Wednesday, March 12, 2014






In the matter of the Life Term Parole Consideration Hearing of:
CDC Number: B-41079

MARCH 12, 2014
9:00 A.M.

JOHN PECK, Presiding Commissioner
PATRICIA CASSADY, Deputy Commissioner

MICHAEL BECKMAN, Attorney for Inmate
MICHAEL J. MONTAGNA, Deputy District Attorney
KAY HINMAN MARTLEY, Victim's Next-of-Kin
DEBRA TATE, Victim Representative
BARBARA HOYT, Victims Representative
MARY MURRAY, Deputy District Attorney
NATE BREKKE, Victims Services Advocate
VANESSA NELSON, Life Support Alliance



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thanks. All right. This is a Subsequent Parole Consideration Hearing for Mr. Bruce Davis, B-41079. Today's date is 3/12/2014. The time is approximately nine o'clock on the morning. We're located at California Men's Colony at San Luis Obispo. Mr. Davis was received in CDCR on 4/21/1972 from Los Angeles County. His controlling offense is two counts of Murder First, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Robbery. Case number is A267861. Mr. Davis had an MEPD or minimum eligible parole date of 12/1/1977. This hearing is being recorded, and for the purpose of voice identification, each of us are required to state our first and last name, and Mr. Davis, when it's your turn, after you spell your last name, please give us your CDC number. So we're going to go around the table to my right starting with me, going to the Deputy Commissioner. Mr. Davis, you'll go next. Your attorney will go after that, and then we'll just kind of snake our way around the room. So my name is John Peck, P-E-C-K. I'm the Presiding Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Patricia Cassady, C-A-S-S-A-D-Y, Deputy Commissioner.

INMATE DAVIS: Bruce Davis, D-A-V-I-S, CDC number B-41079.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Michael Beckman, B-E-C-K-M-A-N, attorney for Mr. Davis.

MS. HOYT: Barbara Hoyt, H-O-Y-T, Victims Representative.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MURRAY: Mary Murray, Deputy District Attorney on behalf of the County of Los Angeles.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Michael J. Montagna, M-O-N-T-A-G-N-A, Deputy District Attorney, LA County.

MS. MARTLEY: Kay Hinman Martley, M-A-R-T-L-E-Y.

MS. TATE: Debra Tate, D-E-B-R-A T-A-T-E, next-of-kin representative.

MS. NELSON: Vanessa Nelson, N-E-L-S-O-N, Life Support Alliance (inaudible) observer.

MR. BREKKE: Nate Brekke, B-R-E-K-K-E, Victims Services Advocate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. We also have two correctional peace officers in the room that are here for security purposes who will not be participating in today's hearing. Let's go over your disabilities, Mr. Davis. I see you wear glasses.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And you have your glasses with you. Very good. Any hearing disabilities that we need to know about?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Mobility issues that we need to be concerned about?

INMATE DAVIS: No. No, sir.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Any medical conditions that we should be aware of?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, he has emphysema and he has an enlarged prostate. He's on medication for the prostate, not for the emphysema. But it shouldn't affect his ability to participate in the hearing today.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. Part of the mental health system here in CDCR?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Commissioner, I have difficulty hearing Mr. Beckman, and I -- just in checking with Ms. Tate over there, they can't hear him.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'll do my best.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He's a soft talker. It's just the way he is, and you know something, we're all going to have to do our best. If we have to move closer, we'll move closer.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'll try to speak up. Just remind me if I'm --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: (Inaudible) please, Mr. Beckman.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, speak from the soul. Anything that I need -- any reasonable accommodation that we have not provided you that you need?

INMATE DAVIS: Not a one.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Let's move forward. We have reviewed your Central File. We've looked at the prior transcripts, and you're going to be given the opportunity today to correct or clarify the record as we proceed. Nothing that happens here today is going to change the findings of the court. We're not here to retry your case. We're going to accept as true the findings of the court. We're here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. The format we're going to use today is I'm going to talk to you about your pre-conviction factors, childhood, prior criminality, life crime. I'm going to go over your risk assessment that you had with Dr. -- give me a second -- you have kind of a thick file.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Dr. Pritchard and then I'm going to turn it over to Commissioner Cassady. She's going to talk to you about post-conviction factors. We're probably only going to focus on the time from your last hearing as far as post-conviction factors go. I don't think we need to go back to 1972, so I think that's probably a better place to focus is current. She's then going to go over support, opposition letters. We're not going to read every support letter on the record. We're not going to read every opposition letter on the record, certainly are going to try to get the flavor of the support and the opposition. We're going to then talk about your parole plans. I'm then going to turn it over to Mr. Montagna who is going to be able to ask the Panel clarifying questions. That may result in me asking you a question. It may just result in me answering the question for you if I've already asked the question and I know the answer. If I get it wrong, we don't want anything wrong on the record, so I want you to make sure that the record is correct, so correct me if I answer for you incorrectly. I'm then going to turn it over to your attorney who is going to have an opportunity to ask you direct questions. I'm then going to ask Mr. Montagna what Los Angeles and he thinks about you getting a parole date. Your attorney is going to be able to make a closing statement for you. And if you would like, you may make a closing statement after that. I'm then going to let the victim's family and victim's family representative make statements as far as an impact statement. They'll be the last ones that speak today. Afterwards, Commissioner Cassady and I will clear the room. It will only be her and I in the room and we'll discuss your suitability factors, and we'll make a decision today on whether we think you're suitable for parole or not. As you are well aware of, the decision that we make here are not final.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Decision Review certainly has an opportunity to look at this case, and I'm sure they will, and I'm just guessing, but I'm thinking the Governor might take a look at it, too. He's done so in the past.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir, he has.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So anyway, the decisions will become final after 120 days, and if there's any change to the decision, you'll be notified in writing. You've been through this before. We're probably not going to vary too much from what we've done in the past. So do you have any questions about the process?

INMATE DAVIS: Not a one. Thank you.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: First, I just want to question the Panel about using the statement of facts from the Appellate Opinion and/or the Probation Officer's Report as the official version of this crime. There is no official version of the crime. The only fact that's true is that my client was convicted of it. There may be variances to my client's version and those versions and the mere fact of that does not mean that my client is minimizing or lacks insight, and were this Panel to take that position, it would be violating his due process rights and protective liberty interest in parole by making decisions based upon information that is neither official nor necessarily accurate. Second, we object to the hearing being held under the DSL. This crime was committed in 1972 and my client should be judged under the standards of the ISL. Three, I'm going to make some objections to Proposition 9.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, let me start with -- let me -- before we get too --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm not sure how many objections you have and --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just two of them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm not getting any younger, so you know, I've -- let's just deal with your objections now.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Your first objection as far as us using Probation Officer's Report, Appellate Decision, we're going to use whatever we have that's factual in the file to determine the life crime, even though we're not going to retry the case, so I'm not sure whether we're -- I'm going to overrule your objection or sustain your objection, because basically, we're going to use the documents that we have before us to make a decision.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Your second objection regarding --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We're not going to retry this case. There is absolutely no way we're going to retry this case. We're going to use the standard that's listed in 2402 that is what we are under to assess suitability for Mr. Davis.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Mr. Beckman, the remedy -- case law allows us to use the Title 15 standards. The remedy is if he's found suitable, he'll be entitled to a PBR hearing.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Right. Or to using the old matrix.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah. And that's since he was pre-1970 --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Seven, that standard will apply.





DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Parole Board Rules will be handled, which is a different matrix.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: So they'll set a date. They won't go through a finding of suitability in the event that they choose to do so. He doesn't have a right to be represented by counsel.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. So that's how we're going to deal with that. I'm sorry. What's your next objection?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Proposition 9 and Marsy's Law violates the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution. It's been held such. Just recently, the hearing -- the ruling on that case has been stayed for 30 days, but I need to put it on the record to protect my client's rights. Fourth, we object to the fact of this hearing, Proposition 89 giving the Governor the right to review what's held to violate the ex post facto clauses of the United States Constitution as to all inmates convicted prior to its enactment. It was enacted, I believe, in 1988. My client's crime was committed in the 60s, so he's eligible for immediate release as soon as that order becomes final. And last --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, you told me, you said there was two more. You actually had three more.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Right. Well, I don't usually make this one because you'll tell me whether or not there's confidential information. If the Board intends to use confidential information, then I have an additional objection. If you do not, or you're not sure, then I request that if and when you make that decision, you let me come in and make an additional objection on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: There's an extensive confidential. I don't think anything is recent. We don't know yet. It depends on the testimony today whether we're going to use any confidential information. If we do cover that decision to use confidential, we'll let you know to give you a chance to protect your client's rights.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: As far as Marsy's Law, currently it's still the law. There's been no changes as far as Board procedures, so I'm going to overrule that objection. As far as the Governor reviewing the case, I'm pretty sure he's going to review it, so I'm going to overrule that objection, too. He certainly has that right today. We don't know whether there's going to be an appeal on that case that you're talking about or not, so --


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Until we get to that point, I think it's all premature. Anything else?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Nope. That's it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Have we met your client's rights?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Can I get you to raise your right hand, Mr. Davis? Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give at this hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. All right. So where were you born?

INMATE DAVIS: Monroe, Louisiana.


INMATE DAVIS: 1942, October 5th.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Seventy-one. You were -- how was your childhood?

INMATE DAVIS: In what way?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Good, bad, abuse, no abuse, happy, supportive? I don't know how many adjectives you want me to use, but that's what I'm trying to figure out.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it was turbulent.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. That was a good one. Why was it turbulent?

INMATE DAVIS: Alcoholic family, not much certainty in the next few minutes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You have brothers and sisters?

INMATE DAVIS: One sister.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did -- what happened with her? How did she do in her life?

INMATE DAVIS: She's a year older than me. She's still -- the last letter I got from her, she says I don't even want to talk about what happened when we were kids. She's got letters in there you may have seen and describes the family life.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Any connection to the abuse that you received as a child to your criminal behaviors?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah. I learned a conflict resolution style from my father.


INMATE DAVIS: Violence. Not always physical, but emotional, verbal, etcetera.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did you graduate from high school?

INMATE DAVIS: Actually in '61.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So did you do some college at University of Tennessee?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How long were you there?

INMATE DAVIS: Maybe a year and a half all together over a period of three years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you ever -- and I know you increased your education while you've been incarcerated.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm sure we'll talk about that in detail. Any drug addictions, alcohol addictions?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, certainly alcoholic features. I'd say addiction when it comes to hallucinogenic drugs at one time, but not alcohol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did you get to California?

INMATE DAVIS: I hitchhiked to California from Tennessee in 1962.




INMATE DAVIS: Well, I just wanted to go somewhere. I traveled a lot in my life, and one of the things that I could do that I didn't need anybody's help with was to travel, so I came to San Francisco for a few days. Then I worked in Lake Tahoe and went back east, went back to school for a while.


INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir. And that was sort of later the same year I came back out to Washington State to work on a job, then back to school again. Then came to LA in the early 60s, worked in a pipe fabrication company.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No. Is the life crime the only crime, the only criminality you've been involved in?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, speeding.


INMATE DAVIS: Nothing on the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I need to be -- anything significant?




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You had some fights in school?



INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, yeah. Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Didn't know how to resolve them when you were young?

INMATE DAVIS: Mostly I just denied them. As I see it now, I took a course of indifference -- well, feigned indifference at least, out of a sense of inadequacy to actually deal with it.


INMATE DAVIS: My father in '68 and my mother in '92.


INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You had a -- you were molested when you were in junior high.

INMATE DAVIS: That's true.






INMATE DAVIS: One time. We were married in '85, and after I got my first suitability finding in 2010, our relationship began to fall apart, I suppose, is kind of a nice way to say it.


INMATE DAVIS: Well, I think the real possibility of my getting out started to affect our relationship, my wife, and that's just from my point of view seeing it. I'm not -- I'm sure she had a -- she may have had a very different idea, never expressed them to me. But there came a time where she said I'm thinking about a divorce and then she went ahead and went through with it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Was that difficult for you?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it was. And it was more difficult than I thought it would be. Then when it was final, it was really quite a shock, even though I'd seen it coming for a year or so.


INMATE DAVIS: And I suppose in the beginning I thought well, I'll get through this like everything else, but I found it was a lot more complicated than I had anticipated. But and it's still --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I don't think divorce is ever easy.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it certainly proved hard for me. But we're still on good terms, friendly terms. We have a daughter 20 years old and so we write.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What got you involved with the Manson family?

INMATE DAVIS: Attraction. Attraction to what I saw as a powerful, talented person, a man.


