11:28 A.M.

THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. This is in the matter of Leslie Van Houten, Superior Court Case number A253156. Let's start with appearances, please for the people.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Donna Lebowitz, Deputy District Attorney, for the People.

MR. PFEIFFER: Rich Pfeiffer, attorney for Ms. Van Houten who is not present. She's in custody in State Prison in Corona.

THE COURT: My understanding is she has waived her appearance. I have a signed waiver which is not captioned, and I think the people have a position on that.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Yes, your honor. If the court deems this to be a post conviction matter, then there is no objection. If the court deems this to be a sentencing hearing, then the inmate must comply with the provisions of 977(b). The waiver was not signed in open court, and therefore our position is that it's invalid.

THE COURT: What is your representation, Mr. Pfeiffer, about the circumstances in Ms. Van Houten's waiver?

MR. PFEIFFER: Judge Ota requested that I bring a signed waiver from Ms. Van Houten because she could not be transported in the short notice of this hearing.

THE COURT: I understand she has a medical issue?

MR. PFEIFFER: She does. She had a knee injury weeks ago. I met with her yesterday in prison and she signed that waiver. She is aware that she had a right to be at the hearing. We also agreed with Ms. Lebowitz, If Ms. Lebowitz is going to call her as a witness, that was a potential possibility that would happen in the future, and it would be an extension of this hearing.

THE COURT: I would have to say this is both a post-conviction matter and a supplemental sentencing proceeding. This hearing is pursuant to People v. Franklin, which is a decision of the California Supreme Court in which a youthful offender, someone who committed the commitment offense prior to the age of 23 is entitled to a hearing to put on the youthful factors in mitigation. And the Supreme Court has said that that should be done sooner rather than later, not at the time they are up for parole. I understand Ms. Van Houten has an imminent parole hearing.

MR. PFEIFFER: Correct, later next week.

THE COURT: I don't know if we will have transcripts for you on that. But we will see. We will certainly try. I'm going to accept the waiver as sufficient. The people's comments are noted for the record. I have done lots of prop 36 hearings which are deemed to be supplemental sentencing hearings, and the waiver and this form was sufficient. So the defendant's waiver is accepted subject to her being called and examined by the district attorney. That's an issue I don't rule on at this point. The second issue is the transcript of Tex Watson's interview.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Yes, your honor. Before we get into that issue, if I might bring up another issue. The People would object to this hearing on the basis that it seems to be superfluous. I know that Franklin allows the inmate to have this sort of hearing. However, this situation is distinguishable from the inmate in Franklin because in this situation, the inmate has previously been found suitable by the board of parole hearings at a hearing in April of 2016 and the Governor, when considering whether or not to approve the parole board's decision, also considered the inmate's youthful offender characteristics in his letter. And I quote on page 3 of the governor's letter, "Van Houten was only 19 years old when she perpetrated these heinous murders. Accordingly, I must give great weight to her 'diminished culpability as compared to adults.' hallmark futures of youth and subsequent growth and increased maturity." as a result, not only has the parole board previously considered these characteristics and these factors, the governor has also. That's what distinguishes this from the Franklin case. And so the People's position is, as we stated in our response to Mr. Pfeiffer's original motion, that this hearing is unnecessary and not really within the purview of Franklin.

THE COURT: Mr. Pfeiffer.

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes, I have -- what I plan on introducing at this hearing are things I cannot introduce at the parole hearing. The governor also relied on some multiple levels of hearsay statements from Barbara Hoyt on page 4 of his reversal, claiming that people came and went at will and Ms. Van Houten was free to go. And the governor relied on that.

THE COURT: Was that before the parole board, Ms. Hoyt's statement?

MR. PFEIFFER: It was not at the last parole hearing, but it was at some hearing prior to that. And the transcript of that prior hearing got given to the governor. And the parole hearing incorporates by reference all of the prior hearing transcripts. So we would be faced by that every time unless I get contradictory evidence. I cannot bring in a witness --

THE COURT: Were the factors enumerated in People V. Gutierrez which spells out the kind of factors that would be in a Franklin Hearing or an Alabama hearing, presented to the parole board at the last hearing?

MR. PFEIFFER: What they do at these youthful offender hearings, I do several parole hearings, I do them often, they have an independent BPH psychological evaluation, they have a little paragraph about the hallmarks of youth and giving great weight to these things. I have asked commissioners, when being granted parole, can you please put on the record what that means. And what they did was read that paragraph. So my reason to bring Doctor Cauffman in is to help educate the parole board on the science behind the youthful features and how they play out.

THE COURT: I'm aware of case law that says the board has to do more than pay lip service. They actually have to grapple with each of the factors and evaluate and weigh them. Mr. Pfeiffer, did that occur in the last parole hearing?

MR. PFEIFFER: They just recognized those factors applied, but they didn't go into depth.

THE COURT: Ms. Lebowitz, is there anything you want to add?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Nothing further.

THE COURT: I'm going to allow the hearing. The fact that petitioner has never had an opportunity to put on this evidence makes it squarely within Franklin; therefore a hearing is appropriate. you want to talk about Doctor Cauffman or --

MS. LEBOWITZ: We can do Doctor Cauffman first. The People are opposed to any testimony presented by Doctor Cauffman. Penal code section 3051 talks about what the board can consider in determining the features and factors of the hallmark features of youth. In doing so, pursuant to subdivision "f" in assessing growth and maturity, psychological evaluations and risk -- psychological evaluations and risk assessment instruments, if used by the board, shall be administered by licensed psychologists employed by the board. Now the Board of Parole has a whole section of psychologists employed by the forensic assessment division. Those are the psychologists that write these reports called Comprehensive Risk Assessment. And the inmate gets a new Comprehensive Risk Assessment every three years. According to penal code section 3051, the only psychological assessment that the board can consider are those by the past psychologists. My understanding is that Doctor Cauffman is going to be presented as a witness to testify about the basic foundation of the lack of development of the prefrontal cortex and all of the scientific research that preceded the passage of SB 261 and penal code Section 3051. So she's not employed by the board. The board is not permitted to consider that type of thing, and again --

THE COURT: I think that statement is a little too broad. Psychological assessment, maybe it has to be by a board employed psychologist, but it's my understanding that Doctor Cauffman is not offering a psychological assessment of this inmate; is that correct, Mr. Pfeiffer?

MR. PFEIFFER: That is correct. She has not met Ms. Van Houten. She has no opinion as to how Ms. Van Houten's suitability for parole is or what kind of risk she will be. She's just here to help educate the board about the youthful factors and how they play out.

