1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 In Re ) CASE Nos. BH _________ ) 5 LESLIE VAN HOUTEN, ) ) Related Cases: BH007887; S230851 6 Petitioner, ) B240743; B286023 ) S45992; S238110; S221618 7 on Habeas Corpus. ) ______________________________ ) Superior Court Case A253156 8 9 _______________________________________________________ 10 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES 12 _______________________________________________________ 13 RICH PFEIFFER 14 State Bar No. 189416 NANCY TETRAULT 15 State Bar No. 150352 P.O. Box 721 16 Silverado, CA 92676 Telephone: (714) 710-9149 17 Email: [email protected] 18 Attorneys for Petitioner Leslie Van Houten 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS. 2 3 INTRODUCTION. 4 4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 8 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS. 10 6 PETITIONER’S JANUARY 30, 2019 PAROLE HEARING DECISION. 16 7 JUNE 3, 2019 GOVERNOR REVERSAL. 17 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.. 18 9 I. MS. VAN HOUTEN IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO 10 PUBLIC SAFETY UNDER ANY STANDARD.. 18 11 A. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.. 18 12 1. Governor Reversal Standard of Review.. 18 13 2. The De Novo Standard of Review is Appropriate. 22 14 B2.. THE REVERSAL OF MS. VAN HOUTEN’S FINDING OF PAROLE SUITABILITY WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.. 25 15 II. THE GOVERNOR FORFEITED NEW REASONS TO DENY PAROLE 16 THAT WERE NOT ASSERTED AT REVERSALS OF EARLIER REVERSALS OF GRANTS OF PAROLE.. 31 17 18 III. MS. VAN HOUTEN WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE PROSECUTION HAD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THE CHARLES 19 “TEX” WATSON TAPES, AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE IT.. 33 20 CONCLUSION. 35 21 PRAYER. 36 22 VERIFICATION - DECLARATION BY ATTORNEY RICH PFEIFFER.. 37 23 DECLARATION OF SERVICE . 38 24 25 26 27 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page 2 1 TABLE OF EXHIBITS 2 Exhibit 3 A. 2019 Governor Reversal of Grant of Parole 4 B. 2018 Governor Reversal of Grant of Parole 5 C. 2016 Governor Reversal of Grant of Parole 6 D. January 30, 2019 Parole Suitability Hearing Transcripts 7 E. August 31, 2017 Franklin Hearing Transcripts 8 F. District Attorney Answer to Supreme Court in Case S230851 9 G. August 1978 Sentencing Transcripts 10 H. March 3, 2010 Clinical Risk Assessment 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page 3 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 In Re ) CASE Nos. BH _________ ) 4 LESLIE VAN HOUTEN, ) ) Related Cases: BH007887; S230851 5 Petitioner, ) B291024; B240743; B286023 ) S45992; S238110; S221618 6 on Habeas Corpus. ) ______________________________ ) Superior Court Case A253156 7 TO THE HONORABLE, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY 8 SUPERIOR COURT: 9 Petitioner Leslie Van Houten hereby petitions this Court for a writ of habeas 10 corpus, and by this verified petition represents that: 11 INTRODUCTION: 12 In 1969, Petitioner Leslie Van Houten participated in the murders of Leno and 13 Rosemary LaBianca at the age of nineteen under the direction and control of Charles 14 Manson. (Exh. F.) Manson was in charge of what became known as the Manson 15 “Family” but as commissioners have appropriately pointed out, the term “family” is not 16 appropriate and the word “cult” should be used. The Governor specifically refers to the 17 cult as “ ‘the Family.’ ” (Exhibit A, p. 3.) 18 In 1978, after three trials, Ms. Van Houten was finally convicted and sentenced to 19 seven years to life for conspiracy and first degree murder pursuant to the felony murder 20 rule. After spending almost 50 years in prison as an exemplary inmate, the commitment 21 offense was the reason why the Governor reversed her second grant of parole. Ms. Van 22 Houten has always accepted complete responsibility for her actions during the 23 commitment offense. When she entered the house the plan was to kill the victims and 24 she wanted to participate in that. (People v. Van Houten (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 280, 283- 25 284.) Ms. Van Houten testified that she took responsibility for her actions and did not 26 blame Manson. “There is nothing in that night of murder that I don’t take responsibility 27 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page 4 1 for or all that came before.” “I went to the ranch. I became a participant in the group at 2 the ranch. I wanted to be a part of the revolution and the murders tht were going to spark 3 it. There’s no part of me that says it was his [Manson’s] fault that I did all that. I 4 willingly sat and listened. I let myself let go of who I had been . .” “I don’t minimize. 