month or so.

Q:Mr. Beausoleil stated he had left the house. Did he ever state that he had gone back or attempted to get in contact with Mr. Hinman again?

A:Yes. He stated that he left on a Saturday evening, and the following day he called the Hinman house to find out how Mr. Hinman was, and that he didn't receive an answer.

Q:Did he make any other attempt to get a hold of him?


Q:Did he indicate how long Mr. Hinman told him he could use the car?

A:He said it was an undetermined amount of time.

Q:Was there anything mentioned about this Volkswagen van or bus --


Q:-- either by you or Mr. Beausoleil?

A:We asked him about it. He said he didn't know anything about it.

Q:Did he state whether or not Mr. Hinman had given him anything else other than the car?

A:The keys to the car, the pink slip, and that was it.

Q:What did he say about the pink slip, if anything?

A:He said that Mr. Hinman had signed the pink slip off and had given it to him in case he was stopped by the police.

Q:Did he state whether or not the car was to be given to him or just used by him?

A:That it was just being used. It was loaned to him.

THE COURT: Pardon me, Mr. Ross. It is time for our noon recess.

I am sorry that we didn't get more time in, ladies and gentlemen, but this is the way that things go. In any event, I hope we will have a full, uninterrupted afternoon.

We will take our noon recess at this time and reconvene at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon. Please return at that time.

Remember not to discuss the facts in issue in the case.

(Lunch recess.)

THE COURT: Will you proceed.

MR. ROSS: Yes, thank you.

Sergeant Whitley, would you resume the stand.


Q:Before the noon recess, Sergeant, I asked you some questions regarding the statements of the defendant, and one statement was that he had gone to the house with some girls; is that correct?


Q:Did he give the names of the girls?

A:No, he refused to.

Q:Directing your attention back to the house for a few moments, in the conversation was there anything mentioned about the defendant's having wiped up any blood?


Q:What is that?

A:He stated that he wiped up some blood on a gray sweat shirt and a sheet, and that they started to smell on Saturday, and he placed them in a garbage can.

Q:At the house itself, did you go through the garbage can when you were there?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Did you find any such objects in the garbage can?


Q:Also, once again, back at the house, when you observed the body of Mr. Hinman, did you observe any tape on his person or nearby him?


Q:Did you observe any tape at all at the house?


Q:What was that and where was it?

A:There was a roll of tape on the book shelves, four shelves up, about midway between the north and south wall and on the east wall in the living room.

Q:Was this a whole role, or were there pieces, or what?

A:Well, it was a portion of a role.

Q:Did you observe any cut off pieces in any part of the house or on the body?


Q:Did you observe any thread or dental floss at or near the body, especially near the site of the wound where the defendant stated he attempted to sew up?


Q:Back to the house again for a moment -- and I show you Exhibit number 16 showing the area inside of the location where the words "political piggy" are written on wall there -- did you take a pretty good look at that?

A:Yes, I did. Can I correct you, by the way? That is "politically piggy."

Q:It didn't come out too well on these. What does it say?

A:It is "politically piggy."

Q:There is a Y on there?

A:There is another L and Y.

Q:I see.

A:They are very faint.

Q:They didn't come out too well on this photograph?

A:That is correct.

Q:What was the amount of blood there, large or small?

A:Very small.

Q:Did it appear to be put on by a finger?

A:I really couldn't tell. I couldn't tell if it was a finger.

Q:Did you find any brush nearby?


Q:Where was that?

A:The brush was next to Mr. Hinman's left hand.

MR. ROSS: I have a small paint brush hare, your Honor. May we mark this as Exhibit next in order, which I believe will be number 36. The small knife was 35.

THE COURT: It will be so marked.

MR. ROSS: Thank you.

Q:Showing you Exhibit number 36, does that appear to be the brush that you have been speaking of?


Q:Thank you very much, sir.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.

MR. SALTER: Thank you, Counsel.


Q:Sergeant Whitley, how much time elapsed from the time you got there until the time the body was removed to the morgue?

