SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1969
---oOo---

THE COURT: For the record, we are in chambers. The District Attorney and the defendant and his counsel are present.

Are we ready to proceed in the case?

MR. ROSS: Yes, your Honor. At this time the People will make a motion to reopen the case for its case in chief, and I will state my grounds and introduce evidence to that effect. As a matter of fact, I will present evidence right now.

Last week, when I had requested this continuance, I had been informed that there was some additional evidence which might take a couple of days to uncover which had just come to my attention at that time; and of course, this is all in the record of what happened last week. The continuance was granted until today.

At this time I do have a witness who is a vital and necessary witness in the case who would be able to testify concerning statements made by the defendant to this witness. These statements will definitely implicate the defendant in the charge that we have before the Court. I want to reiterate that this was not known to me until last Tuesday. It was highly nebulous, and it was firmed up on Friday afternoon, Saturday morning.

Counsel for the defendant and myself went downtown, and we heard a tape recording of this statement, and counsel also received a copy of a transcript of this recording.

That was the first time I knew what the evidence was, and we are hear at this time as far as a motion is concerned.

Now, I would like to call Sergeant Whitley in connection with this to show that there is a cause for reopening the case. May he be permitted to testify at this time?

THE COURT: You are still under oath, sergeant, having been previously sworn.

Q: State your name.

A: Paul J. Whitley.

Q: Sergeant Whitley, it is true that you talked to me last Tuesday morning in connection with a matter that came up in this case with reference to new evidence?

A: Yes.

Q: Would you tell us when you received that information about this evidence?

A: That same morning.

Q: That would be last Tuesday which would be the 15th of November; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: I don't think it was the 15th. I think it was the 18th.

A: The 18th.

Q: What information did you receive and from whom did you receive it?

A: The Los Angeles Police Department contacted me and stated that they had contacted a Daniel Decarlo, and that he had information in regard to this case.

Q: By way of follow-up, what did you then do?

A: I then contacted you, and then I subsequently went out and talked to Daniel Decarlo.

Q: When did you talk to Daniel Decarlo?

A: I can't remember whether I talked to him Tuesday night or Wednesday.

Q: Anyway it was after we had gotten the continuance; is that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: The information that you received, without going into it deeply, was that Mr. Decarlo had information and statements that the defendant had made to him; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: When you talked to Mr. Decarlo on Tuesday or Wednesday, was there a recording made of this conversation?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that subsequently transcribed?

A: Yes.

Q: Then you set it up for Mr. Salter and myself to be here; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Once again, when was the first time that you had this information?

A: Tuesday.

Q: Did the Los Angeles Police Department say when they had gotten that information?

A: I believe it was late Monday night.

Q: Before this time, that is last Tuesday, had you heard of the name Danny Decarlo in connection with this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Had you had some information as to anything that he might have had to do with it?

A: Yes.

Q: What information did you have along that line?

A: That he had sold -- was one of the persons that had been in possession of the Volkswagen bus that we initially recovered in Santa Monica.

Q: When did you receive that information, approximately?

A: I received this information approximately on October 7th or 8th.

Q: In the course of the investigation, what did you do concerning that aspect of the case?

A: I was called to Independence, California, in regard to another lead, and my investigation in Independence disclosed that Danny Decarlo had nothing to do with the Volkswagen bus.

Q: Was he sort of dropped as far as implication in this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Then the next you heard of him was last Monday night or Tuesday morning; is that correct?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: If I understand you, sergeant, what you mean is, that you checked out Danny Decarlo's connection with this case, and your investigation led you to believe that he had nothing to do with it, but that subsequently something else was found out which showed that he did have something to do with it; is that the idea?

A: He had nothing to do with this car, as far as I know. In other words, I originally received information fourth hand that Daniel Decarlo had possibly been in possession of a Volkswagen bus at some time. Just about the time that I received this information, I was called to Independence, California, where I talked to other witnesses who told me that Daniel Decarlo had nothing to do with the car; that it was another person, and I just completely dropped him at that time.

THE COURT: But it subsequently revealed that he actually did have something to do with it?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. ROSS: In connection with the Volkswagen bus, did you speak with any other law enforcement officer, specifically from auto theft, in your office?

A: Yes.

Q: Whom did you speak to?

A: Sergeant Gleason, Elliott, Sims, and Lieutenant Chaney.

Q: What did you tell them about Mr. Decarlo?

A: I asked them if they knew a Danny Decarlo and if they had a present address on him?

Q: Anything else?

A: They told me that they would run him down and give me an address on him, and before I got the information I was up in Independence.

MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

Q: Were you aware during this investigation that Decarlo frequented the Spahn Ranch?

A: No

Q: Did you ever follow up your investigation to talk to Danny Decarlo?

A: No.

Q: Were you aware that Danny Decarlo was in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District on November 4th, 1969, at a preliminary hearing charging him with grand theft and receiving stolen property and possession of marijuana?

A: No.

Q: Are you aware of that now?

A: Yes.

MR. SALTER: Would counsel stipulate that the defendant was at a preliminary hearing on November 4, 1969, in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, being charged with grand theft, receiving stolen property, and possession thereof?

MR. ROSS: Yes, I will so stipulate.

Q BY MR. SALTER: Now, you say on Tuesday the 18th of November, you were contacted by someone from the LAPD?

A: That is correct.

Q: Who was that?

A: It was either Sergeant Pachett or Gutierrez.

Q: Sergeant Pachett or Gutierrez?

A: Yes.

Q: What did they tell you? Did they say they had talked to him at that particular time?

A: The conversation went through my partner Detective Guenther, and after the conversation -- now, I remember it was Gutierrez, the one they were talking to.

He said they had a conversation with Daniel Decarlo.

Q: Referring to that morning?

A: No, he was referring to the evening prior.

Q: Were you aware that Decarlo was in this very courthouse? When I say this very courthouse, I mean 1725 Main Street, the one we are in now, on the afternoon of November 18, 1969?

A: Yes.

Q: Is there any reason why you didn't talk to him sometime on the 18th of November?

A: Yes.

Q: That was that reason?

A: I had to go somewhere else on a different investigation.