MS. LEBOWITZ: I sort of knew that. But as a result, if she hasn't made an assessment of the inmate and the testimony that is presented at this hearing, the purpose of this hearing is to place on the record information about those people who knew the inmate way back when that can testify to his or her personal factors and characteristics of the maturity, impetuality, lack of maturity and those sorts of things.

THE COURT: Immaturity and lack of maturity are the same thing.

MS. LEBOWITZ: I know. I'm a little nervous.

THE COURT: You don't need to be. I'm not biting anyone's head off, not today anyway.

MS. LEBOWITZ: It is redundant because the legislation was based upon that which Ms. Cauffman is going to be testifying about.

THE COURT: You are making, without saying the magic words, you are making an objection based on 352, undue consumption of time and not really relevant.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Not relevant because she's never interviewed or counseled the defendant.

THE COURT: Do you disagree that there is no harm in putting the evidence on if the board considered different factors? How are the people prejudiced? They are not. And you get to fully and fairly cross-examine Doctor Cauffman within an inch of her life, if you want.

MS. LEBOWITZ: I'm trying to comply with what I believe are the parameters of Franklin. And I believe that the testimony of Doctor Cauffman is outside, is outside the parameters.

THE COURT: I'm not sure I agree with that, given what it's being offered for. I agree maybe if Doctor Cauffman had actually done a psychological assessment of Ms. Houten, I think it would be very hard for her to reconstruct what was going on in Ms. Houten's mind in 1969. You might have a good objection then on that basis. But I think just for the purpose -- it's my understanding that Doctor Cauffman was an expert involved in the Miller v. Alabama decision, in the underlying facts that resulted in the Miller vs. Alabama decision, by the united states supreme court; is that correct?

MR. PFEIFFER: That is correct. She and Dr. Lawrence Steinberg worked together at the U.S. Supreme Court on many of the landmark cases at the U.S. Supreme Court.

THE COURT: The people's objection is noted for the record. I'm going to allow the testimony without prejudice to the people subsequent to making an appropriate motion to strike, after hearing, if you still think it shouldn't be on the record. The last thing we have, we won't start with the live testimony until after lunch, is the request by Ms. Van Houten's lawyer to review the testimony of tex watson who was interviewed on December 30, 1969. Mr. Watson was I believe charged, wasn't he?


THE COURT: Tell me what you have in mind.

MR. PFEIFFER: I believe when tex watson made these tapes, when he was arrested in texas, he made them for his attorney. They were not influenced by any outside source. They have all of the motivations and would probably be the most accurate description of what was happening before, during and after the crimes. During the murders, charles manson wasn't there when anybody was murdered. And tex watson was in charge. I don't know what is on the tapes without listening to them or reading the transcripts of them, and I don't believe Ms. Lebowitz does as well. The way they were made, and the circumstances they were made under, they probably related to how much control and pressure that manson had on the members of the family, the so-called family.

THE COURT: You have other sources of that information, not the least of which is your client.

MR. PFEIFFER: A lot of what happened at the ranch, finding out from several members who were there, a lot of people were isolated from different things and from each other. And tex watson seemed to be the central figure in the crime that my client was convicted of.

THE COURT: In fact he left the ranch for awhile, didn't he?

MR. PFEIFFER: Tex Watson?

THE COURT: Yes. He moved to hollywood.

MR. PFEIFFER: He actually was living in Dennis Wilson's house for awhile.

THE COURT: I have read the first 80 pages or so of the transcript. It's over 300 pages long. I don't know if I will finish it even over the lunch hour, but that may be for another day, and you might want to use it in your brief. The people have objected. I have talked to the relevant detective. There is no current investigation. Of course there is no statute of limitations on any homicide crime. I'm going to defer my ruling on that until I have completed my review. The transcript has been lodged with the court under seal. I started to read it. As far as I can tell, so far, there are eight mentions of Ms. Van Houten or at least Leslie in about the first 85 pages. I'm going to try to confirm that, if that's correct. And I will have more on that after I completely review the transcript. I will do my best to finish it today. Ms. Lebowitz, I assume you object to it. If I don't give you a ruling by the end of the day, if you will remind me I need to do something with it, I will be most grateful.

MS. LEBOWITZ: I promise to remind you.

THE COURT: I think that's all we have.

MS. LEBOWITZ: May I make a record?


MS. LEBOWITZ: Counsel and I met with your honor In chambers. And, your honor, we discussed this, having an in-camera hearing or submitting the transcripts under seal. Your honor agreed to read the transcripts and make a decision. I think that the District Attorney's Office had their interest in not disclosing the tapes by virtue of the fact that our arguments in the past were that it was not discoverable, there is no post-conviction right to discovery. In the alternative, that it was not Brady material, and it was not a violation of due process. Those have been all of our appellate arguments previously. Mr. Pfeiffer has indicated that in the past, that if the court was inclined to turn over the statements that were, that directly mentioned his client -- I don't know what the court intends to do.

THE COURT: Truthfully, I don't know what I intend to do until I complete reading it. I have to do that first and get some idea what this might implicate. Did you complete making your record?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Yes, I'm essentially through.

THE COURT: There is some case law that says for some post-conviction matters like Habeas Corpus. So There is some discovery. 1054 is a directive. By 1054, I mean section 1054.9 of the California Penal Code. But it is a starting place for the post-conviction court to consider what discovery, if any, should be turned over consistent with both the state and federal rights of due process. You are correct that 1054.9 specifically allows discovery if the inmate is contemplating filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and they are subject to a judgment of death or life without the possibility of parole. That is not this case. Since the sentence that Ms. Van Houten received was 7 Years to Life; is that correct?

MR. PFEIFFER: That's correct.

THE COURT: After 7 years, she would begin to be eligible for parole. Nonetheless, I think the recent developments by the legislature have shown a willingness to allow juvenile inmates or youthful offenders, one or the other, to develop a record to show the full offender factors. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you have suggested. I would say this is limited discovery and whether this is discoverable remains to be seen. I need to read it and see if it's relevant or if it would be cumulative to other sources that I believe mr. Pfeiffer could call on to demonstrate the nature of the control that Charles Manson had over members of the so-called family.

MS. LEBOWITZ: I misspoke. There was one other issue. That was all of the previous Public Records Act Requests, and they were denied based upon an investigative exemption, as the court mentioned, about investigation to possible cold case murders.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. I think I have ruled on everything except the tex watson transcript. I will try to take that up before the hearing is complete. anything else you want to bring up, Mr. Pfeiffer?

MR. PFEIFFER: No. That's it.

THE COURT: Ms. Lebowitz. That doesn't preclude you from reading something.