A:Approximately four hours and 15 minutes.

Q:After you arrived?


Q:You stated that you didn't find any -- incidentally, you said there was some tape that you found on a shelf, and that it was electrical tape; isn't that correct?


Q:You said you didn't find any suturing on the body or around the body; is that what you testified to?


Q:You didn't look for any suturing on the body, did you?


Q:You didn't look for any tape on the body, did you?

A:I looked for anything there that would be out of place.

Q:But you didn't look specifically for any tape, did you?

A:At which point?

Q:At any point prior to the removal of the body?

A:No. Afterwards I did.

Q:How long afterwards?

A:On the 17th of August.

Q:That was about seven, eight days later?


Q:Where was the book shelf where you found this tape was located in relationship to where you found Gary's body?

A:It was approximately three feet east. It runs along the east wall.

Q:You say there was a makeshift shrine like a Buddhist shrine there; is that correct?


Q:That is what he was under?

A:Yes, his head was directly under it.

Q:There was a sheet next to that; is that correct?


Q:Now, you had some conversation with Bobby when you went up to San Luis Obispo, and in the conversation you remarked regarding the scratches you found on his chest; isn't that correct?


Q:He told you it was some cat he had been playing with at the ranch; isn't that correct?

A:He didn't say the ranch.

Q:He said some cat, though?


Q:You had forgotten to mention that to the jury on direct examination; isn't that correct?

A:No, I thought I mentioned it.

Q:Regarding the knife, you said Bobby told you that he had stopped at a restaurant in Santa Barbara on his way up to San Francisco, and that some officer saw him with a knife and the scabbard and said, "You are not supposed to walk around with a knife like that"; and that is when he put it back in the tire well; isn't that correct?


Q:Didn't he tell you that some officer stopped him some time that night?


Q:The officer told him he shouldn't be walking around with a knife like that?

A:Yes, but he did not say something about stopping in a restaurant.

Q:But some officer told him he wasn't supposed to be walking around with a knife like that?

A:He didn't say what the officer said, but he said he was stopped by a policeman and identified the knife

Q:Didn't he tell you the officer commented about the knife?


Q:Now, Bobby told you that he had talked to Gary at some time several weeks prior to going over there, and at that time Gary had promised him to let him use his automobile to go up to San Francisco to visit somebody; isn't that correct?


Q:He didn't tell you that?


Q:Did he say something to that effect, then?


Q:He told you he had stayed at Gary's house for some period of time about a year to a year and a half ago; isn't that correct?


Q:There was a letter found addressed to Bobby on the premises; isn't that correct?


Q:That letter was dated 1967; isn't that correct?


Q:He told you that the reason that Gary gave him the pink slip was in case he got in an accident, that Gary would not be financially responsible?


Q:Did he say something to that effect?


MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: I have just one other question.


Q:Officer, I sort of chopped up your testimony over several periods of time. When you went over to the house the first time, was that Metropolitan there at the location?


THE COURT: Was there what?


Q:Was the Metropolitan the third car and too, that is, the Fiat and Volkswagen, were missing; is that correct?


MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Thank you.

MR. ROSS: I call Deputy Guenther, please.

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

THE CLERK: Would you please raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that 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?


THE CLERK: State your name.

THE WITNESS: Charles C. Guenther. That is spelled G-u-e-n-t-h-e-r.


Q:What is your occupation and assignment?

A:I am a deputy sheriff for the County of Los Angeles assigned to Headquarters, Detective Division, Homicide Bureau.

Q:You are also one of the officers assigned to the investigation of this case; is that correct?


MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I have here another black and white photograph showing the interior of a home of a table and chair.

MR. SALTER: Counsel, that looks like a colored photograph.

MR. ROSS: I am sorry, it is a colored photograph.

May this be marked number 37?

THE COURT: Very well.


Q:Deputy Guenther, I show you the Exhibit which we have earlier marked here, the checkbook of Gary Hinman. Did you recover that at the location in question?


Q:I show you Exhibit number 37 that we have just marked. Does that scene appear familiar to you?