Q: This tape recording that you made occurred around the afternoon hours, around 5:00 o'clock on the 19th of November; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: This individual, Danny Decarlo, who is to be your witness, as far as you know, his case is to be dismissed for testifying in this case; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You also know that he is a person convicted of a felony; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: He is also a person who is known to be a member of a motorcycle group called the Straight Satans; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: That is a motorcycle group that is of similar repudiated character as the Hell's Angels; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Danny Decarlo was to appear in Department A for plea on this charged against him, that is, grand theft, two 10851, possession of marijuana; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: He did appear in court this morning; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: At that time Mr. Ross asked the Court to continue the matter until tomorrow morning for the purpose of dismissing it?

A: Yes.

Q: His purpose was to dismiss once he has testified in this case; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, he asked to have it continued until tomorrow; is that correct?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. SALTER: And asked to have the case dismissed?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: The evidence that you expect that Mr. Decarlo will testify to are alleged conversations he had with the defendant, Mr. Beausoleil; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. ROSS: No, your Honor.

THE COURT: Is that the evidence?

MR. ROSS: That is the evidence on my motion, your Honor, yes.

MR. SALTER: I will have to put on some witnesses, your Honor.

MR. ROSS: How many do you need?

MR. SALTER: I want Sergeant Gutierrez.

MR. ROSS: I have him here.

MR. SALTER: I will start with him. I also want Danny Decarlo.

MR. ROSS: He is here.

THE COURT: On the motion?

MR. SALTER: This is on the motion, yes.

THE COURT: Well, then, I might as well call in the jury and excuse them until this afternoon.

Does this go to the reasonableness of the delay?

MR. SALTER: That is the idea.

THE COURT: Let us reconvene in the courtroom now, excuse the jury until this afternoon, and then we will hear this.

MR. SALTER: I object to the reasonable delay and the reasonableness of opening up the case.

THE COURT: Get the jury in.

THE COURT: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are very lucky to get you all back in the right seats after this delay. It is now 11:05.

Now, we are confronted with another matter. I have matters that are going to take the balance of the morning, and there is no use in keeping you around here waiting. So at this time I will excuse you until 2:00 o'clock this afternoon.

Again, remember the admonition not to talk to anybody about the case or discuss it with anybody. Please return at 2:00 o'clock this afternoon. You are excused at this time.

THE COURT: I am ready to hear the witness.

MR. SALTER: We would prefer to have the matter heard in chambers.

THE COURT: Why? That was my whole purpose in getting rid of the jury so that we could take on the evidence.

MR. SALTER: Well, your Honor, the nature of the proposed testimony is such, if it is not admitted, I don't think it should be brought out in open court.

THE COURT: Why?

MR. SALTER: Because of the dangers of the jurors hearing about it, either through the press or through other means. I think the court must recognize that the press is not the controller.

THE COURT: All we are concerned with now is the reasonableness of the prosecution and not having this available before last Tuesday.

MR. SALTER: That is fine, but in examining the witness, it would be necessary to bring out, especially, what Sergeant Gutierrez was told by this witness.

THE COURT: Are you making a motion to have this held out of the public courtroom?

MR. SALTER: That is correct.

THE COURT: The motion is denied. Let's proceed.

MR. ROSS: Apparently, one of the witnesses that counsel wanted, Officer Gutierrez, was here this morning, not under subpoena or anything, but was just here; and he was here at the time that I was talking in chambers. I said he was still here, but apparently he and his partner left before he knew he was going to be called by the defense.

THE COURT: Let's get the other witness.

MR. ROSS: Mr. Decarlo is here.

MR. SALTER: Mr. Decarlo, do you want to take the stand, please?

THE CLERK: Raise your right hand. You do solemnly swear 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: Yes.

THE CLERK: Be seated, please.

State your name.

THE WITNESS: Danny Decarlo.

THE CLERK: Is that D-e or D-i?

THE WITNESS: D-e.

THE CLERK: Thank you.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I understand now that Gutierrez is here. We would prefer to call Gutierrez first.

THE CLERK: Would you step forward.

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear 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: I do.

THE CLERK: Be seated and state your name.

THE WITNESS: Manuel Gutierrez, G-u-t-i-e-r-r-e-z.

Q: Sergeant, what is your occupation?

A: Police officer for the City of Los Angeles, currently assigned to Robbery-Homicide.

Q: In the course of your duties, did you have occasion to talk with a Danny Decarlo?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: On what date did you talk to him?

A: I don't recall the exact date. Approximately a week and a half ago.

Q: Do you have records of when you talked to him?

A: I believe so.

Q: At the time you talked to him, did you contact the Sheriff?

THE COURT: Were you the one that contacted Sergeant Whitley that there was something that had a bearing on this case?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I did.

THE COURT: Last Tuesday -- Wait a minute.

MR. SALTER: On the 18th this case came in here. It was in trial.

THE COURT: Were you aware of the fact that it was being tried?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I was.

THE COURT: Now, last Tuesday, the 18th of November, I granted a continuance until today because of the fact that there was newly-found information. Now I am relating this fact to you merely to jog your memory with regard to dates.

Do you recall when you first called Sergeant Whitley and informed him that you had this information?

THE WITNESS: Sir, that would have been, then, on the day prior -- I think it was the day prior.

THE COURT: It would have been Monday the 17th?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

Q BY MR. SALTER: At that time had you talked to Daniel Decarlo?

A: Yes, sir, I had.

Q: What information did you get from Daniel Decarlo at that time?

MR. ROSS: I object to that, your Honor. It is only pertaining to this case. I think there were some other things.

I would request that that be qualified as to this case.

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: As near as I can recall, without my notes here, that was in regards to the Hinman murder, and Mr. Decarlo related to me things he had heard from Mr. Beausoleil regarding the Hinman matter.

Q BY MR. SALTER: In other words, Mr. Decarlo related certain things to you that he had heard from the defendant, Mr. Beausoleil, in the Hinman homicide; is that correct?

A: Yes, they were

Q: At that time did you relate what you had heard from Mr. Decarlo to either Sergeant Whitley or Sergeant Guenther?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: Then that was on the --

A: 17th.

Q: -- 17th of November, is that correct?

A: I believe it was.

Q: That was about what time?

A: Late afternoon, as I recall, sir.

Q: Where was Mr. Decarlo at that time?

A: I don't know, sir.

Q: You talked to him that afternoon, didn't you?