INMATE DAVIS: In 1968, (inaudible) canyon. I went with someone I knew who had borrowed some tools, and we took him back to where they were living. And the first time I saw Charles Manson and some of the girls, they were in a big antique bathtub under a tree having a big party, and when I saw that, I was very attracted to that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You liked the lifestyle.



INMATE DAVIS: Sex, drugs and rock and roll. That was kind of the framework around my mentality at that time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you kind of were living next to them?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, when I -- I can't --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Initially, before when you first met.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, not really next to him, but that was the first time I saw him. I was working in the pipeline industry and I got in County Jail for the first time in my life about 25 years old and went through --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What were you in County for?

INMATE DAVIS: Possession. I wasn't possessing. It got dismissed, but I spent ten days in the process. It was kind of an eye-opening experience, to say the least. And I was very shook up with that. I made decisions in my life that I shouldn't have made at such a stressful point. But I'd been working and so I felt victimized that I had been put in jail for something I didn't do. And I made a decision that I would never expend the energy to support a system that put me in jail like that. Well, that was very foolish, but that was my reaction. And then when I met Manson, I was just wide open for something.


INMATE DAVIS: Twenty-five.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You certainly weren't a kid.

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir. I was -- I had arrested development when it came to emotional maturity and good judgment. But I was physically grown and intelligent, just no judgment. And no kind of moral guidance, so I made the decisions all right, to attach myself to the family, to Manson practically. I saw -- I adopted him as my dad. I never told him that and it never was official, so to speak, but this was the first man that I knew who was powerful, talented, and treated me with respect or what I took for respect. I know it was manipulation now, but I took it as respect. I felt valued, appreciated, all the things I needed on an emotional level at the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So the situation that you were lacking in your childhood, you were getting from the Mansons?

INMATE DAVIS: From Charlie and the girls. I took theirs as -- I took physical attention as love. It was -- I thought I had arrived.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what got you involved in this life crime?

INMATE DAVIS: Just a logical progression of what I was in within the family. There was a money problem. There was talk about we need money. Someone suggested Gary Hinman that we knew earlier. I was there when --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why did you think he had money?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I was just told.


INMATE DAVIS: It was -- I didn't know one way or the other. I knew Gary before and so I was there when it was planned, and I drove the car. I furnished the weapon. I held a gun on Gary while Charlie cut his face, and then I abandoned Gary to the rest of everybody else and left. I took his car when I left. And that's the last I saw of Gary. But what got me involved was a feeling of loyalty, a feeling of this is what it's going to take for me to be okay with Charlie.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Violence didn't bother you back then?

INMATE DAVIS: You know, I was so indifferent. No, it didn't. I denied the gravity of the situation. I had never seen violence like I saw with Gary before. It was only theoretical until it happened. And then when it happened, I really -- I saw him get cut in his face and that was shocking.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were you under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, not alcohol. Maybe drugs in a residual way. I don't think I was currently taking drugs that day. I'd never say well, the drugs made me do it. I'm sure they lubricated the way of my -- the decisions I was making anyway, but they were -- they had an influence, of course, but the greatest influence was my will.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What about the Shea things?

INMATE DAVIS: Very similar in the sense that I was there when Charlie said we're going to kill Shorty because he's a police informant. At the murder scene, I attacked Shorty with a knife. Later I lied about my involvement. I tried to erase my fingerprints from his property. I did what I could to cover it up as far as from what I did, from my part. I even bragged about Mr. Shea being decapitated, which wasn't really true. But I bragged about that to some people that were -- may have -- were going to testify as a warning to them.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were you trying to be a tough guy back then?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, yes. That's true. I wanted to appear to be a tough guy. I wasn't really, but I wanted to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You don't look like a tough guy, but you know, I'm looking at you now (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, the imagination will take you a lot of places and I wanted -- well, you know, I didn't want to be a tough guy. I wanted to be Charlie's favorite guy.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you were looking for -- so it was really -- you were really looking for Charlie's approval.

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And you thought through violence that you were going to get Charlie's approval?

INMATE DAVIS: Whatever it took.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What do you think at that time -- and I know this is a long time ago -- but what do you think Charlie wanted from you?

INMATE DAVIS: He wanted obedience.


INMATE DAVIS: Obedience.


INMATE DAVIS: Charlie needed control. He wanted obedience from everybody around him. He wanted everything in harmony with what he was doing. I didn't think of it like that at the time in just those terms, but as I see it now, it's pretty clear. So what he wanted from me to do what he said. And he was willing to negotiate if it didn't get -- if he didn't get everything he wanted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you ever tell him no?



INMATE DAVIS: Well, the no part was the night before the Tate murders. Mary or Susan, I know it's one of the girls came in there and says we're going out tonight, no explanation what it was about. We're going out tonight and they'd been going out on these little missions, little creepy crawly missions, and out of my mouth comes no, I'm not going. And I was sort of surprised because I wasn't used to saying no. But I knew all of a sudden I said no, I'm not going. Okay. And that was it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, why did you say no?

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't want to go. I didn't want to go out there and get involved in a -- as far as I knew, it was going to be a burglary. They were going out and just getting into somebody's home while they were asleep and just walking around the house and not particularly doing anything, just to get -- Charlie was saying this is just to get you over the fear of being there. Well, I wasn't too interested in getting over that. I was -- I didn't want to be involved in something that could be physically confrontive, right.


INMATE DAVIS: Well, when -- in the Hinman case, I convinced myself that if I didn't actually pull the trigger that I would -- could be okay.


INMATE DAVIS: I would be all right. I wouldn't be guilty of anything if I didn't actually murder him. So I deceived myself into thinking that I would -- I could go along a little bit, enough to -- I'd look okay but if it ever came -- push came to shove, I could say well, I didn't kill him. I didn't shoot him.


INMATE DAVIS: I was absolutely to myself. And then when it came to the Shea case, I'm standing there and he'd been stabbed several times and Manson handed me a machete, said cut his head off. I couldn't do that. And so he handed me a knife and he said well, you better do something. I know what that -- I knew the message in that, several people standing around with bloody knives, so I cut Mr. Shea with an upward stroke, cut him on his right side, shoulder, somewhere between his armpit and his clavicle right here, and I looked around as if I hope you're happy, threw down the knife and left. And that was a shock. That was a shock.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did you feel about that?

INMATE DAVIS: I felt terrible about it. I didn't feel, of course, too terrible not to do it, because I was -- I had -- there was other considerations like what will happen if I say no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were you afraid for your safety?

INMATE DAVIS: Enough to do it, yeah. I wasn't going to say no at that point. It was -- too much was happening. I mean a person was being killed. And from the attitude of the situation, it wasn't -- it might not have been limited to him. Yeah, I was -- I had concerns, serious concerns.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How did you get caught?

INMATE DAVIS: How did I get caught? I surrendered to the sheriff about a year or so later.


INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'd been wanted for quite a while, from maybe March until December, and I was camped out with a couple of girls. We were in Lucerne Valley out in San Bernardino, and one morning I woke up and I knew that I was going to turn myself in. And basically I knew that staying out and going through this running from the authorities was just not going to be -- it's not sustainable. It can't go on. What am I going to do with the next police officer that recognizes me and the next and the next. And so I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Had you had run-ins before where you --

INMATE DAVIS: No. Never. Never. Once I skipped bail in the federal charge, it was never -- no contact at all, nothing. But I woke up that morning and I knew I was going to turn myself in. And so I told them, I said I'm going to turn myself in. They looked at me like you must be crazy. And I felt a little crazy. But I said that's what's going to happen. So they made arrangements with the DA and the Sheriff, etcetera, and I turned myself in December 1st, 1970. Why did I do it? Well, that's complicated but --


INMATE DAVIS: The years later when I'm in Folsom, my mother came out from Mobile and she said we were praying for you for years that -- well, especially when you were on the run, all your aunts and me. Every Monday night we have a Monday night prayer meeting for the family. She has five sisters and a lot of relatives and they all live right there. We pray you'd turn yourself in. And she attributes it to that. Well, I do too now. But at the time, I thought that's crazy. But I turned myself in. I had no other explanation. So I believe that I had a God in my life. That was my first good decision in a long time -- I suppose my first step toward rehabilitation, in kind of a left-handed way. I didn't realize what I -- I didn't realize the implications of it. I just knew that I couldn't live on the run. Being an outlaw is not as romantic as it's cracked up to be. It certainly wasn't for me. I thought it would be different. I just didn't know. So that's why I turned myself in.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: When did you stop using drugs and alcohol?

INMATE DAVIS: My last -- alcohol I stopped in probably 1969, way before I got busted. I was never much of a drinker. My last episode, the thing that really convinced me that I had alcoholic tendencies was my birthday of 1968 on a ship going to Spain. The captain said we're giving you a birthday party, not that it was important that we had to have something to celebrate. And I remember the first half of the first drink and then I woke up the next morning. Later I was told what a wonderful time I had at my birthday party and I couldn't remember a thing. And that was very -- I was very concerned for the first time in my life about drinking.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So did you have -- you were having -- you had blackouts?

INMATE DAVIS: That was the first time it ever happened, but it really scared me. I could have fallen overboard. Anything could have happened. I didn't know what had happened.


INMATE DAVIS: I got introduced to marijuana in 1965 after -- at the plant I was at. Started taking LSD a few months later.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's a pretty big jump.

INMATE DAVIS: That is a -- well, it is when we -- when I look at it now. Then it seemed just like a normal progression, because the same people were doing all the same stuff, and it was easy to justify. It was easy -- it was fun, you know. I mean it was for me. And the most unfortunate part about the LSD experience it was so good. It felt so good to me. I would probably have been better off if it had been one of the bad trips that people get freaked out and never do it again. That would have been the best thing to happen, but it wasn't. And from that point, my attitude and view of things began to really change. I began to associate with people that I would have never associated before simply because they had drugs. And the lifestyles they represented, I would have never gone for that and I was just a working person with -- living in an apartment, going to my work every day, living what I would say probably appeared at least fairly normal to everybody else. I mean pay your taxes. Go to work, etcetera. And then the drug-taking started and there was a quantum leap, a big shift in my thinking. I stayed working for a few years, but on the periphery started to move in and I started to degrade. My moral compass, if I had much of one, really went haywire.


INMATE DAVIS: Why did I stop?


INMATE DAVIS: 1974. I'd taken -- even after I was incarcerated in County Jail, there were drugs. I never drank. I took LSD a couple times in County Jail. One time in Tracy. And then when I got to Folsom, I'm sitting on the tier one day. My friends are getting some hashish and I'm waiting for them to come with it and a voice speaks to me. I had the most foreign thought in my head that I could have imagined at the moment and it said you will never get high again. And seems like it just happened. And so when my friends showed up with the hash, out of my mouth comes you can have my part. I couldn't believe I said that. I felt like Dr. Strangelove's right arm that he couldn't control and they didn't ask me am I sure. They disappeared. But from that point on, I lost my taste for any kind of external chemical stuff. And that's the last time I had anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what's your insight into your life crime?

INMATE DAVIS: Say again.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What's your insight into your life crime?

INMATE DAVIS: It was a horrendous thing carried out by a selfish coward with all kinds of misplaced values willing to do that very crime for a mere thing of acceptance from another person. It was a dreadful thing, dreadful as I see it now, right. The pain and suffering it caused, incalculable. It still goes on. The pain and suffering that I caused, it didn't just stop.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: What do you think your -- what do you think it's done to the community?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, for one thing, from just for an immediate -- at the time, from August until October or November of 1969, southern California was kind of in a state of lockdown. The gun store sold out. The chain link fence business went up. The home security business went good. People were afraid, so -- and they -- and yeah, it was very horrendous. I can't imagine the -- what it really did. I mean look at all the people. I had one officer a few years ago ask me if -- about it and he said I was -- he was living in southern California. He said I was -- I think he was seven or eight years old, first or second grade, something like that. He said well, my friends and I were afraid you were going to kill us until somebody said oh, they're only trying to kill the rich people. And he said my friends and I just relaxed because we were poor. The thought of children in fear had never come to me like it did then and it turned up my regret and shame several degrees right then. I had never considered that. I'd thought about grownups. I'd thought about parents having to bury their children, the most unnatural thing there is. Nine sets of parents having to have these funerals, all the friends involved, all the people in some way supportive or dependent on the victims, on the -- and so I had -- I started off seeing that rather theoretically, of course, and then it started to really hit me what that meant and how that felt, and I started to put their shoes on, in a sense, and look at it from a realistic point of view. One of the big insights is that those people that lost their lives, I'm responsible for nine people in my mind, two directly, but I supported the cult, the gang, the family, whatever you call it, so whatever they did, I never said no. I never said you ought to stop. So my presence supported it and I had -- you know before the 2010 hearing, I was in my cell thinking about this and I sort of just in a -- I don't know, I was somewhere between asleep and awake and I saw Gary's gravestone and Donald's gravestone side by side. Gary would have been 79 this year. Donald would have been 81 and they had their dates of birth and death and this woman who was our mother somehow was Gary's mother, Donald's mother and my mother. She was standing at my side and she pointed at the gravestones and she said that's all you left me. That's all. And the impact of a parent and what that meant, really told me something about what I'd done. Now it didn't get there until it got there, but when it got there it was quite an impact, quite an impact.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Commissioner Cassady, do you have any questions?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: After the first killing --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm sorry. Were you still talking?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No. He was asking another question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No. I'm just seeing if she had anything. Go ahead. Sorry.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: After the first killing of Mr. Hinman, how did you feel?

