• Bruce Davis • 2007

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay, we're on the record. This is Subsequent Hearing Number 27 for inmate Bruce Davis, CDC number B-41079. Today's date is September 6, 2007. This hearing is being held at the California Men's Colony. Today's date -- excuse me. The time is now 1355. The inmate was received April 21st, 1972 from Los Angeles County. The life term began April 21st, 1972, with a minimum eligible parole date of December 1st, 1977. The controlling offense, First Degree Murder, two counts, case number A267861. As to count one, PC 187, as to count three, PC 187. Inmate received a term of two life sentences, seven to life, but they are running concurrently, with a minimum eligible parole of December 1st, 1977. This hearing is being recorded and for voice identification purposes each of us will state our first and last names, spelling our last name for the record, and when it comes your turn, Mr. Davis, if you would after spelling your last name state your CDC number, and I will start and go to my right. Darcel Woods, W-O-O-D-S, Commissioner, Board of Parole Hearings.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I'm Bruce Mitchell, M-I-T-C-H-E-L-L, Deputy Commissioner.

INMATE DAVIS: Bruce Davis, D-A-V-I-S, B-41079.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Michael Beckman, B-E-C-K-M-A-N, Attorney for Mr. Davis.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Patrick Sequeira, S-E-Q-U-E-I-R-A, Deputy District Attorney, County of Los Angeles.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And for the record, there is one correctional peace officer present for security purposes only. Deputy Commissioner Mitchell, is there any additional information in the confidential file that may be considered for this hearing today?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: There is confidential (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. There is an Exhibit 1, which is a hearing checklist that I have placed with the DA, and basically all that is, Mr. Davis, is that it is a checklist to make sure that we are all in possession of all the items on that list. After the DA has initialed that, he will pass that back to me and then I will pass it to your counsel to ensure that he too is in possession.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have initialed the document. I have received the material. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay, thank you.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I believe I've received all the material as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Thank you. Did you initial that for me? Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, actually I should note for the record that I appear to be missing some support letters, and --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- I don't know if they've come in recently. I didn't receive them in the ten-day packet, but I know that they were sent --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- a long time ago.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Beth Davis, primarily.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Thank you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible), and a Charles W. (inaudible), and a Robert A. Wilson, Larry Wilson, Larry Hoekman (inaudible). I have one here from Brian K. Orson, and one from William B. Clark. Clark? 200.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: What's the date on the William

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Clark is August 23, 2007

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. Yeah, that's the one I have.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And if you don't have them at, I'll get copies for you. I have one here from from Michael Oliver, one from Lieutenant David (inaudible), one from Debbie (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: What's the date of that?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: August 7, 2007.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, I made a copy of that one, Commissioner.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: All right. And we have one here from Barbara, I think (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Daggett.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Daggett? Anything else besides Miss Davis? Is that your wife?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. I mean, some of them I don't have, but then the ones that are necessary is the one from Beth Davis. And there's one I don't think you have and that is from Paul Kenny, and I have a copy of that for you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's offering him a job.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Counsel, are there any other documents that you'd like to submit at this time?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Not at this time, Commissioner. I'm going to reserve the right to submit later, if and when it becomes necessary to.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Very well. Counsel, the record reflects that on March 16th and June 5th your client signed documents identified as BPT Forms 1073 and 1002. The 1073 Form is regarding ADA accommodations and the 1002 are regarding hearing procedures and inmate rights. According to the ADA form, it indicates that your client has no disabilities. Is that information still current and correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, it is.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Do you have any concerns or comments regarding your client's ADA rights and his ability to participate in this hearing today?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: None at all. He'll be fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Do you have any preliminary objections?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, I do, and these objections are just for the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. So first I have objections to the matrix, the life crime and the burden of proof. By allowing the Board to deny Mr. Davis parole based upon the life crime and other unchanging historical factors despite the fact that he has served a term well beyond the minimum sentence and beyond the matrix in actual time served, Title 15, Section 2400, et seg., violates the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution in the following respects: one, by allowing the Board to use so-called aggravated facts and circumstances of the life crime and Mr. Davis's prior criminal record and social history occurring years ago as the sole basis for denying him parole approximately 27 times, Title 15 violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After being found guilty by a jury based upon a full analysis and adjudication of the facts underlying the crime, Mr. Davis was sentenced to life with possibility of parole. By using those same facts to deny parole this Board is in essence retrying the case and imposing a new sentence on the inmate, life without possibility of parole. The double jeopardy clause prohibits this; two: by allowing the Board to find certain facts of the life crime to be aggravated and to use those facts to keep Mr. Davis in prison beyond its own matrix for this crime, Title 15 violates the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments because the matrix itself provides a mid, low, and aggravated term based upon the exact same aggravated facts, and to allow the Board to use these aggravated facts to deny parole beyond the matrix constitutes the imposition of a new sentence and a new matrix; three: by requiring Mr. Davis to prove his suitability for parole, Title 15, Section 2400 violates the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Once Mr. Davis's incarceration has reached the minimum sentence or the matrix for the crime, the burden of proving that he is unsuitable for parole must lie with the State and the appropriate burden of proof is either beyond a reasonable doubt or at minimum clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Davis would pose an unreasonable risk to society if released. The some evidence standard is inappropriate to parole hearings. The some evidence of unsuitability standard violates Mr. Davis's protected liberty interest in parole. The U.S Supreme Court held that the "some evidence" standard was the appropriate standard of reviewing decisions concerning discipline of an inmate in prison because that inmate has no protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment in review of alleged disciplinary violations. Since Mr. Davis does have a liberty interest in parole, the some evidence standard is inapplicable to parole consideration hearings. Mr. Davis objects to the composition of the Panel in its entirety. Penal Code Section 5075 requires that the Board consist of a cross- section of Californians. The present Board is nothing even close to a cross-section of Californians. It is heavily weighted towards people who are inclined to deny parole. Title 15, Section 2250 states that the inmate is entitled to hearing by an impartial Panel. Given the composition of the Board, it is not possible for the inmate to have an impartial Panel and hearing in violation of the due process clauses of the California Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Title 15, Section 2250, as well as the California United States Constitutions mandate that the inmate have a hearing by an impartial Panel. However, the Board has been operating under a de facto, no parole for murderers policy promulgated by the present and prior two governors of the State of the California. Per this policy, the Board predetermines to deny parole in the vast majority of hearings for lifers convicted of murder. This policy prevents Mr. Davis from receiving a "fair parole suitability hearing conducted by a Board free of any prejudices stemming from this gubernatorial policy in violation of the due process clause at the California United States Constitution as stated by the court in Coleman v. Board of Prison Terms."

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: If counsel's going to make these legal arguments, if he's just objecting to the hearing, period, why don't you state that and have it noted for the record. Everything you're saying is for an appellate court. It's not for this hearing Panel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's going --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You're objecting -- if you're objecting to this Panel even hearing the case, then make your -- make that objection and why don't we just move on the with hearing. Your rights are preserved. You can object --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- to anything that (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm preserving them, Mr. Sequeira.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: They're preserved already is what I'm saying. You're wasting the Panel's time and my time as well as your client's time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Beckman, would you like to submit that for the record for us to consider? anyway.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No. I only have one more

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And that regards the fact that the district attorney is not permitted to ask questions of the inmate at this hearing. Title 15, Section 2030 sets forth the district attorney's role at this hearing. In addition to offering an opinion as to Mr. Davis's parole suitability, he has the right to ask "clarifying" questions of the Panel. The DA does not have the right to question Mr. Davis either directly or indirectly. As a result, it will not allow him to answer any questions posed by the district attorney during this hearing, and I want to caution the Panel not to hold my instruction against Mr. Davis in any way. Those are my preliminary objections.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And you said that they were just basically you wanted to put it on the record.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: You don't want to rule on them or anything like that. Okay. All right. Okay. Will your client be speaking with the Panel today?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, he will be, but he will not be discussing the crime.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. So he will discuss everything other than the circumstances of the crime, correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. In that case, Mr. Davis, please raise your right hand. I'll swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you will give here today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth --

INMATE DAVIS: I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- to the best of your ability?

INMATE DAVIS: I do.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. There is an ADA Statement in front of you. If you would please read that into the record. Can't pick it up.

INMATE DAVIS: "The Americans with Disability Act, ADA, is a law to help people with disabilities. Disabilities are problems that make it harder for some people to see, hear, breathe, talk, walk, learn, think, work, or take of themselves than it is for others. Nobody can be kept out of the public places or activities because of a disability. If you have a disability, you have the right to ask for help to get ready for your Board of Prison Terms BPH hearing, get to the hearing, talk, read forms and papers and understand the hearing process. BPH will look at what you ask for to make sure that you have a disability that it is covered in ADA, and that you have asked for the right kind of help. If you do not help -- if you do not get help, or if you don't think you got the kind of help you need, you can ask the BPH 1074 Grievance Form. You can also get help to fill it out."

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Mr. Davis, did you understand the content of that document today?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am. Yes, I did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Can you kind of give us a little brief summary of what that means?

INMATE DAVIS: All right. There's -- ADA is about helping you if you have a disability.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Correct.

INMATE DAVIS: And if you are able enough to diagnose your disability, then you may make a request for remedial things to help you with your disability.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Correct. Thank you. Now I see that you did put on a pair of glasses to read that ADA Form.

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Are those basically just for reading or for general vision?

INMATE DAVIS: Mostly for reading.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. So those will suffice for you today?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Did you have any difficulty walking to the hearing today?

INMATE DAVIS: No, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Can you --

INMATE DAVIS: No, I'm physically fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: You look like it. All right. What about can you sit and stand for long periods of time?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I can.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. So do you see any reason why you can't move forward based upon a disability?

INMATE DAVIS: No, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. With that, I'm going to read into the record the hearing procedures and inmate rights. This hearing is being conducted pursuant to Penal Code Sections 3041 and 3042 and the rules and regulations of the Board of Parole Hearings governing parole consideration hearing for life inmates. The purpose of today's hearing is to consider your suitability for parole. In doing so, the Panel will consider the number and nature of the crimes for which you were committed, your prior criminal and social history, and your behavior and programming since your commitment. The Panel has had an opportunity to review your Central File. You will be given the opportunity to correct or clarify the record. The Panel will consider your progress since your commitment, your counselor's reports, your psychological evaluations, and any other relevant information. Any change in your parole plans should be brought to the panel's attention. The Panel will reach a decision today and inform you whether or not it finds you suitable for parole and the reasons for its decisions. If you are found suitable for parole, the length of your confinement will be explained to you. Nothing that happens here today will change the findings of the court. The Panel is not here to retry your case. The Panel is here for the sole purpose of determining your suitability for parole. Do you understand that?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. This hearing will be conducted in three phases. First I will discuss with you your commitment offense, your prior criminal and social history. The deputy commissioner will then discuss with you your progress since your commitment, your counselor's reports and your psychological evaluations. The deputy commissioner will then discuss with you your parole plans and any letters of support or opposition that may be in your file. Once that's concluded comes the question phases. The commissioners can ask you questions, the district attorney can ask you questions if he has any, and then your counsel can ask you questions. Everyone will have an opportunity to ask you questions. Okay. The questions, if the district attorney has any, shall be asked through the chair and you can answer to the Panel. Okay. And I know that your attorney has already voiced opposition to you answering any questions, and if at that time, when the question phases comes, he can tell you that he does not want you to answers questions and that's fine. Okay. The next phase of this process is that the district attorney, your attorney, and then you will be given an opportunity to make a final statement regarding parole suitability. Your statement should address why you feel that you're suitable for parole. At that point the Panel will recess, clear the room and deliberate. Once the deliberations are completed, the Panel will resume the hearing and announce its decision. The California Code of Regulations states that regardless of time served, a life inmate shall be found unsuitable for and denied parole if in the judgment of the Panel the inmate would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. Now you have certain rights. Those rights include the right to a timely notice of this hearing, the right to review your Central File, and the right to present relevant documents. You also have a right to be heard by an impartial Panel. You will receive a copy of the Panel's written tentative decision today. That decision will become effective within 120 days. It is also subject to review by the governor. A copy of the tentative decision and a copy of the transcript will be sent to you. The Board has eliminated its appeals process. If you disagree with anything in today's hearing, you have a right to go directly to the court with your complaint. You are not required to admit your offense or discuss your offense if you do not wish to do so, however, this Panel does accept as true the findings of the court and you are invited to discuss the facts and circumstances of the offense if you desire. The Board will review and consider any prior statements you have made regarding the offense in determining your suitability for parole. Do you understand those rights, Mr. Davis?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And as stated earlier, in general, as far as the Panel's composition, do you feel that you are seated before an impartial Panel? And he does not -- he doesn't have to answer that, but I'm asking him because you made the point earlier.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I made the point about the composition of the Panel in general.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: We have no particular objections to this Panel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: We hope you will be fair.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Okay, then, with that --

INMATE DAVIS: So I do I have an objection or not?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No.

INMATE DAVIS: If you don't hold your hand up and say you're going to do the right thing, then I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We're going to do the right thing.

INMATE DAVIS: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: If you could swear to that, then I'm cool.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We are a fair and impartial Panel.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'm -- I wouldn't expect less.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Okay, then, I'm going to read into the record the facts of the crime, and I'm going to do so from the probation officer's document, and that starts where it says, "Present Offense" on page 3, line 12.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just give me a second, Commissioner.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. "The defendant was arrested by sheriff's deputies of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on December 2nd, 1970 and booked on suspicion, violation of 187 PC, murder. He was charged in grand jury indictment number A267661 with violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code, murder, counts one and three." And then he goes on to talk about some things you were not convicted for, the conspiracy. Okay. We'll jump down here to line 22. "Codefendant Susan Denise Atkins pled guilty to murder, first degree, in count one on May 22nd, 1971 and was sentenced to life in prison. Codefendant Charles Manson was found guilty of all three counts and his penalty was life in prison. Steve Grogan, that's G-R-O-G-A-N, was found guilty by a jury of murder first degree, count three. He was sentenced to death on December 23rd, 1971 in Department 107. Robert -- I believe that's Beausoleil?