A: I believe the question was, sir, that you asked me was where was Mr. Decarlo when I talked to the Deputies. I don't know where he was at -- then.

Q: Where was he when you talked to him?

A: When I talked to Mr. Decarlo, he was at the Police Building, 150 North Los Angeles Street.

Q: At that time was he in custody on some matter?

A: No, sir, he was not.

Q: Was he cooperating with you at that time?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What were you investigating?

MR. ROSS: Object to that, your Honor. It doesn't matter.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. ROSS: It is outside of this case.

Q BY MR. SALTER: Let me put it this way: Did he come in to discuss the Beausoleil case with you, the Hinman killing with you?

THE COURT: What you are getting at is, what was the purpose cf the conversation that you had with Decarlo on that date; is that correct?

MR. SALTER: That is correct.

THE COURT: What was the purpose?

THE WITNESS: I was investigating another homicide.

Q BY MR. SALTER: How long after you had your conversation --

THE COURT: Just so I understand this, had you had him brought in or called him in for the purpose of discussing this other homicide?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I had not, not for the Beausoleil homicide. I did talk to him about another homicide.

THE COURT: How did he happen to be in there? Did you arrest him and bring him in, or did he come in voluntarily?

THE WITNESS: No, sir. He come in voluntarily.

THE COURT: You had sent word out, "I want to talk to you about this other case"?

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

THE COURT: In the course of that conversation, he related the statements that you are talking about here?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q BY MR. SALTER: Did you ask him at that time if he would be willing to testify in the Beausoleil case?

A: No, sir I did not.

Q: When he came in to relate whatever he had to relate about the other matter, did he give his address and information as to where he lived?

A: Yes, sir, he did.

Q: So you had information on how to get in touch with him; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: Did you talk to him again after Monday?

A: Yes, sir, I've talked to him since.

Q: Did you talk to him Tuesday morning? When I say Tuesday morning, I am referring to November 18.

A: I may have talked to him on the phone, yes, sir.

Q: Do you know how long you talked to him on the phone at that time?

A: No, sir. I am not exact on the date of the 18th, whether I talked to him on the phone that date or the following date, but I did talk to him on the phone. That was for about 15 or 20 minutes.

Q: Incidentally, were you aware at the time that Mr. Decarlo had to appear in court on the 18th of November in Department A of this very courthouse?

A: I had heard Mr. Decarlo mention something about the 19th. He at first thought it was on the 18th, and he thought it was the 19th, as I recall.

Q: You are aware now that it was the 18th?

A: Yes, sir, I am.

Q: Have you subsequently read a reporter's statements as to what Mr. Decarlo stated to Sergeant Whitley and Sergeant Guenther?

A: No, sir, I have not.

MR. SALTER: May we have a short recess?

I would like to have a short recess while I have this officer read this, and then I have another witness.

THE COURT: It will be denied.

MR. SALTER: Well, your Honor, I have a question.

MR. ROSS: It is there, Counsel. Why don't you just show it to him. It isn't that long.

Q BY MR. SALTER: I show you a statement. I ask you to read it right now, just to yourself.

THE COURT: What is the materiality of this, whether he has read this or not?

MR. SALTER: It is material, your Honor.

If this is a statement or substantially the statement that Mr. Decarlo gave him and then he related this to Sergeant Whitley, it is obvious that they didn't need any further time to investigate this case. They knew where this individual lived. On Monday they knew where he lived. They knew what he had to say.

We had to have a week's continuance for this. They could have taken care of this Tuesday.

This man appeared in this very courtroom Tuesday and is prepared to prove that, unless counsel is willing to stipulate that Mr. Decarlo was in court Tuesday.

THE COURT: What you are trying to say is that when they took this statement, that you have just handed to them, they already knew everything that was in that statement; is that correct?

MR. SALTER: That is correct.

And this was on Monday night that they knew this.

On Tuesday Mr. Decarlo was in this very courtroom at 2:00 o'clock and I am prepared to prove that.

MR. ROSS: I don't think you mean courtroom.

MR. SALTER: I mean this very courthouse in Department A.

We were forced to have a week's continuance in this matter, until today.

THE WITNESS: May I clarify something, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Not having any knowledge of the Hinman murder, I did not question Mr. Decarlo in depth on this, and thought that this would be something that the Deputies could do better than I could.

THE COURT: You mean the Deputies assigned to the case?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. So there was no reason for me to go into detail with this.

This is why it was pushed over or given to the Deputies.

Q BY MR. SALTER: I take it, then, that what you are saying is that you did not interrogate Mr. Decarlo in detail with regard to what he knew about this particular case.

A: Not to any minute detail, no.

Q: I take it, however, that you received information from him in which he stated he had a conversation with Mr. Beausoleil, and in that conversation Mr. Beausoleil made certain statements, incriminating statements in the Hinman killing; is that correct?

A: Correct.

Q: Did you question him further as to what those statements were?

A: Yes, sir.

He said he --

Q: Just answer that yes or not.

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So you went into detail, although maybe not as much detail as in that report; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir, I went into small detail of --

Q: And then you related that detail to Sergeant Whitley or Sergeant Guenther; is that correct?

A: Whitley or Guenther.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: I have just a couple of questions, your Honor.

Q: Is that Sergeant --

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Sergeant, you work for the L. A. City Police Department, is that correct?

A: That is correct, sir.

Q: Is this case that we are involved in, the alleged murder of Hinman, within your jurisdiction?

A: No, sir, that is without my jurisdiction.

Q: Were you in any way investigating that particular case for presenting evidence to this court?

A: No, sir.

Q: If I understand you, as soon as you heard this, whatever this was from Mr. Decarlo, that you called late in the afternoon and told the officers in this case, either Guenther or Whitley; is that correct?

A: Guenther.

Q: After saying that to them, did you indicate where they could get a hold of Decarlo?

A: I believe I did, sir.

Q: Did they contact you again about getting a hold of Decarlo?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: When did they contact you?

A: That was the following day, as I recall, sir.

Q: That would be on Wednesday, the 19th?

MR. SALTER: Just a minute, Counsel.

That is putting words in his mouth.

MR. ROSS: Well, I don't know which date.

Let me withdraw the question. I don't want to lead him.