INMATE DAVIS: I was in denial. I was -- I said wait a minute and here's how I justified it. I didn't stab Gary. I didn't pull the trigger.


INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Well, how did you feel about him being dead by anybody?

INMATE DAVIS: At the time, I thought it was -- I know this sounds cold, but I thought well, that's unfortunate. I mean that was about the level of my emotional response to the worst of the best things. I mean I didn't have much of a -- I was pretty flat. I mean that's to say the least, but I was able to deny its importance. I really didn't care. I mean really.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Did you know that he was going to be killed?

INMATE DAVIS: No. It was -- started out as a robbery.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Somebody had said he had money.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right. They said that he was -- had inherited money. And that was the basis of the robbery.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Was he considered a friend of the family?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I considered him -- he'd always been good to me. I betrayed Gary terribly. But he'd been good to me, and I'd been around him not a lot, but maybe I might have visited him five, six times. I talked to him. I knew he was a music teacher. I knew he had a religious group he was involved in. I knew he wanted to be a civil servant. I know he was talking about an appointment he was going to have, so I knew him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Did the other family members know him?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah. They knew him before I did.


INMATE DAVIS: They introduced me to him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Did they consider him friends?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, yes, I hear what you're saying. I don't know what -- you know, when I think about it, what is a friend now and what I thought was a friend then, it's a lot different.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Well, it just seems odd that nobody -- if money was needed -- that nobody bothered to ask him for it.

INMATE DAVIS: They did ask him.


INMATE DAVIS: That was the whole point. The whole point was we'll go to Gary and ask him for money. We'll ask him to join the family and give up all his worldly wealth.


INMATE DAVIS: That was kind of the way it went.


INMATE DAVIS: And Gary said no. Well, first, here's what I understand was said. Gary says I don't have any money, right.


INMATE DAVIS: They couldn't take no for an answer or wouldn't.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: So perhaps the inheritance was a rumor.

INMATE DAVIS: It was a rumor. We found out -- well, I'd been told later by people of his family or people that knew his family that was a complete -- it was not true at all. It was just something somebody brought out of the -- who knows where -- but at the time was seized upon.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: What about Mr. Shea? Did you know he was going to be killed?

INMATE DAVIS: About five minutes before it happened.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: How did you feel about that?

INMATE DAVIS: I was afraid. I was afraid for my part. I really -- I'm ashamed to say that I didn't really think what was going to happen to him. I was afraid of how -- if I was going to get involved or if I was going to get in trouble for this or that. I was very afraid. I was thinking only of myself.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Yeah. That's consistent with not wanting to be part of the burglaries at night.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, and --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I don't have any other questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You couldn't figure -- were you trying to figure out a way to get yourself, to extricate yourself from this situation at any point?

INMATE DAVIS: I knew I should have. I was afraid. You know when I first committed myself about a year before all this happened, it was kind of like a little process that says -- and Charlie, the girls, I said, well, what we all do is we all just get -- we pool all our wealth and we just give away all this stuff so we're not attached to these physical things and then we're free to be who we are. Well, you know, at that point, it sounded like something for me. So I gave away -- I had a car. I had a trunkful of good clothes. I had sporting equipment. I had jewelry. I had cameras. I had things. I had things that were pretty important to me at the time because I lived my life at that point about -- I thought that I was what I owned. That was my -- kind of how I valued myself. And so when it came to that, I made the step, so I gave the car away. I gave it all away. And so I was all in. And I came to realize what that meant a long time later, but it meant a lot that I had openly invested myself for, you know, a decision I made. So therefore, it was hard to leave. Back to the question, why didn't I leave. I didn't think there was that -- I didn't feel like there was anywhere to go. I felt my experience in County Jail -- before I met Charlie, I had sort of divorced the system, so to speak.


INMATE DAVIS: For ten days.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No. I'm sorry. How long were you in the family?

INMATE DAVIS: From the spring of '68. I was -- we were together until June. I remember the day in June because everybody kind of broke up. I never was very clear exactly why, what.


INMATE DAVIS: No, '68. And I went to Mendocino for a while and I went back to Tennessee. My dad died. I went to Europe for several months. I came back in '69 and I came back to the States, came back to Mobile to see my mom and my aunt told me don't be going to California. You're going to (inaudible). I wouldn't listen, so I went back and I called Charlie, said I'll be at -- I flew on Delta, flew a Delta flight back to LAX and they met me at the airport, and I knew as I was walking down the long hallway out of the plane, I knew don't even stop. When I saw Charlie and Ella in the lobby, this voice -- I had never paid much attention to it, but it was pretty solid, said just keep going. I didn't listen and so when I met them in the, in LAX, I was --


INMATE DAVIS: Spring of '69.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So top to bottom, how long?

INMATE DAVIS: Spring of '68 until I got busted, '70 -- December '70.


INMATE DAVIS: So that's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Give or take when you were out.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, until -- yeah. From the time I met Manson in '68 until I turned myself in December '70.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. Let's go over your risk assessment. You met with Dr. Pritchard, right?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How was the evaluation?



INMATE DAVIS: Didn't seem like it was long. It was -- you know in the beginning he said we're just here to kind of update what's going to happen. He said I'm sort of here to give it a review. I'm not going to change anything. It's just kind of an update.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You just had a hearing. You had your evaluation before that wasn't that long ago, was it? When was your evaluation before?


INMATE DAVIS: I had one in 2011, right?




INMATE DAVIS: In '10, the second one.



DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: 2012 was the second one.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. Two by Thacker, by Dr. Thacker. The first one I guess was --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: 2009. The second one was 2010.



INMATE DAVIS: And then by Pritchard.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, Thacker did one in July 28th, 2010.


INMATE DAVIS: That was the second one.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Right. And then three years later --

INMATE DAVIS: No. I'm sorry. That was the first.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That was the second one.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: All right. I'm not going to go over all the pre-stuff because we've gone over it already. The doctor thought that you had no history of mental health diagnosis or treatment, either in the community or in CDCR. You've been seen by mental health professionals at least 25 occasions with the Board. Dr. Thacker thought you were a low. You told the doctor as far as insight and self-assessment that when you got in trouble you were a dependent person, needed attention and approval. I wasn't my own person. I wanted sex, drugs and rock and roll. I felt entitled to everything, that it was all just for me. I finally turned myself in, so I must have been having second thoughts about my lifestyle. In 1974 the Lord saved me. I lost my taste for drugs and illegal stuff and then had a big awakening about other people. I saw another guy being killed and I worried how his parents would be informed. The remarkable thing about it was to me was that he was a black man and I was not supposed to feel that way because of the racial pressures in prison. I was also standing there. I resisted feeling bad and then I went through a cycle. I didn't care and then I was crying. Then I didn't care and then I was crying. God spoke to me. From then on, my racial bias had diminished, and as a result of being a Christian, I began to care what other people felt. I began to want to do the right thing. And what people felt became important enough for me enough to change my behavior. And then you talked about your motivations. The doctor thought you spoke directly and thoughtfully. It appears that you have spent a good time exploring the dynamics of your thoughts, feelings, and motives and how they held his behavior in the past and how they (inaudible) to direct him in the present and future. He makes a wise observation that he's acting in his own best interest and that interest is best served by giving to, not taking from others. He does not try to rationalize, justify or excuse his previous behavior but simply states that he was thoughtless and immature. In general, Mr. Davis appears to have taken the opportunity in prison to develop relatively comprehensive insight and self-awareness. The doctor thought in your Axis I diagnostic impression that you had a cannabis abuse by prior history, hallucinogenic use by prior history. You have in Axis II, you have a personality disorder NOS, not otherwise specified with narcissistic and anti- social features. Axis III is medical. We're not going to cover that. We talked about the life crime. You talked to the doctor about the life crime. The doctor thought you spoke thoughtfully and with emotion. He's attempting to further elaborate the thoughts, feelings and motives. He presented in the self-assessment that he does not try to rationalize or excuse his behavior. He expresses his remorse openly and without qualification. LS/CMI, the doctor thought you were low for (inaudible). Eleven percent in the Psychopathy Checklist, which is relatively low. In the HCR-20, more concerned about clinical, and the doctor says that you demonstrate no risk, no active risk factors. And he found you to be a low range, to fall in the low range of future violence risk. The doctor thought that you represent a non-elevated risk of violence as compared to other male correctional offenders. He presents with non-significant risk factors. Specialized interventions or risk reduction strategies appear unwarranted. Sounds like a pretty positive report.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it was.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Any comments about the risk assessment?

INMATE DAVIS: I'd never second guess that.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No. I'll quote a little bit from it in my closing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Commissioner Cassady, risk assessment or just do post?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Post-conviction. Okay, sir, we're going to basically review what you've done since your last hearing, not your entire incarceration. I will hit on some of the highlights from earlier in your incarceration. At this point, it indicates that you have a classification score of 28, which I believe is the minimum at this point in time for your life crime. Indicates you've had two disciplinary actions, 115s, one in 1980 and one in 1975, so it's obviously been a considerable amount of time since you've gotten a disciplinary. You had five 128As with the last one being back in '92. Educationally, you've certainly upgraded. You got a high school diploma in 1961, as you discussed with the Commissioner. That was prior to incarceration. Looks like you participated in three semesters at the University of Tennessee prior to incarceration. Since incarceration, you have achieved a master's from Bethany Bible College and a doctorate in religion in 2002. Your last TABE score was 12.9. Indicates that you've participated in welding, drafting and TPC training. What's the TPC training? What is that?



INMATE DAVIS: That has to do with PIA, with the Prison Industry where I work now.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Is it the safety classes that they give?

INMATE DAVIS: There was some safety, troubleshooting.


INMATE DAVIS: Things like that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. They had it under vocation, but -- and that was in 2013. And then there's -- they said troubleshooting telemedia. Were you involved in some kind of telecommunication or --

INMATE DAVIS: No, ma'am. I think that they're saying that those courses are given now by telemedia. They come to the institution that way. They don't give them to us that way, of course.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. I see what you're saying. Okay. Okay. And it indicates that you're presently working in the printing plant. Is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You've been there for quite some time and you get above average to excellent work reports. You have gained skills that apparently they believe that you would be able to use in the community in the print plant. And what skills do you believe you'd be able to use in the community that you've learned there?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'm basically in quality control.


INMATE DAVIS: That's what I've done all the time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And that's -- you're making our DMV stickers?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm inspecting them.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You're inspecting them to make sure that they sparkle?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am, and you can read all the numbers.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Okay. And you've been doing that for a long time.

INMATE DAVIS: Since 2009.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And they do say that you're a great worker and you've had laudatory chronos and certificates of appreciation from PIA for outstanding job performance. Indicates that as far as self-help since the last hearing, you've participated in religious services, and you've also become a facilitator in the Life Awareness program and the AVP program and the Truth Project. The Truth Project is apparently religious videos. Is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And so are you a facilitator or have you just participated in that in watching the videos?

INMATE DAVIS: In the Truth Project?


INMATE DAVIS: No, I was just a student.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You were a student in the Truth Project. Have you had -- done any facilitating as far as the AVP yet?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And how many groups have you had the pleasure of facilitating?

INMATE DAVIS: I've done two groups.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And how has that gone for you?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm learning how to learn.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Yeah. Teaching can teach you more, can't it?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And as far as the Life Awareness program, what's involved in that?

