Nov. 7 – Leslie Van Houten’s attorney, Richard Pfeiffer, has taken his pursuit of the Tex tapes to California’s court of appeals.
Last week, Pfeiffer filed a Writ of Mandate with the appellate court asking them to reverse a Superior Court ruling that denied Van Houten access to the nearly half century old recordings.
Attorneys for Van Houten have been trying to obtain the recordings through discovery for four years. In August, the Superior Court granted Van Houten a hearing pursuant to People V. Franklin, in which she would be able to establish a record of mitigating evidence in support of youth offender parole. Pfeiffer asked the court to order the tapes be turned over for use in the hearing.
Opposing the release, Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Donna Lebowitz argued that the penal code limits post-conviction discovery to cases with sentences of death or life without the possibility of parole.
On September 12, Judge William Ryan ruled against the release, agreeing with Lebowitz’s argument and adding the tapes only contained information already well known.
On September 21, attorneys representing Van Houten filed a reconsideration motion, which Ryan denied on the 29th, stating that they had failed to show “new or different facts, circumstances, or law as to warrant a different result upon reconsideration.”
Pfeiffer contends that the District Attorney’s withholding of the Tex tapes meets the criteria of Brady v. Maryland, which mandates the disclosure of evidence favorable to the accused, which is suppressed by the state, resulting in prejudice.
Ryan ruled that Brady did not apply in a post-conviction context because Van Houten had been proven guilty and no longer has the same liberty interests as a free person.
In his filing with the appellate court, Pfeiffer argues that a Franklin hearing is essentially a subsequent sentencing hearing, in which all rights apply, including discovery.
Pfeiffer feels the tapes are further evidence of Manson’s control over the family and wants to use them to impeach statements made by former Manson family member Barbara Hoyt. In Van Houten’s 2013 parole hearing, Hoyt minimized Manson’s control when she stated that family members came and went on their own free will, while Van Houten chose to stay. Governor Jerry Brown relied heavily on Hoyt’s statements in his reversal of Van Houten’s 2016 parole grant.
According to Pfeiffer, Ryan’s ruling constituted a reversible error because Van Houten’s ability to contradict the reasons for the Governor’s reversal should require release of the tapes pursuant to basic fairness and due process under the fourteenth amendment.
Franklin hearings are new type of proceedings and have only existed for little over a year. In light of this, Pfeiffer conferred with other attorneys throughout the state regarding the issue of discovery and admissibility in them.
“At Franklin hearings, attorneys have stated that the most contested arguments related to what was discoverable and admissible,” wrote Pfeiffer. “A published opinion regarding this issue will greatly assist attorneys and superior courts in what efforts to pursue and in making appropriate rulings. “
The Board of Parole Hearings found Van Houten suitable for parole on September 6 and following a review period, Governor Brown will have until February 3, 2018 to weigh in on the decision.
Good! Don’t give up girl.
this is ridiculous, the should have given them the tapes years ago.
I see and say that this secrecy by some entities is quite disconcerting.
There was an old saying that was commonly said, I remember, since I was a young
cute teen, that said: “you can’t fight city hall.”
You know, when you wanted to complain about an injustice or get some remedy for a problem whether for the neighborhood or your house or business.
In the years of the 60’s and 70’s, there were journalists and media that investigated and uncovered this dastardly deed, or that, such as the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, political corruption and so on.
So, us activists were happy to see that sunlight, so to speak, on government agencies and so on.
Now…what a disappointment.
It’s back to the dark ages.
It’s worse than ever.
Now, submitted for your approval:
you cant’s fight city hall.
You can’t fight State hall.
You can’t fight federal hall.
You can’t fight District Attorney hall, like the one in L.A.
The only place you can find people/media that investigate and exposes dishonesty and questions legal and other matters is on the internet.
It’s bad enough that the D.A.’s from L.A. are keeping what appears to be the old ‘state secrets’ papers or, in this case, tapes, but they are just so crazy about this old, met all criteria for release lady, Leslie, that they go lobbying the media and Guv Brown’s office to oppose a parole that was…granted!
Why oppose the release… if they, that DA office can at a moments notice say, “okay here,” to Leslie’s attorney,
“read or listen to the papers or tapes.”
Those that originally belonged to a clients attorney to begin with-Tex’s, by the way.
Okay, so can we then, well, I will say,
at least leave the parole board… decision alone.
They reviewed everything and said, Leslie, you are granted parole.
Let that stand and just let it be
rehab, fairness and the law say that
everything’s been met oh and,
thanks for reading this and hope you can agree
Oh where it would
could ever be
that Fayez’s words
set Leslie free.
CB–so something that bolsters your position is a lame retort? Tarded much??
News reports the cult leader near death. I think his end may provide the political cover Brown needs to sign the parole board’s papers. If not this year, then once she hits 50 years behind bars.