Q:Whereabouts did you recover it, that is, the checkbook? Is it shown at the location in the picture there?

A:The broken table covers the area, but the checkbook was found directly beneath the table on the broken side, lying on the floor.

Q:This would be to the right side where the chair is sort of blocking the view there; is that correct?

A:That is correct.

Q:These other things that were on the floor there, scattered around the scarves and luggage and books and so forth, were they there at that time and place?

A:Yes, they were.

Q:What did you do with the checkbook then?

A:I picked it up, placed it in my pocket, held it to check against Gary's account.

Q:Did you show it to Sergeant Whitley?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Then you kept it as part of the evidence in this case; is that correct?


Q:Thank you, sir.

MR. ROSS: No further questions.

MR. SALTER: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: You may step down.

MR. ROSS: I call Mr. Puhek

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

THE CLERK: Would you raise your right hand to be sworn.

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?


THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name, please.

THE WITNESS: Louis John Puhek, P-u-h-e-k.


Q:Your first name is spelled L-o-u-i-s?


Q:Mr. Puhek, do you live here in the Los Angeles area?


Q:How old are you?


Q:I show you an Exhibit here that we have marked as Exhibit number 31, a Volkswagen bus, with a Thunderbird on the side of it. Have you seen that automobile, that van before?


Q:When was the first time that you saw that car, approximately where and when?

A:The first time?


A:I really can't say.

Q:Could you give us an approximation of the time?

A:At the beginning of August some time.

Q:Of this year?


Q:Where was it that you saw it?

A:I am not sure.

Q:Was someone driving that car, to your knowledge?


Q:Do you know that person's name?


Q:Who was that?

A:His name is Mark.

Q:Do you know anything else about him of your own personal knowledge?

A:Well, he is a friend. I met him through my sister's boyfriend.

Q:Did you enter into some negotiations with him about purchasing that car?


Q:When was that?

A:In late August.

Q:Had you seen him driving the car in the meantime?


Q:I show you here some certified copies of a registration and what is commonly called a pink slip, Exhibit 34 in this case, and bearing in mind that this is a certified copy and not the pink slip itself, have you seen this document of the original before ?


Q:Where was it when you first saw it, that is, that pink slip?

A:When it was given to me, when I bought the car.

Q:Did you pay for the car?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:How much did you pay for it?


Q:To whom did you give the money?

A:To Mark.

Q:Was this signature on the rear of the pink slip at the time that you saw it signed with that name, Gary Hinman, on the right there?


Q:It was stamped on there, stamped on by apparently the Bay Area Finance Company?


Q:It bears a date on it. It says 8-28-69. Was that the date that you got it?

A:No, it wasn't.

Q:What is the date that appeared on it when you

A:It was 7-something '69.

Q:Did you alter it in some way?

A:Yes, I did.

Q:Why did you do that?

A:Well, it had gone through people before it got to me.

MR. SALTER: Move to strike as hearsay.

THE WITNESS: Well, this is only --

MR. SALTER: Just a moment, sir. Just answer the question.

THE COURT: Would you state your objection.

MR. SALTER: It is hearsay.

THE COURT: The objection will be overruled.


Q:You changed the date, then; is that right?


Q:Why did you change that?

A:So I wouldn't have to pay any penalty fees.

Q:Which part of it did you alter?

A:The month and the date.

Q:What was the month when you first saw it, if you recall?

A:It was July.

Q:That was a seven rather than an eight; is that right?


Q:The second one is 28 with some kind of writing over that. Do you recall what date that was when you first saw it?

A:I don't remember exactly, but it was sometime in early July.

Q:Sometime before the 28th; is that correct?


Q:You were subsequently driving or later driving this car; is that correct?


Q:Then you were later picked up by the police in the car?


Q:Had you made any changes in the car yourself?


Q:What had you done?

A:I put a new engine in it, and I did a lot of interior work.

Q:Had you changed the outside appearance of it any?

A:No, I didn't.