MS. LEBOWITZ: If we are following the rules, as the sentencing hearing, then the rules of court apply, and I specifically mentioned california rules of court 4.437, which requires the statement, if one side or the other is going to call witnesses for a statement in aggravation or mitigation, they are required to provide a statement four days before the hearing. Mr. Pfeiffer indicated in an offer of proof what Ms. Share would be testifying to, but there is no statement that complies with the rules of court 4.437

THE COURT: The court did say that, but did not address the case law that says that a sentencing hearing out of court and unsworn statements are admissible. Franklin goes that far in saying those rules apply. It does not exclude other cases, such as Lamb and Arbuckle, which allows. I think that remains to be seen. You can make any evidentiary objection you think is appropriate under the circumstances, and I don't believe that the board is necessarily bound by my rulings on that. So that remains to be seen what is offered. His offer of proof, the fact he didn't have a statement four days in advance, I don't think you are prejudiced because you know what she's going to say and we will go from there.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Nothing else.

THE COURT: We will be in recess until 1:30. The court media orders remain in effect. I'm going to do it here. I think it's much easier than trying to do it in Judge Ota's court. He was supposed to do the hearing, but he got called away. I got this matter assigned to me yesterday afternoon about 4 o'clock. So I spent the better part of the evening reading all the pages.

(Proceedings adjourn for lunch)

THE COURT: Good afternoon, everyone. We are in session again on the matter of Leslie Van Houten, A253156, on a Franklin hearing. Once again, let's have appearances, for the record.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Donna Lebowitz for the People.

MR. PFEIFFER: Rich Pfeiffer for Ms. Van Houten.

THE COURT: Who is sitting next to you?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Detective Dan Jenks, Los Angeles Police Department.

THE COURT: Anything either one of you want to talk about before we get started with the testimony?


MR. PFEIFFER: I lodged with your clerk two exhibits.

THE COURT: I have them in front of me.

MR. PFEIFFER: One is a CV, Exhibit 1, for Doctor Elizabeth Cauffman, and the other one is 21 pages of notes and photos that she's going to testify to. And I would respectfully request, can I have the assistance of Christine Webb who is here? She's an attorney assisting me with putting the exhibits up.

THE COURT: Any objection?



MS. WEBB: Good afternoon, your honor.

THE COURT: That being said, Mr. Pfeiffer, you can call your first witness.

MR. PFEIFFER: Doctor Elizabeth Cauffman.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Called as a witness by the defense, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god.


THE CLERK: Please take a seat on the witness stand. Please state and spell your first and last name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Elizabeth, E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H Cauffman, C-A-U-F-F-M-A-N.

THE COURT: Mr. Pfeiffer.


Q: Doctor Cauffman, what is your profession?

A: I'm a professor of psychology at UC Irvine.

Q: Do you have any specialty?

A: My area of specialty is in adolescent development.

Q: And have you reviewed anything in preparation for today?

A: Just some materials that you have given me on psychological profiles and history of the case.

Q: Have you had any communication or met with Leslie van houten?

A: No.

Q: Do you have any opinion as to whether or not she should be paroled or not?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: That's not what I do. I'm a developmental psychologist.

THE COURT: Can you answer the question yes or no?


THE COURT: What is the answer to his question?

THE WITNESS: I'm not here to form an opinion about this case.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: What are you here for today?

A: My role here is to be a teaching expert to provide information on what we know about adolescent development.

MR. PFEIFFER: Your honor, Ms. Lebowitz and I have agreed to accept Doctor Cauffman as an expert.

THE COURT: An expert in adolescent development?


THE COURT: The court will accept Doctor Cauffman as an expert in that area

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Have you ever testified at a Franklin hearing before?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that?

A: It was actually a couple of weeks ago here in L.A. County actually.

Q: Have you done any published research studies on whether or not adolescents are more or less mature than adults?

A: Yes.

Q: What did those studies find?

A: Published over a hundred studies so that is a lot of things to talk about.

THE COURT: Why don't you start with the most recent?

THE WITNESS: One of the things I will be doing today is presenting some of the research so that might help to provide that summary.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you do anything that focused on cognitive development and changes between that during adolescence?

A: Yes. I think the next flyer we will be putting out will show one of the studies which I think will help illustrate what we are talking about. This is a study that we did. Age is on the bottom here. This is a study we did with nearly a thousand participants, kids as young as age 10, two adults as old as age 30. And one of the things that we did in this study was measure how people think, their cognitive development. We had measured like working memory, digit span, how many digits can you remember, verbal fluency, either cognitive processes. What you see in this slide is around 16 years of age, adolescents look very similar to adults in their ability to make decisions in that cognitive way.

Q: Okay. And did you put any of those findings, compare them to maturity levels?

A: Yes. If we go to the next slide, in addition to the way in which people think there is also something we call maturity or psycho social maturity or emotional development. And that's made up of a lot of different things we see here. Things like being responsible, having a sense of identity, being able to think long term perspective. Being able to think about others, social perspective, and being temperate. That is can you control your impulses or are you just reactive? Those are all things that we also measure in addition to cognitive ability.

Q: Does that cognitive ability have any relationship to the emotional system?

A: If we go to the next slide, one of the things you will see here, first we are just looking at the emotional development, and what you are seeing here in the emotional development as we get older, we become more mature, we develop impulse control, start to think more long term, able to resist peer influence. As you grow older, you develop all of these capacities. And then to use the next slide, getting to the question you are asking, putting it together, this is exactly what we have done. Again kids as young as age 10 and adults as old as age 30, higher scores here mean more adult like behavior. You follow that red line, that's what I showed you earlier in terms of cognitive development, and that reaches adult level at about 16 years of age. If you look at that blue line, that's that maturity or psychological or emotional development that we talked about, and that continues to develop well into your 20's. So that green arrow you are looking at is the gap between cognitively what you know and emotionally what you can control. So long as my research and the work that I have published on, if kids are so smart, why do they do such stupid things? We actually see a lot of adolescents engage in a lot of risk taking and dangerous behavior, and this disconnect between knowing the difference between right and wrong and being able to emotionally regulate yourself from doing the wrong action are not fully developed at the same time.

Q: During these development stages, what changes are actually happening in the brain at that time?

A: Go to the next slide. To really understand that blue line that I just showed you, that emotional development, a lot of this work has been focused on the area of the adolescent brain. In particular the area right behind your forehead, that's the prefrontal cortex or the frontal lobe of the brain fully developed, and that is important because the frontal lobe of your brain is like the ceo of the company. It runs the business. It's responsible for impulse control. It's responsible for the ability to think long term. It's responsible for all those mmotional characteristics we are talking about. When you look at this figure here, this is from Gotgay, in his research he was following kids as young as age 5 up until their 20's. What you want to see on this figure here is blue. Blue means more development. The brain basically develops from front, back to front with that frontal lobe being fully complete well into your 20's, and science suggests roughly until about 25 years of age.