INMATE DAVIS: Beausoleil.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: "Beausoleil, that's B-E-A-U-S-O-L-E-I-L, was found guilty in Superior Court case number A057452 of murder first degree. He appeared in Department 107 on June 15th, 1970 when sentenced to death. Okay. The court is aware of the facts of the present offense in view of the lengthy jury trial. Consequently, based on above information, a brief summary or synopsis of the present offense will be presented for the record. Count one refers to the murder of Gary Allen, A-L-L-E-N, Hinman, H-I-N-M-A-N. His dead body was found in a decomposed state in the living room of his home on Topanga Canyon Road in Topanga on or about July 31st, 1969. He had last been seen alive on July 25th, 1969 driving a Fiat station wagon. The autopsy revealed that the victim was killed by stab wounds through the chest which penetrated his heart. The autopsy further demonstrated that he suffered other wounds, including the stab wound in the area of his chest, a gash on the top of his head, a gash behind his right ear, lacerations of the left side of his face which cut off part of his ear and cheek. The conspiracy count in count two refers to codefendants Manson, Grogan and Atkins and defendant conspiring to kill and rob victim Hinman. The overt action and conspiracy includes the defendant and codefendant Atkins driving to the vicinity of victim Hinman's home on or about July 12th, 1969, that the defendant and codefendants entered the victim's residence and that later, they drove away from his home in his Fiat automobile. Count three refers to the murder of Donald Jerome (Shorty) Shea, that's S-H-E-A. Sometime between August 16th and September 1st, 1969 the defendant and codefendants murdered the victim and buried his body somewhere in or near the Spahn Ranch. Intensive investigation has failed to date to produce the body of the victim. The victim worked on the Spahn Ranch as a ranch hand while defendant and codefendants were living there. Evidence presented during the codefendant's Grogan's trial indicated that he had beheaded the victim with a machete. Defendant's Statement: The defendant did not submit a written statement. Orally, he said that he had nothing to discuss regarding the offenses for which he was convicted because he did not kill anybody. He said, 'I have nothing to say about them. I didn't kill them. I am not sure Shea is dead. Yes, I saw Hinman probably in early 1968.' Later the defendant remarked that he did not know what to say and then added, 'The court does not --' excuse me -- 'The court does what it wants to do to who it pleases. Anything I say doesn't really matter. They won't let me talk when I want to.' The defendant said that he met Charles Manson sometime in 1968 and after that lived with him and others at the Spahn Ranch on Santa Susana Road." Okay. And let's see, looking at the March -- excuse me - - the April 2005 parole consideration hearing Board Report it gives a Prisoner's Version. It says: "According to inmate Davis, he had been living a life that was geared toward drugs and sex. He was frequently intoxicated with hallucinogenic substances for much of his association with Charles Manson. Manson began preaching about death and destruction. The Family began adopting a survivalist lifestyle. Drugs, free sex, poor hygiene, thievery and begging were also promoted. Davis stated he was unable to make good decisions due to 'unmet needs.' He stated he was trying anything he could to meet those needs and that he was looking for acceptance and friendship from Charles Manson and others within the group. Davis said he pursued 'pleasures of the flesh' and as long as he received those pleasures of the flesh he felt he was doing the right thing. In June or July of 1969 Charles Manson asked Davis to drive several Family members to the Hinman's house. Davis delivered Mary Brunner, B-R-U-N-N-E-R, Robert Beausoleil and Susan Atkins to the Hinman residence, then he returned to Spahn Ranch. After a couple of days, Manson received a call from one of the Family members at Gary Hinman's house. The Family member said, 'Gary isn't cooperating.' Davis claims he didn't understand what this was about. During the interview Davis stated, 'What I did understand was that they went there to rob Gary Hinman. They thought he had money but he didn't.' Manson then asked Davis to drive him back to Hinman's residence. When Davis entered the house, Robert Beausoleil was holding Hinman at gunpoint. Davis asked for the gun but Beausoleil --" oh -- "which Beausoleil handed to him. Davis states that he had the gun in his possession but did not have it pointed at Hinman as stated in the 1996 BPT report. While Davis was standing there with the gun, Manson sliced Hinman's ear. Davis later took one of Hinman's cars back to the Ranch but claims 'Gary was very much alive the last time I saw him.' Sometime in August 1969 Manson decided that David [sic] Shea was a police informant in the Tate-LaBianca murders. Davis went along with three Family members of the Manson Family who had asked Mr. Shea to drive them to get some spare car parts. During the interview Davis stated he knew that they were going to kill Shea. He said, 'I knew it wouldn't do anything --' excuse me -- 'I knew I wouldn't do anything physical but I wanted it to look like I was going along with Manson so that I could maintain his friendship.' Shea was driving the car when Charles Watson, who was sitting next to Shea, told Shea to pull the car over. At first Shea wouldn't, then Watson pulled the knife on Shea. When he pulled over, Steve Grogan, who was sitting behind Shea, hit Shea in the back of the head with a pipe wrench. Watson and Grogan got out of the car and dragged Shea down the hillside into a ravine. Davis remained in the car until Charles Manson drove up in another car, stopped, and went down the hill to join Watson and Grogan. A few minutes later Davis went down to where they had the victim. Manson handed Davis a machete and told Davis to cut his head off. Davis dropped the machete. Davis stated that he couldn't do it so Manson handed him a knife, which Davis used to slash the victim's shoulder. Davis was sure that the victim was dead by the time he cut him. Davis cut the victim because he didn't want to be disapproved by the Family. Davis stated that it took him years before he was really able to feel remorse for his involvement in the crimes. He believed that his inability to feel sadness and empathy was the result of heavy drug usage at the time. He now experiences sadness as he knows the families of the victim still suffer due to the actions of himself and his codefendants." Okay. And now I see on here, on this Board Report, that there is multiple crime listed. As of March 2000, Davis is no longer wanted in the U.S. Marshal's Office under a detainer issued in 1971 in April which referred to a conviction of false identification of a firearms dealer for which he received a three-year consecutive sentence. Is that correct? Because it just kind of --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes, that's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I think what had happened is he was given a three-year consecutive sentence. There was a detainer on him, but since he's been in custody for such a long time the federal authorities I think just dropped the detainer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Meaning that they feel that he's -- you know, he's served --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: In furtherance of justice. Okay. Because sometimes we have things show up on here that --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- I always have to ask about that. All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There's one other correction. He was convicted of all three counts.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Of the conspiracy as well as --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Counts -- yes, conspiracy as well as.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Yes, I saw that. Thank you.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Prior crimes. Let's look at your priors. It says in this Board Report from 2005 that you have no juvenile history of arrest, correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. For your adult convictions it states that in March 9th, 1968you were arrested for possession of marijuana, the case was dismissed in the interest of justice. On May 2nd, 1968 you were arrested for a possession of marijuana again. These charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence. And let's see, December -- no -- October 12th, 1969 you were arrested for receiving stolen property, grand theft auto and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On October 27th of that same year, 1969, these charges were dropped due to the lack of evidence. The following year, January 21st, 1970, you were arrested for receiving stolen property for which there was no disposition shown. Do you remember that incident?

INMATE DAVIS: So we're talking about my convictions here?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We're talking about any of the arrests that have been shown, whether you were convicted, there was no disposition. This one doesn't have a disposition at all, so we're just asking for clarification. Don't know?

INMATE DAVIS: No, I was not convicted.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: No, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. March 7th, 1970 was arrested for fraudulently obtaining a firearm by giving false identification, and I believe that was the one that had the detainer on it.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, that's right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Are there any others, sir, that we should be aware of?

INMATE DAVIS: No, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Personal history. All right. It states that you were the youngest of two children and the only son born to a typical middle-class family, your mother and father are both now deceased, correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Let's see. It says that your father was a pipefitter and a welder who died suddenly from an aneurysm when you were around twenty-five years old, your mother was a housewife and homemaker, until you were approximately ten years old. She became an accountant and began a career as a working wife and mother. Let's see. "Davis describes his childhood environment as being highly unpredictable and unstable due to his father being an alcoholic who was verbally and physically abusive towards the family members." Was that pretty much your entire life as a youth that that went on, Mr. Davis?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, till I was maybe a sophomore in high school.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. When you say verbal abuse, can you give me an example of what he used to say?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, calling you bad names, cursing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And that went on with you, your mom and your sibling?

INMATE DAVIS: Mostly to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Do you know why that was?

INMATE DAVIS: Why he was doing that?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: To --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: To you in particular?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the simple answer is he was angriest as to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And do you know why? Have you been able to surmise over the years why?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it's very theoretical here, right, as to why. Who knows what's going on in somebody's head. Well, from what I can tell in hindsight, my dad really didn't know what to do with children. His dad didn't know what to do with children and he didn't either, and from what my sister tells me now, she's a year older than me, she said that because for whatever reason, my dad felt some kind of resentment against me because I got my mother's attention in a way that he -- or something.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: Like, I was taking the attention away. That's what my sister tells me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't realize that, but that's what she said, and she could know. She may or may not know, but she could.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. So a level of --

INMATE DAVIS: That's sort of --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: A level of jealousy, you believe, might have played role in this.

INMATE DAVIS: I think that has some plausibility.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. And the physical abuse, was that towards in particular you or did everyone in your family suffer with that?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, mostly me. I really -- I think I might -- not toward my sister much, but he may have given her a spanking one time, I couldn't remember it exactly, right. But with me, it was remarkable.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. A lot of beatings?

INMATE DAVIS: Not really beatings, push me around and kick me. He never broke my skin, never gave me a bruise, it was just the degrading part of it that was, you know, impacted me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And the ongoing and constant abuse there?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, not like every day, so we can't say constant like every minute, but it was -- and I don't even -- you know, when I was thinking about it, well, somebody said, "Well, was it regular?" Well, what is regular, right? And I never kept much record, obviously, but it -- it went on, you know, every now and then.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right.

INMATE DAVIS: Hard, hard to be exact about it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. You also stated that although that your mother was affectionate and supportive she was very controlling and protective of you, you felt angry and betrayed by your parents believing that they never really gave you the guidance or encouragement that you were looking for. "Davis reports that he was molested at age twelve by an adult friend. Apparently this man, who was friendly and attentive to Davis, sodomized him on two occasions. Davis stated he never told anyone and the molestation ended when Davis stopped being around this man. Davis also stated that when he was thirteen years old an English teacher raped him and again he never told anyone but continued to harbor feelings of embarrassment and shame." Both of those instances accounted correctly here?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, they are.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And who was the first person that you said kind of became friendly and attentive to you?

INMATE DAVIS: Tinker Kirkland was his name.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Tinker?

INMATE DAVIS: Kirkland.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Kirkland. Was he a teacher, was he a neighbor, was --

INMATE DAVIS: Well, he was just a person in the neighborhood.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: That was about, well, he was several years older than me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And you didn't tell anyone why?

INMATE DAVIS: I suppose I was embarrassed, ashamed, afraid.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All reasonable emotions.

INMATE DAVIS: I --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: But this was fifty years ago, right?

INMATE DAVIS: This was -- well, yeah. I was twelve years old. That's probably, what, makes it 1954.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. I don't think those things --

INMATE DAVIS: It's been a while back.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- were talked about back -- much back then.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Yes. Okay. Let's see. It says in school that you didn't have any particular problems in school, you earned average grades, you never really felt like you had made any close friends, you had no goals or direction during your youth. You stated that being a follower was a way to ensure that people would like you. You graduated from high school, you obtained about 48 college units from the University of Tennessee. At around age nineteen you lost interest in school and began earning poor grades and decided to drop out. From that point you started wandering from Tennessee to the West Coast and back again. You were employed in a variety of jobs, from waiter to bar boy to surveyor. Once again, Davis began traveling around the country and became highly influenced by the Vietnam conflict and identified with the hippies non- materialistic lifestyle, while still looking for some sense and meaning and direction in his life he was introduced to a mentor, which was Charles Manson. Is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am, that's correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And it says here, "In 1985 while housed in CMC East Davis was married for the first time to Beth Davis." And you're still married to Beth?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And how did you meet Beth?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, through correspondence.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Was that someone introduced you to her and gave you the address or --

INMATE DAVIS: Well -- okay. I was teaching a class in the chapel, in the Bible, Bible, some -- but I don't remember what the class was. One of my students came in one day and says, "Hey, I got -- I wrote -- I read a book and I wrote the author of the book and I got a letter back." It wasn't from the author but it was about the book, a friend of the author's it turned out to be (inaudible). And she just told him, she's just encouraging in the Lord because she was a Christian, and she said, you know, "Glad you're doing something for yourself," la, la, la. So I read the letter and I thought, "Well, be sure and write her a good thank you letter and let her know what, you know, how you're doing." He says, "Well, I don't want to write her," or whatever. I said, "Well, I'll write her." So I wrote her and I said, "I appreciate your interest," and then I got a letter back, and she started telling me about, her and I just talked to her in the mail for a while, and then one day she says, "I have a client in SLO, I'm telling her I would like to come up and visit." So I sent her a visiting form, and on April 11th, 1984, about two o'clock in the afternoon.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Remember the time.

INMATE DAVIS: Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, like yesterday. We had our first visit.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And a year and a week later we got married.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Good story.

INMATE DAVIS: Well, it's the best one that ever happened to me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Well, then, it sounds like you guys have been going strong ever since.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Are there any children?

INMATE DAVIS: One daughter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: She'll be fourteen this year.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Very good. And she comes to visit with you?

INMATE DAVIS: All the time.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. Do they live locally?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Grover Beach.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: What's that?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Grover Beach.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Fifteen miles from here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. All right. Let's look at substance abuse history here. It says that you rarely drank alcohol and when you did it was small amounts because it made you sick, and that you did experiment with LSD and smoking marijuana socially with friends but never by yourself. Let's see.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Where are you, Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Oh, I'm on -- let's see, I'm on the 2003 psychological evaluation.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Oh, okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: I apologize.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Sometimes I have to jump around because it's never all in one place. Okay. Let's see. It doesn't say much more about the use of drugs. It says, "As reported by subject, substance use was not a significant factor either in the commitment offense other than use of illicit drugs brought him into the relationship with Charles Manson and the Manson Family." And basically that's about it. So you didn't use drugs on a regular basis?

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, I sure did.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Was it daily that you were using marijuana, LSD? What were you doing?

INMATE DAVIS: Okay, I started -- go back to the beginning of this. The first non-prescribed drug I ever took, 1959. I was working all night on a job. I was still in high school. My friends were working at a newspaper. So we was working in a newspaper all night, and, boy, I really got sleepy and they said, "Here, take of these pills," and they're caffeine pills. Now back then, they're called "Nodoze." So I took them and got pretty wired because I didn't drink a lot of coffee. So that's the first time I experimented with, and I wasn't really -- I just took it to stay awake. So that happened a couple times. And then we'd go to parties I'd drink a bottle of beer, have a drink or two, but I couldn't do much because I would really get sick.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And I got drunk a few times and so it convinced me this is not for me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And then when I was working out and then came out here, in 1965 a guy on my crew, on my construction crew, gave me some marijuana, and that's when that got started.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And a little while later we -- I took -- started taking the LSD in the middle '60s. And it didn't really -- not really, really often, I was working, so it'd be every week, every week or so sometimes. Sometimes it'd go longer, sometimes it'd go shorter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: But as a juvie, yeah, because it got a little more frequent, and by the time met Charlie Manson I was, you know, I guess you could say I was smoking it on a regular basis, not every day --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: -- but, you know, the weekends, mostly weekends. I was working.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Now let's see. I'm going to look here, because you mentioned your employment, and it says that during the time, or during a time you were working as a pipefitter in Los Angeles?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, ma'am.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And was that your primary source of employment?

INMATE DAVIS: When I first -- well, the second time I came to California, I went to Los Angeles, went to work in a piping company, kind of an apprentice-type job, and I worked there in like '63, '64, '65, maybe even a little further, '66.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: That was my -- that's what I did. And then I went out on some pipeline jobs and things like that during the '66, early '66, up to the fall. Then I went to work for the Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads, on a survey team.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: And I did that for October, November, December, part of January, and it was Kingman, Arizona and Flagstaff, and in January, maybe February. I don't know if it was January or February. It was something like that. I left, and I went back to Tennessee in 1960 -- that was '66. I came back to L.A. in '67. I went back to work in construction, in the pipeline, pipeline, and some -- and worked in some welding shops until 68'. Yeah, '68, maybe the spring, it seems like. It seems like, it's kind of gritty. Spring, summer of '68 I got busted the first time of this suspicion of, suspicion of possession of something, right, and I spent ten days in jail, and it was dropped, there was no -- nothing to hold me on, and that's when I made a very bad decision, and when I got out, within, oh, I don't know, a few weeks, somebody introduced me to Charlie Manson, and it was all downhill from there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Well, did we miss anything in your personal history, or did we cover pretty much what you need on the record or what you want on the record?