Q: You talked to him, that is, the officers in this case from the Sheriff's Department, on Monday afternoon; is that correct?

A: I believe it was, yes, sir.

Q: And then you had a conversation as to where they could find Decarlo; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you recall what date that was? Monday? Tuesday? Wednesday? Thursday?

A: I believe it was late Tuesday, sir.

Q: Whom did you call then?

A: Either Sergeant Whitley or Sergeant Guenther.

Q: What did you give them? Address? Phone number? What?

A: I believe I had his address by then, or phone number where I could contact him.

Q: Did you indicate to them that he had some kind of a court case out here in Santa Monica?

A: Did I indicate to the Deputy?

Q: Yes.

A: I believe I did, sir.

Q: Did you say where and when it was or what it involved, or anything like that?

A: No, sir. I didn't know anything about it.

Q: You heard this only from the defendant; is that correct?

MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

Q: Sergeant Gutierrez, on Monday, when you talked to Decarlo, you had his address and telephone number as to where he could be located?

A: I have just given that quite a bit of thought, and I didn't get his phone number. I had his address, but I didn't have his phone number. This would be his mother's phone.

MR. ROSS: May I have just a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. ROSS: I need just a moment to talk to the officer.

THE COURT: Who is carrying the ball?

MR. SALTER: I have the ball, your Honor.

Q: Sergeant Gutierrez, when you talked to Mr. Decarlo on Monday the 17th of November, did you have his phone number?

A: No, I did not.

Q: You had his address at that time?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: You just forgot to get the phone number?

A: That is exactly correct, sir.

Q: Sir, you were investigating a rather high-powered case at that time, weren't you?

MR. ROSS: I object to the "high-powered case."

THE COURT: Sustained.

Q BY MR. SALTER: Sir, you were investigating the Tate murder case at that time, were you not?

THE COURT: Sustained.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, may I be heard on this? In fact, I have a right to be heard as far as arguing is concerned.

It is my point, my position, that this officer is trying to tell this Court that he interviews a witness, which I think we can prove he was interviewing this witness with regard to the Tate murder case; and I think it is very unlikely that the officer is incompetent. He is competent, and he is going to get the address of such a witness for such a case as that and not inquire even as to his phone number? He just happened to forget his phone number?

I mean, if it was a small case, fine, but he is investigating a case in which there has been so much publicity, and they are rather anxious, I imagine, to find out who did it.

I find it very unreasonable of this officer not to get his phone number, and i think it is proper

THE COURT: Just a moment. The objection is sustained.

Q BY MR. SALTER: All right. You had his address and then you got his phone number sometime later; is that correct?

A: That is correct.

Q: Do you know when you got the phone number?

A: Yes. I believe it was on Wednesday, the 19th, 19th of November.

Q: When you first got the name of Daniel Decarlo you got that name from some other officer, is that correct?

A: No, sir.

Q: From whom did you get the name?

MR. ROSS: We will object to that, your Honor. I don't think it is material to his proceeding. He stated he was investigating something else that wasn't connected with this.

THE COURT: I think it irrelevant, but I assume it goes to the question of when he first had information about this thing. However, we are not concerned about when he first got information. We are concerned about when it was first given to Sergeant Whitley.

MR. SALTER: That is correct.

THE COURT: I will sustain the objection.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Thank you.

Step down.

Mr. Decarlo, would you come forward and take the stand, please. You have been previously sworn, and you are still under oath.

MR. SALTER: I have no questions at this time. I want to recall Sergeant Whitley.

THE COURT: You do not want him?

MR. SALTER: Not at this time.

THE COURT: All right, have a step down.

MR. SALTER: Sergeant Whitley.

THE COURT: Are you going to use this witness at all?

MR. SALTER: Not yet.

MR. ROSS: He will be here on the matter anyway.

Q: Sergeant Whitley, you had a conversation with Mr. Fitz of the District Attorney's office, the Head Deputy, in Santa Monica regarding this matter; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: That conversation, I am referring to, took place Tuesday; isn't that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: That was Tuesday, the 18th of November; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: At that time did you tell Mr. Fitz the name of this witness that you had?

A: I can't recall.

Q: You knew it was Danny Decarlo at that time; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You also knew that he had this case pending; is that correct?

A: I can't remember at that time if I knew about it or not?

Q: You don't know whether you told Mr. Fitz the name of the witness or not?

A: I can't remember that.

Q: Did you tell Mr. Ross the name of the witness?

A: On Tuesday morning I really can't recall whether I gave Mr. Ross that information at that time or not.

Q: Did you tell him Tuesday afternoon, prior to 2:00 o'clock?

A: I can't recall.

MR. SALTER: No further questions.

MR. ROSS: I have no questions.

THE COURT: Step down.

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I believe we can mutually stipulate, as far as the 'name being furnished at least to myself, that I was informed of the name of the proposed witness before 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, after we had continued the matter over until the afternoon. I didn't know the name at that time and I did learn of the name before 2:00 o'clock, and we came in to request the continuance.

MR. SALTER: In other words, it is stipulated that you knew the name of Danny Decarlo prior to the motion that took place on November 18, 1969, that took place around 2:00 o'clock.

MR. ROSS: I knew the name of a proposed witness, yes, that is all I can state.

MR. SALTER: You knew Danny Decarlo?

MR. ROSS: I didn't know any information as to what it was, but I knew the name Danny Decarlo.

MR. SALTER: Yes, we will so stipulate to that.

THE COURT: Is that all of the evidence?

MR. SALTER: No, your Honor, one more stipulation.

THE COURT: What stipulation do you want?

MR. SALTER: Counsel and I would like to have a stipulation. May we have a minute? We want to talk to Mr. Fitz.

THE COURT: All right, go ahead.

THE COURT: Let us get back to Beausoleil. Where were we, gentlemen?

MR. SALTER: I call Mr. Fitz.

THE CLERK: You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

THE WITNESS: I do.

THE CLERK: Would you take the stand.

Would you state your full name for the record.

THE WITNESS: David N. Fitz.

Q: Mr. Fitz, what is your occupation or profession?

A: Deputy District Attorney.

Q: What is your position in the District Attorney's office?

A: Head Deputy of the Santa Monica Branch Office.