Q: As far as synapsis and the thinking processes, how does that change in this period?

A: When we are talking about what is actually happening in this development, if you go to the next one, when you are born, here in infancy you are born with a lot of finesse. It's the way messages travel in your brain, the road or the path that messages take. As we get older, we prune away what is unnecessary. If you are a gardener, you can think of it like pruning a rose bush. I prefer the driving analogy. It's much faster to go from point A to point B in a straight line than tt is to take a lot of detours. Your brain is pruning away what is unnecessary, getting rid of the detours so the message can now travel in a more direct fashion.

Q: Is there anything else that might increase the thinking speed?

A: One of the other big changes we see in the brain, if we move to the next slide, is an increase in myelination. Myelination is like a white fatty sheet that goes around the axis. So as messages are traveling, they are traveling down the Axiom and you should think of it like putting pavement on a road. It's a lot faster to travel down a paved road than it is a dirt road. As we have experiences in our lives, myelination is laid down, this white fatty sheet. This white matter continues to lay down. Now messages travel faster. Not only are they going in a more direct ground, they are going to travel at a faster speed.

Q: Are there any other changes going on which would help the brain communicate within itself?

A: Yes. If we go to the next slide, one of the things we talk about is this increased connectivity between the subcortical and cortical regions. The subcortical, if you took your fingers and stuck them between your ears, you would be in the Subcortical region. This is the region called the Limbic, the Limbic system. That is your emotional response system, The gut emotional reactions we have and it's the particular area called the amygdala. The amygdala is like your fight or flight responses. It's in the center of the subcortical. As we get older, those subcortical regions have a better communication process with what we call the cortical, the more regions of the brain and the brain starts to talk better to the different regions within.

Q: Are there any changes at this time in the development, in the density or distribution of dopamine?

A: Yes. One of the big things we also see is the change in the dopamine response system. This is a neurotransmitter. Dopamine makes us feel good. When you eat a piece of chocolate cake, dopamine spikes. When you do something exciting or dangerous, dopamine spikes. It's a feel good neurotransmitter. During adolescence, there is an influx, The change in the amount of density and distribution of dopamine. That's why adolescents say things are awesome because they are great and it's also why adolescents will tell you they're so bored. This change in this dopamine system, and in fact nothing ever feels as great as it did when you were an adolescent.

Q: Are there any studies that show how any of these changes in brain development react to actual behavior?

A: There have been many studies. I will give you one example. If you go to the next slide. This is a study that was done looking at impulse control. And it's a go, no go task. I will describe the task. You are seeing different responses. In this case you are seeing a fear face. And when you see certain faces, you are to press a button, and when you see other faces, you are not supposed to press a button. So you have to inhibit or stop yourself, so go or no go. And people do this task over and over again. What you see here is that as we get older, we are able to control our impulses. From 13 to 17 years of age and 18 to 21 years of age to 22 to 25 years of age. When we introduce threat, when things are threatening, even the 18 to 21 year olds look more like children than they do adults. The ability when something is threatening to stop themselves to inhibit, even during late adolescence we see this ability to lack that ability and inhibit or stop themselves from doing this.

Q: In young adults, how do they react in threatening situations when you are in social situations?

A: I think one of the things we want to look at next is how is this related to the brain. Let's go to the next slide because this is really how it connects into the brain. One of the things you will here is the reason that the 18 to young adult group had more fifficulty, is that they were using a different part of the brain. Adults were using that prefrontal cortex and were able to inhibit or stop themselves whereas the children, the teenagers, the young adults, were more likely to use the limbic system, the amygdala that we talked about earlier.

Q: Are adolescents more susceptible to taking risks?

A: Yes. If we go to the next slide here, what you will see is in a task of risk taking, and this was a driving task, participants were asked whether to drive a car. When you are driving down a road and a yellow light is going to come up, we have all been on the road. When the yellow light comes up, do you try to speed through it or do you stop? If you do not stop in time, you are going to hit a brick wall. And if you hit the brick wall, you will lose all your points. So there is an incentive for the participant to not run into the brick wall. People were randomly assigned to play this task either alone or with their friend. Interestingly, if you look at adolescents, young adults or adults, and the ages are in parenthesis, adolescents around 14 years of age, young adults around 20 years of age and older adults around 34 years of age. When they play alone, they crash the car roughly one to two, one and a half times and there is a difference between the groups. If you look when they play with their friends, the moment peers are introduced, the moment they are in a social situation, look at what happens with that red bar in particular, even the yellow bar. It increases the risk of the likelihood to crash. The moment peers are introduced, the level of risk taking and willingness to speed through the yellow light --

Q: Does this relate to any delinquent or criminal behavior?

A: If you go to the next slide. It does relate to the brain. And one of the things that is important to look at here is when friends are watching the top piece here, only for the adolescents was there activation, what we call the ventral striatum, that is the reward center in the brain, and that part of the brain is only activated for the adolescents and young adults. When you play alone, or the adults, that bottom figure there, there is no activation. So as we get older, we are less susceptible to social influence, but when we are younger, there seems to be what we call the social reward center in the brain for social situations.

Q: Does substance user abuse play any part in this?

A: One of the things we see when we look at substance use, we do see here -- short substance use has an effect on short circuiting, how the engagement of the brain coping with different developmental demands. It does affect the regulations of behavioral, emotional and cognitive ability. And there are many regions of the brain that are affected when we see people using substances.

Q: How does marijuana in particular, have there been any studies on that with the brain development?

A: This region of study -- you can go to the next slide. In particular, this was a study with over a thousand participants who had committed serious level offenses, felony level offenses. And one of the things we did was measure their alcohol and marijuana use. And we actually saw that it increases, heightened impulsivity, impairs affect regulation, it decreases their individual control as well as their poor judgment. If you go to the next slide, what you will see is that you even see this, if you look at driver deaths. This comes from the Institute for Highway Safety. These are higher scores and it peeks around 19 years of age. You will see that this risk taking, these risk taking behaviors, boys are in blue, girls are in pink, so that you can see the figure, the range is the same, just the base rates are different. Boys tend to engage more than girls. The figure and the shape is similar.

Q: How does age tend to factor out in risky behavior?