INMATE DAVIS: I think, you know, everything we've said so far that I've heard is fairly accurate enough to leave.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right.

INMATE DAVIS: I wouldn't carp on the details --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: -- of these things.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Thank you. I'm going to ask that you turn your attention to the Deputy Commissioner for your post-conviction factors. [The following portion of the transcript contains excessive "(inaudible)" due to poor audibility of the recording.]

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Mr. Davis, I've reviewed your Central File for this portion of the hearing, your post-conviction progress reports last updated April 3rd, 2007, the life prisoner evaluation reports prepared for the December 2007 (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: I can't pronounce it either.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Robert, yeah, that's close.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And the psychological evaluation prepared by Dr. (inaudible), a Ph.D. in a report dated August 23rd, 2006. I also looked at the (inaudible) psych report was by Dr. Joe D. Livingston, L-I-V-I-N-G-S-T-O-N, (inaudible) from Miss Glines refers back to his report (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Twenty-four, 25.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) 2006 (inaudible) Panel (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) December 1, 2006 the parole Board (inaudible) to find you unsuitable for parole and denied you for one year (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it does.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And the Board does not make recommendation like we usually do (inaudible) document, so going (inaudible) so you continue to remain disciplinary free, get self-help, and (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: It seems so.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: All right. Now going back to (inaudible) record, I did find you have a total of two rule violation reports, one, the last one dated January 25th, 1980 for conduct (inaudible) you had a total of five counseling chronos, and if you look in your packet, Counsel, (inaudible) documents (inaudible) as far as the 128a's?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I had four (inaudible) five.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) look at it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: We're looking at the miscellaneous?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) disciplinaries, which (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Yes, the next page (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Is that -- that's fairly recent, right? That shows up in my cell. I had somebody -- somebody (inaudible). there?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible) bottom

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Michael Coleman.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) as far as the (inaudible) report?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay. So (inaudible) the last one August 15th, 1982 (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: That's what it's there for.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) laudatory chrono (inaudible) December 17th, 2006 from Reverend John Milton, and I'm going to refer to a folder here for those. The first one (inaudible) from Reverend John Milton subsigned by Reverend (inaudible) December 17th, 2006 (inaudible) he also gave you a chrono dated December 7th, 2006 for (inaudible). I know your file here is full (inaudible) laudatory chronos (inaudible) programming, so (inaudible) move along right now (inaudible) psychologist here. It says you've been actively involved in the Bible (inaudible) Bible (inaudible) active member in the Interfaith NA/AA program, 12 Step program, since April 15th, 2006 (inaudible) go back a few years (inaudible) acknowledge for your participation (inaudible) program for many years, also been involved in individual and group psychotherapy (inaudible) individual therapy (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: That's correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: All the time.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) recent chrono (inaudible) --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The last chrono we saw was dated February 4th, 2007.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: How many years have you been in Yolkfellows?

INMATE DAVIS: Since 1980.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And what do you learn from that program?

INMATE DAVIS: Yolkfellows is a -- like a peer counseling group, so -- okay, what have you learned. Well, you learn to be accountable to the people you commit to in this group, we sign off saying I will with serious intent I'm going to have a -- to have some kind of a prayer life, some kind of a study to be on time, to have a discipline of worship, a discipline of tithing, prayer, fellowship, scripture.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) program?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. It's a Biblical based -- although it's not really a Bible study or anything in the context of the meeting. It's mostly just saying, "How you doing? What's really going on?"

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) lifers or --

INMATE DAVIS: No, it's not. It's open. It's a completely open program for anybody. You don't -- there's not a -- there's not a religious requirement, and the people, if somebody says, "I want to come to Yolkfellows," "Come on and give it a shot."

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: In the central file the most recent chronos I have as far as (inaudible) participation is June 28th, 2007 (inaudible) April 30, 2007 (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: No, I don't know. That showed up somewhere. I don't know the -- I think that was the education department was trying to figure out the (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) any chronos I mentioned already from the minister, also the chronos from the same minister of March , 2006 and that's Parenting again. (inaudible) past the last hearing (inaudible). Taking a look at your classification score, your current score is zero (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And that score remained that way (inaudible) Board. You have Medium A custody (inaudible) without a parole date as well (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: All right. And (inaudible) that they can't locate (inaudible) over and over and over (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible) the same?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Yeah, the same name (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Well, (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) can't find (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Is it in the confidential or non- confidential? I'm kind of curious who they're talking about. I mean, it could be anybody.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Maybe I'd recognize it. I've never heard of him.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Actually, (inaudible) 1986 (inaudible) Manson Family former member (inaudible). Your current (inaudible) most recent document (inaudible) 2007 report (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) exceptional grades (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) of June the 6th, 2002 you received your doctorate of philosophy in religion from (inaudible) Seminary; is that correct?

INMATE DAVIS: That is correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) let's see. Your (inaudible) vocational training. I didn't see any reference in your current reports by the counselor. I see that in 1982 you were in welding for a while and you requested (inaudible) drafting. I notice that you completed drafting in 1985 (inaudible) vocational drafting one. Is that two separate programs (inaudible) dates mixed up?

INMATE DAVIS: No, the first -- when I finished the first time, they were putting the -- been getting a lot of computers in and of course in that part of the '80s they were very primitive now. Anyway, a few years later the instructor said, "Hey, you want to come in here and get a brush-up and learn how to run these drafting computers and things, you're welcome to come back."

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: So that's why you (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: So I was there for two different periods.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) commissioner about you (inaudible). Did you ever complete any additional vocational training programs in prison besides the drafting?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, the -- actually, the welding, the welding program, I believe. I thought I had some kind of completion on that. But I -- prison?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible) welding.

INMATE DAVIS: I was certified with the L.A. City.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Before coming to

INMATE DAVIS: No, no.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: While here?

INMATE DAVIS: While here. That's when I finished.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: But L.A.'ll have it. But it's old. It's not current. I haven't kept my license current.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: I could.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. I'm going to work at whatever. Paul Kenney offered me a job. He runs a big - - I hate it when I can't remember. It's a landscaping. He says, "Hey, you can a (inaudible) and you know," since I --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) letter (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I gave you (inaudible). Figure out what to do and so he give me a good job.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: As far as vocational training (inaudible). that.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) verify

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Now as far as from a (inaudible) point of view --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, let me step back. I'm not sure whether he actually received a certificate of completion of vocational welding.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He was certified.

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: But it may have been out of --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: He got certified (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) complete the program. I'll see if I can find the certification. From a mental health point of view, I'm not finding (inaudible) reports from psychologists (inaudible) mental health problems. Way back in 198(inaudible) diagnosis (inaudible) schizoid borderline type (inaudible) but nothing (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Never been that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Nineteen eighty-five. Who signed that?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: The psychologist on that was (inaudible) staff psychologist (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: That's where it came from.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, actually it came from --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Oh, I don't know. I would never -- who could question the doctors.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner --

INMATE DAVIS: I didn't feel -- I didn't feel like I was --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay.

INMATE DAVIS: You know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It was a diagnosis back in 1973 from the adult authority in the psychiatric evaluation which does indicate the -- so that's probably where he -- where the 1985 psych got that information.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible). All right. (inaudible) move on along here. The last (inaudible) function score that I could find was August 2nd, (inaudible) report, and where (inaudible) the disciplinaries (inaudible) counselor's report. The counselor's report is supportive of release and you may know (inaudible) allowed to project if you're going to be a risk to public safety upon release, (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: That's true.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: So what they do, they just give an assessment and they talk about how your behavior's been in prison, (inaudible) parole plans (inaudible) note here that (inaudible) over the years indicating extensive support system and would have difficulty in finding employment either in San Luis Obispo County or Los Angeles County (inaudible) stable relationship with his wife for over 20 years (inaudible) Alcoholics Anonymous meetings upon (inaudible) psychological reports may be (inaudible) that the two reports (inaudible) Glines and Dr. Livingston are not totally supportive of release (inaudible) low to moderate range. Now you may know that with the new testing (inaudible) that low is (inaudible) no longer (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible). But they can say very low and they can say low to moderate, they can say high. (inaudible) reports said low to moderate tells me there's some concern on the part of the psychologist, so I don't see that as (inaudible) looking at the last paragraph of Dr. Glines' report, there's basically (inaudible) Dr. Livingston's report. He says risk (inaudible) violence, Dr. Livingston used a semi- structured interview, including objective instruments in assessing (inaudible) risk of future violence the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, the Historical Clinical Risk-20, and the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. On each instrument an individual may be scored as low, moderate or high. The doctor concluded that the risk for recidivism on a violent crime (inaudible) low to moderate range. Dr. Livingston's results were reviewed. Since that evaluation there has not been any significant change (inaudible) risk of recidivism on the violent crime while in the community remains within the low to moderate range. Did you (inaudible) report?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I read that.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Did you understand what the psychologist was saying and (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, of course not.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Did you feel that wanted to challenge it or you want to write a request to get an explanation for it?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, I've never had very good luck at getting explanations from the psychs.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner --

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible) --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- for the record, this is normally the point in the proceedings where I would read several pages of objections to the psych evaluations and the three-part tests. I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to say in general we object to certain portions of the psych evaluations that use a three-part test and I'm going to specifically with regard to the Hare PCL-R, which is a historical test only. The author of the test, in his manual, states that it should not be used on individuals over the age of forty. The reason is that psychopathic individuals improve with time and while the test may be appropriate to young men, such as it may have been appropriate when he was found to have a -- some psychopathy back in 1973, it does not apply to older offenders. The reason I'm not going to go into a detail objections to it is because I respectfully disagree with the commissioner that it is not totally supportive of release. We believe a low moderate rating, particularly when the moderate portion of it is based entirely upon historical factors that can never change is really an acceptable report and we will read into the record at the appropriate time older evaluations which find that he is no risk of violence.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) related. Apparently based on the Board's request, the examiner (inaudible) alcohol, drugs (inaudible) related to this offense (inaudible) report (inaudible). It states that reported by subject substance use was not a significant factor (inaudible) commitment offense other than the use of illicit drugs (inaudible) Charlie Manson and the Manson Family. (inaudible) does have some prior arrests for possession of marijuana, none of which led to conviction (inaudible) refrain from use of psychoactive substances he would appear based on his testimony and about past use that he would not be a likely candidate for substance abuse (inaudible). (inaudible) the Panel has asked to address the issues of (inaudible) therapy programs (inaudible) while incarcerated. Inasmuch as subject did not present me with any mental or psychiatric disorder, there is no indication of a need for psychotherapy, however, any (inaudible) as well as other relevant workshops and programs would probably be to his benefit (inaudible) continue personal growth. The next page states (inaudible) resources for his opinions and conclusions. The examiner who assessed the absence or presence of psychopathy -- psychopathy, pardon me, in Mr. Davis, the results indicated a score at the high end of the moderate range (inaudible) average male inmate and the data further analyzed the subfactors, particularly (inaudible) features and (inaudible) lifestyle in regards to (inaudible) presented narcissistic traits (inaudible) average inmate offender, a male offender, and antisocial characteristics (inaudible) average male offender. He goes on to say the examiner was asked to address the extent to which the prisoner has explored the commitment offense and come to terms with underlying causes. It appears that subject has done some exploration (inaudible) self-examination as well as his involvement in self-help groups (inaudible) therapy programs (inaudible). That sounds somewhat on the negative side he says that you have done some exploration not a great deal (inaudible) done very much. You readily acknowledge the context between his own father who was a very negative and critical and Charles Manson who was very affirming and reinforcing. He identifies this as a primary contributor to his being involved with the group. He consequently (inaudible) clear (inaudible) clear exploration (inaudible) significantly for him to parole successfully, however, it was noted by this examiner that during the three-hour interview nothing was said by subject in regard to any feelings that he had regarding the two victims and I also see that as a negative comment (inaudible) looking for the psychologist to tell us that you're very remorseful, that you these different thoughts about it. Do you remember reading that part in Dr. Livingston's report?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, I do.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: The doctor (inaudible) concludes the report, the last paragraph (inaudible) is the same paragraph essentially, and it's Dr. Cynthia Glines, indicating that the last part (inaudible) indicated cross instruments used for the subject a moderate risk of future violence in the free community is (inaudible) to indicate that this subject's level of risk for future violence is the low to moderate range. Now I'll move on to the support letters (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: I'd like to make a small comment here.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Sure.

INMATE DAVIS: Where the good doctor says I didn't say anything about my remorseful feelings. Now that's true, and he went through a checklist asking me direct questions about how do you feel about this, how do you feel about that, how do you feel about this, and when he got through his list, he said, "Okay, that's it." And I go, "Oh, that was a long drawn out thing." I was ready to go. The subject -- I -- of course, in hindsight, of course I wish I'd have thought of this and would've said, "Oh, doc, wait a minute, there's a question you didn't ask," and talk to him about that, right? But by the time the interview was over, I really didn't -- I wasn't really into double-checking his list.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) you know you did not discuss remorse?

INMATE DAVIS: That's right. It wasn't among his questions.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) is that something you would have discussed (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely. But, you know, he had a checklist. I was just going by his list. He was saying, "Well, how about this, well, how about that, well, how about this?"

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: I could not -- I don't remember.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Thirty-forty-two notices were sent out and according to that Penal Code Section where we contact (inaudible) district attorney's office and the sentencing judge (inaudible) your trial attorney as well (inaudible) law enforcement agencies. We got one letter back and that's from the sheriff's department dated July 11th, 2007. Since we have a representative from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office, I'm just going to read --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I actually haven't received it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: You did not receive it?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Just double-check to make sure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It was in the same addendum packet with some of the other support letters if I recall correctly. packet. -

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I never received an addendum

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I mean -

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) highlight (inaudible) details of the crime.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. Well, we know that their position is that they --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay. So I won't go into detail of the events (inaudible)

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's the letter that --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: -- (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) based on the facts and opinions of the department. "The parole of Mr. Davis is (inaudible) and should be denied." And that's the extent I'll read the letter (inaudible) information. And going to your letters of support, of interest (inaudible) from your wife (inaudible) Davis. This is August , 2007. I cannot find any (inaudible) and is that an omission?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm sure -- yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Because we do have a letter here from Barbara (inaudible) who offers you --

INMATE DAVIS: Well --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: -- both you and your wife to live with her.

INMATE DAVIS: I take it if we had all of my wife's letters, you'd find that she always offers that and everything.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely. I mean, we have a condo.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay. So this comment by Barbara Daggett (inaudible) Bruce and his family would be welcome in my home or neighborhood. Is she offering (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, she certainly said we'd be welcome. She lives in Florida and Maine.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Yeah.

