The Manson mythos has a long reach. Charles Manson is and
remains the ‘bogeyman’ of our timesand has been so since 1970. Part of this aura exists because of the nature of the murders that occurred at Cielo Drive where victims fled calling for help and ‘witchy’ things were not simply printed on the door in blood but spoken to the victims. Part of it comes from the official motive and part from the instrument of murder- knives. But perhaps none of that would have remained in the collective psyche if it were not for the fact ‘Manson didn’t kill anyone’. Instead he convinced others, according to the official narrative to kill for him. They weren’t mob hit men or professional assassins or even psychopaths. They were early twenty-something girls.
Even though Watson did most of the killing what images
appear with a google search of ‘Manson killers’? Aside from Manson, it is by
far the girls. Like this one- a movie still.
The impact of ‘Manson’ was, perhaps, best illustrated by
Dana Gilbert nearly forty years ago:
_____
“This, again, goes to my second point. And that is, the
State in the form of the prosecution will not let the people forget that they
were part of the Manson family. And it doesn’t matter if you try to break away.
You will not be allowed, not by Manson, but by the State, by Chief Davis, by
the District Attorney’s office, you will not be allowed to forget that you were
part of the Manson family. And everything you do is because you’re part of the
Manson family. Because you’re interested in ecology, that’s part of the Manson
family. Because you’re interested in earth sciences, you’re part of the Manson
family. It doesn’t matter. It’s guilt by association. Its as simple as that.
You were part of the Manson family once. You will never be allowed to forget
that. If you have an independent interest, that doesn’t matter. It’s because of
somebody else in some part of the Manson family at one time thought about it,
that means that you’re still interested in the Manson family. Don’t you think
we’ve had enough of this? It’s been almost eight years now.” (S. Dana Gilbert, attorney. Krenwinkel Parole
Hearing, July 17, 1978)
_____
At the trial Bugliosi invoked the image of Hitler to define
Manson:
_____
“The Nazis murdered 6 million Jews at Adolph Hitler’s
command.”
*****
“ I want to make an observation related to what I just said,
one or more of you may say to yourselves—I don’t think any of you will—but the
thought certainly may enter your mind that as wicked, as vicious, as these
three defendants are, by comparison to Charles Manson, they are not as wicked
and vicious as he is; therefore, let’s give Manson the death penalty and these
three female defendants life imprisonment.
The only type of problem with that type of approach, ladies
and gentlemen, is that these three female defendants are given credit, as it
were, because of Manson’s extreme wickedness and viciousness.
Under that type of reasoning if you were to employ that type
of reasoning then if Adolph Hitler were Charles Manson’s co-defendant, Manson
should receive life imprisonment because of the comparison with the
indescribably evil Adolph Hitler.”
(Vincent Bugliosi, Argument, Death Penalty Phase, Vol 207 at
27,862-3)
_____
In March 1971 Bugliosi invoked the name and memory of Hitler
to sway the jury. But invoking the name ‘Charles Manson’ that’s another story
altogether. If you are on trial I think you are better off being Hitler then
Manson.
_____
Certainly don’t talk about yourself to friends in terms of
Manson.
“VIII. Should the State have been allowed to refer to and
question concerning Charles Manson? Defendant claims the State's questioning
permitted by the court, over his objection, concerning Charles Manson and
matters relating to or referring to Manson was irrelevant and immaterial.
During trial, the State examined Lori Forrester and Conard
about statements defendant had made [to third parties] characterizing himself
as Charles Manson.
Defendant objected to these questions as irrelevant and
immaterial. The court overruled the objections, stating that the questions did
not ask who Charles Manson is or what he stands for, but rather called for
testimony relating to defendant's statements characterizing himself as Charles
Manson. [Aside: you are kidding me right? The jury didn’t know who Manson was?]
Although it would have been preferable for the court not to
allow this evidence on direct examination of the State's witnesses, we cannot
say it was an abuse of the court's discretion to admit evidence that defendant
characterized himself as someone else.
State vs. Horn, 282 N.W.2d 717 (1979).
Horn was convicted of first degree murder but his conviction
was overturned, but not for this.
_____
Now, understand the DA is not supposed to compare the
defendant to Manson.
“Finally, the defendant complains of comments made by the
prosecutor in closing argument. This assignment of error has some merit. Some
of the remarks of the prosecutor [footnote #3] can in no way be considered
fair comments on the evidence. Nor are they in answer to anything raised by the
defendant. The remarks are totally improper and were it not for the
overwhelming evidence of guilt, this case would have to be reversed because of
them.
Under the circumstances, we believe that the minds of the
jurors were not swayed between guilty and not guilty verdicts by the
prosecutor's misbehavior, but they may well have been swayed to return a more
severe penalty than they would have given otherwise. For that reason and
because of the improper cross-examination of the defendant, the sentence
is MODIFIED from a term of thirty (30) years' imprisonment to
a term of fifteen (15) years' imprisonment and is otherwise AFFIRMED.”
