Manson Ejected Second Time for Refusal to Face Judge in Hinman Murder Case
Thursday, June 11th, 1970
LOS ANGELES, Jun. 11 – Hippie cult leader Charles Manson was ejected from the courtroom for the second day in a row yesterday.
This time it came during an argument on whether he should have a new attorney in the Gary Hinman murder case.
Manson, accused mastermind of the Tate-LaBianca murders, maintained his composure less than five minutes before he tried to turn his back on Superior Court Judge Charles H. Older.
A uniformed deputy sheriff tried to turn Manson’s chair forward and the long-haired chieftain shouted:
“Does he have a right to push me around? I’m not creating any disturbance.”
With that the 35-year-old Manson jumped to his feet and turned his back, again, to Judge Older.
Older advised Manson he would be removed from the courtroom and put into an adjacent holding cell unless he changed his behavior.
“Your honor,” Manson said, “if you can’t recognize me, do you expect me to recognize you?”
This was the hippie leader’s parting shot because at the same moment the deputy escorted him into the holding cell.
The wooden door to the cell was closed and the last glimpse courtroom spectators had of Manson was the back of his blue jail dungarees.
The hearing on the substitution of attorneys had barely gotten under way and was recessed minutes later by Judge Older, who had to attend a meeting of Superior Court judges.
The hearing was scheduled at 2 p.m. and Judge Older said Manson would be allowed to return to the courtroom at the Hall of Justice if he agreed to conduct himself properly.
Manson, Susan Atkins 21, and Bruce M. Davis 27, have been indicted for the stabbing death of musician Gary Hinman.
Miss Atkins, another codefendant in the Tate-LaBianca case was in court along with two other Tate-LaBianca defendants, Patricia Krenwinkel 22, and Leslie Van Houten 19.
Miss Krenwinkel and Miss Van Houten were in court because another motion regarding the Tate-LaBianca case was scheduled to be made later in the day.
Atty. Richard Walton has been appointed by the court to represent Manson in the Hinman matter, but he wants his lawyer to be Irving A. Kanarek, who now represents him in the Tate-LaBianca case.
As he started his argument, Kanarek claimed the District Attorney’s Office was making him a “target” by opposing his substitution. He asked that the prosecution of Manson be turned over to the State Attorney General.
“If we are to avoid a circus, then the state attorney general should prosecute and at least we would have dignity in this case,” the lawyer said.
He claimed the District Attorney intended to seek a hearing to offer evidence that Kanarek “consistently and deliberately engaged in extremely dilatory tactics…designed to prolong a trial.”
Kanarek argued the District Attorney’s Office actually was attempting to postpone next Monday’s start of the Tate-LaBianca trial in order to get another defendant, Charles “Tex” Watson, back from Texas where he is fighting extradition.
“They have dreamt up this procedure to delay these proceedings,” Kanarek charged.
He also claimed prosecutors had reason to believe a sixth defendant, Linda Kasabian 20, “is insane.”
Mrs. Kasabian reportedly has been offered immunity to testify for the prosecution at the Tate-LaBianca trial.
Manson was ordered out of the courtroom on Tuesday when he refused to participate in a hearing to dismiss the murder-conspiracy charges against him.
Superior Court Judge Malcolm M. Lucas ordered the 35-year-old defendant into the court’s holding cell after Manson refused to face the jurist’s bench.
His attorney, Kanarek, several times made a vain attempt to get his client to face Judge Lucas. Kanarek also argued unsuccessfully that the judge had no right to throw Manson out merely because he refused to face forward.
Two of his codefendants — Susan Atkins 21, and Leslie Van Houten 19 — were with him in court.
There actually were two motions — both of which were denied by Judge Lucas — before the court.
One was an action seeking that the trial slated on Monday, be transferred to another part of the state. The other was to dismiss the indictment, returned by the County Grand Jury last December after a two-day hearing.
Judge Lucas, after ordering Manson out of the courtroom, noted it was not necessary to have a defendant present during pre-trial proceedings. He said a transcript of what transpired would be made available to Manson.
During his argument on dismissal of the indictment. Kanarek contended the key testimony was that of Miss Atkins and it was not corroborated.
Manson is charged with the seven murders, it has been the prosecution’s claim that he was the mastermind, and not the actual slayer.
Kanarek argued if the case had not gone to the Grand Jury and instead had been given a preliminary hearing in Municipal Court, there was “no question” it would have been “thrown out.”
Judge Lucas ruled the evidence given before the grand jury was sufficient to uphold the indictment.
All three defendants asked that the trial be transferred, using the recently published book “5 to Die,” as their basis.
The book in paperback form, was circulated last week. It was written by English newspaperman Ivor Davis and local freelance writer Jerry LeBlanc.
Kanarek contended the prosecution aided the writers of the book and therefore violated a gag rule on the case issued at the outset by Superior Court Judge William B. Keene.
Dep. Dist. Atty. Aaron H. Stovitz replied the authors gained their information by “independent investigation” and there was no cooperation given by his office, the Sheriff’s Dept. or Los Angeles Police Dept.