INMATE DAVIS: So that's a little --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: We'd consider it, right.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: All right. (inaudible) question, if your wife says this is (inaudible) letter on Bruce's behalf, I have known him for 23 years and we've been married 23 years. I have retired (inaudible) I have (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Bruce has taken seriously the (inaudible) Board has made every year for the past 25 consecutive years. He not only has met (inaudible). The letter we did get from Barbara Daggett is dated August 9th, 2007 (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, just so we clarify this, there is a letter from Beth Davis dated October 5th, 2006 which was submitted to the en banc along with the letter -- the same date from Mr. Davis's daughter Taylor and they really do offer him a place to live but --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I would presume (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Beth Davis is available by telephone right now if there's any question about him having a place to live.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, I'm (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Sure.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible). But now we have the job offer here (inaudible) Paul Kenny, K- E-N-N-Y, September 5th, 2007. "I'm Paul Kenny, owner of Grace Landscaping and have been in operation (inaudible) 25 years." He could use you as an administrator, an estimator (inaudible) starting salary would be thirteen dollars an hour. We have (inaudible) support letters (inaudible) dated October 5th, 2006 (inaudible) attorneys at the Board, Mr. Ramey. It says here that this will also make me more available to Bruce when he comes home and (inaudible) back into society (inaudible) and that is also Mr. Ramey dated October 5th, 2006 (inaudible) so please let my dad have a date, he can come home and live with us. Now she talks a little (inaudible)?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I don't know.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay. (inaudible) same place.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: She lives at home?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: With her mom? Okay. Very good.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Actually --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Then we have one from Charles W. (inaudible) that we know?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: On October 15th, 2007 (inaudible) continues to demonstrate that he is a man who's going (inaudible) willingly submitted himself to Christ, daily walking with him for over 30 years (inaudible) significant change (inaudible) 30 years of experience in (inaudible) prisoners I have learned a few things about (inaudible) need for rehabilitation (inaudible) please let the prison fellowship and I be there to support, assist and encourage Bruce in his transition back to the community (inaudible) grant him parole. A support letter dated August , 2007 by (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Brother-in-law.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) this year and let the Parole Board know that (inaudible) last hearing that was a spit decision (inaudible). October 10th letter 2007 by Larry last name H-O-E-K-M-A-N.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Hoekman.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Hoekman.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It couldn't be October 2007.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Two thousand seven.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: All right.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible). It says here frustration (inaudible) Parole Board in Sacramento regarding Bruce. Even more frustrating were the results vote nine to zero against Bruce even though the compelling arguments witnesses (inaudible) Bruce's side of the ledger. It was as if the trip was in vain and the outcome already determined (inaudible) Charles Manson (inaudible) in my opinion (inaudible) would have resulted in you being released, and that's the bottom line (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: I believe --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: I believe that's significant. That's a significant thing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And who is this person (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible) is a good friend.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Is she someone that you met here.

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes. Yeah, he's a -- he's was a -- he's a member of my wife's church. He came out. He's visited out here. He was part of the M2 program.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: All right.

INMATE DAVIS: Different things.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: The next one I have here is dated August 23rd 2007 by (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Thornton.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) T-O-N. Does that sound right?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay. It says, let's see. "For 30 years (inaudible) I would (inaudible) commissioner and then as labor commissioner (inaudible) and let's see, "Bruce and I had (inaudible) telephone (inaudible) action (inaudible) how did you meet him?

INMATE DAVIS: He (inaudible) to me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: How (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, probably looked on the Internet.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) Internet?

INMATE DAVIS: Oh, yeah.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay. The next one I have (inaudible) August 25th, 2007 by (inaudible) William (inaudible) Clark (inaudible) says, "I'm a retired California judge having served on the Superior Court (inaudible) Court of Appeals (inaudible) District and the Supreme Court which included a review of Manson (inaudible) 1981. My background and experience include extradition, clemency, and (inaudible) process (inaudible) serving as executive secretary and chief of staff to Governor Ronald Regan from 1960 to 1988 -- (inaudible). At the request of his family and neighbors here in San Luis Obispo County I have again reviewed the summary (inaudible) before you. (inaudible) in the above-captioned matter nor have I met the man. (inaudible) ever recommended parole (inaudible) however I conclude that Mr. Davis (inaudible) purpose and they do (inaudible) society where he has much to offer (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, before you go on, with your permission, I'd like to -- Judge Clark was being a little modest in his background. I'd like to enlighten the Board a little bit about this man who gave this recommendation and I will just read this directly from Wikipedia, which is a online encyclopedia.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm going to object to this. This man hasn't even met the inmate and he's writing a letter, so what point is it going into his backgrounds and qualifications when he's never even met the inmate?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He believes in the law, Mr. Sequeira, something that you ought to think about once in a while. I'd like (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I have an objection to it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Okay. So you're objecting to the reading of the Wikipedia background information on the person who wrote the support letter?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Right, because -- yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: I'll sustain that. We take it on its face, okay?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. Well, let me just state that Mr. Clark was former national security advisor for this country.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm going to object because counsel -- I mean, I could find something that'd be very critical of Mr. Clark in some other publication and that's really irrelevant to the issue. I mean, the man has written a letter and he's indicated his background and qualifications and it should stand on itself.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, I object to not being allowed to read this into the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Duly noted.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Well, let me continue. The next one that does not have a date on it (inaudible) Michael Oliver. He (inaudible) man with strong (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: He's a correspondent.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) county school system in Tennessee?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: He wrote to me and I wrote back.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: We have a letter here dated August 20, 2007 by Lieutenant David W. (inaudible) who is retired from the Alameda Fire Department. He says that this letter is regarding the impending parole hearing for brother-in-law Bruce M. Davis which is slated for September 6, 2007. I stated on many previously letters on Bruce's behalf. We believe that he has served (inaudible) three decades ago. We have another letter here. I don't have a date on it either. This is from Robert last is spelled (inaudible) E-N-N-I-N-D-R. Who is he (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: He's a friend.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) person you met here in prison?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: It says, "My name is Robert (inaudible)."

INMATE DAVIS: Grillinger.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I was a police officer in Northern California from 1963 to 1968(inaudible) San Jose Fire Department from 1969 to my retirement as a fire captain in 1996. My purpose is writing to request that you give serious consideration (inaudible) for Bruce Davis. I came to know Bruce while I was incarcerated at CMC for involuntary matter -- manslaughter, pardon me, from 1990 to 2005. (inaudible) and we hope that you will grant him an opportunity to continue his work on the outside (inaudible) we are confident (inaudible) society in the future." And the last support letter I have is another one I do not see a date on. This is from Ronald (inaudible) Johnson (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: He's a volunteer.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: From the outside?

INMATE DAVIS: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: It says, "My name is Ron Johnson. I have been going to the California (inaudible) 15 years. My purpose for going to the institution (inaudible) met Bruce Davis in 1991. Mr. Davis has excellent outstandingly -- Mr. Davis has excellent (inaudible) character. I support him 100 percent. (inaudible) released, he would be an asset (inaudible)." Is there any letters I'm missing, Counsel, or do you know of any (inaudible)?

INMATE DAVIS: No, sir. No, I don't.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Is there anything further in this section you want me to address (inaudible)?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I don't think so.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Thank you. All right. Now comes the time for the final questions. Commissioners can ask you questions. The district attorney, if he has questions, can pose (inaudible). Again, if he asks you questions, those will come through the chair and you answer to the Panel, and your counsel will have an opportunity to ask you questions. I have no questions. You answered most of my questions when we were going through the whole process of your priors and your social history. Do you have any questions, Commissioner?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Does the DA have questions?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have a couple. With regards to the sexual molestation, when did the inmate first tell a psychologist about the two molestation incidents? What year did that occur?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. I instruct my client not answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Is he going to answer?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Is he going to answer any questions?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No. I've already instructed him that he will not answer any questions from the district attorney.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The district attorney has no right to ask questions at this hearing.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, counsel is absolutely incorrect. I do have a right to ask questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: He does have a right to ask (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And if I'm asking questions and the inmate refuses to answer the questions, then I will be more than free to comment upon those in my closing argument as well.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, you're not.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And I will.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Section 2030, Title 15 specifically limits the district attorney's role to asking clarifying questions of the Panel, that's it. He has no right to ask any questions either directly or indirectly of the inmate.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: If he's asking questions --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- just verification to the Panel, that's why our process allows him to ask us, and then he asks your client.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's a misinter -- the process misinterprets the process. He has the right to ask you questions to clarify things. He does not have the right to ask the inmate questions either through you --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Well, you wouldn't be able to clarify specific information that your client only would know, correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That is not the purpose of the district attorney's role in this proceeding, and that's why I am instructing my client not to answer questions, and the district attorney, he can say anything he wants. If he attempts to comment upon my instruction, I will object at the time he does that.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Now your objection is overruled. I'm going to allow the district attorney to ask the question and you can instruct your client not to answer, and on each question I will defer to you and you can say that you object and your client's not answering, okay?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And the questions of course will be asked through the Panel, so I'm asking the Panel to ask the questions, so he refuses to answer the question, he's also refusing to answer the question to the Panel, because the Panel --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's not correct. I --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Because the Panel can choose not to ask my question if they wish.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The Panel already --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So I'm --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- has no questions, no further questions.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. At the last hearing the inmate indicated that it took him quite some time to reveal when the molestation occurred, so I'm just trying to clarify at what point, in which psychological evaluation did the inmate first tell a psychologist or anyone about the molestations that occurred when he was twelve and thirteen?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I instruct my client not to answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Speak up so we can get it on the record.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Pursuant to Title , Section 2030, I instruct my client not to answer the question. It's also irrelevant.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I would ask the Panel to ask the inmate if he chooses not to answer the question, because he obviously -- it's the inmate's hearing, this is not the lawyer's hearing. If the inmate chooses not to answer the questions, then that's fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Davis, are you choosing not to answer? No, he --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's choosing to honor my instructions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: If you want to ask whether he's going to follow my instruction, that's fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Are you choosing not to --

INMATE DAVIS: I will answer this. It's on that record when I told him. It's in the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And just for our edification, does he recall approximately what year that was?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Do you recall what year that was, or is that also in the record?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm sure it is.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. Now this is a follow-up question to the inmate's discussion regarding his poor relationship with his father. Would the inmate say that his relationship -- how would the inmate describe his relationship with his father, good, poor, extremely bad?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. Instruct my client not to answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Are you following the instructions?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: In addition, the question has been asked and answered and it's irrelevant.

INMATE DAVIS: I think I've made myself clear to the Board, but that's right. I think you can make that evaluation.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did the inmate attend his father's funeral?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. I instruct my client not to answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And you're following those instructions, sir?

INMATE DAVIS: I think that's in the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, would that be a yes or a no? It's a simple question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Are you saying that he's not to answer that, correct?

INMATE DAVIS: It's in the record.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. Now with respect to questions that were asked during the last hearing, a couple of clarification questions here. The inmate mentioned at the last hearing -- well, here's the question. When did the inmate stop all involvement with former members of the Manson Family?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. Instruct my client not to answer.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What year?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Davis?

INMATE DAVIS: It's in the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, what year is that?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Instruct my client not to answer.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right, here's the question. Is the inmate still in contact with members of the Manson Family?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. Instruct my client not to answer.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I didn't hear the inmate indicate whether he was going to answer the question or not. Davis.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Speak up, Mr.

INMATE DAVIS: That'll be no.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Does that mean the inmate is still in contact with members of the Manson Family?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: I think he's indicating that he's not going to answer the question, correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He is following my instructions in not answering the question.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The inmate indicated that he was on the Internet. Where on the Internet is the inmate?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection. Instruct my client not to answer. Wouldn't it be better if I just left it as a continuing objection?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, the inmate volunteered this information. I'm just asking a clarifying question.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And he is continuing to object, and, Mr. Davis, you're not answering that question, correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Can we take a two-minute recess so I can speak to my client?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Yes. We will recess. It is now 1527.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right, we're back on the record. It is now 1534 and we were in the process of questions being asked by the deputy district attorney. Do you have any more questions, sir?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes. Why is the inmate afraid to answer questions from the district attorney?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm instructing my client not to answer that question. I object to the question in addition to under 15, Section 2030, he's trying to create the impression that my client is afraid to answer anything. My client is acting under the instructions of his attorney not to answer questions from the district attorney because the district attorney is not allowed to ask him questions. That is the only reason. I --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Counsel, you are absolutely incorrect, and the rules of professional conduct apply in this hearing as well as any others, and you're misrepresenting the law to this Panel and you should be chastised for it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Chastised.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have a right to be here and I have a right to ask questions.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Beckman?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yes?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Let's let him finish with his questions and you can object and then we'll move forward, okay?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I need to respond that he's -- if he's in professional misconduct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: No. No, we're not going to get into --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- a pissing match here, we're just going to move forward, okay?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Let me just suggest that you read the quotations (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Did we hear the inmate's answer to my question? Is he not going to answer, is he going to answer?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: He's not going to answer, correct?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: That's correct.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But I think we should get on the record that the inmate is saying he's going to answer because of the fact that this isn't counsel's hearing, it's the inmate's hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And it's the inmate's choice. The inmate can choose to disregard his counsel's advice, he can choose to do what he wants.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Mr. Davis, for the record, are you going to answer any of the district attorney's questions?

