LOS ANGELES, Oct. 1 – The testimony of key prosecution witness Dep. Dist. Atty. Stephen Kay in the perjury trial of attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi was halted abruptly Monday until prosecutors prove a crime actually was committed.

Kay had testified for only an hour when Los Angeles Superior Judge Earl C. Broady granted an in-chambers move by Bugliosi’s attorney, Harland Braun, to stop presentation of any further evidence until after the testimony of Times reporter William Farr.

Bugliosi is accused of lying under oath three times in denying he gave a transcript of witness Virginia Graham’s statement to Farr despite a gag order during the 1970 Charles Manson murder trial.

Bugliosi, assisted by Kay and Dep. Dist. Atty. Donald Musich, was Manson’s chief prosecutor. Farr covered the trial for the Herald-Examiner.

Broady ordered special prosecutor Theodore P. Shield to call Farr at this time to prove the “corpus delicti.” That is a legal term meaning the fundamental facts necessary to show a crime (perjury in this case) was committed.

Braun said Broady rejected his request that Farr be called as Shield’s first witness earlier because he did not want to tell any attorney in what order to present his case. Braun said Broady decided Monday, however, the “corpus” must be proved before Kay said any more.

Shield said Farr was in San Jose Monday afternoon because of the death of his 84-year-old grandmother. Broady recessed the jury trial until 9:30 a.m. today.

Mark Hurwitz, Farr’s attorney, said he did not know if Farr could return by today. He said they had not anticipated Farr would be asked to testify Monday.

Farr’s testimony could either put the reporter back in jail or quickly end Bugliosi’s trial.

To prove Bugliosi lied under oath, Shield must prove Farr received a copy of the transcript from Bugliosi.

Farr has spent 46 days in jail and faces five more on contempt citations by Superior Judge Charles H. Older for refusing to identify the sources of the transcripts he obtained. He has said he will not name the sources in the current trial, citing a newsman’s privilege to keep secret his contacts.

However, names are not the only information Shield needs from Farr.

At issue is a statement Farr once made before Older — that he obtained his transcripts from two of the six attorneys in the Manson trial. All six subsequently testified that they did not give the transcripts to Farr, setting the stage for the Los Angeles County Grand Jury investigation and perjury indictments of Bugliosi and attorney Daye Shinn. (Shinn is to be tried immediately after Bugliosi.)

Farr has said he made the two-of-six statement on the advice of his former attorney and that it was a serious mistake. He said it unfairly limited the anonymity he as a reporter could provide to a source.

Farr did not repeat the statement before the grand jury.

Hurwitz has indicated Farr probably will not answer questions about it in the perjury trial. Because a mistake is made once, Hurwitz said, does not mean it must be repeated.

Braun maintains that the case must be dismissed unless Shield can get Farr to say in the current trial that he obtained his transcripts from lawyers in the Manson case, whether Farr names them or not.

If Farr refuses to answer questions Broady orders him to answer, Broady could initiate new contempt proceedings against him complete with a fine and a new stay in jail.

By MYRNA OLIVER