Personally, I think all of them should have had their original sentences carried out, but circumstances changed and LvH has met the guidelines of the changes.
God please always watch over the souls who were murdered by the hands of these killers.
I could write something else
I can write on anything on a moments notice
ooh woo it’s fun to do
so you all will know
what I write are lyrics
there’s always something in my head
when I write here there and some other places
it’s funny how I even have melodies with my words and lines
over my eyes
spinning and thinking it’s a lotta fun if only
ah I mean well well how can I tell try to figure it out and maybe you’ll agree
hey there friends I went through the sixties
pot hash acid and hippie for a time and I was with a California girl
who was that girl by that tree waving and saying hi to me
well well it was cute Susan Atkins and she said my name is Sadie
sit here and let’s talk and I did and she said let’s go up that hill and be with me
and now I am here after all these years and I wonder how I can even think Louise
after all that I’ve been through
now I’m thinking whoo I saw it all through and through
July 1969 by that tree
Sadie that day with me
but really ah
she had me
what does it mean to know and still sing and write so easily
ask me you’ll see
by the way I heard that brother Charlie has left us for the big Ranch in the sky
time yeah yeah did fly
my oh my for now… a goodbye
I think they don’t want to release those tapes because it WILL help her and they don’t want her released. That’s just a theory of course.
Yes, quite right, and, out of hate for her.
You met Sadie?? Tell us about it. Can you prove it??
Do you really think the people that have power over Leslie’s parole or the Tex tapes will withhold it because they “hate” her? Is that where your default position is–emotionalism? Or is that just your projection??
If you are a lyricist or a songwriter–I hope you keep your day job.
First I wanna thank you because I laughed good when I read,
you said lyrics..? “keep your day job.”
I’m not being sacastic at you, that was good, thanks.
If one looks at lyrics, in lines and words, in rock n roll, there is, often, a rambling there of seemingly unrelated lines, a sort of medley, so to speak.
I don’t expect Paul McCartney or Mick Jagger to lose any minutes of envy over my lines.
I just broke out laughing, now, writing that.
Can you dig it.
As far as Susan Atkins, yes, that was in Chatsworth in July ’69.
I met her and two other girls with her at that grocery store, outside.
Susan and I took off, after talking for a while, see you later, she told her friends.
It started when I walked out of the store, she was near the street.
She saw me and said, whatcha doin’.
I like her a lot and I liked her friends when we all met then and also later.
Yeah, they were from Spahn and Susan just told me it was a commune they lived as part of that place. She said it was her friends and group.
She didn’t mention Charlie.
She kept asking me to go with her there.
I was in the L.A area for around five days visiting a friend that had worked with me in Denver before he moved out to California.
What Susan, she told me her name was Sadie, and I talked about and what we did, well, I think it’s more than something to fit in a paragraph here, and what my feelings were and how those feelings evolved when I found out years later she was at the Tate house.
So, you’re right about my having an emotional reaction.
By the way, I’m editing my book about the 60’s, which is what my experiences there were, all having occurred and my social commentary. The difference here, is, unlike most writers in magazines and books, I was there. With some hippies, acid, antiwar demonstrations, then living like a ‘playboy,’ and more.
Why then, with all that did I care and get involved with, Susan Atkins?
Because that’s exactly what got me ‘into’ the whole Manson situations, having met her.
My book is around 600 pages and has five parts-part one is about Susan, the Cielo Dr. crimes, court, and details of Susan and I.
A book like what no one has ever read before.
And, I have lyrics here and there to relate to the scenes. With some serious and some humor/sarcasm. It’s gonna be a ‘trip’ to read.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch…just kidding…
I apologize for misspelling two words.
I had inadvertently typed Louise’s name twice because when I went to read what I wrote before pressing the comment button, I didn’t go back far enough up and typed the name again.
So I misspelled Louise’s name wrong at the top.
I’m sorry Louise, that was an accident.
I also misspelled the word sarcastic.
I guess I better proof read more carefully.
Fayez–in the time you spent with Sadie, did she ever take a dump in front of you?
Did you ever talk about the Black Muslims? Or any Muslims?
Fayez, there is something majorly wrong with you. “Cute” Susan Atkins, who held a knife to Sharon Tate’s throat while she begged for the life of her unborn child, and told her “look bitch, I have no mercy for you. You’re gonna die so you better be ready”. What is with you? Watson, Atkins, Krenwinkel, Beausoliel, Manson, Davis and Van Houton were all sentenced to death and then in 1972 the California supreme Court rules the death penalty to be over turned and they are given life…more than those killers gave to their victims.
Well Rosie, to be fair, you never saw Sadie pinch a loaf in front of you. It might have been mesmerizally charming!
Fayez, what say you??
Tate - LaBianca Murders
Gary Hinman Murder
Hinman / Shea Murders
© 2023 CieloDrive.com