LOS ANGELES, Jul. 2 – Times reporter William Farr was cleared today of contempt of the grand jury and of court for refusing to answer six questions put to him last week during investigation of perjury charges against two attorneys.

Superior Judge Raymond Choate last Thursday held Farr in contempt but agreed to reconsider the case today, two days after the demise of the 1973-74 grand jury.

The 23-member body last Friday indicted Vincent T. Bugliosi and Dave Shinn, two lawyers in the 1970 Charles Manson murder trial, on three counts of perjury each.

The perjury charges concerned their denials under oath that they gave Farr transcripts despite a court gag order during the Manson trial or that they knew who did.

Bugliosi surrendered himself to Choate today and pleaded “not guilty” to the charges.

Choate announced that Shinn had surrendered himself Monday and would be formally arraigned and enter his plea on July 9.

Bugliosi was scheduled to appear July 17 before Superior Judge Earl C. Broady for pretrial motions. Harland Braun, his attorney, said Bugliosi will seek a jury trial within 60 days.

In absolving Farr of contempt, Choate reversed his earlier decision on whether Farr could invoke the state’s fragile “shield” law, Evidence Code Section 1070, which excuses newsmen from testifying about their sources of information.

Last Thursday, Choate said that the immunity law could not be used before the grand jury any more than it could be used in the court of Superior Judge Charles H. Older.

Farr served 46 days in jail after Older held him in contempt for refusing to name the two sources. The state Court of Appeal later upheld Older, ruling that the newsmen’s “shield” law was unconstitutional in cases where the court sought to enforce its own gag or other orders.

Theodore P. Shield, grand jury special prosecutor, argued the shield law could not be used to protect Farr from testifying about the commission of a crime — perjury.

In reversing his ruling, Choate said he accepted arguments of Farr’s attorney, Mark Hurwitz, that Farr “quite likely acted in good faith” in relying on the shield law. “The subsequent interpretation of the statute by the appellate courts,” Choate said, “would have the flavor of an ex post facto ruling.”

Hurwitz had argued that Farr took the shield law at face value and was held accountable for the unconstitutional meaning the appellate court gave it after Older held him in contempt.

It is unconstitutional to charge a person with a crime that occurred before the law regulating it or making it a crime was passed. The law is said to be passed “ex post facto” or after the fact of the crime or other incident.

“It also occurs to the court that a more general investigation, such as the inquiry into perjury,” Choate said, “would not be in the circumstances which raised the constitutional issue in (the Older matter).”

Choate noted he was “impressed” with an amendment to the shield law in 1972 by the state Legislature which broadened the law to include grand juries.

Farr said he was “delighted” by the ruling.

“I think it renews some of the protection that we felt was eroded earlier in the proceeding,” he said.

Hurwitz said the ruling “simply reaffirms the principle that a reporter is entitled to immunity when testifying before a grand jury.”

The decision could be a doorstop in the revolving-door series of contempt citations Farr has faced.

Although Farr is expected to be called as a witness in any trial for Bugliosi or Shinn, Hurwitz said Choate’s ruling probably means Farr can safely invoke the shield law there without being found in contempt.

“I would think (Choate’s decision) means that the restriction on the application of 1070 is going to be limited to gag orders,” he said.

Superior Judge William H. Levit recently lifted the indefinite jail sentence imposed on Farr by Older, but Farr yet must return before Older July 29 for a possible punitive-sentence which could total as much as 65 days in jail and a $6,500 fine.

Bugliosi, commenting after his court appearance, said his indictment smacked of political overtones and was “the most absurd, the most ridiculous, the most improper indictment ever issued by the Los Angeles County Grand Jury.”

“I did not give Mr. Farr the transcript,” he told newsmen. “There is no question in my mind I will be completely exonerated.”

Braun said a chief grand jury witness, Dep. Dist. Atty. Stephen Kay, “flipflops back and forth according to how the election returns come in.”

He indicated Kay would not have told his story about Farr’s handing him an envelope for Bugliosi if Bugliosi had won the district attorney election in 1972.

By MYRA OLIVER