INMATE DAVIS: I'm going to take my counselor's advice and not answer.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Thank you. Do you have anything else that you'd like to ask?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Let's see here. No, I think I'll just comment upon it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Very well. Counsel, do you have any questions for your client?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, I do not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right. All right. Now we come to the closing statements. Statements should address suitability for parole. The DA and to inmate counsel, this Panel accepts as true the findings of the court. We are not here to retry the case. You may state the facts of the case and present an opinion as to the suitability of the inmate for parole. If I find that the statements are veering away from those two areas or becoming too lengthy, I will ask you to retain your focus and/or wrap it up. So we'll start with the district attorney's representative.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. In analyzing Mr. Davis's suitability for parole the Panel is going to look at a number of factors and there are quite a few factors in which this inmate fails in terms of suitability. And before I discuss the commitment offense I want to talk a little bit about his background. Mr. Davis came from an unstable social background. He dropped out college. He's very bright. He attended the University of Tennessee for a couple years. He dropped out of college. He turned to drugs and in his own words became a dropout. He has a horrible relationship with his father. In fact, it's in the record that he skipped his father's funeral but showed up at the reading of the will to collect the inheritance, which indicates, as even he has verified today, a deep-seated problem between he and his father. How much this contributed to his later foray into joining the Manson Family and their criminal activities, you know, is certainly questionable, however, it's clear that he turned towards a life of drugs and a life of crime. Now if you look at the inmate's statements regarding -- well, maybe we should follow with the history. So he drops out of college, he comes to California, he meets Manson I believe in 1968, and then he takes off and he leaves and he goes to Europe. Bums around Europe, I think in his own words talks about Herman Hesse, Siddhartha and wandering through different countries and then ending up in London where he joins a Scientology school. He becomes interested in Scientology, stays there for a while, and it's very curious that when he returns to Los Angeles he immediately returns to Los Angeles and he's met at the airport by Charles Manson and one of the girls. Charles Manson also had an interest in Scientology, and I'm going to tie all of this interest in Scientology and in religion a little later on as well. So he then joins the group at the ranch. The group consisted, of course, quite a number of Family members, many of them who were crime partners of this inmate, many of them who were peripheral crime partners, and many who he maintained contact with after the murders. But in any event, so they lived the lifestyle at the ranch. I believe this inmate's responsibility has involved fixing some of the dune buggies, doing some mechanical work. I think he's talked about having some background in that area. But nevertheless, he was one of the oldest members of the clan, so to speak. He was twenty-six old. Charlie Manson I believe was the only person that was older than he was. The others, crime partners and Manson Family members, the core group, the three girls, Steve Grogan and Tex Watson, they were all in their late teens, early twenties. I think that's significant too in terms of assessing this inmate's involvement in the commitment offense and his subsequent change or non-change with respect to his attitudes about the crime. In order to understand the dynamics of the so-called Family it's important to understand that they wore a couple of different hats. On one hand they were an ongoing criminal enterprise. I mean, they were organized along the lines that you might see in a street gang or in a terrorist organization or in the Mafia. They had leaders, they had people that were in charge. Charlie was essentially in charge. His top lieutenant was this individual --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- Bruce Davis.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I point to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: It's his closing.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I know.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm objecting. He has no --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He can Object.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- proof of this statement.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He can object to it all he wants. The point is is that's been very well documented not only from the testimony in the trial but also from the trial prosecutor but from trial prosecutor.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible) testimony at trial.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But the trial prosecutor even --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Beckman, let him finish (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: No, this is important, Commissioner.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: The trial prosecutor has even sent a letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He has -- he's made --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's made a statement here --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- that is not -- you said he has to stick with the record. He has not.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Now Mr. --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Let him point to anything in the transcript --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Beckman.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- that says that my client was one of the leaders of this organization.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Beckman, please. Let him finish his statement. You can refute that in your closing statement.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, for Mr. Beckman's edification, I'm going to refer to a letter from the trial prosecutor in the case, April 28th, 1986.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Is that in the file?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Steven Kay. It's in the file. It's been submitted many times, Counsel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Excuse me. Commissioner, is that letter in Mr. Davis's C-File?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Okay. I have not received a copy of that letter. I've not seen it.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) Central File?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes. It was written in 1986, April 28, 1986. And I'm going to read that letter while you're looking it up. "I would like to share with you observa --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I have an objection that letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Hold on.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, Counsel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Hold on.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, Counsel.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Hold on.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: This is a statement from a prosecutor. This is the same office that I represent. I'm entitled to --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I've made an objection.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- read whatever letter that I'd like to read.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Hold on. Hold on. We're going to check on this. And this is from your office's files, correct? Okay. Hold on.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Would you happen to have a thought, Counsel, as to where it might be in the file (inaudible)?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, you know, I know the file is huge. It's April 28th, 1986. It's directed to the Board of Prison Terms. This letter was submitted by Steven Kay. Steven Kay has also appeared at a number of these hearings and counsel is just being an obstructionist at this point.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Counsel.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Because these -- this is not any new information.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We're not going to do the back and forth.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I know. But under 15, 2030, any evidence or documents that the district attorney wants into this record that are not part of the C-File must have been turned over the institution ten days before the hearing and I'm supposed to have received copies of them. I have not received copies of them and I object to their introduction.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible) that the C-File, we wouldn't have everything in the packets that are sent out. The C-File will contain everything from the day Mr. Davis arrived, and of course we can't all be inside of our packets (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: If it's in the C-File then I will withdraw my objection.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: But if it's not, then he had to have given it to me ten days before the hearing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. I'm sure you have other things that you want to --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Sure, I -- you know, and I will follow upon exactly what -- I will join in the comments from my colleague, Mr. Kay, where he says: "The evidence showed that Mr. Davis was Charlie Manson's right-hand man.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Sir, please. Don't do that, okay? Let Mr. Mitchell see if he can find a copy of that, and if in fact you want to bring that opinion in for yourself about reading that --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right, I'll -- another It's in hearing

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'll read letter. Barbara Hoyt sent a letter to the Board. the packet. She also testified at the en banc in November.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Same objection. I've never seen that letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Is it in this packet?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I don't know if it's in this packet. I didn't look for it in this packet.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And what's the date on that?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You know, this is -- I'm --

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: That is April (inaudible), 1986?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Correct.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: That is signed by Steven Kay (inaudible)?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That's correct.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible) Ray?

INMATE DAVIS: No, Kay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Kay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's not --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And that isn't in the Central File? Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's the Barbara Hoyt letter.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, right now I'm going to go ahead and read that as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Your objection is overruled and you may go ahead and read that.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay. "I would like to share a few observations with you concerning Manson Family member and life prisoner Bruce Davis, prison case number B-41079. The evidence presented at the murder trial of Bruce Davis establish other important factors that should be taken into consideration before Mr. Davis is found suitable for parole. The evidence showed that Mr. Davis was Charlie Manson's right- hand man. Whenever Manson was away from the ranch he left Bruce Davis in charge. Although the media would have you believe otherwise, Bruce Davis held a more powerful position in the Family than Tex Watson. In 1971 and '72 I prosecuted Mr. Davis and convicted him on the murders of Gary Hinman in Donald Shorty Shea on one count of -- and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. At the time of Mr. Hinman's murder -- of Hinman's murder in July of '69, Charles Manson directed Bobby Beausoleil and Mary Brunner, Susan Atkins go to Hinman's residence and to get Hinman to turn over property of Family and to join the Family." You know, the rest of the letter will speak for itself. I don't need to read the entire letter. It talks about the facts of the case. It also points out that a couple of the possible motivations for killing Mr. Shea was that Mr. Shea's wife, he was married to a black woman, Manson hated blacks and all other minorities, was angry at Shea for marrying a black. There's also other indications from other witnesses that this inmate himself indicated that Mr. Shea was killed because he was a snitch and that's how we deal with snitches and I'll get to those quotes in a little bit.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm going to object to this letter's introduction.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: It's hearsay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay, go ahead.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- it is irrelevant.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Overruled.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. So in any event -- and I'll go to Barbara Hoyt letter too. And Mr. Beckman was there when Miss Hoyt testified at the en banc hearing and essentially she said the same thing.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: If the letter is in the C-File then I won't object, but I have not seen it and I don't think it's there, so I'm going to object that it was not turned over to me ten days in advance.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Is that letter in the C-File?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It was submitted, submitted years ago.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Do you have a date on it, Counsel?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Again, these are just obstructionist objections. And counsel saw Miss Hoyt testify at the en banc hearing, so this is -- I mean, this is really a waste of everyone's time to force the Panel to do this, but I just want to point that out.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'd like to point out that you are not the Panel, you are just a district attorney.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, excuse me, Counsel. Were you present when Miss Hoyt testified or not?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Excuse me. Gentlemen, we're not going to argue (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Were you or weren't you?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible) professional, Counsel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well, I'm not going to answer.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: What a surprise. In any event, Miss Hoyt testified to a number of factors. All right. And if the Panel has the transcript from the en banc hearing --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And we don't.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But I will -- and counsel can correct me if I'm wrong, Miss Hoyt testified to a couple of things. She testified --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: She testified to Mr. Davis's interest in a leadership position within the Family. She pointed out that he was one of the few people -- Hoyt?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And who is Miss

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Well --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Barbara Hoyt was a Family member who testified at the trial of Bruce Davis. member? at --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: A Manson Family

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I object.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: She testified

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Hold on. Did you find that letter, Mr. Mitchell?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: There is a packet -- I don't know how much --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It was for the 2000 hearing at CMC.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: And for who?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: It was from Barbara Hoyt, H-O-Y-T. It's called "An open letter to Bruce Davis's Parole Board, 2000."

