LOS ANGELES, Aug. 12 – Convicted slayer Leslie Van Houten was denied probation and sentenced to life in prison Friday after an emotional hearing before Superior Court Judge Gordon Ringer.
A Superior Court jury had found Miss Van Houten, a former member of the Manson “family,” guilty July 5 of two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The jury also had found her guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the five slayings at the Sharon Tate residence. It was Miss Van Houten’s third trial.
Minutes before Ringer handed down the three concurrent life terms Friday, Miss Van Houten, her voice breaking and her eyes filling with tears, addressed the court on her own behalf.
“I am aware of the pain and the fact that I devastated the LaBianca family as a unit and individually,” the slender, dark-haired defendant said softly.
“Unfortunately, there is no way I can repay that … there is no mending …”
Responding to a charge by prosecutor Stephen Kay that she had shown no remorse for the murders, Miss Van Houten said:
“On the question of remorse, I have always felt that was something personal and I have done my best not to expose it publicly. It’s something deep within me. It’s not something that should be exposed, I don’t think publicly, anyway.
“It’s a shame I have to live with …”
Miss Van Houten said she now realizes how deeply she has hurt her own family.
“I have to live with that forever and I can never make it up,” she told the court. “They’ve shared my shame because they love me.”
The 28-year-old former high school homecoming princess told Ringer that she had been a very negative person living in a very bad environment.
“I can only say I’m very pleased that I’m a good person today,” she said.
“I only hope that someday I can be a contributing member of the community and … ”
Looking straight at the judge, her voice much stronger, Miss Van Houten said:
“I have not lied, not since my first trial, or told lies to benefit me in any way,” she told Ringer. “It’s important that you know that because I respect you as a judge.”
Miss Van Houten’s statement followed long and impassioned arguments by defense attorneys Maxwell Keith and Paul Fitzgerald, who pleaded for her release on probation rather than return to prison.
In his final plea for leniency, Keith told the court that Miss Van Houten had undergone a complete metamorphosis during the last eight years and is no longer a danger to society.
Sending his client back to prison would be an “act of vengeance,” Keith said, serving no purpose of rehabilitation or deterrence.
“It has been made abundantly clear in this case that Leslie is no longer a danger to society,” he added, “and sending her back to prison would be throwing away a life needlessly.”
Fitzgerald expanded Keith’s plea for leniency, arguing that Miss Van Houten will wear “the mantle of infamy” acquired as a follower of Charles Manson forever.
“She’ll be chased forever down the labyrinthine corridors of her mind and soul by the nightmares of the crimes she committed,” Fitzgerald said.
“She has changed dramatically and she has been instrumental in her own rehabilitation.”
The defense attorneys had planned to call Miss Van Houten’s father, Paul Van Houten, as their final witness, but apparently changed their minds without explanation at the last minute.
Dep. Dist. Any. Dino Fulgoni and prosecutor Kay adamantly opposed Miss Van Houten’s release on probation, arguing that persons convicted of first-degree murder “just aren’t turned loose on the streets.”
In his arguments, Kay called the Aug. 10, 1969, murder of the LaBiancas and the slaying one day earlier of five other victims at the Tate estate “the most cruel and vicious murders in the bloody history of American crime.”
Recalling the grisly details of the murders, Kay asked, “Who is going to rehabilitate or resurrect the LaBiancas?
“Are we willing to say that eight years in prison is enough punishment for the horror of the LaBianca deaths?” he asked.
“What confidence would society have in our system of justice if Leslie Van Houten can be released?”
Ringer said he found his sentencing decision difficult to make and difficult to explain “to Miss Van Houten, her family and her defense counsel, who has served her faithfully for so many months.”
The jurist said he must weigh Miss Van Houten’s apparent rehabilitation “with the barbarous deed that was done.”
“This case is a special one,” Ringer said. “It will burn in the public conscience for a long time.
“I have to draw the balance in a certain way and in this case, even with the progress that has been made, the balance must be drawn on the side of punishment.”
The defendant, wearing a blue checked blouse and denim skirt, sat with her face in her hands as Ringer announced the three life sentences.
Several young women, apparently friends of the defendant, wept softly as the judge finished speaking.
Miss Van Houten was ordered to serve life in prison for each of her July 5 convictions. Ringer credited her with the eight years and 120 days she has previously served.
The defense attorneys immediately filed a formal notice of appeal and entered a motion to have Miss Van Houten released on bail pending the outcome of such an appeal.
Ringer denied the motion for bail and ordered Miss Van Houten retained in custody, saying that nobody — the defendant, the attorneys or even himself — was stalwart enough to resist the temptation to flee if it appeared the appeal would fail.
After the hearing, Keith, who has represented Miss Van Houten through all three trials, said he was too “emotionally charged” to comment on Ringer’s sentence.
“We feel terrible,” Fitzgerald told reporters in the Criminal Courts Building. “She’s rehabilitated and it serves no purpose to send her back to prison.”
Both Keith and Fitzgerald expect Miss Van Houten to appear for a parole hearing before the end of the year. She has served more than the minimum time to make her eligible for such a parole hearing.
By BILL HAZLETT