A: We will see it not only in driver deaths, but we will also see it in risk of substance use. So again substance use peeks around 19, 20 years of age. That's actually when you see it heightened. A lot of people think that risky behavior happens earlier during adolescence. It actually peeks around 18, 19, 20 years of age. If you go to the next slide. What you will see is this comes from the FBI Uniform Crime Report. This is just looking at criminal behavior. crime peeks during the adolescent years. And again boys are in blue, girls are in pink. The base rate is lower but the same curb exist. You will see risk taking peeks during this time and then declines around 25, 30 years of age. Really near is what we are seeing, not only in their behavior, but also in development.

Q: And when these youths are offending and doing juvenile delinquency type things and criminal things, does that continue on?

A: We did a large scale study with 1300 youths who committed felony level offenses. We started interviewing these kids between the ages of 13 to 17. A lot of people want to understand why kids get into crime. The goal of this study was to say, do kids that commit, really commit serious offenses ever stop. That was the goal of this study because you make a lot of decisions about kids, and who knows what the long term outcomes are. All of these kids, to be eligible for our study, had to commit serious felony level offenses. That included robbery, aggravated assault and murder. We interviewed these kids every six months For the first three years, yearly thereafter for seven years. We follow these kids up until roughly 25 years of age. So you are looking at the developmental progression of these youths. Higher scores on this scale means more delinquent or anti-social behavior. You will see a lot of different lines, and that is because even though all of these kids committed a very serious offense, they all didn't follow the same path as they grew up. For instance, if we start with that bottom purple line, about a third of the kids, 35 percent, stopped offending right away. They never committed another offense. About 16 percent who are in yellow continued to offend, but at a very low rate. There are three groups I'm most interested in because I'm a researcher. Those are those three groups up top, the blue, the green and the red, they all start at a very high level of offending. You will notice in the red only nine percent persisted into adulthood. youths that commit a lot of serious offenses, by the time they get to their 20's, had resisted their crime. One of the things that was important to take away from this study is that there is a lot of variability in how kids, even kids who may commit very serious crimes, develop over time, and not all these kids continue on a path of crime.

Q: How does the emotional development play with any groups related to each other?

A: Going back to that blue line I showed you earlier, the emotional system, we use the same measures with these kids. Do these kids follow that same path? Each of those offending groups are color coded here. Higher scores mean more development so you want to see a higher score. And what you see is most kids develop impulse control. They develop the ability to think long term, that perspective. The only group that didn't develop in that normative fashion was the red group, that one who persisted at nine percent. But the majority basically grow up and get out of crime.

Q: I know the adolescent development has been recognized for years, and can be seen like car rental companies don't rent cars to kids under 25 so they knew there must be some risky behavior. How recent was this science developed where you can actually measure these changes?

A: That's a great question. The science is relatively new. It's about 15 years old. And this is important because we are continuing to better understand what is going on among adolescents, and we continue to better understand the differences and similarities between adolescents and adults.

MR. PFEIFFER: I don't have any other questions.

THE COURT: Ms. Lebowitz.


Q: In your slides and handouts, you have a lot of images of the brain?

A: Yes.

Q: And would you agree that not every brain is exactly the same?

A: Absolutely.

Q: And not every 14 year old brain is the same as maybe the person sitting next to them?

A: There are always individual variations. All the work we do as a researcher, there are always exceptions to the rules.

Q: By the same token, there is an exception to every rule, correct?

A: Absolutely.

Q: Thank you. Nothing further.

THE COURT: Redirect?

MR. PFEIFFER: Nothing, your honor. Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you, Doctor. May this witness be excused?

MR. PFEIFFER: Yes. We would like to call Catherine Share.

THE COURT: This is relatively new technology.

MR. PFEIFFER: I would like to move exhibits 1 and 2 into evidence.

THE COURT: Any objection to 1 and 2 being received?


THE COURT: Exhibits 1 and 2 are received without objection.

(Exhibits 1 and 2 received into evidence.)

Called as a witness by the defense, was sworn and testified as follows:

THE CLERK: you do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god.

THE WITNESS: So help me god.

THE COURT: I will take that as a yes. Have a seat.

THE CLERK: Please be seated. Say and spell your full name, for the record.

THE WITNESS: Catherine, C-A-T-H-E-R-I-N-E, Share, S-H-A-R-E.


Q: Do you know who Charles Manson is?

A: Yes.

Q: How do you know him?

A: I lived with him for about three years.

Q: When was that?

A: Starting in spring of 1968 and then through the trial.

Q: How old were you when you first met and lived with Charles Manson?

A: I was 25.

Q: And there were other people who were also living with him; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how many?

A: Around 15 at first, and then it went up to about 35 later, 35, 40.

Q: How old were the other people?

A: Well Dianne was 13, and then Ruth was 14. There is 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, you know, 20.

Q: How old, how old were the oldest ones?

MS. LEBOWITZ: I'm going to object. This is supposed to be limited to her knowledge about the youthful characteristics of Leslie Van Houten, not about Charles Manson and the people that lived there.

THE COURT: It looks to me it is foundational and sets the stage for the examination she's really called for. Overruled.

THE WITNESS: I think Mary was 24. Mary and I think were the oldest ones in there.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: When you got to this group, what was it like?

A: Well I thought it was wonderful. Everybody was just really sweet and loving, and there wasn't any fighting going on, everybody was caring about each other, and it just seemed very ideal to me.

Q: How did everybody view Charles Manson?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, calls for hearsay.

THE COURT: Overruled. Why don't you start with yourself. How did you view him?

THE WITNESS: I thought he was really smart and really knew a lot about life. And he seemed to care a lot about me, and I thought he was very wise and also a lot of fun. He just seemed like a really nice person.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: At that time, what type of activities did you participate in?

A: We rode horses. We actually were taking care of the ranch so we got the horses ready for the riders. We cooked and played music together and just had a lot of fun.

Q: Do you know who Leslie Van Houten is?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: How do you know her?

A: I met her in San Francisco when I went up there with Bobby Beausoleil and another girl. And I met her in her apartment. Actually we had gone to a party, and I met her roommate, and her roommate invited us all into the apartment.

Q: When you got to the apartment where Leslie was, what did you two talk about?

A: Well this other girl, Gail and I had been out shopping, and we had been getting groceries and everything, and we came in with the groceries, and she was sitting there in the kitchen. And we just started talking, and she was real friendly, easy to talk to. I liked her right away.

Q: Did you talk to her about Charles Manson and living with him?

A: I did. The way it got to that is that she, her roommate had been with Bobby Beausoleil, and I ssked her if she had met Bobby, and she said kind of, really short, and she said is he ever gorgeous? I said well, I can introduce you to him. She said no, don't do that. I did, I kind of fixed them up. I'm sorry. I didn't get to your answer. She said well, I don't know if he even noticed me, and I said well, he will, but if he doesn't notice you, there are lots of really good looking guys at this ranch I live at, and a great man, you know, Charlie. I was almost evangelical about it because I thought it was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Q: What did Leslie do?