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: Okay, 2000 hearing.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Right, it's for the 2000 hearing.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Do we have any other letters that you're going to want to read excerpts from so that we can start looking now? We can take a quick recess to make sure that we have all these pieces of evidence that you're entering in so that we can handle that prior to us going forward. Do you have any others that you want to us to look for in the C-File?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There is another letter from an Anthony DiMaria that was read into the record at the en banc hearing. I don't need to refer to that one in my argument, but I just want to point out that that's another opposition letter that is there.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Because if there's more, just let us know and that way we can take a break, we can look, and then that way if they're there, we'll tell you if you can proceed with them, and if they're not, then we will sustain Mr. Beckman's objection.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I'm having a slight problem with counsel's objections because, number one, there is no legal objection to my reading a letter from a party in opposition to this inmate. There is no legal objection. What is the legal objection? He's talking about some ten-day rule, but this is not a person who didn't -- who is a stranger to the inmate, this is not new information, this is someone who testified at the trial, this is someone whose testimony this inmate knows from his trial, and just because Mr. Beckman didn't find it, or he's going to claim he didn't see it, just as he claimed that the Steven Kay letter wasn't in the file when it was, there's no legal basis for doing that, and so I have to respond to that in this manner because this is not someone who is -- she's testified against all seven of the Manson Family members, she testified at trial, and her -- back, if you look, it's in the record, and in fact in the packet you can see her testimony, in particular under legal section the legal documents and respondent's brief which cites page and line of the trial testimony. That's an excellent summary of the facts of this case. I think it's about 33, 34 pages long. Barbara Hoyt's mentioned a number of times in there. And so let's talk about Barbara Hoyt's trial testimony first of all. And --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Is that testimony --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: And --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- in the packet?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, Counsel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm objecting.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: You can object all you want. I'm going to continue with my --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible). I'm sure the trial testimony is in our packet. Is that that appellate --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- testimony?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, not only that, she also repeated some of the same testimony at the en banc hearing and that is this: "This inmate maintains --" and this is a pretty consistent theme with him as with respect to both of these murders. He maintains basically that he's kind of along for the ride, he didn't really do the killing and he really isn't responsible, and that's very significant. With the Hinman case it was, Well, I drove the people there, I dropped them off, and I came back. At first I didn't have the gun; well, then maybe I did have the gun, and then maybe it was pointed at Gary Hinman, maybe it wasn't. I mean, he's gone back and forth on that, and you can go through each of his prior hearing transcripts to see that and also his statements from the psychologist. The bottom line is, is that -- and even he told one of the psychologists that he basically didn't feel that he had killed Gary Hinman so he didn't really feel that responsible and that's why he stuck around the Family. But the bottom line is is, if you look in the respondent's brief in particular, and it cites quite a bit of the trial testimony, this inmate was present when it was -- the plan was discussed to basically rob Gary Hinman, to take this money. They believed he was coming into an inheritance, he had some money. He was in on the planning from the beginning, he knew what they were going to do to Gary Hinman. He drove the girls to the house, dropped them off. They then tied up Mr. Hinman and they kept him over a course of several days and they tortured him. They beat him and they managed to get him to sign over his pink slips to two of his automobiles. He apparently struggled at one point to where Bobby Beausoleil had to take the gun and hit him in the head with it. He actually managed to wrestle the gun away from one of the women, I believe it was Susan Atkins.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner, I (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There was a frantic call -- excuse me.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I need to object here.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There was a frantic call --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Just let him finish.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: You said earlier that he wasn't allowed to retry this case.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Well, he's not retrying, he's -- remember, he's stating the facts of the case and he's allowed to do that.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's retrying this case by restating facts that Mr. Davis had nothing to do with.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: He's going over the facts of the case. Whether Mr. Davis was present or not, he's getting to the point of how his involvement comes in.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Continue.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: A call went out to Charlie Manson and to Bruce Davis. The two of them then arrived at the residence. This is when Davis took control of the gun, pointed it at Mr. Hinman, of which he now, of course, denies, although I think he's starting to say, Well, maybe I did point it at him, maybe I didn't. It was during this time that Charles Manson sliced Mr. Hinman's ear almost completely off to the point where the girls then took dental floss and tried to sew his ear back. He was then kept for a period of time, approximately two days, at the residence. Finally he was stabbed, suffocated, killed. His body was left to decompose in the residence. When the body was found, it was badly decomposed, there were maggots crawling out of the body. This inmate drove away one of Mr. Hinman's cars. The inmate makes it sound as if, well, he really - - you know, Mr. Hinman was alive when I left, and he's absolutely right, but he makes it sound as if he didn't have anything to do with the killing, but he knew fully well what was going to happen to Mr. Hinman, that Mr. Hinman was going to be killed, and in fact he bragged about it afterwards to other Family members. Now this happened one month before the Tate-LaBianca murders. Now what is also significant about the Hinman killing, and this sort of ties into the consistent theme through all of these murders, is that when he was -- not only was Mr. Hinman killed, but there was writing in his residence in blood where it said, "Piggie," and there was also a palm print that was placed in blood of the Black Panther symbol, and the purpose of doing that was to throw off any investigators, to make them think that a Black Panther killed Mr. Hinman. This gets into the overall philosophy that this inmate also bought into, which was the Helter Skelter theory, which was that there was so much racial tension going on in the United States at the time in the '60s that eventually there was going to be a war between the blacks and the whites, and Charles Manson thought that he would help precipitate this war. And I say Charles Manson, but also all of those who bought into this theory, including Mr. Davis, Susan Atkins, Tex Watson, and the rest of them. They all talked about this theory for quite some time, bought into it, and this was kind of the beginning of a crime that would help initiate Helter Skelter, basically an all-out race war where thousands of people would be killed or injured as a result of these crimes, and then in the end, as part of the master plan for the Manson plan, is they were to going to go -- when Helter Skelter started, they would go hide in the desert, and then when the war was over, they felt that the blacks would win the war, they would then emerge out of the desert and they would, since they had the expertise and the smarts, they would immediately become the leaders and basically rule the world. Of course, extremely farfetched and very bizarre, but that was the theory that they were under, and of course there was a significant amount of racial tension in the United States back in the '60s and particularly in California. Today it's, you know, completely farfetched, but back then it was not quite as farfetched, and of course all of this they believed stemmed from their listening to Beatle songs, particularly the White Album, where they talk about piggies and they talk about Helter Skelter, and that where the term and this theory came from. This crime occurred one month before the Tate-LaBiancas'. And what's significant with respect to this inmate's suitability is that being involved in that crime, the Hinman murder, didn't deter him, didn't cause him to disassociate himself from the killers, the actual killers, as he would probably call them. He remained with the Family, and he remained with the Family. He knew that they were going out on the night of the Tate murders. He I believe in the earlier testimony from last year he says that, Well, he asked me to go along, but he decided he didn't want to go along that night. This is his statement. How true that is, I don't know if he was asked to go or he wasn't asked to go. There was just a small group of people that were in fact asked to go. And from Mr. Kay's statements and other evidence it's clear that when Manson left the property, Davis was the one that was in charge. In fact, we asked him questions about that at the last hearing and he said, well, he was sort of in charge, or sort of not in charge. You can look at the transcript from last year's hearing and you can see how he dodged and danced around those questions.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Objection.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: But in any event --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Mischaracterizing my client's testimony. He's flat out --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Excuse me, Counsel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- misrepresenting --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Counsel.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- the truth here.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We'll be able to look at the prior testimony, but your objection is noted.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. And in any event, five people were brutally slaughtered at the Tate residence. This inmate was not part of that group, but the inmate knew, what's significant is, he knew about those murders. It was discussed openly amongst all the Family members, including two of his crime partners in the Shorty Shea murder, Tex Watson and Charles Manson, of course. And of course Manson was involved along with Susan Atkins in the Hinman murder, and Susan Atkins was involved along with Manson and Tex Watson in the Tate murders. The following night -- and the Tate murders were also in a similar fashion, brutal, slaying, slashing and killing of five individuals, including a pregnant woman. But what's significant in terms of the connection of the murders is the fact there was Helter Skelter, there was again the writing, there was again the intent to make it appear as if the murders were committed by black individuals. The next night, August 10th, was the LaBianca murders. The LaBianca murders, again, the group went out to commit some more murders. The LaBiancas, and I'll just do it very briefly. They were tied up, they were stabbed, they were brutally murdered, "War" was carved in Leno LaBianca's chest, a knife was -- a carving fork was stuck in his chest, a knife was passed through his neck, and again the writing on the wall, writing on portions of the residence of "Piggie" "Helter Skelter," things of that nature. But what was significant is part of that particular plan was Mrs. LaBiana's wallet was taken from the residence and it was planted in a restroom that they believed was in a black neighborhood but it was actually not a black neighborhood, and the idea behind it was that a women would come in and she would take -- she would find the wallet, she would use the credit cards or the identification and eventually be caught and implicated in the murders. That failed because Linda Kasabian, who later turned state's evidence and testified in all these cases, hid the wallet so well that no one could find it, but she later led the authorities back to where the wallet was located. Now this inmate was at the ranch during this time. He was still a part, an integral part of this Family. Now he knows that not only was -- does he know that Hinman has been killed, he's know that there are five people that are slaughtered at the Tate residence, he then knows that two more people are brutally slaughtered and killed the next night at the LaBianca residence, and does this inmate leave the ranch, does he completely disassociate himself from these people who are clearly hell-bent on starting a race war and murdering and slaughtering innocent people? No, he doesn't. He remains at the ranch, he remains an integral part. In his own words, he wanted their friendship. Who wants friendship with people that go out and brutally murder innocent people who they've never met? Who has -- what is -- what is it inside you that causes you to want their friendship over anything else, to be willing to kill or to let people be killed just to maintain a friendship of people like Manson and Tex Watson and the girls? That's the real critical issue when it comes to this inmate's suitability. So then what happens? Shorty Shea, part-time stuntman, ranch hand at the ranch, he drinks a bit, he's married to a black woman, which angered Charles Manson, but I think the significance of the Shorty Shea killing was is they really believed that he was a police informant. There was a raid at the ranch about a week or so before Shorty Shea was murdered, a couple of the Family members were arrested, they were angry, the Family was angry because somebody had snitched on them and it was believed that Shorty Shea, who had a tendency to drink quite a bit and who wasn't part of the plan, he was actually working at the ranch as a ranch hand, was someone who could implicate them in the crimes, particularly the Tate-LaBianca crimes, and this is why he was murdered. He wasn't murdered as this inmate says, in the middle of the afternoon where he was just taken out for a drive and all of a sudden people started stabbing him. I think it's interesting to note that at least the inmate does admit that he knew he was going to be killed, but again, not only did he know he was going to be killed, he went along, he went along with the killing. Now he tries to downplay it, and he continues to downplay it to this day. And I look back through some of the transcripts, and even going back to 1993. He gives this really absolutely absurdly ridiculous story how the Manson boys took Shorty Shea, stabbed him in the car, hit in the back of the head, then took him down to a ravine, and everybody stabbing and attacking him, and what is, according to Bruce Davis, what is he doing? He's doing nothing, he's just sitting around, he's standing there, he sort of walks down there, and then he's asked to -- you know, after Shorty Shea is dead, according to Bruce Davis, he then cuts him on the shoulder, and I think and there's one previous statement where not only he was first given the machete and he just made a little mark on his neck with the machete, and then he cut him on the shoulder, but was it through his clothes, so he didn't bleed so he thought was dead. I'm quoting Bruce Davis's explanations over the years. So what does this say about Bruce Davis? First of all, his story is just inherently unbelievable and he's been completed by the trial testimony. Ruby Pearl, one of the residents at the ranch, testified that this did not -- Shorty Shea didn't disappear in the daytime, he disappeared at night. Shorty Shea was very concerned something was going to happen to him. He came over to her and asked her if he could sleep in her bunk, in her residence. She was suggesting that he go stay somewhere else where a lot of the Family members stayed. The next thing she knows, she turns to leave, and a car pulls up and the Manson boys jump out, including this inmate, Tex Watson, Steve Grogan, Charlie Manson. They surround Shorty Shea. He takes off, he goes off with them. Ruby Pearl never sees Shorty Shea alive again. Barbara Hoyt, a Family member, seventeen year old girl who's living with the Family at the time, had just gone to bed. She hears screams in the middle of the night. She hears -- first she thinks she's imaging things, Who could be screaming? And so she thinks at first that it's a mistake, and then she hears more screams, and more screams, and then she recognizes the voice because she knows Shorty Shea, she recognizes it's Shorty Shea's voice screaming, and screaming, and screaming, and she testified at the Parole Board in November that thirty-five years later she still hears those screams, she still hears those screams at night. The next day Shorty Shea is nowhere to be found. Then the talk then begins to occur around the ranch as to what happened to Shorty. There's statements that he was killed because he was a snitch. This inmate made particular statements. Not only did they spread the story that he'd been killed, but they also -- when I say "they" I'm talking about Bruce Davis and the others -- spread the stories that he was decapitated and buried. In fact, from the trial testimony, it says, Davis had told one of the other Family members, "If anyone asks about Shorty, tell them he went to San Francisco," and this was to Danny DeCarlo -- oh, no, I'm sorry, that wasn't to Danny DeCarlo. And in this same conversation with a Family member, Mr. Davis says the Family member was talking about a man named DeCarlo testifying against Bobby Beausoleil, who was also the codefendant in the Hinman murders, and Davis's comment about DeCarlo testifying against Bobby Beausoleil was, "We will have to do something about that," and he said this to Allen Springer. And then Davis went on to say, "They had ways of taking care of snitches and had already taken care of one." And his quote from Davis is: "I just cut his arms, leg and head off and buried him in the ranch. They guy was a snitch, and that he was an alcoholic and he drank so much that they were afraid he was going to the police with information." So basically they killed him. Now this is what the inmate spread. And in fact, even the inmate I think testified at the last hearing that yeah, he said those things. But the point is is that why would you say those things to people? First of all, you're bragging about the crime. Why would you be bragging about a crime that, according to his statements, he didn't really even commit, he only just cut him on the shoulder, this symbolic gesture of being involved. That's just absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe that he would have done it and that he would have been able to get away with it. If he were forced to do something like that, he wouldn't have been -- he wouldn't have been able to just do a little superficial cut and still maintain his credibility within that criminal organization. Now I think the real story is --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: May I make a comment here?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Certainly.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: I'm going to ask you to -- you've talked about the facts of the crime.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Right.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: If you will move to the factors of unsuitability so that we can wrap this up.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you. And I'm moving on to that now. Now, what this points out is the inmate's minimization of the crime, and this has been ongoing, it's been consistent for quite some time, and that's even demonstrated in the psychological report where it says that he talks about -- he doesn't talk about the victims, he doesn't talk about remorse, because he is not remorseful. Now I also want to point out that it wasn't until he was actually indicted that he then fled and then later on wound up surrendering himself, but of course, when he surrendered himself, he surrendered himself with another Manson Family member. What is significant is, when you look at this inmate -- and counsel's going to talk about his progress in prison and his doctorate in theology, his conversion, so to speak, to religion. The Panel needs to understand that isn't a big change of this inmate. This inmate's been interested in religion and religious cult activities all his life. Whether it's Scientology, whether it's some of the philosophical books he's reading, whether it's the Manson Helter Skelter, or now this conversion to religion, this isn't a big change for him. He's following along the same line. And in fact, the Manson Family, as I mentioned, they had many hats. One of the hats was a quasi-religious organization. Manson alternately referred to himself as Jesus Christ and as Satan. I mean, this is, you know, almost a religious fervor that these clan members carried out their criminal activities of which Mr. Davis was an integral part of, no matter how much he tries to distance himself. So -- and this is also pointed out, and you look back at last year's transcript and the inmate again, I asked him some questions about when did he disassociate himself from the Family when he came to prison, and this talks about his suitability, and he claims alternately that he didn't -- he downplays his connection to Tex Watson. He and Tex Watson ran the prison ministry here at CMC. Tex Watson was transferred because of complaints from other inmates about their tactics in terms of this prison ministry. Davis at last year's hearing mentioned, well, we sort of had to see each other because were in the same chapel. Well, that doesn't really -- shouldn't really sit well. If you are truly reformed, if you are truly willing to distance yourself and completely shed your past connections, you would not be sharing a prison ministry with Tex Watson, and you would not be involved in it. And in fact, the wives know each other, and if I'm not mistaken, one of them was the best man at the other's wedding, while in prison. So the inmate said that his association with Watson stopped in 1992, because that's when Watson was transferred. The inmate has indicated at the last hearing that he also had received some letters. He sent some letters to Susan Atkins, codefendant in the Hinman murder and also active participant in the Tate-LaBianca murders, and that he discussed religion with her in letters. And he also mentions another individual from last year's hearing, a man by the name of Dennis Rice, who has a prison ministry, and let me see if I can get the exact statement from Mr. Davis. But he mentions that he talks with Dennis Rice, and he talks about Dennis Rice being a peripheral Family member. Well, he's not a peripheral Family member. Dennis Rice was convicted -- no, Dennis Rice was involved in two very serious crimes. One involved the attempted murder of Barbara Hoyt. He's the one that drove Barbara Hoyt to the airport, where they had lured her to Hawaii so that she wouldn't be a witness against any of the Manson Family members, which also means not being a witness against Bruce Davis. While she was in Hawaii, they slipped her -- they laced her hamburger with a large amount of LSD in hopes of killing her. She became sick, she passed out, but luckily a drug counselor just happened to be walking by the street, found her, and took her to the hospital. But Dennis Rice, who this inmate communicates with, was involved in that attempted murder. He was also involved in a Hawthorne break-in of a gun store and a shootout with the police, and the purpose of that crime was to steal guns so the Family could use guns to break Charlie Manson and the other Family members out of prison. So not by any means a minor role-player in the Manson Family connection. And this inmate still has connections with Dennis Rice, which really, really raises some serious questions about his suitability. I don't care if Mr. Rice has had a prison conversion or has a prison ministry, if I were a lifer and I were in prison and trying to disassociate myself from past bad influences, I would stay far, far away from him, but this inmate has not, and he mentioned that at the last parole hearing. When you look at, you know, the totality of this particular inmate, and disappointed that he chose not to answer questions, and it's a choice, it's not a right. He chose not to answer questions from the district attorney, and the only thing I can surmise is he's afraid that the district attorney's office will be able to bring out some facts and show some inconsistencies in his statements. That's the only thing I can think of would be motivation for doing that. But that's not unlike him, because when you look at the psychological evaluations, when you look at the Board reports, you look at his testimony from the previous hearings, it's all about deception for this particular inmate. He hasn't fully explored the depth of his involvement in these crimes. From my impression, he still basically maintains that he was a minor player in all of this, he denies his leadership involvement with the Manson Family. And if I can just have a second, I can refer to Miss Hoyt's letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: I'm going to give you five more minutes and then we're going to move on to --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Sure. And I'm going to finish with this.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: If he's going to back to Hoyt's letter, I'm going to say the same objection that was already sustained.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Well, are you referring to a letter now?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes. That was Barbara Hoyt's letter.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And we did not find that in the file, correct, Mr. Mitchell?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: I didn't find it.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. So we're going to disallow that. So with the information --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- that that you've already stated I think we're -- I think you've got it covered.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: All right. Well, then, I would ask the Panel to take into account the transcript testimony from her Board hearing because it essentially same the thing.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That he had a leadership position and that he was lying about his involvement in the crimes, which I think is consistent to this day. And I would ask the Panel to not only find this inmate unsuitable for parole, I just don't see anything in terms of his suitability that really cries out for anything less than at least a two year denial at this point, and I would ask the Panel to make it at least a two year denial. I don't find that this inmate has made any progress whatsoever. He's now refusing to answering questions, he's now trying to hide behind some type of legalese, and this is the same thing that I caught him with at the last hearing. At the last hearing he said had an epiphany in 1974, so I asked him, I said, "Well, if you've had this epiphany and you finally realize that you had found God and you accepted the horrible crimes that you did, why did you continue to pursue your appeals up until 1980?" And he didn't have a very good answer for that, and look through his answers, he still wanted out of prison. So this shows you the depth of his, quote, religious conversion. Additionally, there's one last point I wanted to make with respect to that. Even up until 1980 he refused to identify his crime partners in the Hinman murder, and I think that's significant too, because as much as he says he has this religious conversion in 1974, why would he not want to name who his crime partners were? Their appeals were over. They had already been sentenced. There was no -- there was nothing further to be hurt. But he claims that he did it to -- so that the appeals would not be affected, so it shows you his allegiance to the Family. So for all those reasons I would ask the Panel to find him unsuitable for parole. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Thank you. Counsel?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The fact that the district attorney has sat here and lied repeatedly and misrepresented facts repeatedly and otherwise acted in a completely unethical manner proves that Bruce Davis as a matter of law must be granted parole, because if the district attorney didn't know this, he'd have told you the truth today about Bruce Davis's place in the Manson Family and his role in these crimes, but the district attorney thinks he's above the law and he's counting on the fact that this Board will believe that he is above the law and will not give Bruce Davis the parole date it must, as a matter of law, give him. Without any authoritative backup other than a district attorney's letter, he states that Bruce Davis was Charles Manson's right-hand man. Well, I am forced unfortunately to go to the most authoritative source I could find, which is the prosecutor, the actual prosecutor in the Tate-LaBianca cases by the name of Vincent Bugliosi, B-U-G-L-I-O-S-I. He wrote a book called Helter Skelter. The entire theory of the prosecution's case in all of these murders, Hinman, Tate, LaBianca, Shorty Shea, was that everybody in the Family was subservient to Charles Manson, that Charles Manson engaged in very sophisticated mind control, the use of drugs, sex, allusions to Beatles albums, and basically picking the people because of their unstable social histories and their susceptibility to mind manipulation. Charles Manson ran this Family. And I'm going to quote from page 1.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, and I'm going to object. Under what basis this counsel is able to start reading books? You know, he -- the objection, my objection is he --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I am forced to rebut --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: He even objects to arguments that are not in the trial record.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I am forced to rebut his reading of a letter from the district attorney. This is a district who actually tried the cases. Steven Kay was a flunky in the case. And if you would just give me a second. I had all the pages and I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Are you objecting?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah, I'm objecting.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And I'm going to overrule. I'll let him his segment.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Okay, now, then my -- then I'd qualify my objection. If he's allowed to read it, then I'd like to read just one very short sentence from that as well.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: From the same book?

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yes.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: All right. Okay.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And this is a short segment?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Yeah, it's very short.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And this is by Bugliosi?