[3] "... A good citizen? Yeah. He [Megget] was a good
citizen. Charles [Manson] was a good citizen before the eyes of the law, before
he committed his first crime; so was Patty Hearst, so was Al Capone, before
they committed their first crime. And I suspect that somewhere in the vast
metropolitan area of Chicago you could have found somebody to say, `Yeah, I
knew John Dillinger. He was good to me. He was a good employee of mine.' And I
think perhaps even Charles [Manson] had a character witness or two at his
trial....
Megget v. State, 599 P.2d 1110
(Okla. Crim. App. 1979)
“When combined with the prosecutor's analogizing the
appellant to Charles Manson and the Candy Man in closing argument, we cannot
say beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury was not unduly prejudiced in its
sentencing of appellant. Accordingly, we would modify appellant's sentence from
forty-five (45) years' imprisonment to thirty (30) years' imprisonment.”
Wooldridge v. State 659 P.2d 943 (1983)
_____
Despite cases like Megget and Wooldridge,
actually preventing the DA from invoking Manson to help convict you for some
reason is rather difficult. Invoking Manson and comparing the defendant to him
could result in a mistrial. But I wasn’t able to find a single case where that
happened. Instead it usually goes like this.
“Fourth, Shurn complains that the prosecutor stated that
Shurn was more deserving of death than Charles Manson. Again, Shurn overstates
the prosecutor's argument. The prosecutor stated, "The Charles Mansons of
the world, you're not going to deter them.... This is the kind of crime that
can be deterred." In fact, the prosecutor was, in a backhanded manner,
stating that Shurn was better than Manson.”
State vs. Shurn 866 S.W. 2nd (1993)
Sharon was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death.
“Appellant also claims the solicitor's mention of Charles
Manson in his closing argument warranted a mistrial. We disagree.
While making his closing argument, the solicitor stated:
"...[a]nd they are going to tell you that they are both cloaked in
innocence. As a matter of fact, its a part of the charge that His Honor will
give you that they are cloaked in innocence and only you can remove it. Well I
want you to know that the cloak has been worn by many people and its been
ripped from them by many juries. Charles Manson wore that same..."
At this point appellant's counsel objected and moved for a
mistrial. The trial court denied this motion, instructed the jury to disregard
the mention of Manson, and directed the solicitor to "get off the
subject."
"When the record shows that objectionable evidence was
either disallowed or stricken out on motion and the jury instructed to
disregard it, the [appellant] cannot complain." State v. Campbell”
State vs Stroman 281 S.C. 508 (1984)
Stroman was convicted of multiple offenses and received life
in prison for murder and kidnapping. The appellate court vacated the life
sentence for kidnapping- not that that really mattered given the rest.
Ward v. State 262 Ga. 293
(1992)
(f) The prosecutor did not argue impermissibly by telling
the jury that convicting the defendant only of involuntary manslaughter
"is like convicting Jack the Ripper or Charles Manson for disturbing the
peace."
Ward was convicted of kidnapping and murder and sentenced to
death.
_____
The good news is that you can use Manson to get out of jury
duty….sort of.
“ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER SIX
Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously excused
a prospective juror, Faye Robinson, for cause.
Faye Robinson testified that she could not vote for a death
penalty, stating: "I couldn't say that anyone has to go to death. I don't
want to be a part of it." (Tr. 218) Although she would "never vote
for it", she "probably" could in the case of someone like Adolph
Hitler. (Tr. 219) If Charles Manson or Hitler were being tried, she thought she
could consider a death penalty.
The trial court concluded that Ms. Robinson could not impose
a death penalty and allowed the challenge for cause.
Ms. Robinson indicated that she would vote automatically
against capital punishment except in the case of a mass murder on the scale of
Adolph Hitler or Charles Manson. There was no abuse of discretion in the trial
judge's conclusion that this disqualified her as a juror.”
State v. Nicholson 437 So. 2d 849 (1983)
_____
‘Mass murder on the scale of Adolph Hitler or Charles
Manson’? I personally don’t think there is an actual parallel there.
It appears Ms. Robinson couldn’t vote for the death penalty
for a rather wide variety of murderers but it’s not a problem when it comes to Manson-
his reputation proceeds him.
_____
And then there is my personal favorite. It requires a little
‘legalese’ to understand. In the law there is a concept known as ‘judicial
notice’. Put rather simply, the court may take judicial notice of something
that is so well established absolutely no evidence need be offered to prove the
point: the earth is round, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. And….
In the case of Lawrence Walker the DA had this to say:
“On cross-examination, when the prosecutor sought to
determine whether the appellant had been looking for a job after his release
from prison, Mrs. Richardson stated: "He would go looking for a job, but you
know, I mean, how many people are going to give Charles Manson a job? [Footnote
#1]”
But the fun part is the footnote:
“(1.) This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the
name "Charles Manson" is synonymous with murder and "some
particularly terrible crime.”
Walker v. State 631 So. 2d 294 (1993)
So in Alabama, at least it is incontrovertible that ‘Charles
Manson’ means ‘terrible murder’.
Walker was convicted of robbery in the first degree and
sentenced to life in prison without parole as a habitual felony offender.
Pax vobiscum
Dreath