A: She listened and she, Bobby asked her to come with us, and she jumped in Bobby's truck, and we went around California a little bit together. Then I decided to go back to the ranch. And I guess she and Bobby, for about three more weeks, hung out together. And then she showed up at the ranch about three weeks later without Bobby.

Q: When Leslie got to the ranch, was the ranch still this idyllic place?

A: Yes. It was a dusty old ranch, but it was fun. We were all hippie kids, and we didn't have anything fancy, and it was a lot of fun. It was like a dude ranch almost.

Q: Did Leslie fit in?

A: Yeah, she fit in right away, especially with the girls. She was everybody's idea of a best ex-girlfriend. She fit in with the girls a lot, and she Was real sweet and unassuming and everybody liked her.

Q: Did the atmosphere at the ranch change?

A: It did slowly, yeah.

Q: When did that happen?

A: It wasn't until about summer of 1969. I didn't know at the time why it changed drastically. I found out later because Charlie thought he killed somebody, a black man over a dope deal. And it changed almost overnight.

THE COURT: I have to interrupt you. I have an urgent call. We will take a short recess.

(Whereupon proceedings are in recess.)

(The proceedings resume on the record.)

THE COURT: We are back on the record in the Leslie Van Houten matter, A253156. And, Ms. Share, do you understand you are still under oath?


Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: When Charles Manson started to change, did the activities change?

A: Yes. For a long time he was talking a lot about how everything was going to explode, and, you know, the cities were going to explode, and there will be a race war, and we had to find a place to hide. We got into kind of a survival thing. We were getting food together and clothes together, and we were going to find a place to hide so we wouldn't get in the middle of it. I didn't know at the time that he was right to get away from the ranch because he thought he had killed somebody.

Q: Did this idyllic family type atmosphere, did that change?

A: Yes. It changed drastically. It was 24/7, working on dune buggies, hiding food in barrels, and, you know, getting ready to run. We had found a place in the desert, and we were going to run to the desert so that we wouldn't be in the middle of it when it happened.

Q: When everything was good, before this change, did Manson order people around and have them do things?

A: Not at first. What Manson did was more clever than ordinary people. He manipulated them into thinking it might be their idea. He was probably the most intense manipulator I have ever met.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Object again. The scope of this hearing remains about Leslie Van Houten and not Charles Manson.

THE COURT: I think Mr. Pfeiffer's point, the effect that Mr. Manson had on Ms. Van Houten, correct?

MR. PFEIFFER: Correct, your honor.

THE COURT: Your objection is noted, but it's overruled.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did the group start doing any illegal activities?

A: Yeah. What Manson said is let's get ready for all this to happen, and when this happens, we will have to go in and out of people's homes. And let's be really aware. He called them creepy crawling, which is creeping into a house taking what you need like food and stuff and leaving. Then they turned into burglaries actually, credit cards and whatever.

Q: At first people were going into the houses and not taking anything; is that right?

A: The first two or three times, I was never invited. By that time, I was starting to be in, way in the outer circle because he thought I was thinking too much and I didn't react fast enough for him so he left me out of a lot of things. But, you know, they turned into burglaries.

Q: Did you hear of or witness any of the family members, prior to being arrested for the murders, being arrested and not charged by the police?

A: The big one that comes to mind was the raid in August at the ranch. Nobody was arrested.

THE COURT: August of what year?

THE WITNESS: '69. Everyone was brought in and let go the next day.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did the police, when they brought everybody in, did they find illegal activity?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled. It's background, but I think it may call for a legal conclusion which this witness is not qualified for. So I will sustain my own objection.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did the police find stolen vehicles?

A: Yes, uh-huh.

Q: Did you know Charles Manson was on parole?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Do you know what he was on parole for?

A: Something about bad check writing, and it was federal, for some reason, didn't ever understand why.

Q: Was Charles Manson charged with any crimes?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection.

THE COURT: As far this witness knows.

THE WITNESS: One thing --

MS. LEBOWITZ: During what period of time?

THE COURT: Are you still talking about August of 1969?

MR. PFEIFFER: Correct, your honor.

THE COURT: As a result of that round up?

THE WITNESS: He was let go, but I know one other incident personally that the police started coming a lot to the ranch, and they found some marijuana in the back ranch house that Charlie was in, and Charlie asked me to take it and go in there and say it was mine, my marijuana, which I did for him.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you get charged with possession of that marijuana?

A: No.

Q: Do you know if Leslie was arrested?

A: Not personally. Towards the end there, when I say end, around, before the murders and all that, I was asked to stay up front in the cowboy town, take care of, you know, cooking and the kids and everything. I was kept at bay, and mostly everybody else was in the back ranch house. So there are some things I just wasn't privy to.

Q: Was there any drug use going on at the ranch?

A: Maybe every night, LSD. At first maybe once a month. It got less as we went along. When he started acting like we were in boot camp, he was feeding us LSD almost everyday and no sleep.

Q: How would he feed you LSD?

A: He actually put it on our tongue.

Q: Did he control the amount?

A: Yes.

Q: Had you used LSD before this time period?

A: Yes.

Q: Was the amount he was giving you, was that a normal amount?

A: No. It was twice as much.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, foundation, again beyond the scope.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did group members have possessions?

A: No.

Q: How about clothes?

A: No. Shared everything.

Q: Were group members ever treated with violence?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, foundation.


THE COURT: Overruled.


Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: What happened?

A: When we were hiding food and everything in large barrels, he had asked us to, me and Nancy Pitman, to take a barrel down a ravine and hide it. And we couldn't figure out how to do it so Nancy suggested that maybe we could roll it down and she would go down to the bottom of the ravine, and I could roll it over. We rolled it down, and the top broke so we decided we would fix it later. We hid it underneath the bushes and decided to come back and fix it later. That night we were all out at a camp fire. Everybody was in a circle, and he asked who broke the barrel. And Nancy tried to explain that well, we couldn't get it down, you know, the ravine. Then he said I want to know who rolled that barrel down the ravine, and I said I did, but, and that's the last word I got out.

Q: Then what happened?

A: He punched me in my face, in my ribs, knocked me down and started kicking me everywhere, where I couldn't cover myself to a point where I almost left my body. I thought that was it. And then he picked me up and strangled me in front of everybody.

Q: What would trigger a violent reaction from Charlie Manson?

A: If you didn't do exactly what he said and how to do it, towards the end there.