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Correct.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: He's talking about a gentleman named Greg who was giving information about the Family. "I asked Greg for examples of Manson's domination. Greg give me one of the best I've yet found. He said he had dinner with the Family on three occasions. Each time Manson sat alone on the top of a large rock, the other members of the Family sitting on the ground in a circle around him. Question from Bugliosi during recorded interview: 'Did Tex Watson ever get up on the rock? Answer: No, of course not. Question: Did anyone else in the Family get up there? Answer: Only Charlie.' I needed many more examples like this so that when I offered all of them at the trial the jury would be led to the irresistible conclusion that Manson had such a hold over his followers, and specifically his codefendants, that never in a million years would they have committed these murders without his guidance, directions and orders." The district attorney referred to letters that my client wrote to Susan Atkins. What he conveniently neglected to tell you was that these letters were written in 1974, 33 years ago, and the district attorney said that Shorty Shea's body was never found and that he was decapitated. In 1976 or 1977 Shorty Shea's body was found and it was established that the body was not mutilated in any way. The Board held a special hearing to drop the special circumstances based upon decapitation and it was granted.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: There was no special circumstances.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: The district attorney is trying to make you believe that Bruce Davis was involved in the Tate-LaBianca murders. He wasn't. He had nothing to do with them. He wasn't there. He did the same thing at Leslie Van Houten's hearing last week. He tried to make them believe that he was Charles Manson's right-hand man, had no evidence to back it up, other than a multiple hearsay letter from this woman Barbara Hoyt. You have a very difficult decision here today, not because Bruce Davis isn't entirely suitable for parole, there's no question about that, but we have a very notorious case, one of the more sensational cases in American history, and Mr. Davis was involved with that, but you need to understand a few things. One: Bruce Davis is not Charles Manson; two: Bruce Davis did not kill anybody. His role in the Hinman murder, and I will, if necessary, quote again from Bugliosi, was simply driving back and forth. His role in the Shorty Shea murder was a little bit more significant, but, as he said, and there's never been any contradiction to it whatsoever, he stabbed him once in the shoulder after he was already dead. He did it out of fear, out of loyalty to Manson. We can sit here today, 35, 37 years later, and say how could anybody be sucked into something like this? And I don't know. But the question is not what happened then. The question now is what is going on now. And the last thing I want to point out before I actually get into the basis for suitability is that Steve Grogan, the man who actually killed Shorty Shea and who was sentenced to death before it was reversed, because the death penalty was held unconstitutional in 1972 and that he was given life in prison, Steve Grogan was paroled in 1985. He's been out for 23 years and he actually killed somebody. Bruce Davis was an accessory. And I'm not going to say that as an accessory he's not as guilty as a matter of law in terms of punishment, but in terms of parole suitability it's an entirely different question. Bruce Davis has rehabilitated himself in prison and should be found suitable for parole. He has admitted guilt and taken responsibility for his participation in these crimes, not in Tate-LaBianca. He had nothing to do with it. Hinman and Shea, that's what we're here about today. Hinman and Shea. He does not rationalize or minimize his role in the offense, he has insight into why he committed the crime, and he's genuinely remorseful for his actions. And I'm going to go back to the psychological evaluation done by Dr. Glines wherein she states very clearly that he's explored issues and he expresses remorse. So where Mr. Sequeira gets this notion that he's not remorseful for these crimes is just not true, but he doesn't care about the truth. He wants you to keep this man in prison forever and he'll do anything he has to do to do it. That is not the role of the prosecutor in our society. The prosecutor has to tell you the truth. The prosecutor has to stand up for justice. For him to sit here and say that this man after 37 years in prison deserves to stay longer, that is not justice, that is not what goes on the United States. That goes on dictatorships, that goes on fascist regimes where people are kept in prison for this amount of time having never killed anybody. There is no evidence, contrary to what the district attorney says, that Mr. Davis committed a greater degree of the offenses than his conviction evidences. Now these were, as a matter of law, aggravated life crime. I'm not going to argue otherwise. However, that is not a ground for unsuitability with regard to this individual because you cannot judge the entire crime, you judge the participation by the particular individual in it, and since his actions in these crimes were not aggravated, then he cannot be held to that standard. And this crime was committed as a result of significant stress in Mr. Davis's life. You heard his horrible childhood. Yes, he had an unstable social history, absolutely. He was addicted to drugs at the time, he had a horrible emotional turmoil. Like the rest of the Family, he was under the total and complete domination of Charles Manson. That was then. Now we flash forward 3years. Bruce Davis had no juvenile record, he had no adult record of assaulting others. The minor nature of his prior criminal record is actually favoring suitability under the regulations. That was established by the court in Pirtle v. California Board of Prison Terms this past year. He has experienced reasonably stable relationships with others while in prison. He's been married for years. He has a beautiful wife, he has a beautiful thirteen year old daughter. I can tell you this because I've met them many times. They profess their undying love and support for him. He can't get more stable than that. He developed marketable skills prior to his incarceration as a pipe welder and general construction worker and he was a high school graduate and he attended University of Tennessee for one and a half years. Since his incarceration, as Commissioner -- the Commissioner has very well put it, Commissioner Mitchell, that he's become a certified welder, he twice went through Vocational Drafting, he's been a teacher and a professor, and he's a minister. He's received almost uniformly exceptional work records and been commended for working well with his supervisors and peers and for his good attitude. Not only did he graduate college, he got is master's in arts and religion in 1988, his Ph.D. in philosophy and religion in 2002. He got them both summa cum laude. That means he graduated number one or two in his class. Commissioner Mitchell has very well documented my client's self-help and therapy. I won't go through it much other than to say that he has addressed his substance abuse issues and is continuing to address them. He's been involved in AA since -- on and off since 1987, the dual diagnosis NA almost as long, actually longer, and he's been involved with the Interfaith Step program which he's still involved with. He's taken Alternative to Violence, he's taken other substance abuse and Anger Management programming. He's been involved in Yolkfellows for 27 years. He's been a volunteer teacher with the CMC School of the Bible, a Yolkfellows peer counselor and moderator, and religious peer educator. He's had only two 115s his entire time in prison, and the last one was in 1980, January of 1980. None of the 115s involve violence, none of the 115s involved illicit drugs or alcohol. And I want to remind the Panel that under Penal Code Section 3041(b) and Title 15, Section 240, only serious misconduct in prison constitutes a factor tending to show unsuitability. 115s 27 years old that weren't involving violence or substance abuse have no relevance to this proceedings. Further, even though he hasn't had a 115 since -- excuse me, a 128 in 15 years, 128s do not constitute discipline for purposes of determining parole suitability and may not be used for this purpose. That was held by the California Court of Appeals in In Re Smith from 2003 and again in May of 2007 in In Re Lawrence. At the time of his crime Mr. Davis was only 26 years old. He's now 64. At this age the probability of recidivism is vastly reduced. According to a federal study of state recidivism statistics, older parolees are reincarcerated very infrequently. While 51.4 percent of parolees return to prison between the ages of 18 and 29, only 1.4 percent were 55 years or older, and life inmates have far and away the lowest recidivism rate of all felons. A 2002 study by the National Criminal Justice Reference Center found that the recidivism rate nationally for murderers paroled in 1994 is 1.2 percent. A March 2006 study by the California --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Objection. I have to object here. Aren't we going a bit far afield as to why his client's suitable?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: No, I'll allow it.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Suitability. Age is a suitability factor, and anyway, in March 2006 a study by the California Department of Rehabilitations and Correction found that a recidivism rate for murderers paroled in California in 2003 is zero percent. The next lowest category is 19.5 percent. Mr. Davis's parole plans are solid and feasible. Residence is assured with his wife Beth and daughter Taylor in their condo in Grover Beach. He has job offer of a landscaper with Paul Kennedy in Sea Canyon at a starting salary of thirteen dollars an hour. Supporting letters have been submitted. And the fact that the residence would be in a different county from the conviction -- commitment county doesn't matter because he can be paroled to any county in the state of California if it's in the best interest of the public, and the factors to be considered are a verified job offer or vocational training, a marketable skill, or where family support would increase his chances of successful parole. Most of his family is here in San Luis Obispo, in this area, this county. To send him back to Los Angeles wouldn't make any sense. The Court of Appeal determined this in Willis v. Cane. That's the United States District Court case from this past year, and it's also in Penal Code Section 3003. Commissioner correctly noted that several times before evaluations of dangerousness were disallowed by correctional officers, Mr. Davis was rated as a low risk of violence by his correctional counselor several -- six items, at least going back to 1990, actually, ten times going back to 1990. Further, on October 20th, 2007 I spoke with Deputy District Attorney Jeff Jonas by telephone. District Attorney Jonas was very involved in the Manson Family parole hearings. He gave me permission to quote him here. He said, and I quote: "Of all the Manson defendants that he met, Bruce Davis is the most viable candidate for parole." He further said, quote: "Compared to Bobby Beausoleil, Tex Watson and the Manson girls in prison, Bruce Davis is a saint." Commissioner read Dr. Glines' report and portions of Dr. Livingston's report so I won't go back through them. I'm going to read you very briefly from the prior psychological evaluation in 1999. First I'm going to go through -- in this evaluation it goes through in detail prior evaluations, so in 1986 Dr. Brandmeyer, B-R-A-N-D-M-E-Y-E-R, opined that if Bruce Davis would refrain from using drugs he would make a good candidate for parole. On February 16th, 1989 he was seen by Beryl, B-E-R-Y-L, Davis, Ph.D. She opined that he had matured and developed during his period of incarceration and thought his violence potential below average in the absence of drug or alcohol abuse. February 27th, 1991 he was seen by Jack Barsman, B-A-R-S-M-A-N, who is an M.D. psychiatrist. Dr. Barsman opinion that Mr. Davis seemed to have distanced himself from, "depravities and enormities of his crimes and involvement with Charles Manson." Dr. Barsman felt that violence potential was below average. On March 5th, 1992 he was seen by John Hirschberg, H-I-R-S-C-H-B-E-R-G, also a psychiatrist. He thought the inmate a continuously improved in terms of social and emotional adaptation, reporting a progression of insight into his crime. On January , 1994 he was again seen by Dr. Hirschberg who found no evidence of mental illness and who thought the inmate had "grown up" and would "therefore be not likely to repeat this offense." On April 22nd, 1996 he was seen by L.W. Berning, B-E-R-N-I-N-G. Dr. Berning felt that the violence potential was below average. He was seen by this evaluator, Lance Portnoff, P-O-R-T-N-O-F-F, Ph.D. -- excuse me -- on 6/4/97 and noted that: "He acknowledged his participation to an extent and he told me he continued to stay with the Manson Family after Mr. Hinman was murdered because, 'I knew I should leave but I was emotionally hooked on the acceptance of the Family atmosphere.' "I considered that he matured over the years and that his risk assessment for dangerousness was estimated to be within the mildly below average range." Now I'm going to read from the conclusion section. Actually, I'll read from the review of the life crime section on page 6 of Dr. Portnoff's August 2nd, 1999 report. "With regard to remorse, his current attitude still does suggest continued debasement or hostility toward the victims. Therefore, I would agree that Mr. Davis has basic insight into the causative factors of the commitment offense which would include not thinking through any consequences and just proceeding through life in a step-by- step manner primarily concerned with drugs, sex, in a sense acceptance and approval by the Manson Family." "Assessment of Dangerousness": "In the almost 30 years since the commitment offenses he has not portrayed any similar aggressive or threatening behavior. Therefore, his violence potential within a controlled setting is nil. He has also made significant strides in his emotional development. He has not continued to have associations with criminally-minded individuals that characterize his involvement in the commitment offenses. Likewise, since the mid 1980s he became more willing to accept responsibility for his role in the murders. From all accounts he is no longer a dependent individual needing the approval of criminally-minded associates who are addicted to mind-altering substances. The risk factors/precursors to violence which applied at the time of the controlling offenses included a lack of internalized values, affiliation with criminally-minded associates, inability to think through consequences, inability to reject overtures from criminal behavior from his associates and immersion and a hedonistic, drug-using lifestyle. None of these factors appear to be applicable any more. He does not have affiliations with criminal associates, no longer appears to be easily persuadable, and appears to be committed to a prosocial value system. Therefore, given the history leading up to the commitment offense, his described degree of participation in the two murders coupled with his institutional programming all suggest that his violence potential in the community is low in comparison with the average inmate at this time." I'd like to ask the district attorney where he sees no evidence of progress in all of these evaluations, but the fact is, he never even considered them. He didn't even discuss at all my client's 27 years of good behavior in this prison and all the things that he's done because it doesn't matter to him. Unfortunately, however, it does matter as a matter of law. When a risk assessment is contingent upon Mr. Davis remaining substance abuse free there are plenty of facts which demonstrate that will do so. They include there is no evidence that he denies he had a drug problem, there is no evidence that he refused, failed or did poorly in any alcohol drug treatment programs, nor does the record support a reasonable belief that without further drug treatment in prison he might start taking drugs again, and every one of his psych evaluations going back over 20 years deems his substance abuse relapse program adequate and indicates that there's no evidence to support any kind of reason to believe that he will return to abusing substances if he's released. On September 1st of last year the Board denied Mr. Davis a parole date one year. It was actually a split decision, and it was the denial was affirmed en banc. The denial was based entirely upon the life crime and his prior criminal record and unstable pre-prison relationships. The Board was incorrect in using these factors, as I will discuss in a moment. He has -- he -- the -- excuse me. The Board also indicates they thought he lacked insight into this crime and that he minimized his role. The basis for that was that the district attorney gave them the impression that he was a leader in the Family. We can't do anything to disavow his hearsay other than quote the district attorney who actually handled these trials who said that Manson alone ran that family. The only time there was any difference about that was after Manson was put into prison and then, according to his book --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I have an objection.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- was Lynette Squeaky Fromme --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: I have an --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: -- was running the Family in his absence.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Well, I have an objection, since the trial prosecutors' in Bruce Davis's case were Steve Kay and Tony Mansel. They were not Vincent Bugliosi.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Duly noted.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: As the commissioner noted, even though there weren't any particular recommendations made, he has complied with whatever the Board would have recommended he do in the past year. This was Mr. Davis's twenty-first consecutive one-year denial based solely upon the life crime, prior unstable social history. However, Mr. Davis has a congnizable liberty interest in release on parole. This has been affirmed repeatedly by the Ninth Circuit going back to 2002 in the cases of McQuillion v. Duncan, Sass v. California Board of Prison Terms, and Biggs v. Terhune, as well as Irons v. Warden. As a result, the Board can only deny parole if there is "some evidence" having something see of reliability supporting the determination of unsuitability, and the test is not whether there is some evidence of the existence of a particular factor of unsuitability, instead the test is whether the existence of that factor equates to some evidence that the inmate poses unreasonable danger to society. Since Mr. Davis's prison programming more than satisfies the suitability requirements, his institutional behavior indicates an enhanced ability to function within the law upon release, which is the standard under Title 15, and since he has viable parole plans, his present age reduces the probability of recidivism, he's experienced reasonable stable relationships with others, he has no juvenile record, he lacks any significant adult history of crime, and he's shown more adequate signs of remorse, the only factors that can be cited are the historical ones, factors that can never change. However, and this is why as a matter of law Bruce Davis must be given parole, the courts have repeatedly held that the Board does not have carte blanch to deny parole based upon the life crime. It may only so when it was aggravated beyond the minimum elements of the offense, which we concede here as to the crime itself, although not as to Mr. Davis's participation in the crimes, and then only when the facts of the life crime have legitimate predictive value for future criminality. Until the inmate has served the minimum number of years required by his sentence, the nexus between the facts of the life crime and his present unsuitability has been presumed to exist, but once the minimum has been served, the nexus is no longer presumed to exist and to use the unchanging historical factor would violate his liberty interest in parole.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Mr. Beekman [sic] I'm going to ask that wrap this up.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: I'm almost finished. Even if you deem his life crime aggravated because his role is minimal, use of it to denying is prohibited by the California Supreme Court because it would result in the same suitability determination for all participants in the offense. That was the California Supreme Court in In Re Rodriguez, R-O-D-R-I-G-E-U-Z. Determination of parole must be based on the offender's individual culpability as well as on the offense itself, "to make the punishment fit the criminal rather than the crime." Again quoting: "The measure of the constitutionality of punishment for crime is individual culpability. It's well established in the laws of this state." Let me talk about the nexus briefly. The nexus means, for example, where the crime was committed on alcohol or drugs. If there's evidence that the inmate still abuses substances in prison or has not participated in sufficient substance abuse programming, this would constitute a nexus between acts of the crime as present unsuitability. That doesn't exist here. As I indicated by quoting from the psychological evaluation of Dr. Portnoff, the elements of criminality, the abuse of substances, the desire to be a follower, the need for acceptance, these are not present at this time. He has a stable place to live. He has a loving family waiting for him. There is no nexus between the facts of this crime, aggravated or otherwise and this man today, and that is what is required by the law. Since there is no nexus, it cannot be held any longer. Finally -- well, not finally, but Mr. Davis has now served 37 plus years of a seven to life sentence, incarceration that extends well beyond the matrix for this crime for the actual killer. That's held by the California Supreme Court in In Re Dannenberg, D-A-N- N-B-E-R-G, and I'm quoting: "No prisoner can be held for a period grossly disproportionate to his individual culpability for the commitment offense. Such excessive confinement violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the California constitution. Thus, we acknowledge that Section 3041(a) cannot authorize such an inmate's retention even for reasons of public safety beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement." I respectfully submit that the 37 years Mr. Davis has served places him beyond this constitutional maximum period of confinement given his individual culpability for these crimes. And the last thing I wish to point out is that these crimes were committed prior to June 30th, 1977. They were committed in 1969. As a result, Mr. Davis must have his suitability considered under the guidelines in effect at that time.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: That is absolutely incorrect and I'm going to interpose an objection.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: In fact, and in fact if counsel wants to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We know the law.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: We know the law.