Q:So, in other words, the outside, with the license plate that is shown on here -- incidentally, is that the license we are talking about, PGE 388?

A:Yes, it is.

Q:The thunderbird painted on the side, that was the same, wasn't it?


Q:Thank you.

MR. ROSS: You may cross-examine.

MR. SALTER: No questions.

THE COURT: Thank you. You are excused.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I don't know which of the Exhibits have been received up to this point, but at this time I would like to move for the introduction of all of the Exhibits for identification.

THE COURT: In the absence of any objection, they will be introduced.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, we have matters before the Court. May we do that in chambers?

THE COURT: I might just as well give the jury a recess.

Ladies and gentlemen, remember not to discuss the facts in issue in the case. We will take our recess at this time for at least 15 minutes.

(Short recess.)

(Whereupon the following proceedings were had in chambers, outside the presence and hearing of the jury.)

THE COURT: Let the record show that we are in chambers, and that the defendant is present.

MR. SALTER: Yes, your Honor, at this time I move for an entry of judgment of acquittal pursuant to 118.1 of the Penal Code. The People have failed to prove their case against the defendant. There has been much circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence, none of it has gone to the identity of the person who killed Gary Hinman, and most circumstantial evidence is in itself -- not only has gone to the identity of the person that has killed Gary Hinman, it really hasn't hit much of anything. It missed the mark completely on everything.

There is no evidence on which to convict Mr. Beausoleil, and therefore I ask for an entry of judgment for acquittal.

THE COURT: The motion will be denied.

MR. SALTER: That is my motion.

THE COURT: Well, that didn't take very long.

MR. SALTER: I have a witness who has to come in at 3:00.

THE COURT: Let's start questioning.

Just in case anybody has any doubts, dismissing the jury overnight went into effect on November 7.

MR. ROSS: That is at the Court's discretion.

MR. SALTER: Counsel won't make any objection to it

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

MR. SALTER: Ready, your Honor.

called as a witness by and on behalf of the defendant was, sworn, examined and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: Would you raise your right hand to be sworn.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you shall 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?


THE CLERK: Would you state your name for the record

THE WITNESS: Jack Joseph Gerard.

THE CLERK: How do you spell Gerard?

THE WITNESS: G-e-r-a-r-d.


Q:What is your business or occupation?

A:I am a theatrical agent.

Q:Mr. Gerard, I show you Mr. Beausoleil, the defendant in this matter. Do you know Mr. Beausoleil?

A:Yes, I do.

Q:Do you know Mr. Beausoleil under another name also?


Q:What other name do you know him under?

A:Jasper Daniels.

Q:Did you know him under a former name of Jasper Daniels?

A:Jasper Daniels.

THE COURT: Did you know him under any other names other than Jasper Daniels?



Q:The full name would have been Jason Lee Jasper Daniels?


Q:That was his professional name?


Q:Did you and he sign a contract?


Q:Is what I have in my hand a copy of the contract?


Q:That has been signed in both his real name and his professional name; is that correct?


Q:In other words, by Robert K. Beausoleil and Jason Lee Jasper Daniels; is that correct?

A:Yes, that is correct.

Q:This contract was signed it looks like, March 23rd, 1969?

A:Yes, that is right.

MR. SALTER: I would ask that this be admitted into evidence as defendant's A.

THE COURT: Defendant's A?

MR. ROSS: No objection.

MR. SALTER: Thank you. I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: I have no questions.

MR. SALTER: Defense rests.

THE COURT: Both sides rest? No rebuttal?

MR. ROSS: No rebuttal.

THE COURT: All right, ladies and gentlemen. At this time we will take our evening recess.

We have other things to do between now and tomorrow morning.

Again, I must admonish you against discussing the facts in issue in the case amongst yourselves or with anyone else, and also to retain an open mind until the matter is finally submitted to you.

Due to the congestion we have around here tomorrow morning, I am going to request that you come back at 10:30 in the morning, and we will try to get going at that time. You are excused until 10:30 tomorrow morning. Good night.