Q: How would you describe his control over the group as this time period extended into the summer of '69?

A: Like I said, it started off with him acting like he cared a whole lot, a whole lot of love. And at the end, it turned into fear and survival. With me it was a survival instinct.

Q: Did you feel like you were free to leave?

A: Oh, I know I wasn't.

Q: How do you know that you weren't?

A: He brought me into the jail with Steve Grogan. He was called Clem at the time. He asked Steve, Steve would you do anything for me, brother? And Steve said yes, anything. He said good. He looked away from me and said to Steve, what I want you to do is, my name was Gypsy at the time, if Gypsy tries to leave, what I want you to do is drag her behind a car, don't kill her, all the way back to the ranch. And you know how to find people, don't you? And he said yeah, I will do that. He turned to me and said are you going anywhere? I said no.

Q: Do you know if Leslie succumbed to Manson's control?

THE COURT: Do you know?

THE WITNESS: Do I know? I believe so.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Why is that?

A: Because she was extremely docile at the time, and anything he said, she would just do. The thing with me is I would sometimes hesitate or say something back, and that's why he was so violent with me.

THE COURT: Mr. Pfeiffer, I think you have to establish the specific examples observed of this witness and not a generality.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did Manson ever use peer pressure where family members would pressure other family members at his direction?

A: Actually from day one. The first day I got there, one of the girls acted like my best friend. I thought she was really cool. I found out later she was assigned to me to make sure I stayed and I was happy there.

Q: Were you and Bobby Beausoleil both involved in a murder and an attempted murder?

A: No.

Q: Do you know who Barbara Hoyt is?

A: Yes.

Q: Who is she?

A: She came to the Gresham Street house and then stayed, and then went back to the ranch with us, so she was there for quite awhile.

Q: And if she described life at the ranch as a two-way street where someone could come and go at will, would that be the truth or a fabrication?

THE COURT: You have to establish a time period before you pitch that question.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: When did Barbara Hoyt go to the ranch?

A: I believe the Gresham Street house was in '68, in the winter of '68.

Q: Do you know how long she stayed there?

A: All through '69.

Q: And was she free to come and go as she wished?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. You have to lay a foundation.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you witness her --

THE COURT: She just testified about the Gresham Street house. We have not gotten even to the ranch yet. Didn't you say she was there from '68 all through '69 at the gresham street house?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. We left the Gresham Street house in January of '69 and went back to Spahn Ranch. We had been in Spahn Ranch and went to the house, into the house, and then back to the ranch.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you witness Barbara Hoyt leave the group?

A: I think she came and went a couple of times, but I can't say for certain when or how long or anything like that.

Q: Do you know why she was able to come and go and you weren't?

THE COURT: The question is do you know?

THE WITNESS: No, I really don't know. I just know that some people were not, could not leave.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: How do you know some people could not leave?

A: I was one of them that could not leave.

Q: Do you know if Leslie was free to leave?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: If she knows, her personal observation.

THE WITNESS: I don't think she felt like she was free to leave. Something that is kind of important to know is after Charlie --

MS. LEBOWITZ: No question pending.

THE COURT: Overruled.

THE WITNESS: Charlie put me up like that, put me in the outer circle and didn't invite me to where the group was living in the back house at the ranch. So there are quite a few things I wasn't aware of at the time. And I wasn't that close for awhile there to Leslie because I wasn't around her very much. So there are some things I really can't answer from my own knowledge.

THE COURT: Where was Van Houten living?

THE WITNESS: She was living in the back house on Spahn Ranch. I was left out. I was probably the only one --

THE COURT: Up in cowboy town.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I was in cowboy town.

THE COURT: What about Ms. Hoyt, where was she when she stayed there?

THE WITNESS: She was in the back ranch house.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you ever witness Leslie be abusive to anybody else at the ranch?

A: Absolutely not. Leslie was one of the nicest persons I ever met.

Q: How well did you know Leslie?

A: I wasn't as close to her as I was to some of the girls, but we all spent a lot of time together and we got to know each other. So I knew Leslie pretty well, but I didn't hang out with her all the time.

Q: Did you have an opinion that she would want to kill people?

A: Absolutely not.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, foundation.

THE COURT: Sustained. I'm going to strike the witness' answer. You need to lay a foundation.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did Leslie ever do anything that might reveal that she would want to kill somebody or hurt somebody?

A: My opinion of Leslie was that she was very unassuming. She never like wanted attention. She was kind to everybody, and everybody wanted to be like her best girlfriend.

Q: After the Labianca murders, did Leslie's demeanor change?

THE COURT: Would you put a date on that? I want to say July, 1969. Ms. Lebowitz.


THE COURT: August. Thank you.

THE WITNESS: I did, but I didn't know why. I saw her very withdrawn and not talking to anybody and just staying by herself a lot.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you hear her boast about her participation in those murders?

A: I didn't.

Q: After Leslie was convicted and sent to prison, did you ever see her again?

A: Yes. I spent time with her in the Special Security Housing Unit. It has been changed to that name. It had been death row. And I went in for armed robbery with Mary Brunner.

Q: When was that?

A: '72.

Q: When you saw her there, what was her demeanor like when you met her in prison?

A: She was more withdrawn than I had ever seen her. She really didn't talk very much, never laughed, she looked extremely depressed, and looked very anorexic to me.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Object and move to strike. This is after the murders. The hearing is to be focused on the youthful characteristics prior to the crime, not after.

THE COURT: That is a good objection. Sustained. The witness' answer is stricken.

MR. PFEIFFER: Your honor, Barbara Hoyt had stated at parole hearings that Leslie had no remorse. She was a killer who wanted to kill, using Manson as a vehicle.

THE COURT: You can test those assertions through this witness, but the fact she looked anorexic I think is possibly not relevant to a Franklin hearing.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: When you went to prison, were the Manson girls together, associating together?

A: Yeah, the three of them were there.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, motion to strike anything after the Labianca murders.

THE COURT: Mr. Pfeiffer, what would this be offered for?

MR. PFEIFFER: Because Leslie was towards, she was starting to mature, she was changing as part of the youthful development.

THE COURT: This is at the time of the crime. If you want to test Ms. Hoyt's assertions, ask the question directly rather than asking for the universe of observation.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did you personally every witness Leslie express any remorse for her actions in the Labianca murders?

A: Yes.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled, it's a factor the parole board considers.

THE WITNESS: I think Leslie to me was the most remorseful person I had met in that prison.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Did Leslie's remorse trigger any actions on your part?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled. You can answer.

THE WITNESS: I called her in the 90's.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: How does somebody call an inmate in prison?