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: And there's one suitability criteria to be considered are: Does the inmate have a history of violent attacks preceding this crime, a history of forcible sexual attacks on others, a persisting pattern of criminal behavior and a failure to demonstrate evidence of substantial change for the better, or a psychiatric or psychological condition related to his criminality which creates a high likelihood that serious crimes will be committed if released? Since none of these factors is present under the old suitability standard, he must be given parole. I have focused, however, entirely under the present suitability standards and explained why he must be suitable for parole. Again, you have a difficult decision here, but it's only difficult politically, it's not difficult legally. The courts have held that denying someone beyond his minimum time three times violates the Fourteenth Amendment. He's been denied 21 times just based on this crime. This is a slam-dunk. There's no issue here. Despite what the district attorney has said, it's a matter of law Bruce Davis must set free. Please give him his date. Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay, thank you. Mr. Davis, are you still awake over there?

INMATE DAVIS: Oh, yes.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. All right. Do you think that you're suitable for parole at this time?

INMATE DAVIS: Absolutely.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Do you want to make a statement?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, you know, I sit here and ever since we started having lawyers and DAs in the thing I've always felt like sort of a spectator, and that's probably whatever, and so when I sit here I always feel sort of like a ping-pong ball. If this gentleman's estimation is right, well, I agree with him. If he was right, I would -- I'd say that person should be taken out and shoot him. And if he's right, well, I'd say, well, we ought to canonize him. So I believe I'm somewhere between that. When I first met Charlie I was adrift, really rebellious in my mind, I'd made my mind never to cooperate with this system that had put me in jail for this ten days about this phony charge from the beginning, and it was my stupid decision, nobody else. When I met Charlie, it was sex, drugs and rock and roll, and I was hooked. Charlie was a person that had things that I wanted, girls and drugs, and he treated me like I thought in a way that meant I was being respected, I was treated like by somebody I admired and treated very well, and I took that as respect. I see now that it probably wasn't, but that's how I took it, and so in my mind I adopted Charlie as my dad. I never told him that. Of course, I never told anybody that really. But I can -- and I never -- I never really had any formality of that except when I look back I can see that's what I did. So, yeah, hey, the district attorney is really right, I was involved in evil stuff, and I was involved with evil people, and I was too. I sure wouldn't say well, I was just a poor victim and all this, I certainly wasn't. I will say this, I was so interested in myself and getting what I wanted, the rest of the world became rather indifferent. I was a survivor, and as long as I was surviving, then everybody else would really have to shift for themselves. And I knew not to do any direct killing or hurting somebody because I knew that was against the law and I'd get busted, and so therefore, ignorant as I was and always -- I've always been the easiest person for me to fool, so I thought, well, I can roll with this and not get -- I can warm but not get burned.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Was the inmate now talking about the commitment offense?

INMATE DAVIS: And so --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Excuse me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Well, (inaudible) interrupting (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: And so when all those things came down, I didn't care to -- I didn't feel threatened by the things that happened, I didn't personally feel threatened, so I didn't take any defensive action. I knew -- there was something in me my back in my head that says you ought to get out of here, but I was sort of like the junky that knows he ought to quit, and there was that, but it wasn't loud enough for me, and I didn't leave, and I knew things were happening, but nothing was happening to me, so I didn't -- I was just self-absorbed, selfish, was not analyzing, was not even thinking really about how bad this stuff was. It took me a long time. I didn't think about how bad this was for probably , years to how bad it really was. When I came to the knowledge of God, I began to see that I was very wrong, it hit me like a ton of bricks, but it all didn't hit me at once. I couldn't feel it all at once. I was becoming unnumbed, sort of waking up by stages, and it was shocking enough just the little doses I was getting, and I did hang on to some loyalty to the people I knew. It wasn't like protecting them in the sense -- well, it might have been. Let's just -- I don't know. But I just -- I had a loyalty because we'd had experience. On one hand it was a love/hate relationship. I hated Charlie for the things, the trouble he got us in and the things he did, but I loved him because of the way he treated me, and I hated him because of the lies he told me, but I loved him because of the lies he told me, you know what I mean? You know, he told me good things about myself. I loved that, and I know it was a lie now, but it felt good then and I was just hooked. I was -- and -- and part of me knew better. Part of me knew better, but it didn't know -- it wasn't enough to move me.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: But why are you suitable now?

INMATE DAVIS: Well, I'm suitable now because I've done the time. I'm suitable now because I know -- because I've followed all the rules that the law at the time said I should follow, that I should educate myself, that I should look deeply into myself, that I should understand this thing I've done and where I'm at and get ahold of this, and in the process of doing that it's changed my complete perspective. It's -- I've exposed my embarrassing and terrible things in my life and been open about it, the things I'm absolutely guilty as far as the law goes that I admit, morally speaking. I was -- I knew those guys were going to something bad, I went along with it. I knew they had done something bad after Gary was killed. I still just passively went along with Mr. Shea, with Donald Shea. I was -- I went down there and cut it, so I'm not saying I'm not in involved. I am involved. I could've stopped it, possibly. I didn't think I could at the time, but when I look back at it, I could've probably done something. Well, I mean, I -- not probably done something, I could've done something, but at the time I didn't think I could. And what makes me suitable now is that my -- that I've done the time and I've changed inside, and since I got -- since my wife came along, she's the first person to ever get into me and make me really see the kind of effect I had on other people. I had never read Helter Skelter until she came along, and she said, "Did you ever read that book Helter Skelter?" And I had some highly defensive answer that says, "I know what happened. I don't need to read about it." So that was mine. She said, "I think you should read about it," and she starts giving me a list of reasons, and so I've been blessed with some wisdom. I listen to my wife, and so I read that, and I was -- I had never really thought about what it did to Gary's parents and to Donald's parents, and just thinking about all the big picture, the bomb that went off, I was sort of isolated from the news and everything about this and so I really didn't get it crashing in me all the time like Southern California did, so -- and I don't know if I'd have been psychologically able to ever hear if I had've, I'm note sure. But anyway, when the gentleman talks about I had sort of backed off and minimized myself at that, well, there's something to that, because during the time it was happening, I'm saying, "Well, I'm -- hey, I'm really -- I'm not really in this, I'm not really -- I'm not really a part of this murder, I didn't stick a knife in this guy, I didn't kill this guy," so in my very juvenile view of what murder is and what these crimes were about, I was able to convince myself that, hey, I was out of harm's way.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: And today?

INMATE DAVIS: And today I'm seeing that when I back at that, yeah, that was me, but that's not me A lot of things have changed that, and especially look now. the influence of my wife. I tell you, that can't be overestimated. She's got in my head, she's pinned me down, put me to the wall on kinds of things about this, and my attitude and my feelings, and where I was then. Maybe I really just -- well, when she would open these things up, I knew that it's out now and I had to deal with it and I would do -- all through our first few years of our marriage, boy, I'll tell you, it was like being with Sigmund Freud or something. Man, I had to go through these changes. But now, I'll tell you what, right now, yeah, I should be paroled. I'm ready. I have everything it takes. I'm going to be a great contributor. I'm going affect the future, the future of everything that I have any affect in a positive way. I don't envy your position here, I know that, but I'll tell you this, just one person to another, if you were to parole me, I would tell you this on my life, you will never be disappointed, you will never be ashamed, (inaudible), you know, your peers are going to put their pressure, I know that and you know what -- you know more about that than I do from your side, but you will never be ashamed, and I thank you for your tolerance in listening.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Thank you very much. The time is now 1702 and we'll recess for deliberations.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right, we're back on the record. Excuse me. The time now is 1730. All persons present prior to the recess have returned, and this Panel has deliberated and come to a decision and I will now read that decision into the record. The Panel reviewed all information received from the public, contained in the Central File and testimony presented today and relied on that and the following circumstances in concluding that the prisoner is not suitable for parole and would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison at this time. The commitment offenses are horrendous, even without the notoriety, in that the offenses were carried out in an especially cruel and callous manner. Victim Hinman was held in his own house for two days during which time he was tortured, he was stabbed numerous times, one time through the chest, penetrating his heart, he was clubbed, he had a gash on the top of his head, part of his left ear was cut off, along with numerous other wounds. Victim Shea was murdered and buried somewhere near the ranch, Spahn Ranch. These offenses were carried out in a very dispassionate and calculated manner, such as an execution style murders. There were multiple victims attacked: victim number one, Mr. Hinman, on or about July 25th, 1969; victim two, Mr. Shea, sometime between August 16th and September 1st, 1969. These victims were abused, defiled and mutilated, stabbed, clubbed, decapitated, as accused in records. The offense was carried out in a manner which demonstrates exceptional callous disregard for human suffering. You in your testimony have stated that you may not have participated in the direct murders but you knew about them, you stood by while they were perhaps occurring. That in and of itself shows a callous disregard for human suffering. The motives for the crimes are inexplicable. The murder of Mr. Hinman did not deter you from later committing or being involved in the murder of Mr. Shea just weeks later. The facts of the crime, the Statement of Facts were taken from the Probation Officer's Report that documents both offenses, and we've already stated the dates and we've stated the victims' names, and the autopsy revealed on Mr. Hinman that the victim was killed by stab wounds through the chest which penetrated his heart. The autopsy further demonstrated that he suffered other wounds. In the conspiracy count it refers to the codefendants, Manson, Grogan and Atkins and the defendant conspiring to rob, murder and rob Mr. Hinman. Count number three refers to the murder of Donald Jerome Shorty, who was murdered by the defendant and codefendant, buried his body somewhere near the ranch, and intensive investigations failed to produce the body during this investigation at the time of that writing. There is no juvenile record. The multiple adult arrests ended in subsequent dismissals. The only prior crime that is of record, and that was too dismissed in furtherance of justice, was -- I believe it was the theft. Let me refer directly to the priors that I have taped here. I believe that was the false identification to the firearms dealer, and that did have a three year consecutive sentence attached to it, but the U.S. Marshal's Office discontinued that detainer. So there is no significant history for criminality. There is a history of unstable and tumultuous relationships within your family unit, alcoholism by your father, who you, by your accounts, was very verbal and physically abusive to you in particular over the years, and then you mentioned your claim of the sexual molestation on two different occasions with two different men, your substance abuse history, and the involvement in a notorious subculture group, the Manson Family, a controlling mother, that you felt that your parents had failed you, so that goes to the makeup of who you are and perhaps why you sought out the acceptance that you spoke of that you were interested in obtaining from Charlie in particular, and you enjoyed the acceptance of that group. As to the institutional behavior I will defer to Deputy Commissioner Mitchell.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) I have nothing but compliments to give you. You have not received a rule violation in 27 years. You have excellent work ratings. You have an excellent attitude (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. Thank you. As to you psychological factors, the psychological reports dated August 2006 with clinician Glines authoring that, and a report from 2003, which she references by a Dr. Livingston, are not totally supportive of release in that on the August 24th, 2006 risk of violence, page 4 of that report by Dr. Glines, Dr. Livingston concluded that the risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community was within the low to moderate range. Dr. Livingston's results were reviewed. Since that evaluation there has been no significant changes that would alter his finding. Thus, the risk for recidivism on a violent crime while in the free community remains within the low to moderate range, and that would be of significance to this Panel in any consideration for release. Parole plans do appear to be realistic. The PC 3042 notices, the district attorney of Los Angeles County sent a letter and the representative was present and opposes. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's letter opposes release. Having said all that, this Panel is recommending that you remain disciplinary free, which obviously has not been a problem for you, that you continue with your vocational pursuits, and that you continue with your self-help, your ministry, all the positive things which you have been participating in, and we in deliberation we spoke to the fact that you have done an excellent program. Once you decided that where your life was going to take you, you took the steps to improve yourself, and not many inmates do that. Okay. So if you have anything else to say?

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: This is a one year denial. It's not a multi-year denial. This is a one year denial.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: We also are requesting an updated psych report addressing specifically (inaudible) psych reports (inaudible) on the psych report (inaudible) like you to maybe put down (inaudible) get a chance to say. I would like you maybe put down yourself some notes, when you go back to the report that you be you address every single thing that you want to be sure the psychologist knows about.

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible).

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible) --

INMATE DAVIS: Excuse me.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: You might even want to consider taking a look at the transcript, which I'm sure you will, of this hearing, and take anything you can out of the transcript (inaudible) conversation that you use to better (inaudible), and my last comment, sir, is good luck to you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Good luck to you, sir. The time --

INMATE DAVIS: Well --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Could I just correct one? I think the Panel may have misspoke. The victim Shea was not decapitated. He bragged about -- he bragged about decapitating.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: There is one thing in the record that said that one of the --

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah, I think when you spoke I --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Yeah. He bragged about decapitating the victim --

INMATE DAVIS: I (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- to scare people, but he -- the victim was not actually --

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: -- decapitated. So I just wanted to --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: I think I did say something --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: Commissioner?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: -- by the court into the record.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Right. So I'm just --

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: (inaudible).

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: So just -- if I could help clear that up, I would.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: All right.

DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY SEQUEIRA: Thank you.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: Okay. And good luck to you.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MITCHELL: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Yeah, it's fine.

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: That concludes this hearing.

INMATE DAVIS: So then what I'm looking at --

ATTORNEY BECKMAN: (inaudible).

INMATE DAVIS: Okay. Okay. So I'm looking at life without, right? Well, you know, that's what it boils down, because the past is not going to change, is it?

PRESIDING COMMISSIONER WOODS: No, it's not going to change, sir.

INMATE DAVIS: (inaudible).