INMATE DAVIS: The Life Awareness program is set up to enable -- well, first it was set up because there had been a rash of suicides in CMC over a couple year period and the Warden asked some people that I know to set up a program to talk to the mainline who were not involved in mental health in C and D Quad, but in A and B Quad about these issues, and so -- there's part of that on depression, dealing with depression, dealing with anger, dealing with substance abuse, relapse control, relapse prevention, family affairs, victim impact, which is the first thing we talk about, faith and how you deal with that. So there's several sections of the program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And also, you've participated in AA. Is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And you continue to participate in AA.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Have you worked the 12 steps?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And what step do you think is most important to you?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the most important step is where it says having had a spiritual awakening because of these steps, that's kind of the -- that's the important part is the result.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: It's been a number of years that you've been incarcerated, and you've never had a 115 for any drugs or alcohol that I saw. Would you continue AA on the outside if you were released?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I plan to.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And there is a relapse prevention plan.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Have you participated in other groups since the last hearing? And I know it wasn't really that long ago -- than the ones I just mentioned?

INMATE DAVIS: I think I was in a PACA, a couple of PACA groups.


INMATE DAVIS: Which were short-term.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I think that was before the last hearing.

INMATE DAVIS: Was it? Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Still in Yokefellows?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I've --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Then of course, you've been -- you've probably taken and during the 80s you probably were lucky enough to participate in the therapy that was offered.

INMATE DAVIS: Tons of it.


INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Maybe more than once. And so you know, we do acknowledge as a Panel that you've had, you know, self-help and therapy, both group therapy and individual therapy through the various programs that were offered here early on.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: But I think since the last --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Are you still in Yokefellows?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'm continuing, as I think you read, that I'm continuing to moderate in a Yokefellow group. It's a weekly peer counseling group. That probably should be in there somewhere.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I think it was and I think your attorney is right. I think I missed it so that you're a Yokefellow counselor. Is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And as I pointed out earlier, that you have a number of laudatory chronos, specifically a certificate of appreciation for your outstanding job performance in 2013 since the last hearing. Is there anything else about programming that you want to offer before we move to the --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Did you have something?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I think that's it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. We're going to move to parole plans now. The 3042 Notices were sent out to the interested parties, and we have various parties here to speak on their behalf, and District Attorney from the County of LA to speak on the behalf of The People of the County of LA. As far as parole plans, it looks like you've given me or your attorney gave me a packet of stuff which indicates that you have two offers of housing. GEO Reentry in San Francisco sent a letter indicating that you could go there and the Francisco Home in Los Angeles. Do you have a preference of which one you would like to go to?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm sort of teetering in there. Either one would be good. The only reason I -- well, one of the reasons I got the northern California, I thought if there's an objection in southern California, I've known people that said we don't want you here, so I said if there's any sort of objection, I would be glad to go to San Francisco.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: In addition, there's a third option, Commissioner. I spoke with Sister Mary Sean about HealthRIGHT 360 and there's supposed to be a letter, but it hasn't gotten here yet.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And that's in southern California.

INMATE DAVIS: Los Angeles, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Do you have acquaintances or community support in both places?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Is there more support in one place or another?

INMATE DAVIS: I probably have more -- I know more people in southern California.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Because these programs do offer, you know, self-help and therapy and job assistance and just kind of daily living assistance, assistance in applying for Social Security and those types of things. So that will be available to you if you go to one of these transitional housing. How long did you spend -- plan to live in transitional housing?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I guess it's kind of the big frame around the picture is as long as I need it. I realize that I'm going to have to have a substantial period of readjustment. It'll be kind of like getting off on another planet, because I realize that even what I think I know about what's going on out there, I really don't. So I've got a lot of -- I've got a lot to learn.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. And then in the packet, there is a lot of support. There's emotional support. There's a support letter from people that are out of state. Mr. Higgins is in Georgia, but he's known you since high school.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And he's retired now. He indicated that he'd give you any support he could from three thousand miles away. There is support from the Wilsons and from Pastor Brown and Reverend Cliff.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You have support from Captain Oshmeyer.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Ashmeyer and a number of these people would offer you their homes if you didn't have a place to go, some of them being out of state. Obviously it's not as likely that it would be right away. You do need the transitional. Then there was a Mr. Griminger.

INMATE DAVIS: Griminger.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Who was a former police officer and firefighter and he offers you any assistance that you should need.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: So it does seem that you have emotional support and financial support and there is a letter from your ex-wife, Beth, indicating that she would lend you any support that you needed, also. Is there any other support that you want --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: There's one from his sister in there, but it just references prior letters.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Yeah, I believe it -- there was one, and of course, you're welcome to go back there if you could get out of state. Would that be -- would you like that, to go back with your sister?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm -- yes, yes. I guess to answer plain -- yes. I don't really -- I haven't really thought about it that far. I'm glad that she made the offer. That made me feel good all by itself.


INMATE DAVIS: And so I know it's an alternative and so that would -- it would be a good thing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Are you in touch with your daughter?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, yes. She's kind of having a problem with me because of the divorce, but she's not --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: She's having a problem with you because of the divorce?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, yeah, because she's lived with her mom all this time.


INMATE DAVIS: And so she -- I write to her. I support her. I send her money every month.




INMATE DAVIS: So she's in Australia now. She's a missionary training.


INMATE DAVIS: So I write to her and so she writes and says thanks and she -- it's kind of distant.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. Okay. Okay. And then we also have as a response to the 3041 (sic) Notices. We have opposition letters and I believe there's 18 to 20 of them, and they basically -- they're from Ms. -- and I might not pronounce the names right -- Eitoff, Hutchinson, Padarino, Stark, Mr. Holman, Kirsty, Welsh, LaGringe, Howard, Ashley, Griffiths, Malnour, Revok, Elliott, Simons, Pless, Padgett, Church, Lawrence, Jay and Whittaker, and they're from various parts of the country, primarily North Carolina, it looks like. There's one from Germany and one from France and they're emails and they all oppose parole indicating that you will not be a productive member of society if released to the community. They are asking that your parole be denied, that you serve your life sentence and that they don't believe you take full responsibility nor feel remorse for the crimes that were committed. Is there anything that you'd like to say about the opposition letters?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Is there any indication that these people actually know --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah. I don't think any of these people know Mr. Davis or have ever met him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, I don't believe there's any indication that they've ever met him.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And then again, the County will speak on its own behalf. And then we also do have a relapse prevention plan that you put together, and it indicates that you will continue your AA, that you have a relapse prevention network of individuals where you will seek help and pay attention to their advice. That you do have a place of residence where you will be able to get self-help, continued self-help therapy, job assistance. You have a support group which includes your parole officer, Sister Mary Sean Hodges, your attorney, Pastor James Cliff and your sister, Julie Ward, and you understand your triggers for satisfaction, which is what led to the commitment offense and which ones are false needs and how to deal with that. So you've done a good job as far as -- oh, here's your -- okay. And you also have a letter from another inmate that feels that you contributed to saving his life, basically by listening to him and being there for him and talking him out of a really bad idea. So you're to be commended for that, also. Is there anything else that you'd like to offer the Panel or something I'm missing that you feel is significant?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: At the last hearing we submitted those documents along with a five-page document entitled my role and responsibility in the crimes.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: A remorse letter he wrote to the family of Mr. Shea and a remorse letter he wrote to the family of Mr. Hinman, and then there was a two-page document we submitted. One was a letter from a woman named Renee Riley and we're not submitting that to indicate that she's a family member. We're just submitting it because of the response that Mr. Davis wrote to her.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Right. There is a letter -- right.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. Because he believed that she was at the time.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: So they were all marked at the last hearing. I don't know if you need to remark them again. They should be appended to the last hearing transcript.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. We'll leave them marked. Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I'll return to the Chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thanks. We did not go through the Life Prisoner Parole Consideration Hearing Checklist. Thank you, Mr. Beckman. I marked it Exhibit 1 if you could make sure that we -- you have all those documents and you'll get it to LA. That's all right. I can do it. Thank you. Mr. Montagna, you have any clarifying questions for the Panel?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: I wonder if I -- it would be inappropriate to ask for a brief recess.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It would not be inappropriate. Let's take five.


(Off the record.)


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Mr. Montagna, do you have any clarifying questions for the Panel?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Actually, I have quite a few. First thing I did want to clarify that letter last year from Renee Riley where she indicates she I believe was the nearest relative of Gary Hinman. That was done at her own volition. Nobody solicited. It is a false statement. She admits it. Her husband or father and so forth got involved in some sort of a website, so there's nothing to -- absolutely nothing to implicate even Mr. Davis or Mr. Beckman in that false statement.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. The first question I had was back in 1972, there's a report from a Dr. Stafford, a medical doctor, when the inmate was describing how he first got involved with the Manson family. His description -- and I'm quoting -- it was quite interesting. He claimed he was quite accidental and that he happened to meet another person who told him that he was going to "cross-cut saw a person," and invited Davis to come along with him and that's how he ended up meeting Davis. My question. What did he understand by this cross-cutting another person? What did that mean to Mr. Davis?


INMATE DAVIS: The gentleman that I was with that introduced me to Charlie had borrowed a cross-cut saw from Charlie and he was cutting wood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So it had nothing to do with anybody getting cut?

INMATE DAVIS: No, no, no. And so he said I'm going to take this saw back up to this guy, you want to come along. It was a cross-cut saw, but it wasn't about anybody being hurt or anything. We were sawing wood and that's what the saw had been used for.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: So the "cross-cut saw person" the person part would be incorrect?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He said -- he just testified just now that that -- he was returning a cross-cut saw back, a tool back to Charlie. Is that right?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. The next question I had. With respect to this gun that you purchased, you purchased it under a fictitious name?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: There's only one gun referred to in the testimony. He stated he purchased a 9 millimeter gun.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. So the question was?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Did he purchase it under a fictitious name?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you purchase a 9 millimeter under a fictitious name?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. And that was the basis of the federal sentence I received for buying a gun under a fictitious name.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: A felony? What year was this? What year was this?


INMATE DAVIS: I purchased the gun in '69.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. So we're talking about a felony in 1969?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. And did he have to obtain false identification in order to get that gun?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You know, I just got to -- where are we going? I'm not going to prosecute a gun crime from 1969 in this area.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: I understand that. In the last hearing, this was brought up by Commissioner Ferguson.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And I think it is highly relevant because the same gun was used in the Hinman case. His statement was that he bought it for target shooting. He was pressed by Commissioner Ferguson, well, why did you use a fictitious name.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: If you're buying a gun for target shooting and that's what I'm trying to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay, okay. Can you respond to that?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah. I bought it -- I got it -- first, I got a fictitious driver's license.


INMATE DAVIS: Right, because I didn't want -- I wanted my life to change. It was sort of taking on a new person. Now pretty -- not very well thought out or any of that, but that's why I did it. And then I subsequently bought a pistol.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why did you buy the pistol?

INMATE DAVIS: Say again?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Why did you buy the pistol?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, there were several -- several of the guys had pistols and we were shooting them and playing guns, basically. Nobody had been robbed with one and certainly wasn't any talk of shooting somebody. Well, always the possibility, of course, for self-defense.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Did the inmate understand -- nothing illegal about target shooting with a gun?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You know he answered the question. If you want to use that in your close, I certainly will be happy to hear it, but I don't -- I mean what else do you want clarified about that?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: I'll cover it in my closing. All right. The next question. The inmate indicated he was jailed for ten days and released. He has admitted that he has used marijuana repeatedly, apparently had not been caught or he'd never been prosecuted. With respect to the ten-day one, were charges filed against him and then later dismissed?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were charges filed against you and later dismissed?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, they were.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: What charges were filed against you?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm trying to remember exactly, but it was something about possession of marijuana.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. And what were the circumstances under which you were arrested? What was the probable cause?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, this -- I'm going to instruct him not to answer. There's no relevance here. I mean he was not convicted of anything.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, let me try it a different way just because it covers prior criminality. It covers a situation that may be relevant. So let me try it this way. Mr. Davis, do you recall the charges that were filed with you in -- what year was that that happened?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you recall the charges that you were -- do you recall the arrest in 1968?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Where were you arrested?

INMATE DAVIS: I was arrested at a store, in fact, a liquor store -- a parking lot of the liquor store in Malibu.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. And did they search you or how did they come to the conclusion that you had drugs, that you had marijuana?

INMATE DAVIS: They said they found some.


INMATE DAVIS: Well, in the car, on me. They really didn't say where, but they said you're charged with possession.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: They found marijuana out --

INMATE DAVIS: Somewhere, on me or my car.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And so then they arrested you.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: They put you in County Jail.




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And then they released you.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And they did not file charges.

INMATE DAVIS: No. Well, they filed charges enough to take me to court.


INMATE DAVIS: And when they took me to court, the judge said no reason for this, so they dropped the charges.


INMATE DAVIS: No conviction.