Q: Mr. Fitz, drawing your attention to the date of November 18, that was last Tuesday of this year, did you have a conversation with either or both Servant Whitley and Sergeant Guenther?

A: I did.

Q: That was regarding the Beausoleil case?

A: It was.

Q: Did this conversation take place prior to 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, November 18?

A: It did.

Q: At that time did they tell you that they had a witness that they thought was important in this case?

A: They did.

Q: Did they give the name of that witness to you?

A: Yes, they did.

Q: They told you that the witnesses's name was Daniel Thomas Decarlo?

A: I remember Decarlo.

Q: At that time you were also aware that your office was prosecuting him on a grand theft charge or some type of charge ---

A: I became aware of that.

Q: -- prior to 2:00 o'clock?

A: I knew that prior to 2:00 o'clock.

Q: Do you know what time you became aware of that?

A: It would be sometime between a quarter after 1:00 -- in the neighborhood of 1:30.

Q: This information that you have just testified to, did you relate that to this Court in chambers sometime just shortly after 2:00 o'clock?

A: That is true.

Q: At that time that you related the information you weren't in chambers by yourself?

THE COURT: What information are you talking about?

MR. SALTER: The information just brought out on the stand.

THE WITNESS: With reference to --

THE COURT: Let us put it this way: Mr. Fitz told me that he had evidence and was requesting that the matter be put over, but I don't think I ever heard the name of Decarlo. I don't think he ever told me that.

THE WITNESS: I don't recall that I did, your Honor.

THE COURT: My recollection is that I told you I didn't want to know what the evidence was, because I didn't want to get any information outside of court.

MR. SALTER: What information did you have?

THE COURT: That based upon your information as a Deputy District Attorney that it was material, that I would grant the continuance. That was the gist of it. Q BY

MR. SALTER: Do you recall what information you gave the Court in chambers at that time?

Q: I advised the Court generally that there was a possible witness in the Beausoleil matter. That the testimony could be extremely important to the case. That this particular witness was also being interrogated by other agencies, and that it was desirable that the matter be recessed so that the deputies assigned to the investigation of this case might themselves personally interview this witness. I advised the Court that they had not done so, and, in a sense, evaluate what they heard so that a determination could be made as to whether that individual could be made a witness in the Beausoleil case.

Q: That was the entire conversation with the Court?

A: That is the gist of it.

Q: That was in chambers, just you and Judge Shea; is that correct?

A: That is true.

Q: That took place between 2;00 o'clock and --

THE COURT: Do you remember you had to explain to me that you were running the office instead of Joe Chandler? I didn't even know he was the Head Deputy. I thought Joe was still around the office.

THE WITNESS: That is right. We did grope for a while in trying to find out who I was.

Q BY MR. SALTER: You had seen me in court itself before going into chambers?

A: I had.

Q: You went into court to discuss this with the Court yourself; is that correct?

A: I did.

Q: One more question, Mr. Fitz. You didn't tell me what you were going into chambers for, did you?

A: No, I did not.

Q: You did not invite me in there to discuss the case with you and the Judge; is that correct?

A: I did not.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

MR. ROSS: No questions.

THE WITNESS: Am I excused?

THE COURT: Yes, thank you.

MR. SALTER: I have no further evidence on the motion.

I do have some other motions, however, arguments, as far as the People's motion is concerned.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

THE COURT: Let's hear them.

MR. SALTER: I think the introduction of the proposed testimony is highly prejudicial and unreasonable, your Honor. First of all, the continuance, it turns out to be unreasonable. The officers has -- strike that.

I call Mr. Decarlo to the stand.

THE COURT: Will you come forward.

THE CLERK: You have been sworn, sir, and are still under oath.

Q: Mr. Decarlo, drawing your attention to 2:00 o'clock, November 18, 1969, were you in Department A of Los Angeles County Superior Court?

THE COURT: Wasn't that stipulated to?

MR. ROSS: I thought it had been, too.

Q BY MR. SALTER: Were you in court at that time?

A: Yes.

Q: That was right downstairs in this building

A: That is correct, yes.

Q: In the morning you were at home awaiting a call from Sergeant Guenther and Sergeant Whitley; is that correct?

A: I don't know if it was either of them two, but I was expecting a phone call.

Q: You were told to stand by awaiting a phone call from somebody regarding this case?

A: Yes.

Q: Who told you to stand by? Sergeant Guenther?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You had given them your name; is that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions.

THE COURT: Step down.

MR. ROSS: Just one question.

Q: You had not talked to the people in the Sheriff's Department before you came to court here Tuesday afternoon?

A: You mean, did I talk to them?

Q: Right.

A: I talked to somebody. I don't know who they were from. It was prior to me going to court.

Q: Well, did you talk to this officer sitting next to me, Sergeant Whitley?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is that yes?

A: Yes.

Q: Was that before going there?

A: I believe so.

Q: Where was it that you talked to them?

A: Downtown.

Q: And a tape was made of your conversation?

A: I didn't.

Q: Somebody out there typed out what you had to say on one of those stenorette machines?

A: This was after they took the tape.

Q: Did you talk to them before then?

A: Yes.

Q: When was that?

A: Three or four days before, maybe.

Q: Where did you talk to them?

A: Downtown.

Q: Was it the same policeman or the police department, or where would that have taken place?

A: The only police officer I know by name is Mr. Guenther.

Q: Is he the fellow you talked to?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: I have nothing further.

MR. SALTER: I have nothing further.

MR. ROSS: Step down.

In light of that, I would like to call Sergeant Whitley for just one second.

MR. SALTER: Are you reopening your motion to reopen?

MR. ROSS: Do you want to call it a rebuttal to reopen?

You have previously been sworn in the matter. I remind you that you are still under oath.

Q: On Tuesday the 18th, where were you in the morning hours?

A: I went to work Monday night at approximately 10:30 of the 17th. I worked all night until 9:30 a.m. of the 18th. I then went to Department 101 where I testified in a murder trial.

Q: Were you with Deputy Guenther?

A: He shuffled between 101 and another court where we had a kidnapping case going. That went on until ten minutes after 5:00 of the 18th.

Q: Did you come out here sometime during the 18th?

A: I can't remember whether I did or not. I think at lunchtime I ran out here and then back to the Hall of Justice to testify again.

