Bugliosi’s Perjury Case Dismissed but Shinn to Face Trial
Friday, October 4th, 1974
LOS ANGELES, Oct. 4 – Daye Shinn, a defense at the 1970 Charles Manson trial, faces trial for perjury Nov. 18, similar charges were dismissed Thursday against Manson prosecutor, Vincent T. Bugliosi.
Both attorneys were indicted June 28 on charges of lying three times under oath in denying they gave Times reporter William Farr transcripts of a witness’ statement during the Manson trial, despite a gag order.
Special prosecutor Theodore P. Shield, noting he acted “regretfully,” said Thursday he had no choice but to drop the charges against Bugliosi because Farr’s refusal to testify about his sources had “dealt a fatal blow” to the case.
But Shield surprisingly moved to proceed with the charges against Shinn. The move again raised the possibility of another round of testimony for Farr, who spent 46 days in jail and faces five more for contempt for refusing to name sources before Superior Judge Charles H. Older.
“I thought the case would be dismissed today,” Shinn said after Superior Judge Earl C. Broady granted Shield the Nov. 18 trial date, “because (Shield) couldn’t go ahead without Bill Farr’s testimony.”
Robert Kirste, Shinn’s attorney, said he did not object to the trial date.
“In view of the fact that the case against Bugliosi was dropped when they couldn’t even prove a crime occurred,” Kirste said, “we expect the case (against Shinn) will be dismissed.”
Shield said he requested the delay to obtain a formal letter from Atty. Gen. Evelle J. Younger establishing his appointment as special prosecutor in the Shinn matter, to handle other cases, and to decide how to proceed.
He said it is “possible but doubtful” that he will call Farr to testify in the Shinn case.
Shield’s case against Bugliosi ebbed irretrievably Wednesday when Broady ruled that Farr could not be held in contempt for refusing to answer 15 of Shield’s questions and that the reporter’s testimony in prior hearings could not be used in the perjury trial.
What Shield needed and did not get was a statement Farr once made before Older that Farr received transcripts from two of the six lawyers in the Manson case — the corpus delicti to show the crime of perjury had been committed.
Farr said that statement, made on the advice of a former attorney, was a mistake because it dented the anonymity a newsman can promise sources. He said he would not compound the error by repeating it.
“By Farr’s action in refusing to testify in this case to those matters which he testified to (earlier), he has dealt a fatal blow to the prosecution,” Shield said in court, “and he has not only thwarted the prosecution of any person who might be guilty of this crime, but also prevented (Bugliosi) from establishing his innocence … He is also continuing to perpetuate the cloud over persons who are not the ones who allegedly committed perjury.
“No one is the victor,” Shield said, “but justice is the loser.”
Bugliosi said he wished the case had gone to the eight-woman, four-man jury that he believed would have acquitted him but added he was relieved by the outcome. He said he had “lost a lot of faith” in the system of justice.
“Everyone close to this case knows that I did not give any statement to Bill Farr and these vicious phony charges were brought against me by my political enemies,” he said. “If people can use the agencies of government such as the grand jury to get even with their political enemies, then no one is safe in this land.”
He said he plans a promotional tour later this month for his book, “Helter Skelter, The True Story of the Manson Murders,” scheduled for publication Oct. 28.
“Ever since I stood up to and took on the corrupt establishment in this city,” Bugliosi said, “I have been victimized by one phony, false, fabricated charge after another. I have decided to stay out of politics. I am tired of being the Billy Jack of Los Angeles County.” Bugliosi ran unsuccessfully for district attorney and attorney general.
“I am going to devote my talents as a trial lawyer to helping people who need the best representation possible,” Bugliosi said.
His first act outside the courtroom was to seek the arrest of Irving Kanarek, Manson’s defense lawyer, for disturbing the peace.
“Let the case go to the jury,” Kanarek shouted at Bugliosi. “Sue me for libel, because it is true you committed perjury.”
Bailiffs led Kanarek to an adjoining hallway until Bugliosi left with his attorney, Harland Braun, and wife, Gail, but made no arrest.
Farr, informed that Shield planned to take the Shinn case to trial, said he was “dismayed that these proceedings keep coming time after time at great expense to taxpayers and to me personally without any apparent possibility that the outcome would be different.”
He said he sympathized with Shield’s frustration in abandoning the Bugliosi case but felt Shield had been “a bit unfair” in criticizing the reporter’s refusal to testify.
“There was a serious question about whether he (Shield) even should have sought the indictment in the first place, since he knew what the problems would be in the trial,” Farr said.
“He could not reasonably have believed I would change my stand about not revealing my sources,” Farr said.
By MYRNA OLIVER
Comments