5 I feel like if I minimized, I would find easy ways to live with the guilt of what happened 6 because I’m passing the buck onto somebody else so my conscience doesn’t have to deal 7 with it. But that’s not who I am and it’s not what I do with my life.” “So I suppose it’s 8 always there to say I’m blaming him [Manson].” “He was convicted for controlling us 9 and we were convicted for doing what we did in the houses. I don’t - - I don’t let myself 10 off from personal responsibility.” (Exhibit D, p. 86-87.) While Ms. Van Houten told the 11 commissioners she didn’t know how else to answer her responsibility, the presiding 12 commissioner stated: “All right. I think you’ve answered it.” He added: “I did want to 13 put on the record that, you know, it doesn’t show over the, uh, microphones, but I do 14 want to note the expression of remorse I saw on your face when you talked about he 15 abortion and when you talked about the murders and the realization of - - of how awful, 16 how horrific it was.” (Exhibit D, pp. 87-88.) The presiding commissioner acknowledged 17 Ms. Van Houten’s testimony in dealing with the weight of having been a part of one of 18 society’s most heinous crimes, but found her growth had led her to engage in positive 19 behaviors as a way to make amends for her actions. Her behavior in prison “is probably 20 one of the most exemplary I’ve ever seen.” The hearing Panel found that although Ms. 21 Van Houten was a leader regarding her behaviors and actions it was not to the extent of 22 the others in Manson’s group. (Exhibit D, p. 156.) “You’ve shown signs of remorse, 23 accepted responsibility for your criminal actions as evidenced by your - - by your life - - 24 you basically turned your life around. Very shortly after the life crime, you turned your 25 life around. Your behavior, uh, lines up with your testimony today.” (Exhibit D, p. 158.) 26 At the outset, if Ms. Van Houten failed to recognize Manson’s complete control of 27 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page 5 1 herself and others, she would lack the insight into the causative factors that led to the 2 crime and it could happen again. This would be a legitimate reason to deny parole. This 3 would be true despite the superior court previously finding “ ‘it is unlikely [Van Houten] 4 could ever find another Manson-like figure if released . .’ ” (Exhibit B, p. 4.) In the 5 Governor’s second reversal of the grant of parole, by Ms. Van Houten recognizing 6 Manson’s control, the Governor found “she still shifted blame for her own actions onto 7 Manson to some extent,” and therefore failed to take responsibility for her crime.1 8 (Exhibit B, p. 3.) If Ms. Van Houten failed to recognize the true facts how Manson 9 controlled the cult, she has no insight and remains a risk of danger. If she does testify to 10 that control, she shifts some blame to Manson and does not take full responsibility, and 11 is denied parole for that reason. The People and Governor cannot have it both ways. 12 The inconsistencies of the denial of parole over the years, and multiple reversals 13 where the reasons keep changing, have demonstrated that fundamental fairness has not 14 been applied to Ms. Van Houten. For instance, “There was ample evidence that Manson 15 was the leader and directed the murders and that there was drug usage.” (Exhibit G, p. 16 11.) However, at Ms. Van Houten’s 2013 parole suitability hearing, during the decision, 17 the BPH found Ms. Van Houten to have been a leader in the commitment offense.2 18 While cases have mentioned in dicta that the commitment offense could be so 19 aggravated that the crime alone would be a sufficient reason to deny parole, no case 20 since In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181 (Lawrence), has held that the commitment 21 offense alone was enough to deny parole. In Lawrence, the California Supreme Court 22 23 1 That BPH Panel found that Ms. Van Houten took responsibility for her “criminal actions as evidenced by [her] life - - [she] basically turned [her] life around. Very 24 shortly after the life crime, [she] turned [her] life around.” Ms. Van Houten’s behavior 25 lined up with her testimony. (Exhibit D, p. 158.) 26 2 The Panel found Ms. Van Houten chose to “become a leader of a sense in that criminal 27 association.” (http://www.cielodrive.com/leslie-van-houten-parole-hearing-2013.php at p.