Q: And were coming out and having your little conference in Mr. Fitz's office until 1:00 o'clock?

A: Yes, it was at lunch.

Q: You were still working on these other cases?

A: Yes.

Q: Were you the only two officers that had been assigned to this defendant's case?

A: Yes.

Q: In other words, you and Sergeant Guenther were out here between 1:00 and 2:00 o'clock on the 18th of November, 1969?

A: That is correct.

Q: You were talking to Mr. Fitz during that time

A: Yes.

Q: You also talked to Mr. Ross during that period of time; is that correct?

A: Yes.

THE COURT: Are you through, gentlemen?

MR. ROSS: I just have one other question.

Q: Did you know Mr. Decarlo was out here that afternoon?

A: No.

MR. ROSS: Nothing further.

THE COURT: Step down.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, the motion to reopen is prejudicial and unreasonable. The motion to continue, in fact, was prejudicial and unreasonable in view of the evidence.

On Monday sometime, Sergeant Guenther and Sergeant Whitley had the information of what Mr. Decarlo was going to testify to. They knew, number one, that if they testified as to certain statements, incriminating statements, or allegedly incriminating statements, said by Mr. Beausoleil, there wa... nothing' further to investigate as to whether it is admissible or not whether they needed substantiation or not. They knew right at that point the legal substantiality the statements. They knew his address. They knew his name, They knew everything. They had no further investigation. They could have possibly asked him a few more details, which could have been done in a half an hour's conversation before Court on Tuesday or 3:00 o'clock Tuesday.

They then tell Mr. Fitz about this matter, and Mr. Fitz becomes aware of this matter sometime before 2:00 o'clock Tuesday.

Mr. Fitz knows the name of the individual. He knows the information. He knows the admissibility of it, and then he makes a representation to this Court that it is solid evidence, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, at 2:00 o'clock our Mr. Fitz also, by the way, is aware that his office is prosecuting Mr. Decarlo.

Mr. Decarlo then comes to this very building at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday and makes an appearance in Department A on this other matter. The District Attorney's office is therefore advised, either through Mr. Fitz or someone else who make an appearance -- if the Court wants, we can bring him up, the person who represented the District Attorney's office -- at 2:00 o'clock so that they knew Mr. Decarlo was there at 2:00 o'clock. There was no need for a continuance. You could bring Mr. Decarlo up here, make a motion to reopen, and if it is granted, the matter is then heard at 2:00 o'clock. There was no reason whatsoever to continue.

Now, Mr. Whitley said that one of the reasons they needed a continuance was because he was busy on other matters. Well, there is no legal ground for a legal continuance when you are in trial in a case, and either Sergeant Whitley or Guenther were present during most of the trial. There has been no legal excuse, no legal grounds for a continuance, and now the question is of reopening the matter.

The Court heard evidence that this individual whom they propose to put on after almost a week's continuance, is an individual who has been promised that his case, in which he is charged with grand theft, receiving stolen property, possession of marijuana, will be dismissed by the District Attorney's office; in fact, the Court has heard evidence that in Department A this morning, his case was put over to tomorrow morning for that purpose.

You also heard evidence that this man is a member of the Straight Satans, which is a group like the Hell's Angels. You also heard that this man has been convicted of conspiracy to smuggle narcotics. So he is a convicted felon.

I say this type of testimony at this stage, after this length of a continuance, is prejudicial. It is error. I object, your Honor.

We have already rested. I have only put on one minute's worth of testimony. Look at the effect that this testimony is going to have on the jury. All of a sudden, they throw in this. This is the only thing that they could even call. substantial evidence, if it is to be believed in this whole case. The only other thing they had was some vague circumstances. There was nothing which would tie Mr. Beausoleil in with the murder. Now, all of a sudden, they are going to put on a statement, a very harmful statement, at this stage, after having a week's continuance. Imagine the effect this is going to have on the jury.

Your Honor, I checked through the reopening of the People's case, and I also move for mistrial on the grounds of an unlikely and unreasonable delay in this matter.

THE COURT: The objection will be overruled.

The motion for a mistrial will be denied.

The motion of the People to reopen is granted, and at 2:00 o'clock, gentlemen, we will proceed with the trial.

MR. ROSS: Thank you.

THE COURT: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

Call your next witness, please.

MR. ROSS: Very well, your Honor.

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, before we proceed, I have one more motion that I would like to make. It is a very quick motion, your Honor.

THE COURT: Let's go into chambers. (Whereupon the following proceedings were had in chambers, outside the presence and hearing of the jury.)

MR. SALTER: Let the record show we are in chambers with the defendant, outside the presence of the jury.

Your Honor, at this time I would ask the Court to cite Mr. Fitz for misconduct and move for a mistrial, based on the conduct of the District Attorney, Mr. Fitz, who represents the District Attorney's office in this case. You have already heard my thoughts as to his misconduct, by going in and discussing this case with the Court outside my presence, without my knowledge; and as a result, a motion that has been harmful to defendant was granted, a continuance, which I felt was beyond reason and with no showing on the record at that time as to what the reason for the continuance was, as far as solid facts.

THE COURT: I thought I made it perfectly clear that at the time he came in here, he did not discuss anything about the merits of the case, only that he had information, which was the basis for the request for continuance; and I said that I would rely upon their representation in that regard.

MR. SALTER: Well, that was my whole point. He made representation outside my presence to this Court, and then there still was no showing at that time as to what the evidence was.

The Court has taken the representation of someone who was not on record in this case but was the Head District Attorney of the Santa Monica Branch Office; and based upon his representation, outside my presence in chambers, the Court granted action; and I think that was misconduct on behalf of the District Attorney's office, and that is why I am asking for a mistrial in this matter.

THE COURT: The motion is denied.

THE CLERK: State your name for the record.

THE WITNESS: Danny De Carlo.

Q: It is Danny De Carlo; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: You live here in the Los Angeles area?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you acquainted with the defendant Bobby Beausoleil?

A: Yes, I know him.

Q: When did you first meet him, approximately?

A: Around the middle of July.

Q: Of this year?

A: Yes.

Q: Where was it that you met him?

A: At Spahn's Movie Ranch.

Q: Spahn's Movie Ranch; is that what you said?

A: Yes.

Q: Whereabouts is that located?

A: It is out in the Valley, in Chatsworth.

