LOS ANGELES, Aug. 7 – A mistrial was declared Saturday in the retrial of Leslie Van Houten after the jury reported on the 25th day of deliberations that it was “hopelessly” deadlocked at seven votes for first-degree murder and five for manslaughter.

The 27-year-old former follower of Charles Manson gasped and then broke into an open-mouthed smile when she heard the number of jurors who had voted for manslaughter.

Immediately after sending the “hung” jury home, Superior Judge Edward Hinz Jr. set a Sept. 12 hearing to determine when and if she would be put on trial a third time.

The margin of the split in the jury vote led to speculation that there might be a plea bargain in the case to avoid another lengthy and costly trial.

Prosecutor Stephen Kay and defense attorney Maxwell Keith are scheduled to meet this week with Dist. Atty. John Van de Kamp to discuss that topic.

“I want to sit down with Steve (Kay) and get his analysis of the trial and the jury reaction before coming to any conclusions on the future handling of this case,” Van de Kamp said.

Kay, clearly disappointed at the outcome, told reporters after the mistrial: “The facts in this case definitely show she committed first-degree murder. But facts and emotions are different things. I understand one juror had a dream her daughter was in jail for the same thing and so she had great sympathy for Leslie. I don’t know how you deal with that.”

Keith, just as obviously exultant about the mistrial, said, “I have to say I’m awfully pleased and Leslie is just as pleased.”

He added, “When we started, most of the people I talked to didn’t think she had a chance and so I think what happened is a good outcome.”

Keith never asked the jury to acquit Miss Van Houten for the Aug. 10, 1969, slaying of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca but he argued that she should be convicted only of manslaughter.

Her defense in this second trial was that she suffered from “diminished capacity” at the time of the killings due to the domination of Manson and prolonged use of LSD.

Miss Van Houten, who in the first trial sullenly said, “Sorry is only a five-letter word,” when asked if she had any remorse for what she had done, was a distinctly different person on the witness stand in the second trial.

She told the jury she was “deeply ashamed” of her part in the murders of the LaBiancas and testified she stabbed Mrs. LaBianca only after she was dead.

Even Kay commented that the demeanor of “this pretty young girl” had so drastically changed that “jurors wonder whether they want to send her back to prison for the rest of her life.”

Miss Van Houten was convicted of first-degree murder in the first trial and had she been reconvicted it would have meant continuing to serve time on a life sentence. (She was given a retrial because her attor-ney disappeared in the middle of the first trial.)

Had the verdict been manslaughter, she would have been eligible for parole now on the eight years she already has been behind bars.

The other alternative for the jurors, a second-degree murder verdict, might allow for a near future release but correctional authorities could hold her for a lengthy time if they decide she is “still dangerous.”

On the four ballots before the eighth and final vote taken, jurors were seven for first degree, two for second degree and three for manslaughter. On the last ballot, the two jurors for second degree went over to manslaughter.

This balloting was all done by the reconstituted jury of seven women and five men who started deliberations 11 days back when a women alternate replaced a male juror who became ill. They had been deliberating 14 days at that point but Hinz told them to start “all over again” with the new juror.

Jury foreman Bill Albee estimated that the number of ballots taken during both series of deliberations added up “to 15 or 20 votes, something like that.”

Albee, one of those who voted for first-degree murder, said that group remained firm throughout the deliberations. Asked why the jury ended tip so severely split, he said:

“It was the diminished capacity law. It’s very difficult to determine from testimony whether the girl was mentally capable of committing murder.”

lza Stern, who voted for manslaughter, described the deliberations as “rough” but said most of the jurors felt Miss Van Houten was “believable.”

Alphonzo Miller said he had at first been in favor of first-degree murder but because of the judge’s instruction on “reasonable doubt” he switched to second degree and then was one of the two who voted for manslaughter on the final ballot.

“It was impossible for us to unanimously decide on whether she actually was responsible for her actions,” Miller said, “and I doubt if you will ever find a jury that could.”

Before beginning their deliberations, the jurors had heard 41 days of testimony over a 15-week period. Kay called 26 prosecution witnesses, including the ex-boyfriend of Miss Van Houten who turned her on to LSD shortly after she became a homecoming princess at Monrovia High School.

Keith presented testimony from 12 witnesses — Miss Van Houten, her mother, five other former members of the Manson “family” and five psychiatrists who testified she was incapable of “meaningfully premeditating or deliberating” the murders.

By BILL FARR