LOS ANGELES, Jun. 29 – Vincent T. Bugliosi, unsuccessful candidate for district attorney and for state attorney general, and Daye Shinn were indicted for perjury Friday by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury in the last official act of its record 18-month term.

The indictments, read by Superior Judge Raymond Choate, ended the 23-member group’s eight-day inquiry into whether two of six lawyers in the 1970 Charles Manson murder trial gave Times reporter William Farr information despite a court gag order, then lied about it under oath.

Choate ordered the two lawyers to appear for arraignment at 9 a.m. Tuesday, the same hour set for his sentencing of Farr for contempt of the grand jury and of court.

Farr, who served 46 days in jail on a separate contempt citation by Superior Judge Charles H. Older, faces the new sentence for refusing to answer six questions put to him before the grand jury by special prosecutor Theodore P. Shield.

Bugliosi, chief prosecutor in the Manson case, and Shinn, a defense attorney in that case, were charged with three counts each of lying under oath — on June 30, 1971, and Nov. 27, 1972, in Older’s court and this week before the grand jury. The alleged perjury concerned their denials on all three occasions that they gave Farr transcripts of Manson trial witness Virginia Graham’s statement or that they knew who did.

Shinn and Bugliosi (through his attorney, Harland Braun) each said they would surrender to Choate Tuesday morning. The grand jury’s “true bill,” signed by foreman Earl J. Sachs, recommended that the two lawyers remain free on their own recognizance (without posting bail).

Braun said that Bugliosi, on his advice, would make no public comment until Tuesday. The lawyer said Bugliosi would plead not guilty and seek a quick trial, in which he expects to be “completely vindicated.”

“(Bugliosi) is obviously shocked and outraged by it,” Braun said after Shield informed him of the indictment, “but we are going to trial. There can’t be any negotiation or plea bargaining because he is not guilty. We just have to trust the jury system.”

Shinn, who is represented by Robert L. Kirste, said be probably would seek immediate dismissal of the charges on grounds of lack of evidence. Otherwise, he said, he will plead innocent.

“This is such a Mickey Mouse case,” Shinn said in a telephone interview. “I don’t know how in the hell they (the grand jury) ever reached the conclusion I was one of the people who gave Bill Farr the news. It is ridiculous.

“Maybe,” Shinn said, “it’s because that stupid (Irving) Kanarek and (Paul) Fitzgerald filed the libel suit and made me one of the defendants. I just don’t know what evidence was before the grand jury”

(He referred to a $24 million civil libel suit filed by Manson defense attorneys Kanarek and Fitzgerald against Farr and others because Farr said he obtained the information from two of the six lawyers but never specified which two. Shinn, who refused to join them in the suit, was made a defendant along with Bugliosi — now dismissed — and the other two Manson case lawyers, Dep. Dist. Attys. Stephen Kay and Donald Musich. Kay and Musich were made party defendants only to protect their own legal interests. The suit is pending.)

Shinn said he testified before the grand jury only 10 minutes last Monday.

According to the indictment, he answered “No, absolutely not,” to Shield’s question:

“Did Bill Farr ever tell you that he would like to get a copy of the district attorney’s statement that they took from Virginia Graham?”.

Shinn also answered “absolutely not,” according to the eight-page indictment to Shield’s grand jury inquiry: “Did you ever give him a copy of that statement?”

The grand jury inquiry was called for last April by the Board of Supervisors, particularly Supervisor James Hayes, in order to determine if perjury had been committed. The question became an issue in the primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for attorney general in which William Norris defeated Bugliosi.

Shield’s appointment also was requested by the supervisors. The district attorney’s office and attorney general’s office each declined to present the case because of possible conflict of interest: deputies of Dist. Atty. Joseph P. Busch were involved, and Atty. Gen. Evelle J. Younger was district attorney here at the time of the Manson trial.

Shield originally planned the grand jury inquiry to last only two days, but it dragged on behind closed doors until the group ended its session. The group served 18 months rather than the customary 12 to facilitate the county’s switch to a new state-mandated, fiscal-year rather than calendar-year term. The 1974-75 grand jury will be sworn in at 1 p.m. Monday.