Q: Were you staying up at that location?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was the defendant Bobby Beausoleil staying up at that location?

A: Yes.

Q: How long a period of time did you stay at that ranch?

A: Off and on for about three months.

Q: Was there some period of time there during July when the defendant or Mr. Beausoleil left the ranch for awhile?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How long was he gone?

A: Approximately three days.

Q: Did you have any conversation with Bobby as to where he was going?

A: Not until he got back.

Q: When he got back, did you have some conversation with him as to where he had been?

A: Yes.

Q: Was there anyone else present at the time of this conversation?

A: There might have been a few girls running in and out of this particular place that he was at, but other than that, it was me.

Q: Where was that that it took place?

A: At the end of the ranch in the bunkhouse.

Q: To the best of your knowledge, when approximately can you fix the time or date, if you can?

A: Around the last part of July.

Q: That's this year, of course?

A: Right.

Q: What was the conversation that you had?

A: Oh, where he had been.

Q: What did he say?

A: Oh, they went up to -- him and two girls went up to Gary Hinman's house.

Q: Did he say where this place was?

A: No, sir.

Q: What else did he say?

A: They went up there to get some money off of him, and they went inside to talk to Gary.

They talked in there for about two, three hours. They just talked about old times.

Q: Did he say he knew Gary before that?

A: Well, I heard the name mentioned. Now, whether he knew him before that, I don't know.

Q: You say he talked to him about old times.

Then what did he say?

A: During the course of the conversation he pulled a gun on him and demanded that Gary give him the money that he had. He was supposed to have $20,000.

And Gary told him to get out of the house, "Take your gun and everybody else and get out."

So then Bobby hit him with a gun, punched him around a little bit.

Q: Continue if you will, please.

A: But Gary still wanted him out of the house. He wasn't going to conform to what anybody said. He just told him to get out.

Q: Will you slow down a little bit.

He told him to get out; right?

A: Yes.

Q: What else did he say?

A: Well, he continued -- proceeded to beat him, to punch him around, tried to show him that he wasn't a joker in any way, and that he wanted the money and anything else that was in the house.

But, then, Gary said, "No, get out."

So he called up a guy named Charley at the ranch.

Q: That is back at the Spahn Ranch?

A: Right.

Q: So what happened?

A: So Charley and this guy went up to the house where Bobby was at. I didn't see them leave, though.

Q: You knew this guy Charley?

A: Yes.

Q: This is what Bobby is telling you still?

A: Right.

Q: Go ahead.

Q: So when Charley got there, Gary ran up to him and told him to take your kind and get out.

So Charley had a long sword, hit him with the sword, cut his ear off.

So he told Gary that, you know, "You had better conform, or you had better do what you are told," along those words.

So then he left.

Q: Who left now?

A: Charley did, and left Bobby back up there again.

So he stayed there, I guess, another six or seven hours with Gary, and then he called back Charley -- up, and said, "Gary isn't cooperating."

So Charley told him, "You know what to do."

So he stuck him with a knife.

Q: This is Bobby still saying this?

A: Right.

Q: What did you say about sticking him with the knife?

A: He said he hit him once with a knife. It didn't kill him right off. He hit him again and again. He did not say how many times he did it. He didn't die right away. It took him awhile.

After he was dead, they took the blood and put a panther paw upon the wall with the words "Political Piggy," or something along that line. I can't exactly remember -- remember exactly what the words were that he put on there, but he put it in Gary's blood.

Q: Did he say why he put that on the wall?

A: Well, it deviated toward the Black Panther.

Q: Did he say anything about any property that was taken?

A: No, he didn't say what property was taken, but they came back with two cars.

Q: What kind of cars did he come back with?

A: One was a small white Toyota and the other was a Volkswagen bus.

Q: Mr. De Carlo, I show you a picture here that we have marked as Exhibit 31, a Volkswagen bus.

Does that appear familiar to you?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: Is that the bus you are talking about?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was that brought back to the ranch when Gary (sic) came back?

A: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: Excuse me.

Do you mean the defendant Bobby?

THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MR. ROSS:

Q: I show you this exhibit that we have marked as No. 1 and ask you to look at that.

Does that look familiar?

A: Yes. It is a little white car.

Q: Is that the one you are referring to that came back when Bobby did?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: When you were talking with Bobby at this time, did he have any weapons on him?

A: He had a small bowie knife that he carried in a sheath on his belt.

Q: I have an exhibit here that we have marked as Exhibit 15 with this hawk or the bird on the front of it.

Does that appear to be the knife that he had?

A: Yes, sir, that's it.

Q: Did he carry that with him?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Was this inside some kind of a sheath or scabbard of any kind?

A: It was made out of leather.

Q: Does this appear to be the scabbard with the leather sheath that you are talking about?

A: It was something like that.

Q: Why was Bobby telling you all this?

A: Because I belong to a motorcycle club --

Q: Which club is that?

Q: The Straight Satans from Venice; and it was maybe more or less to impress me, or because the idea was to get my club up there and more or less protect everybody else; and I was the only one up there, so they more or less preyed on me with the boasterous (sic) acts they did.

Q: Boasting, did you say?

A: Boasting, right.

Q: Did Bobby say anything to you about going back to the house after the stabbing?

A: Yes, sir.

They went back there to wipe off the writing they put on the wall.

Q: Did they wipe anything else other than just the writing?

A: They wanted to clean the house up extra good, but it was mostly to take the writing off the wall.

Q: Did they say they had done that?

A: I can't remember whether he did or not.

Q: Did he say anything about how long had gone by between the time he left the house and the time that he came back?

A: Approximately two days.

Q: Did he say anything about that the place looked like when he got back there?

A: Other than he could hear the maggots eating away on Gary and how the house stunk pretty bad.

Q: Now, you have a case pending here in Santa Monica Court, do you not?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: You talked with me this morning about the matter, did you not?

A: Yes.

Q: I indicated to you that I wanted you to testify in this case; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: What did I tell you I wanted you to testify to?

A: To tell nothing but the truth.

Q: Are you telling me that now?

A: Yes, sir, I am.

Q: I also indicated to you that if you did tell the truth in this case, as you indicated, that your other case - we would recommend that that case be dismissed against you?

A: Yes, you did.

