Judge Indicates He Won’t Hold Farr in Contempt for Silence
Wednesday, October 2nd, 1974
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 2 – Superior Judge Earl C. Broady indicated Tuesday he would not hold Times reporter William Farr in contempt for his refusal to answer 15 questions in the perjury trial of attorney Vincent T. Bugliosi.
Bugliosi is charged with lying three times under oath in denying he gave Farr a transcript of witness Virginia Graham’s statement during the 1970 Charles Manson murder trial. Bugliosi successfully prosecuted Manson, and Farr covered the trial for the Herald-Examiner.
The trial could end abruptly today after Broady rules on legal arguments about Farr’s silence.
Farr, who completed his testimony, Tuesday, was excused from court today to attend the funeral of his 84-year-old grandmother in Palo Alto. Mark Hurwitz, his lawyer, will represent Farr in court when special prosecutor Theodore P. Shield seeks contempt citations.
But Broady indicated Tuesday Farr legally could invoke Section 1070 of the state Evidence Code, which permits a reporter to keep secret his sources, in declining to answer Shield’s questions.
More importantly to Bugliosi, Broady also said that Shield could not introduce prior testimony by Farr before Superior Judge Charles H. Older in which Farr said he obtained the Graham transcripts from two of the six Manson case attorneys.
Three of the 15 questions Farr refused to answer Tuesday concerned the two-of-six remark. (Others involved whether he received a transcript from Bugliosi, interviewed Mrs. Graham, based a story on the transcripts, and handed an envelope to Bugliosi’s assistant, Dep. Dist. Atty. Stephen Kay.
Shield argued unsuccessfully that Farr’s two-of-six statement made to Older should become evidence in the Bugliosi trial because his present refusal to answer the question was inconsistent with that prior testimony.
Harland Braun, Bugliosi’s lawyer, said the earlier transcripts were hearsay and could not be entered. The judge agreed.
“I cannot find an inconsistency in the refusal of a witness to testify if his refusal is based on a statute (1070) enacted by the Legislature,” Broady said. “To avail himself of the law is not willful evasiveness.”
Broady said Farr’s position on what he would answer had changed but his answers had not and therefore are not inconsistent, so the prior testimony could not be used.
“Without that testimony, the court would divine that the prosecution has lost its ability to go forward,” special prosecutor Shield said. “We have a lot of other evidence, but it is inadmissable until this (two-of-six statement) is admitted in this court.”
Broady on Monday halted testimo-ny by Kay until Shield proved the “corpus delicti” — the facts necessary to show a crime was committed. The facts needed are that Farr obtained the transcripts from Manson case attorneys. Otherwise Shield cannot prove Bugliosi or other attorneys lied about giving Farr the transcript. (Attorney Daye Shinn also is indicted for perjury and is to be tried immediately after Bugliosi.)
If Shield is stymied from presenting other evidence, Braun will ask Broady to acquit Bugliosi, and the case will never go to the eight-woman, four-man jury.
As to Farr, Broady said flatly Tuesday he felt the reporter could use the state “shield law” to refuse to testify. He said the circumstances were far different than in proceedings before Older where appellate courts held Section 1070 could not be used.
In that case, Broady said, the appellate court said Older had the right to demand to know Farr’s sources because he was trying to enforce a court (gag) order. (The statute of limitations has expired and the sources no longer can be convicted of misdemeanor contempt of court for violation of the gag order.)
“I have an ethical obligation in news gathering not to contribute to the prosecutorial process, and that is the reason I am not testifying in the criminal procedure,” Farr explained to reporters.
He said his original testimony before Older that he obtained transcripts from two of the six lawyers was a grave mistake and was made on the advice of his former attorney. Because a mistake was made once does not mean it must be repeated, Farr and Hurwitz maintain.
“If the public thinks a newsman will involve himself as an investigatory arm of government, then the public simply will not come forward to provide the news we all need in a viable society,” Hurwitz argued in court before Shield began questioning Farr.
Farr said Broady’s remarks would “seem to be a victory” for newsmen but would not comment further until after Broady’s rulings today.
Farr spent 46 days in jail and faces five more on contempt from Older for refusing to name his sources. He also was held in contempt of the grand jury by Superior Judge Raymond Choate for refusing to name the sources before that group, but Choate reversed himself and absolved Farr of that contempt.
Farr did freely answer questions Tuesday about his professional background and his acquaintance with Bugliosi during the Manson trial.
Asked if he were in Bugliosi’s office when Kay delivered copies of the Graham statement to the chief prosecutor, Farr said: “I may have been, but I don’t know that was.”
(Kay has said that Farr was present.)
Farr said he often interviewed Bugliosi in his office.
Farr also identified a copy of his Page 1 Herald-Examiner story about Manson “family” plans to murder Frank Sinatra, Elizabeth Taylor and other celebrities. The article presented by Shield, laminated into a wall plaque, belongs to Farr.
By MYRNA OLIVER
Comments