According to the indictment handed to Choate, the grand jury heard testimony from nine persons – the six lawyers, Farr, Robert K. Steinberg, who was Mrs. Graham’s attorney, and Dep. Atty. Gen. William R. Pounders.

Pounders spearheaded an investigation by the attorney general’s office into the perjury question, but no charges ever were filed. His still-secret testimony is considered to be a major part of whatever evidence the grand jury relied on for the indictments.

Kay’s testimony, also considered important, probably concerned an incident in which he said Farr wanted him to hand a manila envelope to Bugliosi shortly after Bugliosi had obtained copies of Mrs. Graham’s statement. Kay so testified in a sworn deposition in the libel suit.

One of the grand jury questions Farr refused to answer concerned the envelope-passing.

Democratic attorney general candidate Norris, campaigning in Oakland, said the indictments underscored the “politicization” of the state prosecutor’s office by his opponent, Republican incumbent Younger.

Norris said Younger should have appointed a special prosecutor more than a year ago instead of conducting his own “whitewash” investigation of the perjury issue.

He praised the initiative of Los Angeles supervisors and the grand jury for naming the special prosecutor and conducting the investigation before the statute of limitations expired Sunday on the first alleged act of perjury.

Informed that Pounders had testified before the grand jury, Norris said that reinforced his point that Younger should have stepped aside and named special prosecutor long ago.

According to the indictment, Bugliosi answered “absolutely not” to two questions before the grand jury: “In any event, you didn’t give a copy of Virginia Graham’s statement to Mr. Farr?,” and “Did you cause anyone else to give a copy of Virginia Graham’s statement to Mr. Farr?”

The “true bill” stated that Shinn and Bugliosi on each of the three occasions “in truth and in fact did know that his testimony and evidence was false and untrue and he did wilfully, knowingly and corruptly swear falsely and commit perjury.”

Perjury is a felony, and conviction could mean a sentence from one to 15 years in state prison and disbarment for the lawyers.

The indictments could mean more rotations in the merry-go-round contempt charges for Farr, who is expected to be called as a witness by prosecutors in the Shinn Bugliosi trial.

Farr could be sentenced by Choate Tuesday to a maximum of five days in jail and $500 fine for each of the six grand jury questions he refused to answer. He also faces further sentencing July 29 by Older in separate contempt proceedings which could add up to 65 days and a fine of $6,500 for the 13 questions put to him by Older.

Farr, who steadfastly maintains that he never will reveal his sources no matter how many times he is imprisoned, refused to comment Friday on the indictments.

Mark Hurwitz, his attorney, said he was “very concerned’ that Farr would be subpoenaed for a perjury trial and be faced with a third round of contempt charges.

“I don’t think the court has any right to put him through the process all over again, but that isn’t to say somebody won’t try it,” Hurwitz said.

“He has been through what he has aptly described as a ‘three-year nightmare’ of legal proceedings, and it would be grossly unfair to put him through another procedure to force him to testify.”

Hurwitz said the repeated questioning and contempt threats represented the “epitome of judicial arrogance.”

He said he would ask Choate Tuesday to reconsider his decision that Farr is in contempt of the grand jury and of his court order. Hurwitz said if Farr is sentenced to jail Tuesday, he expects the sentence to be stayed pending appeals.

Appeal of the Older contempt citation took more than a year and a half before Farr was finally jailed in late 1972.

Farr was released on his own recognizance by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas pending federal appeals. One such decision is still pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.

Superior Judge William H. Levit last week released Farr from the indefinite sentence imposed by Older, ruling that further incarceration would be punitive and therefore limited by state law to five days in jail and a $500 fine. Whether that is the total sentence allowed or can be multiplied by the number of questions Farr refused to answer is a still-undecided legal question.

Older originally sought the identity of the two attorneys in order to file possible contempt charges against them for violating the gag order in the Manson case. The statute of limitations on that contempt has expired, and the attorneys could no longer be prosecuted for that misdemeanor.

Farr used the transcripts of Mrs. Graham’s statement for a story he wrote for The Herald-Examiner about Manson “family” plans to murder celebrities. He covered the trial for that paper but now is a Times reporter.

By MYRNA OLIVER