Q: You are charged with stealing a motorcycle; is that correct?

A: Yes.

MR. ROSS: I have no further questions.

Q: You are charged with stealing a motorcycle and possession of marijuana; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You made an appearance downstairs in Department A this morning; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir, I did.

Q: At that time you were supposed to enter a plea; is that correct? That is what it was scheduled for?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: At that time Mr. Ross did appear and the matter was continued until tomorrow; isn't that correct?

A: Yes, sir, it was.

Q: For your testimony today you expect Mr. Ross at that time, or someone from the District Attorney's Office, to dismiss the case; isn't that correct?

A: Well, I don't know what his intentions are.

Q: Well, he told you he was going to dismiss the case?

A: Well, if that is what he said, that is what he is going to do.

Q: You heard what he just said, didn't you?

A: Yes, that is what he said.

Q: He told you to tell the truth; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir, he did.

Q: This is what you told him was the truth; isn't that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: This is the truth that you told him in return for the dismissal of the case; isn't that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So all Mr. Ross has is your word that it is the truth, isn't it?

A: Just my word, yes, sir.

Q: You have been convicted of a felony before, haven't you?

A: Yes.

Q: You have been convicted of conspiracy to smuggle narcotics, haven't you?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: As a member of the Straight Satans -- that is a club something like the Hell's Angels, isn't it?

A: Yes, sir, it is.

Q: Do you have a code of truth in that club, too?

A: What do you mean by "a code of truth"?

Q: Well, as a member of the Straight Satans, are you sworn to uphold truth and law and order?

A: You mean among my club?

Q: Yes. You said you were a member of the Straight Satans. Is it like the Hell's Angels; it is like the boys discuss that you are to uphold the law and order and the truth?

A: We do the best we can.

Q: This person Charley that you referred to in your testimony, were you aware of this person Charley's full name?

A: Charles Manson.

Q: You heard the statement, you say, sometime in July. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: You are testifying here for the sole purpose of getting your case dismissed; is that correct?

A: I will testify to what I heard.

Q: Is the purpose of your testimony today solely so that you will get your case dismissed?

A: No, sir.

Q: You have other motives, too; is that correct?

A: A man was killed for no reason at all. That is the motive.

Q: That is your motive?

A: That's right.

Q: Were you aware that Mr. Beausoleil was being charged with this crime?

A: Yes, I did.

Q: When did you become aware of that?

A: When he got caught with the white car.

Q: So it was around August 6th or 7th that you became aware that he was being charged with a crime; is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Now, did your desire to bring out all of these facts well up within you so much that you came forth at that time on August 6th or shortly thereafter --

A: No.

Q: Let me finish before you shake your head.

-- shortly after and say to the Sheriff or to Mr. Ross or to somebody else, "Wait. I want to tell the truth and I want to tell what happened. And I had a conversation with Mr. Beausoleil"? Did you do that at that time?

MR. ROSS: Excuse me.

I wish to interpose an objection, number one, in that it is a compound question; number two, it is argumentative.

THE COURT: Sustained on both grounds.

MR. SALTER: All right.

Q: Did you, at the time that you found out Mr. Beausoleil was arrested and charged with this crime, go forth to the authorities and tell them of the conversation that you say you had with Mr. Beausoleil?

A: Because when he first told me ---

Q: Just answer that with a yes or no, sir. I am not asking you for any reason.

If you have any reasons, Mr. Ross is fully qualified to question you on them.

A: At first, no.

Q: You didn't come forth, I take it, until sometime after you were charged with a crime; is that correct?

A: With which crime?

Q: With this crime of theft of a -- what was it? -- theft of a motorcycle?

A: Yes.

Q: That's the theft of a motorcycle; is that correct?

A: An engine. An engine that I sold.

Q: Well, you didn't come forth to the authorities until after you had been charged with that crime did you?

A: No.

Q: Just answer that yes or no.

Mr. Ross is fully competent to ask you any further questions if he desires.

A: No.

Q: Were you and Mr. Beausoleil friends?

A: I like him. I liked Bobby.

Q: I did not ask you that. I asked you if you were close friends.

A: I considered him a friend, yes.

Q: You say he made this statement so you could protect him -- you and your gang?

A: No, sir. He just told me about it.

Q: You were under the impression that he gave you this statement so that you could protect him, you and your gang; is that correct?

A: When he first told me --

Q: Is that what you were under the impression of?

A: So that my club would protect him?

Q: Is that what you said?

A: No, I said that it was Charley's idea.

Q: Charley Manson's idea?

A: Yes, right.

Q: That your club was going to protect Charley Manson?

A: Right.

MR. SALTER: I have no further questions of this witness.

THE COURT: Mr. De Carlo, when was it that you first disclosed to any law enforcement agency or any officer of the fact of this conversation that you had had?

MR. SALTER: Your Honor, I object to the Court's asking this witness any question. I object to the Court even asking any questions on this matter.

THE COURT: The objection is overruled.

Do you understand my question?

THE WITNESS: You want to know when I first went to the police?

THE COURT: Well, I guess you could put it that way.

What I want to know is: When did you first disclose to any law enforcement officer this conversation that you had had with Bobby?

THE WITNESS: Approximately a couple of weeks ago; maybe not that long. Maybe a week and a half.

THE COURT: Do you recall the occasion of your talking to anyone --

THE WITNESS: The first one that was talking to me were the Venice Detectives.

THE COURT: The what?-

THE WITNESS: The Venice Detectives.

THE COURT: That is the first time you told anybody about this conversation?

THE WITNESS: I didn't tell them. He just asked me about it.

THE COURT: And you say about a week and a half ago?

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, probably a week and a half, two weeks ago.

THE COURT: You don't remember the exact occasion?

THE WITNESS: No, sir, I don't.

THE COURT: Any redirect?

MR. ROSS: No, nothing further.

MR. SALTER: Nothing further.

* * *

THE COURT: Anything else by the defendant?

MR. SALTER: I have already rested by case, your Honor,

MR. ROSS: Your Honor, I guess we can get into the argument of the case. There is some matters on the instructions which I would like to discuss with you briefly before we go into the argument.

THE COURT: We will take a five-minute recess, ladies and gentlemen.

THE COURT: Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is time for Counsel to present their arguments at this time.