INMATE DAVIS: Dismissed.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: All right. Here's my point. You've indicated that that incident was a turning point in your life, a transformative experience and you became very, very angry at the justice system and it turned your whole life around. My question is given the fact that you were involved with marijuana and not been put in jail for anything other than this incident -- and in this incident, I realize that you believed that you were innocent. Why did you feel there was such a grave injustice that would turn your whole life around?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think he responded to that, but --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I do, too, so --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: It's more of an asked and answered.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I did ask him that question and he did cover it. What would it clarify?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He felt like it was unjust. He felt that he was a law-abiding citizen, kind of before -- not really law-abiding. That's my word. But he felt like he was a working guy that was just going to work every day. He felt that he had an injustice and that led him to go to a different direction. Am I -- did I articulate that appropriately?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You got to remember to ask me. These are Panel questions.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You can't ask him. That's cross. You're crossing.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. Doesn't it seem incongruous -- I'm asking you to ask him, doesn't it seem incongruous that this type of event, given that you've skated for so long and you've just spent ten days would transform your whole life? Unless you feel it's argumentative. I don't know.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, I think he answered the question.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I don't know what you -- yeah. Is there -- if there's a question, I'll be happy to clarify if you wanted clarification.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. Now, you state with the Hinman case you were there for the planning. You were intending to involve yourself in a robbery. Then you also provide the gun to Beausoleil that he took to the robbery? I don't think that's --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's already been established.


INMATE DAVIS: That's what I said.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Beausoleil wasn't mentioned, but that's what --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And you drove the people to the location that night and they entered?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Asked and answered. He said yes.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And then you came back two days later?



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And that was because Manson asked you to drive him back because things weren't going right?


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You have to answer out loud.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, he -- the Commissioner hasn't asked him.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: What did you understand by --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah. It's just the form, just form the way you're asking these questions that I'm -- let's clear the room for a minute. I want the attorneys left in the room for a minute. You can stay.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Hold on. We're going to take a break.


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You want on or off record?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Excuse us for just a minute.

(Off the record.)


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Montagna. Do you have any clarifying questions for the Panel?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Yes. Did the inmate go back to the inmate residence with Charles Manson? Did he drive him back approximately two days after first dropping Beausoleil on the other people there?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Do you understand the question?

INMATE DAVIS: Did I -- the second time -- drive Manson back to the Hinman residence?



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And did the inmate, when he was at the Hinman residence, see that Hinman had bruises and so forth and had been beaten?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you know that he'd been beaten?


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you see any physical evidence that he was beaten, like bruises?

INMATE DAVIS: They said he'd been beaten up.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You saw bruises, though, right?

INMATE DAVIS: There was a bandage.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So you had a pretty good idea?

INMATE DAVIS: No. I knew something had happened to him.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And did the inmate get the gun back from Bobby Beausoleil?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: In that specific case or is --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: When he was there at the -- when he came back with Manson.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you get the gun back?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: All right. And was Hinman pleading for mercy? I'm asking the question, did the inmate hear Hinman pleading for mercy?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you hear the inmate (sic) pleading for mercy?

INMATE DAVIS: He was saying -- yeah, okay. The overall content was that he said hey, I need help here. I'm not -- I don't have anything you want. I can't do it. I don't have any money. Stop this. That sort of --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you take it as he was pleading for mercy?


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Did you point or did the inmate point the gun at Hinman in a threatening manner?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's already --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: When Manson cut off his -- part of his ear down to his chin?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's already testified that he did in multiple hearings.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Did the inmate do anything as far as trying to secure medical aid for the -- for Mr. Hinman?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He said he did not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I think you responded to that, but I don't think he did. Did you try to get him help?

INMATE DAVIS: No. Nothing.



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Did the inmate leave in one of Hinman's cars?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you leave in one of Hinman's cars?

INMATE DAVIS: As I just said --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He testified to that before that he took Hinman's car.

INMATE DAVIS: When I left, I took one of Gary's cars.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And had Hinman been forced, to the inmate's knowledge, had he been forced to sign over the pink slip to that car?


INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I believe so.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Were you there when that happened or did you hear about it?

INMATE DAVIS: I was probably there. I don't remember it happening happening, but I know it did happen, maybe before it got there or sometime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Yeah, sometime. You knew it happened, but you --

INMATE DAVIS: I knew it had happened.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: While you were in -- when the inmate was in the Hinman house, how long did you stay there?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: How long were you there when that was going on?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Is that with the first time or the second time?

INMATE DAVIS: Second time. Ten minutes, 15 minutes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: During that time, did you hear or make threats to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You're asking a direct question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. Question, Mr. Commissioner, did the -- while the inmate was there, did he hear threats being made to Mr. Hinman?


INMATE DAVIS: No, I did not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. After the Hinman killing, you heard about the Tate-LaBianca killings. Would that -- strike that. After the inmate left the Hinman house, my question, Mr. Commissioner, did the inmate hear about the Tate-LaBianca killings?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you hear about that after the --

INMATE DAVIS: After it happened? Absolutely.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: All right. And at the time of the -- going over to the Shorty Shea killing, did you hear Mr. -- did the inmate hear Mr. Shea screaming and pleading for mercy?


INMATE DAVIS: He was not screaming. It was not screaming at all. He did say why are you doing this. That's what I heard.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: And he was repeatedly being -- was the inmate being repeatedly stabbed?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The inmate wasn't stabbed.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He said was the inmate being repeatedly stabbed.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Are you talking about Mr. Shea being repeatedly stabbed?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: I'm sorry. Yes, Mr. Shea. I beg your pardon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He testified that he was and then he testified that he did stab Mr. Shea in the shoulder. Is that correct?


INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I -- that's -- I --


INMATE DAVIS: Yes. Absolutely.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Now after -- you had a -- my question. Did the inmate have a Nazi insignia carved into his forehead?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Did you have a Nazi insignia put in your forehead? I don't see one.

MS. HOYT: Yes, he did. Sorry.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: The question -- I'm asking.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. But would you please --


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Ms. Hoyt just interrupted.


MS. HOYT: I'm sorry.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I absolutely see that she realizes she did not mean to do that, and it's okay. We just have to be careful what we say.

INMATE DAVIS: Here's what I -- no. I didn't have a Nazi symbol. I did have an X, very -- not really -- you can't really see the scar. That's how superficial it was, but it was visible.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, why did you do that?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, that was sort of a symbol of like when Malcolm X took on the X, like I'm not part of this no more, well, that was kind of the X symbol that some of the people in the family did. Everybody --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You're not part of what anymore?

INMATE DAVIS: The establishment.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Okay. Okay. So when did you get the X on your forehead?

INMATE DAVIS: After I came -- after I surrendered in County Jail, 1970.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: In 1970. Okay. Is that what your question was?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: The question was whether he -- yes. That answers the question. When you were -- going back when you were in the Hinman house, did you see the bloody writing on the wall and the bloody -- or did the inmate see the bloody writing on the wall and the bloody paw print?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, this is retrying the case. He's admitted to everything. I don't see any point to this, so I'm going to instruct him not to answer any more questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Let me ask you a question. How much longer are we going to go into the -- how many more questions you have regarding the specifics of the case?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Of the two cases, the two murders?



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Because I'm going to have to shut -- pretty soon we're going to get to the point where we're -- I'm going to sustain his objection because he is exactly right that we are retrying this case. So but I will travel with you a little farther, but if we're going to travel this path too much longer, I'm going to say -- I'm going to sustain his objection and we're going to move on to his questions -- unless you can show cause that this is not retrying the case.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: I certainly do not intend to retry the case and I will accede to whatever the Commissioner requests.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, I'm just saying that --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: A lot of it can be reserved for final argument.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Well, I just wonder where are we -- I'm trying to work with you. I'm trying to work with Los Angeles County right now. I understand where we're going, but I will tell you right now, Bruce Davis has been convicted of this -- of these murders.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. So I mean if we're going to go down to the specifics, what hand did he have the knife in, I just don't know where we're traveling. If you can help me where you're traveling, maybe I can help you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Well, I can say this. These killings were heinous.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: That is something that I feel needs to be developed, maybe not during questioning, but in argument and that I do expect to spend time on that for a number of reasons.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Your close is certainly your opportunity.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. I do have some other questions going beyond that.


DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: The inmate has stated at different times there were transformative events in his life. The inmate stated when he was arrested and that seemed to turn him around into say being a bad guy and then in various past hearings in the transcripts, in '72 he claimed to have a transformative experience while in Folsom that he quit drinking. In 1980 another one. Sometimes the words epiphany has been used, but I think it's been more clearly stated it's an evolutionary process. Then again in 1980 and again in 2008. Okay. This question I have now is does the inmate feel that he's still evolving?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's a good question. Are you still evolving? Are you still having epiphany moments?

INMATE DAVIS: Hopefully, yes, I am.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Okay. Do -- I have no other questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Mr. Beckman, do you have any questions for your client?



DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY MONTAGNA: Yes. We start with the basic premise defined in Lawrence. The question is we want to -- a current threat to public safety is the guideline as to whether or not an inmate should be given a release date. And Lawrence makes it very clear that certain crimes, the circumstances surrounding certain crimes are so grave, are so outrageous that they, in and of themselves, provide the basis for current dangerousness. And it is my position and the position of our office that this crime, this series of crimes meet that criteria. That was the position of Governor Schwarzenegger when he reversed the earlier decision. Habeas corpus was taken. The trial court agreed with the defense and the Court of Appeal reversed that. And with the last hearing, 2012, once again, he was given a date and the Governor exercising the power that he has under the constitution, under the laws of the State of California, once again found -- reversed the decision of the Board of Parole Hearings and one of the main points he made -- and he makes it very, very clearly -- that this is such a case. It is so heinous, it is so shocking to the public, to public morality, that that in and of itself provides a basis for current dangerousness. Now we don't stop there, but that in itself is enough to deny this inmate a release date at this time and that is one main position I take. And the second one is basically that he is still evolving, and I don't deny that progress has been made while he's been in prison. He's done a lot of good things, but that he is still evolving, that he is not yet at that point where one can say he's there. And I'd like to go into detail to some extent on the Hinman killing. And once again, you know, some of the law gets into it. He was convicted not only of murder, two murders, but of conspiracy to commit murder. A conspiracy involves a preexisting agreement, multiple people involved. I constantly have used this argument in jury trials. You go back to this Julius Caesar, the statement when Caesar was killed, the board or whatever, the congress got together the council and they agreed that he would be killed and they all had their separate roles and they meet him on the council floor and they stab him. Many, many people stab him. The inmate has very early in the game said I didn't kill anybody. I didn't kill anybody. He thought he was not guilty, and apparently over the years, he's evolved into acknowledging that he is guilty, certainly legally. He never thought he was morally guilty of murder because he didn't plunge the actual knife into Hinman's heart, that maybe his wound to Shea was a fatal wound. But his participation was active, very, very active and very, very substantial, major in the killing of Shorty Shea. And to go back to Hinman, it's hard to imagine that you go there -- why would he get a gun under a fictitious name for target shooting? Why would he go to the trouble? I think the name was McMillan. He gets a false license, a false ID or whatever it takes and go buys a gun. You don't have to have a false ID to buy a gun to go target shooting. He did it, obviously, for some sort of criminal endeavor and he got involved with this group, a racial group that wanted to start a racial war, blacks against white. He used the word helter skelter or whatever, blacks against white, a racial war where the blacks would overcome the whites and then because the blacks couldn't govern, apparently the Hinman or the Manson family would take over and become the rulers. It was a criminal enterprise. It was bent on violence and he's acknowledged in past hearings he may not have known it at the time of the Hinman killing, but he got involved in that. He had the mark on the forehead and whatever. He was a party to that, even when he was in prison. In Folsom he was associated with the Nazi party there. Why? It's a white supremacy group. He says he got in it for sex and drugs. Where is the sex in state prison? He was a party to it, whatever his mental processes were. Why does somebody who has been involved in marijuana and so forth, arrested on probable cause and doing a few days in jail, why does he turn into suddenly a criminal? What is -- goes on in somebody's mind like that? They're a dangerous person. His involvement in the Hinman murder, he goes there to be a robbery-extortion. They're going to try to get whatever money or whatever he has. A robbery would involve taking it from the immediate person or his immediate presence. Extortion would be to get him to turn stuff over, but this turned out to be both, I guess, taking it. He goes there. That's the intention. Why give a man a gun unless he expects violence? When he went back, he knew the gun had been fired. He saw the man had been beaten, tortured. He points the gun at him while Manson hacks his ear down to his chin. Apparently they tried to sew up his ear or whatever afterwards and put him in bed, tried to -- nursing to him, but Beausoleil runs a knife through his heart. But when they go back, he takes away one of the cars. He's a party to a murder, a substantial player, not a minor technical guilty person. He is there. He is a party to it. He is guilty. There's no question about that. That is not, like I say, an incidental guilt, an aider, a technical aider and abettor. He is a real involved participant in that, much, much more so in the Shea murder. We get to the Shea murder and he's -- the testimony given at trial by Barbara Hoyt, who is here, by another lady, Ruby Pearl, I believe her name was, that Manson, Shea -- or I'm sorry -- there's so many people involved -- Manson, Grogan, the inmate and one or two other people, they surround Shorty Shea. It was in the evening, the nighttime, and Barbara Hoyt saw this also, and she hears a -- blood-curdling screams on and on, time after time that evening. What does that imply? He had nine hack wounds to his head. He had multiple stab wounds in his body. They were shown by the cuts on the ribs and so forth. It's a torture- murder. Why was he killed? The transcripts clearly indicate he was understood to be an informant -- an informant on what? We have the Tate-LaBianca murders were black piggy and bloody paw prints trying to blame things on the blacks to start a race war. It sounds insane. It sounds very, very insane, but these people bought into this cult. What type of a mind buys into something like that? He was a fugitive for well -- just about a year after this. He never surrendered himself. If he felt he was not guilty of anything, why was he running away for? In the hearings, in his time in prison, I think the one thing any Panel would expect, that I believe I would expect if I were a Commissioner, I would expect complete honesty on the part of the inmate as he testifies under oath before you. He states he -- inmate states at various times, he's converted to Christianity. He stated at one time he deserved death because of the Bible, a life for a life, a tooth for a tooth, but yet he hasn't been truthful with the Panel. He's minimized, if you want to use that word, but actually, he's been untruthful. It wasn't until 2012, his last hearing, that for the very, very first time, he admits that he held a gun while Davis -- I'm sorry -- while admits Davis -- admits the inmate held a gun on Hinman while the air was hacked when he clearly stated that. For the very, very first time, he mentions the name of a Larry Jones, who supposedly was witnessing this. He's admitted in the past at hearings, he's refused to name accomplices in the hearing because he wanted to -- didn't want to affect their possible appeals. Now why is this important? This Larry Jones, if he'd been revealed in the very beginning, maybe he can answer so many of the unanswered questions in this case. Maybe he could have prevented some sort of a crime happening in the future. Squeaky Fromme was a member of the Manson family. The same Squeaky Fromme attempted to assassinate President Ford. The people with the emblem on their mind, on their heads, the cross or swastika, whatever it's supposed to be, a symbol of white supremacy. This is a heinous crime. The dictionary defines it as excessively evil, shockingly evil, and you take the whole package, what's behind the Manson family, what is their cult. It's excessively evil and he is a material part of it. This type of crime in and of itself reflects current dangerousness. The inmate's participation was very, very substantial in these crimes and in this cult. His in-prison behavior, he's been in a long time. I grant you that. And I would be the last person to say that he should never get a parole date. I'm not going to say that personally, but I would say his time has not yet come, that he has considerable grounds more to go. He has to be totally truthful with this Panel and with other Panels in coming out with everything that he's done and everything that he knows. He lied at the last Panel. His counsel said the DA talked a lot about minimization and of -- on the part of the inmate. The District Attorney talked about that. And Mr. Beckman in his response said his client had not minimized. Davis himself in that last hearing in his statement to the Panel, he says I have minimized. My interpretation -- I have lied. It's obvious, he says. Those are his words. It's obvious. I have minimized. I did protect this Larry Jones. He was a young kid and so forth or whatever. I would expect something far more than that in the way of honesty and truthfulness, complete opening up. This Panel I'm sure has seen inmates who in response to the Panel's questions about have you done any other crimes in your life and they will tell things that are not on the rap sheet, serious crimes, armed robberies. They do it tearfully. They come out. They admit it. And you know their statements are heartfelt and they do feel the remorse and the responsibility for the lives they've led and they have truly reformed. Has this inmate done that? He's a very intelligent man. He's been diagnosed in the past as having psychopathic tendencies. Maybe they've diminished over the years. He's had grandiosity, narcissism. I don't hear any grave remorse or grave acceptance of responsibility. We almost hear I didn't do it, I wasn't -- he's looking at himself. I wasn't the actual killer. But if you're truly a Christian and you look at yourself and you look within yourself, yes, yes, I am as equally guilty as all of them. Yes, I haven't done everything I should have done. I can do much more to prove to the Panel that I am a man worthy to go out and not be a danger to society. So on both grounds, I urge the Panel to deny him at this time. At the last hearing, Mr. Beckman made the statement -- and I'm quoting -- "a dog and pony show ersatz victims" -- referring to the people who are here today speaking before the Panel, pulled out of the woodwork. I think that is demeaning and insulting to these people who have come here. They have never been paid a penny for coming here. They come here out of a desire, their heartfelt feelings to see what -- that justice is done in this case and that they say what they feel and to put their views before the Board. They have that statutory right and they are not a trick show. They are not ersatz victims. They are true victims. Debra Tate is a sister of (inaudible) of the victim in the Tate-LaBianca murders, one of the victims. We have the -- a true relative of the Hinman here. We have one of the witnesses in the case who is also a victim as her life was threatened and she put her life on the limb to go into court and to testify these people and that is the testimony -- Barbara Hoyt's testimony and the other -- Ruby Pearl was the basis for convicting a number of these people in their trials. They got the death penalty because the death penalty was in effect. Then through a gift of the California Supreme Court, the death penalty was abolished for all people that had gotten it prior to that date. It was abolished during the trial of the inmate Davis. Today the only punishment for crimes such as these would be death or life without parole. He got the break of a lifetime. I would submit to the Panel that he does pose a current danger. That this is one of those crimes where it shocks the human conscience. That is one of those cases -- they may be rare -- for the crime itself poses a danger -- makes the inmate -- provides proof of current dangerousness. And the second aspect is he has much more to do, in my opinion, before he can really come to the ford and say I'm a different man. He's been 28, 29 times, but his own statement, yes, I have been -- I have minimized my involvement, it's obvious. I submit it to the Panel.


ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Thank you, Commissioner. Here we are again. Despite the fact that on January 28th, 2010, and again on October 4th, 2012, the Board ignored political considerations and with tremendous moral courage obeyed the law and found Bruce Davis suitable for parole at his thirtieth and thirty-first subsequent parole -- twenty-ninth and thirtieth subsequent parole hearings. Political considerations alone force us again to have to plead for that which should be a given, a finding that Bruce Davis has rehabilitated himself and again should be found suitable for parole. Rather than reiterate all the reasons why he's suitable, I'm going to incorporate by reference my closing arguments from the 2010 and 2012 hearings, and instead I'm going to focus on rebutting the purported reasons the Governor gave for reversing his grant in 2012 and discuss how he's continued his exemplary programming since the last hearing. The first ground the Governor gave was the crime was especially heinous. Well, we can see the crimes were heinous. We don't concede that crimes committed 44 years ago by themselves provide a nexus to current dangerousness, and moreover, because Mr. Davis' conduct did not aggravate those crimes, to use them to deny him parole is prohibited because it would result in the use of the same suitability determination criteria for all participants in a crime. The California Supreme Court in In Re Rodriguez back in 1975 prohibited this and stated that determination of parole must be made and based on an inmate's individual culpability for the crime to make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime. The measure of the constitutionality of punishment for crime is individual culpability and that's well established in this state. Mr. Davis was found guilty of the Hinman murder because he aided and abetted in the killing. The overt actions upon which he was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder included driving Manson to the Hinman home, entering the residence, holding a gun while Mr. Hinman was knifed, and driving away in the victim's car. He was not the killer. In the Shorty Shea murder, Mr. Davis was convicted because he was there and stabbed Mr. Shea one time with a knife after refusing to -- Manson's order to cut off his head with a machete. He takes responsibility as if he did all of it. He takes responsibility for Tate-LaBianca, even though he had nothing to do with it because he believes his presence in the family allowed other people to do that. Okay. There's someone else in this room today who was a member of that family and who was there at the same time who has never taken that kind of responsibility for what happened ever.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Let's be careful. Stick to the statements. They're here visiting (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Steve Grogan, the actual killer of Shorty Shea, was paroled 30 years ago because he knew where the body was buried and he could cut a deal. Mr. Davis didn't know where he was buried and couldn't cut that deal. But it's hardly fair and just that he is still in prison while the actual killer has been free for nearly three decades when his bargaining chip was that he killed the guy and could show him where the body was. That's not justice. And for the record, Mr. Grogan, by all accounts, has been a law-abiding, peaceful citizen for the last 30 years. The Governor said that -- and the DA again today parrots it -- that Mr. Davis has consistently minimized his role in these crimes and the family's activities. Well, this may well have been true in the past, but it has not been true since the 2010 hearing, and actually really since the 2009 psychological evaluation. This is what Commissioner Ferguson said at the 2012 hearing. "You did not minimize today and I do note that your version has changed and is evidence of untruthfulness and does create a credibility concern. However, as far as I could tell that the evidence does support what you did say about the crime today and I do want to note that your recent history at some of your more recent parole suitability hearings chose not to discuss the commitment offense and you did show courage today by discussing the commitment offense, and that's important because one of your character defects at the time of the commitment offense was one that you even talked about yourself which was cowardice, and it does take courage to talk about the things that you've done in the past and addressed them and speak to them and answer openly about what you've done." The last three psychological evaluators find that he takes full responsibility for this crime, for everything, for more than he's committed. So the DA's and the Governor's statements that he does not -- they're just words. And that's why opinion is not evidence of unsuitability. The 2013 psychological evaluation, the most recent evaluation discusses "he speaks openly and accepts responsibility for his behavior. He does not minimize, deflect from or deny his participation. He has spoken about the offense at great length over the years and has expressed increasing understanding and acceptance of his responsibility and participation. He speaks thoughtfully and with emotion. He's attempting to further elaborate the thoughts, feelings and motives he presented in the self-assessment above. He does not try to rationalize or excuse his behavior. He expresses his remorse openly and without qualification." Nothing that Mr. Davis ever says or does will satisfy the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office -- ever. As far as they're concerned, he killed President Lincoln, he sunk the Lusitania, he started World War II. It doesn't matter. He could admit all of that. He could admit he was a participant in the conspiracy to kill Julius Caesar. It still wouldn't be enough. It's not justice at this point. It's vengeance. So you have to take what they say with that grain of salt. What does the Governor think Mr. Davis is still minimizing? What does the DA think? He doesn't say anything. There's nothing. He doesn't say because he can't point to anything in these crimes that Mr. Davis is currently minimizing. If you read the five-page document that he wrote before the 2010 hearing or the 2009 psych evaluation, he takes full responsibility for all of it. The Governor states that Mr. Davis continues to minimize the extent of his involvement and leadership within the family. What does that mean? He's talked about everything that he's done with the family -- everything. Does the Governor want to believe that there are more murders that were committed by the Manson family? He's entitled to that opinion. There's been no proof of it ever and no proof that Mr. Davis had anything to do with anything other than what he was charged with. So what is it? The problem is that they're just speculations. He doesn't offer any facts to support his claim of minimizing. Neither does the DA today. And the reason is because there aren't any. At least not since 2009. That's why the courts have consistently held that the Governor or the District Attorney's opinion that an inmate lacks insight or doesn't take full responsibility is not evidence of it. Look at the Dannenberg case in 2009. And they further held that the Board's refusal to accept evidence showing that the inmate accepts responsibility and has insight is not a rational or sufficient basis upon which to conclude that he lacks insight or responsibility, let alone that he's currently dangerous. That was most recently held in 2012 in the Denham case, D-E-N-H-A-M. Since the Governor first reversed his grant in 2010, Mr. Davis has continued to dig deep inside himself and his insight has evolved. He answered that question, do you think you're evolving -- of course. That's why the California Supreme Court has held that insight and responsibility are not static factors. They constantly evolve. And so long as the evidence of the current insight and responsibility is not insubstantial or unreliable, we'd be acting arbitrarily and capriciously to dismiss it. And that's the Shaputis case in 2011. He wants Mr. Davis to testify about other alleged activities of the Manson family, okay. The backdrop is that at the time of Mr. Davis' last hearing, the infamous Tex Watson tapes surfaced in a Texas bankruptcy court, right. Motions were made and eventually the LAPD was given access -- and the District Attorney was given access to those tapes. Do you think for one minute if there was anything on those tapes that implicated Mr. Davis that he wouldn't be charged? That they wouldn't be put in front of you today to show that he's a liar? There's nothing -- nothing. He's guilty of these two crimes. The District Attorney had the nerve today to say that my client doesn't take moral guilt. He takes moral guilt for every damn act of the Manson family -- every single one. The decisions by both the prior two Governors and the District Attorneys arguing against parole take no note of anything that Mr. Davis has said or written about these crimes since 2009 or about the state psychologists' determinations -- low, low, low, and that he has more than adequate insight into his past behavior and complete acceptance of responsibility. We didn't read through the 2009 or the 2010 evaluations today. There's no need to do that. But please look at what Dr. Thacker said in both of them about Mr. Davis' insight, responsibility, and remorse. Since the reversal in 2012, Mr. Davis was evaluated -- excuse me -- actually, I think it was in 2013 -- was evaluated by another state expert and again found to be a low risk of violence. The doctor determined that Mr. Davis has full and genuine responsibility, insight and remorse. He reiterated past evaluators' Axis II diagnosis of personality disorder NOS. He made it clear, if you look at the footnote on page 9, that Mr. Davis "presents little of the characteristics of a personality disorder in the present and while in prison." The most important part, the HCR-20 clinical, no active risk factors. In conclusion, the doctor stated that Mr. Davis poses a low risk of violence, and explaining why, the doctor also demonstrates why there's no nexus between the nearly 45- year-old life crime and Mr. Davis' current dangerousness. And he says on page 13, Mr. Davis is a 71-year-old man who participated in two violent murders in early adulthood when he was a member of an anti- social, hedonistic and violent cult. He has no other significant criminal history outside of this association. While incarcerated, he has taken the opportunity to improve his knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and beliefs. He has used these areas of improvement to develop a meaningful and self-correcting insight and self-awareness. At this time, there seems little more he can do to further reduce his risk beyond just continuing to age. The LA DA wants him to age into a coffin before he's allowed to go home. That's not the law. Despite the bitter pill of having his freedom snatched away from him twice, he's continued to program well. He's worked hard to improve his insight, responsibility and remorse for the crime. He's obtained transitional housing in two parts of the state to ease the transition back to society, and he's put together an excellent relapse prevention plan. He's continued his excellent work in the PIA specialty print plant and his volunteer work in the Protestant Chapel, with Yokefellows, Alternatives to Violence, and other classes. He's remained disciplinary-free, of course. His age and failing health are factors favoring suitability. At this age, the probability of recidivism is reduced to the point of being statistically insignificant. I'm not going to read from the Stoneroad case. It talks about all these things. But the concerns expressed by the Stoneroad court do apply to Mr. Davis and they were addressed head-on by the three- judge panel recently in Coleman/Plata v. Brown. In its order dated February 10th, 2014, the court ordered in accordance with two of the steps that CDCR agreed it would take if the court granted it a two-year extension of time to comply with the population cap, CDCR is to implement immediately several measures, including one, finalize and implement a new parole process whereby inmates who are 60 years of age or older and have served a minimum of 25 years of their sentence will be referred to the Board of Parole Hearings to determine suitability for parole. Two, in consultation with -- well, he's not medically incapacitated, so I'm not going to talk about that one. But he's 71 years old and he's served 42-plus years of his sentence. It would make little sense not to consider this factor at this hearing and have Mr. Davis given a new hearing under that new regulation that's going to be implemented. He's now served 42-plus years of a seven to life sentence, a term that extends well beyond the matrix for these crimes for the actual killers. As held by the California Supreme Court in In Re Dannenberg in 2005, "no prisoner can be held for a period grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability for the commitment offense. Such excessive confinement violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, thus we acknowledge that Section 3041(a) cannot authorize such an inmate's retention even for reasons of public safety beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement." I submit that the 42-plus years Mr. Davis has served places him beyond this constitutional maximum given his culpability for the crimes and he must be freed. The best description of the kind of man Mr. Davis has become and why he is no longer dangerous, but will be a positive force in society if freed, is found in the declaration submitted by inmate Richard Kelly. I read it in entirety into the record last time. I won't do that now -- read it. This man was going to go kill another inmate over a dispute. Bruce came to him and he talked him out of it. And this is a guy who didn't believe in God, Christ, Buddha, anybody, and Bruce talked him out of it. That's who he is today. We recognize the courage it will take again to grant Mr. Davis a parole date, but in this respect, it should be noted that he's not a high profile member of the Manson family. There was no huge public outcry when he was granted parole in 2010, even though it didn't make the national news. Because of a publicity blitz put on by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and the victims' representatives, there was huge media attention given to his hearing in 2012. There's people who are unhappy that he's being granted parole, but there's no protests. The Governor received as many letters requesting that he be set free as he did requesting that he be kept in prison. There's nothing Bruce Davis can say or do that will ever satisfy certain people. He knows that. We know that. By no conceivable stretch of anyone's imagination has Bruce Davis not rehabilitated himself. No one, not even the DA, the victims' representatives, the Governor can say anything about his prison program. They're picking nits, minimizing. There's a Greek philosopher who created a theory and I forgot the name of the guy. He needs a little more time, a little more time, okay. If I stand here and you ask me to go halfway to that wall over and over and over and over, I'll never get there. That's what this is about for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and the victims' representatives. A little bit further, a little bit further, halfway, halfway. He'll never get there. That's why the courts have talked about insight being something where it can be shorthand for subjective opinions that an inmate has not met standards that are not possible to meet. I've represented well over a thousand life term inmates in my time doing this. If Bruce Davis is not the most rehabilitated inmate that I've ever represented, he's number two. Give him his date back, please. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Mr. Davis, would you like to make a statement?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, thank you all for your time and attention. I believe I'm suitable for parole for this reason. I'm sober, of a sound mind, unaffected by foreign substances or even significantly by other people who would influence my behavior and my decisions. And the first decision I made when I sobered up was to realize that I'd been created by God who valued me, and when that happened, I began to realize that I had a value not dictated by what other people thought, and that was a big revelation to me. And because I knew that I have value with God, I knew that every other individual has value with God, and it began to make me see the world in a very different way. And now my boundaries are affected by self-respect and respect for other people. I've spent a long time coming to these -- developing these ideas in me that they've -- they're happening. You know, I have long-range plans now. I don't have to have immediate satisfaction for anything. My plans are long-range. I have a large horizon, and part of that is the -- to help other people to come to the things in their life that are meaningful to them, to develop their talents and their gifts and their potential with God. And that's what I'm about. And as I've gone through that for these many years, I've grown in the knowledge of that. I continue to evolve. Hopefully, I always will. I want to be a learner and to change and become more compassionate, to have more insight, to have more empathy and all the things that make a human a human. I want to keep growing into that. Now I believe I will be successful on parole because I have -- I've had 40 years of momentum and I believe it will continue for a couple of reasons. One, that I'm determined. Two, that I have the help of God. Three, that I have the help of many people who support me. And so with that, I believe I'm going to be a success and to live a law-abiding and a life that will bring credit to what I've been through and to the society around me. And I appreciate your consideration.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Who would like to speak first?

MS. HOYT: I guess I would. I'm in the chair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: If you can just state your name again for the record.

MS. HOYT: Okay. My name is Barbara Hoyt.


MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I want to listen to what you have to say, but I'm starting to cough and that's a bad sign. Let me get some water real quick.

MS. HOYT: Can I get up?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Of course you can. Here. Okay. Very good. Have we got our water? Go ahead.

MS. HOYT: Okay. Thank you. My name is Barbara Hoyt and I lived with the Manson family for six months in 1969 during the time of the murders. I was a teenager at the time. I was present -- I was a prosecution witness in the many months and related trials. For cooperating with the authorities, the family attempted to murder me. I was left for dead, and this was after ten months and four days of daily death threats. The Manson family was a close-knit group with Charlie Manson as its absolute leader.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I apologize. I have to object. She's here as a victim's representative. She's not supposed to be giving personal testimony. She's supposed to be reading a letter from the family she's representing. She's not a victim in this case.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'm going to overrule (inaudible).

MS. HOYT: I've stated my --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And I'm basing it on Marsy's.

MS. HOYT: I've stated my intro and what I witnessed on every other parole hearing.


MS. HOYT: Okay.


MS. HOYT: That's right. Okay. The Manson family was a close-knit group with Charlie Manson as the absolute leader. When I joined, the family was preparing for a race war called helter skelter. Preparing for helter skelter at this time was the all- pervasive fabric of Manson family daily life. Helter skelter would be the war to end all wars. The blacks would rise up and defeat the whites because it was their karma to be on top.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Can I -- I don't mean to interrupt you, but I want to make sure I'm right, okay, because I don't want to do this hearing again. Are you testifying or giving a victim's impact statement?

MS. HOYT: Both. I think I'm --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You can't testify unless I swear you in and then that's a whole different kind of hearing.

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. So I'm going to revise my overruling right now. What I'd like you to do --

MS. HOYT: I'm trying to state my qualification.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You know something, you don't have to.

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Because I know who you are.

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Right. If you can just -- I don't want to get into the direct testimony because it's a whole different situation that I really don't want to or I really can't deal with right now.

MS. HOYT: Okay.


MS. HOYT: Should I continue describing helter skelter and how important that was to the family, which is why these murders occurred? That Hinman was killed because they were trying to get money to help finance them?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Hold on a sec. I'm going to leave -- let's keep the attorneys in the room for one second. Let me --

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Discuss this for one second.

(Off the record.)


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. Okay. So we took a break because there was an objection to you making a statement as a victim rather than a victim's representative for Karen Shea, so the -- we did a little research and we called legal.

MS. HOYT: And what?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We called our legal department to find out exactly how we're going to deal with this situation. Frankly, you were approved as a representative for Karen Shea, not as a victim, so your -- there's just no way you can provide --

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Direct testimony as a witness to what you saw based on -- that's not what your role is.

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what we've got to focus in on is if you would like to make a statement regarding -- as a representative for Ms. Shea, you certainly can.

MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I had -- you had an objection.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I want to move to strike her statement up to this point other than her introduction of herself.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: And per my conversation, I'll grant your objection.


MS. HOYT: Karen Shea, Shorty's daughter, was only nine years old when her father was butchered. She was told by another child that her father was with the Manson family and that he was a bad person and he deserved what he got. She went through her childhood and her teenage years believing that her dad was bad. The first thing she asked me when we started talking three years ago was was this true and was her father bad and I assured her that this wasn't true. Shorty was -- I'm sorry. I'm skipping ahead a little bit. Her mother was so frightened -- well, so was Karen. Her mother was so frightened that she was unable to stay in one place very long and continued to move her family over and over and over again over the years. This fear didn't allow the family to enjoy the luxury and security of home ownership. I believe that -- well, I've got to make sure I'm not saying the wrong thing -- okay. I've talked -- the most recent time I've talked to Karen was twice yesterday and she assured me that she is still just as frightened as she was when she was nine years old, that it hasn't decreased one bit, and her family is still frightened. She is unable because of this fear, to come to this hearing. It's very hard for her to deal with this. Okay. Then I can't say those. Her mother continually lived with the what-ifs. She called them the what-ifs. What if we were there, would they have killed us too. What if they still want to do more harm to our family. And you know, she's lived with that dread. Karen Shea and her family have been living in a state of fear for the last 45 years. Okay. And that's what I wanted to highlight. That's the highlight, basically, of the letters I submitted last time on her view, so I kind of intermixed them. Can I submit this or anything or -- okay. I'll label it and submit it.


MS. HOYT: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Just give it to Mr. Montagna.

MS. HOYT: I was just going to label it first, so --


MS. HOYT: And I have two.