A: I called the warden and asked if I could talk to her, and the warden actually put me on the phone with her.

Q: What was the reason for the call?

A: First of all, I wanted to apologize for --

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, relevance.

THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead. You can answer.

THE WITNESS: I wanted to apologize for my part in talking her into coming to the ranch and joining the group. And she told me that, that she had no ill feelings towards me because I thought I was doing a good thing, and she said we all thought we were doing a good thing. She totally forgave me for that. I also told her she could be forgiven, I believe she could be forgiven, and she didn't have to live in remorse for the rest of her life. She can be sorry, but I just felt she could be forgiven, and I talked to her about the Bible a little bit.

MR. PFEIFFER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Cross-examination?


Q: Isn't it true that you were convicted of Conspiracy to Murder Barbara Hoyt?

A: No, that's not true.

Q: Isn't it true that you were convicted of Robbery for your part in the Hawthorne surplus store robbery?

A: That is true, yes.

Q: Isn't it true that you participated in the Hawthorne surplus store robbery to break Charles Manson out of prison?

A: That is not true.

Q: Isn't it true that you stole 123 firearms from that store?

A: I was part of that, yes.

Q: Isn't it true that your purpose was to break out members of the Manson family from prison with those weapons?

A: Actually that was not the purpose. That was what was fed to the press at the time.

Q: What was it then?

A: I was with an outlaw that wanted to break his brothers out of a jail bust.

Q: It had nothing to do with Charles Manson?

A: No, it did not.

Q: Now, isn't it true that Barbara Hoyt joined living at spahn ranch in April of 1969?

A: You know at the time I didn't pay attention to dates and so I can't be for sure when she joined.

Q: Isn't it true that between the winter of 1969 and August of 1969, that people came and left the ranch?

A: Some did and some didn't.

Q: Isn't it true that Charles Manson became more violent toward females at the ranch closer in time to the Tate and Labianca murders?

A: Yes. I believe it was after he thought he killed somebody that he changed.

Q: And that was soon in time before --

A: That was before, correct.

Q: And isn't it true that Charles Manson became even more violent after the Tate and Labianca murders?

A: That is true.

Q: Now when Charles Manson beat you for the barrel incident, Leslie Van Houten wasn't there, correct?

A: Yes, she was. About 30 people watched it.

Q: You didn't participate in the Tate residence murder, did you?

A: No, I didn't.

Q: You didn't participate in the Labianca residence murder, did you?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Now, isn't it true that Stephanie Schram left the ranch?

A: I believe she ran from, when we were in the desert, she ran out.

Q: When you say you were in the desert, that was in Barker Ranch?

A: It was Barker Ranch, not Spahn Ranch.

Q: That was after the Tate and Labianca murders, correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Isn't it true that Sherry Ann Cooper left the ranch?

A: Yes, they ran away.

Q: Isn't it true that Kitty Lutesinger left the ranch?

A: Yes, it is.

MS. LEBOWITZ: May I have a moment, please?

THE COURT: You may. Take all the time you need.

Q BY MS. LEBOWITZ: Isn't it true that Ella left the ranch with Bill Vance?

THE COURT: Which ranch are you talking about, Barker ranch or Spahn ranch?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Spahn Ranch.

THE WITNESS: I don't think so. Bill Vance was in the desert during the raid up in the desert, and he is the only one that didn't enter jail that I know of.

Q BY MS. LEBOWITZ: When you say the ranch and desert, are you talking about Barker Ranch?

A: Barker Ranch, yes. Ella was gone looking for him.

Q: Before Barker Ranch?

A: Uh-huh.

Q: Is that yes?

A: Yes.

MS. LEBOWITZ: nothing further.

THE COURT: Mr. Pfeiffer, redirect?


Q: When you testified that some people came and left and others didn't, were some people free to leave, come and go, and others were not free to come and go?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, speculation.

THE COURT: To the extent this witness knows.

THE WITNESS: I was not free to come and go.

THE COURT: That you know?

THE WITNESS: That I know.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER:Do you know if Leslie was free to go?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, speculation.

THE WITNESS: I don't think so. There was a core group of people that Manson did not want to leave.

THE COURT: I think you need to lay a little foundation.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Was Leslie apart of that core group?

A: Yes.

Q: Approximately how many people were in that core group?

A: I never counted. I'm sorry. 20, 15.

Q: Were you apart of that core group?

A: I was for awhile, when it was about the music. And then afterwards, I was put out in the outer circle, so to speak.

Q: Do you know why you were put in the outer circle?

A: I think -- I know that charlie said I had too much fear and I talked to much.

Q: Was Leslie ever put in the outer circle?

A: No.

THE COURT: A moment ago you testified you thought Leslie was not free to leave. What is the basis for that? Why do you think that?

THE WITNESS: In '69, when they were living in that house and everything, he had total control over everybody by then. So I'm just assuming that he wanted his core group to stay just as much as he wanted me to stay. Even though he put me out in the outer circle, he wanted me to stay.

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, move to strike because the witness said she was assuming and therefore no personal knowledge.

THE COURT: She has nothing based on personal observation. Sustained. The answer is stricken, the answer to the court's questions.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Why didn't you participate in the Tate and Labianca murders?

MS. LEBOWITZ: Objection, relevance, beyond the scope of the hearing.

THE COURT: Sustained, not relevant.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: In late july or early August, did you witness an incident where Leslie tried to leave the ranch, Spahn Ranch?

A: Like I said, I was not around most of the people for quite awhile, for three or four months.

THE COURT: Can you answer Mr. Pfeiffer's question?

THE WITNESS: I don't have any personal knowledge.

Q BY MR. PFEIFFER: Around that same time period, did you see Leslie or the biker, I believe his name was Sammy?

A: There were a lot of bikers on the ranch towards the end there, and they were hanging out in the ranch house. I knew a couple of the bikers. They would come to the front to say hi to me. I was never invited back there during this time.

Q: Were you present when a biker came back to the ranch in a car to pick up Leslie?

A: I wasn't present, no.

MR. PFEIFFER: No further questions.

THE COURT: Ms. Lebowitz, any recross?


THE COURT: May this witness be excused?


THE COURT: Any further witnesses?

MR. PFEIFFER: Nothing.

THE COURT: Are you resting?

MR. PFEIFFER: Resting.

THE COURT: Ms. Lebowitz, do you have any witnesses?


THE COURT: People rest?

MS. LEBOWITZ: People rest.

THE COURT:That concludes the Franklin hearing. The court reporter is asked to prepare an original and I believe 3, one of which will be sent to the court. We are in recess.

(Proceedings conclude.)