MS. MARTLEY: Good morning. I appreciate my opportunity to speak on behalf of a member of my family who cannot speak for himself. My cousin, Gary Hinman, was a musician who left his home state of Colorado to live and work as a musician in the Los Angeles area. Gary was kind and outgoing. He was a good-hearted person who often gave others in need of a place to stay for a few days or a few dollars to get by. Gary's charity is what led him to be befriended by the wrong kind of people, the kind of people who tortured him for several days before killing him. And Bruce Davis was among that group of people and that group of people is now better known as the Manson family. Everyone knows the Manson family is responsible for the murders of Sharon Tate, her friends, the LaBiancas, Shorty Shea and others who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm here to speak on the behalf of our family and remind this Panel of the devastating impact Gary's death had and continues to have on our family. Even Gary's death hasn't gotten the same kind of publicity. Gary's mother died only a year after Gary's murder at the age of 61. We watched the stress and grief eat away at her until it killed her. Gary's sister, Carol, can barely bring herself to talk about what happened to her brother. She remains afraid even now to speak out for fear of retribution from other Manson followers. Over the years, Bruce Davis' story about the level of his involvement, his actions, his culpability has changed constantly. He has never shown remorse, taken accountability or tried to apologize to any member of my family. At Mr. Davis' last parole hearing, he represented a letter from someone named Renee Riley, which apparently they didn't check on the veracity of it, who she doesn't belong to our family nor has anything to do with us. Neither Carol, Gary's sister, nor anyone else in our family know who this person is or gave her permission to speak on the behalf of the Hinman family. However, I have traveled 1500 miles to come here today. I am a member of the Hinman family. I grew up with Gary and I'm here to tell you that Gary's murder has a lasting impact on our family. Every time Mr. Davis comes up for parole, the surviving members of Gary's family must relive the horror of his death. These people held Gary captive in his home, stabbed him, cut off his ear, tortured him over a period of three days. When they found him, the carpet was soaked with Gary's blood. The walls were covered with Gary's blood. There was -- this wasn't a crime of passion or impulse. This was slow and calculated and cold-blooded. This is what Bruce Davis did. The problem is you can't undo a murder. You can't undo the death of a mother over her son. You can't undo the paralyzing fear that a sister lives with on a daily basis. You can't undo the empty space in a family where a living, breathing person once was. Above all, you can't change history. But that's exactly what Bruce Davis wants you to do. He wants you to forget that he's a mass murderer. He wants you to forget that he's alive today and Gary Hinman isn't. He wants you to look past the fact that he learned to manipulate the system and misrepresent Renee Riley's letter as being from someone in the Hinman family, when in fact the murder victim's family have never heard of her. He wants you to think he's rehabilitated when he's never taken any kind of responsibility for his actions to the family that has lived with the results of his action. I ask you today for justice for my cousin, Gary, and all the other victims from the Manson family. I do not believe in revenge, but I do believe in justice. Because of the nature of the crimes committed by Mr. Davis, and the severity of them, because he's never shown remorse or taken responsibility, Mr. Davis should remain in prison for the rest of his life -- for the rest of his life -- which was a lot more than my cousin, Gary, got. When a punishment is handed down by a court or jury, it should be fulfilled. Thank you.


MS. TATE: I'm sorry.


MS. TATE: My name is Debra Tate and I'm here to represent Gary's sister and her feelings on this heinous crime that was committed. First of all, I want to let the Board know that Mr. Davis has never reached out to any of the family, which is one of the most basic of 12- step programs. And that hole is very weighty in the victim's kin's mind. I'm going to leave her name off this letter so I don't want it entered into the record as she still has great fear. "I have no knowledge of who Renee Riley is nor does not speak for myself or the Hinman family. I have never received an apology from Bruce Davis. My brother's murder caused my immediate family to fear for our lives for many years, and the stress and trauma of the gruesome murders of my brother contributed to my mother's death. Bruce Davis should not be allowed to be paroled. My brother will never have the opportunities to speak -- excuse me -- to see his nieces and nephews or to participate in our family gatherings because of Bruce Davis and Charles Manson. Gary's life was cut short through no fault of his own. Why should Bruce Davis have freedom. Bruce Davis not only killed my brother, but participated in the killing of many others. I am requesting that the State of California keep Bruce Davis incarcerated the remainder of his life." As a person that has discussed the intimate feelings with the victim's family and also being a remaining victim myself, I can say quite honestly that I don't feel that Mr. Davis has even started to come to a culpable presence of mind until last year by not admitting details of the crimes and witnesses present, that has disallowed investigators to confirm or deny certain situations. As far as the Tates that Mr. Beckman referred to, that's an ongoing investigation. Nobody has a crystal ball into. It's not that LA DA's Office has not come forward with anything. It's that it's an ongoing investigation. Nobody is privy to that information at this point in time.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I'm going to have to object again.


MS. TATE: And because of these things, it is extremely disheartening to not only the family members, but society itself. It's an unbelievable unrest with myself, as well as the Hinman family, as well as the Shea family, and that's basically as far as my personal statement goes. But I can say that it is so traumatic, so heinous in the minds of the public, as well as the immediate family, that I don't believe at this point in time we should consider the possibility of parole.


MS. TATE: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Thank you. And as far as your objection, I think it's overruled (inaudible). The time is approximately 12:25. We're going to recess for deliberations. All right, Mr. Davis, would you follow the officers.




PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Today's date is 3/12/2014. The time is approximately 1:15 in the afternoon. All (inaudible) have returned for a pronouncement of the Panel's decision. Mr. Davis was received in CDCR on 4/21/1972 from Los Angeles County. The controlling offense is two counts of Murder First, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Robbery. Case number is A267861. Mr. Davis had an MEPD of 12/1/1977. His sentence was two concurrent life terms. Gary Hinman and Donald Shea were the victims. According to the California Supreme Court, in making a parole eligibility decision, this Panel must not act arbitrary or capricious and must consider all relevant and reliable information available. In your case, Mr. Davis, we read and reviewed your Central File. We looked at the risk assessment. We looked at the documents that you provided for us, which we marked Exhibit 2. We listened to the testimony of the family members, and we appreciate you coming today. We reviewed your confidential section. We didn't use any information that was in there as we did not find it relevant at today's hearing. There was a relatively recent document from 2005 that we looked at, but that had absolutely nothing to do with any kind of wrongdoing that you were involved in, so obviously we didn't use that document. We also listened to the testimony that you provided to us today in coming to a decision. The fundamental consideration in making a parole eligibility decision is the potential threat to public safety upon an inmate's release. A denial of parole must be based upon evidence in the record of an inmate's current dangerousness. Having these legal standards in mind, we find that you do not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety and you are eligible for parole. There are some circumstances that tend to show unsuitability, which we looked at. Your life crime, obviously, was horrible, and your reasons for committing your life crime certainly don't justify your actions. You also had an unstable social history, which we looked at. You had a tumultuous -- I think that's the word you used -- family history. You had a history of drugs. You were a member of the Manson family. But we're guided by the Lawrence decision. The California Supreme Court has ruled that after a long period of time, immutable factors such as your commitment offense, your prior criminality, and your unstable social history may no longer indicate a current risk of danger to society in light of a lengthy period of positive rehabilitation. Frankly, when we look back at your rehabilitation and your time in prison, there is no indication that you pose a current unreasonable risk of danger to society. You've had two 115s. The last one was in 1980. And even if we stretched that to being somehow -- how many years ago was 1980 -- a long time ago -- there could be no indication that your behavior in prison indicates any sense of potential threat to society. You are at an age that reduces the probability of recidivism. You're 71 years old. You've engaged in institutional activities that indicate an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release. You have realistic plans for release. We're going to recommend PREP with Sister Mary and Sister Teresa. I think that's probably the best place for you. If you had a letter from HealthRIGHT 360, we probably would have gone that direction, but your case could have specific challenges.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So what we really, even though we're making these recommendations, most important person that should make this evaluation is you and your parole agent, and I think that's probably the best. He may have a different take on where the best place for you is, but I think you two in cooperation probably are the best people to work on it. If PREP is what the appropriate thing for you is, then PREP it is, but work with your agent.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Work with your counselor. You accepted full responsibility for your criminal actions. I've seen signs of remorse. Your risk assessment, I don't think I've seen a more positive in a long time. I have no reason to deny based on your risk assessment. The doctor thought you spoke directly and thoughtfully. The doctor thought you appeared to have spent a good deal of time exploring the dynamics of your thoughts, feelings and motives and how they impaled your behavior in the past and how you would like them to direct you in the present and future. The doctor thought you appeared to have taken the opportunity in prison to develop relatively comprehensive insight and self-awareness. The doctor also thought that you, as far as the life crime and remorse and insight into the life crime, thought you spoke thoughtfully and with emotion. He is attempting to further elaborate the thoughts, feelings and motives. He presented in the self-assessment about he does not try to rationalize or excuse his behavior. He expresses his remorse openly and without qualification. Probably the most important analysis for me when I look at a risk assessment is the clinical analysis, because the clinical analysis speaks to now. It's not the past. It's not the future. It's now. And in the clinical analysis, he thought that you demonstrated no active risk factors. The doctor thought you developed a fairly broad and comprehensive insight about your personality characteristics, substance abuse, violence and anti-social tendencies. The doctor thought you had a positive and pro-social attitude and the doctor thought you have no active symptoms of mental illness, and the doctor has opined that you have not demonstrated tendencies toward being impulsive and the doctor thinks that you've been responsive to treatment. The doctor rated you low as far as a risk for future violence. The doctor further stated that you represent a non-elevated risk of violence as compared with other male correctional inmates. The doctor said that you present with non-significant risk factors and specialized intervention or risk reduction strategies appear -- I'm sorry -- risk reduction strategies appear unwarranted. Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: I do wish you luck, sir. I think the criminal acts when you say Manson family is horrific and you will forever be part of that family, and society will remember what that family did. But the reality is we have to look at your personal culpability, and although you may take responsibility for the entire acts of the Manson family, you're culpable for only part of the acts, personally culpable. And having said that, we look at that and whether you now pose a current risk of danger. We discussed it a long time and we don't think that you do at this point. And you will be going to transitional housing and obviously you need the transitional housing. You've done a lot more time in custody than you had been out of custody prior to your convictions. And you'll need the services that they have to offer you. And so I can only say, you know, good luck to you.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.



PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: Classes that he's been involved in.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: I'd like to get that on the record.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: And since the last hearing, you have participated or continued to participate in the Alternatives to Violence. In fact, you're a facilitator. You're a counselor for the Yokefellows group. You've participated and facilitated the Life Awareness program. You've continued your religious services participation and AA. Prior to the last hearing, you did upgrade educationally by receiving a master's degree in '98 and a doctorate in religion in 2002. You do have marketable skills in welding and drafting. You have excellent laudatory chronos from the PIA job performance as outstanding, and that's from the print plant inspector position that you now hold and have held for approximately three years.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So based on these findings, we conclude that Mr. Davis does not pose an unreasonable risk of danger or a threat to public safety and is eligible for parole at this time. As you know, this decision is not final. It will only become final after review by Decision Review, which is the Board's lawyers, and possibly the Governor's Office -- probably more than possibly. You'll be notified in writing if there's any changes to today's decision, and the decision that we make today is final after 120 days. So we're going to -- we did a matrix on you, and we assessed -- we used 2282(b), which was murder first, direct involvement and prior relationship with the victim. We aggravated it 24 months. We aggravated it due to you had an opportunity to cease. We also -- you went on the run for a year, so great lengths to avoid detection and you had a vulnerable victim. So that's the reasons for the 24-month aggravation. We gave you a term of 192 months based on the matrix in Title 15. We gave you -- we took away two years where you got your 115s. We gave you no credit for that. We gave you 37 years of satisfactory credit for 148 months. We gave you two years of exemplary credit due to your master's degree and your doctorate.

INMATE DAVIS: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: So we gave you 16 months for that. Total term with subtracting out the credits is 164 -- I'm sorry -- is 24 months -- 28 months due to your 41 years of incarceration. We're going to give you some special conditions of parole. I don't think it's going to be a problem for you. Drugs were a problem for you in the past. Obviously, I don't see you returning to drugs. If we thought that, we certainly wouldn't be looking to give you a parole date today, but we want you to participate in anti-narcotic testing and obviously not use drugs. You've been in prison for a significant -- I think you recognize that.


PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: We want you to at least -- at least -- probably more -- but at least stay six months in a transitional housing. I think that's more for your benefit.

INMATE DAVIS: That's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You've got to learn how to do a whole lot of things out there. No contact with the victims or victims' families, obviously. And with that, I'd like to thank everyone for their participation. I thank everybody for their patience today.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: If it goes -- makes it through all the review process, you will be entitled to a hearing under the Parole Board Rules.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: That's true. You should --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Because of your -- the incarceration date is an indeterminate sentencing law at the time. I'm sure the date --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: We'll waive that hearing given the fact that he's --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: You can waive it but you'll have to -- if it makes it through the process, you'll probably want to waive it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: You sound like you're aware of the situation.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I've never had that happen before. Usually you just calculate -- once you calculate under the old matrix --


DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: That's what they do at the Parole Board Rules hearing is calculate it under the old matrix, but --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You did, so that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: No, we calculated it under --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: No. We used the old matrix.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You used the old matrix.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CASSADY: Okay. But he is entitled to a PBR hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER PECK: He is, yeah. Okay. The time is approximately 1:30. This hearing is concluded. Thank you all for attending.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'll be out in a minute.