Leslie Van Houten is Disgusting

Leslie Van Houten was convicted in 1971 of two counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, along with codefendants, Charles Manson, Patricia Krenwinkel and Susan Atkins. After the penalty phase, the same jury imposed death sentences upon all defendants. The resulting judgment was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and while the case was pending, the Supreme Court decided People v. Anderson (1972) 6 Cal.3d.628 [100 Cal.Rptr. 152, 493 P.2d 880], invalidating the death penalty. The appeals were then transferred to the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One. In that case, People v. Manson (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 102 [132 Cal.Rptr. 265], the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of conviction of appellant Van Houten and affirmed the judgments as to the other defendants.

Pursuant to the remittitur filed on December 10, 1976, reversing the judgment of conviction, the matter was retried by a jury. The jury was hopelessly deadlocked and a mistrial was declared. {Page 113 Cal.App.3d 284}

Appellant was retried by a jury. Appellant was found guilty as charged of two counts of first degree murder arising out of the murder of Rosemary and Leno La Bianca, and guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree. Appellant was ordered imprisoned in the state prison for the term of life, with each of said counts to run concurrently with each other. Appellant was given credit for eight years and twenty days in custody. This appeal is from the judgment.

Appellant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, during the pendency of this appeal, and said petition will be ruled upon along with her appeal.

So Leslie gets a new trial, claiming that her representation was inadequate during the TLB trial. Fine. Her lawyer did die. But seriously, she was mocking the trial daily anyway. She has some stones claiming she got an unfair trial.

Then she gets another trial. It ends in a hung jury. Smug Homecoming bitch probably thought she was gonna walk for two murders.

But Kay nails her. She gets life. Like, bye bye little Leslie, no more killing for you.

Then she files an appeal. It's disgusting watching her try to claim all kinds of bullshit to get yet ANOTHER trial.

Appellant raises three basic issues on appeal, and makes the following contentions:

1. The trial court erred in discharging a juror without good cause and replacing the juror with an alternate juror, thereby depriving appellant of her right to a jury trial. {Page 113 Cal.App.3d 285}

2. The trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting evidence and details of crimes committed pursuant to a conspiracy before appellant joined the conspiracy.

3. The admission, by the trial court, into evidence of numerous grotesque, gruesome photographs of the victims, constituted prejudicial error.

In her petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner contends her trial counsel, Maxwell S. Keith, was incompetent and ineffective regarding certain aspects of the trial, and appropriate
relief is requested predicated upon these contentions.

Now, how crazy is this shit? They nailed you lady. Do the time. You probably could have cut a deal, but you thought you could walk.

Fortunately for us the appeals court laughs at Lulu. First--

Pursuant to the foregoing guidelines, we feel that "good cause" was amply demonstrated supporting the dismissal of the juror in the instant case. We find that Mrs. Driscoll's physical and emotional reaction to the photographs and the testimony would be such that she would be unable to participate in the deliberation process and would not be able to follow the testimony in the trial so as to make an informed decision in the matter. The record supports these conclusions, and it substantially supports the demonstrable reality, that she would not be able to perform the function of a juror.

Then

"[Evidence of any acts or declarations of other conspirators prior to the time such person becomes a member of the conspiracy may be considered by you in determining the nature, objectives and purposes of the conspiracy, but for no other purpose.]"

Hmm- strike two LVH.

[4b] Appellant contends the prosecutor, in utilizing photographs of the victims in both killings in his argument, attempted to persuade the jury by the use of "reprehensible methods" and thus misconduct. Appellant further avers that the argument not only was misconduct because it was calculated to mislead the jury and was an appeal to passion and prejudice, but also because the photographs were introduced for a limited purpose (to prove aspects of the conspiracy), and were argued as substantive evidence "of the facts therein recited." We find no merit in these contentions

Leslie- the appeals court just laughed out your lame arguments. I know, blame your attorney who hung in with you all this time- what do they say to that?

[5] In her petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner contends her imprisonment is illegal and in contravention of rights guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and by article I, sections 7, subdivision (a) and 15 of the California Constitution, in that she was denied the effective assistance of counsel at her trial. More specifically, petitioner contends her trial counsel, Maxwell S. Keith, was ineffective for failing to object or move to suppress petitioner's taped alleged incriminatory statements to homicide investigator, Michael McGann, which statements were bereft of warnings under Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [76 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]. There is absolutely no merit in these contentions.

The record before this court clearly reflects a well-tried, well-considered, difficult tactical decision-making effort by petitioner's counsel, Mr. Keith. We do not expect trial lawyers to be soothsayers, with the ability to gaze into crystal balls and predict future holdings of the appellate courts; rather, we expect trial lawyers to be reasonably competent attorneys acting as diligent, conscientious advocates as per the standard set forth in People v. Pope (1979) 23 Cal.3d 412 [152 Cal.Rptr. 732, 590 P.2d 859]. We find Mr. Keith has more than met that standard.

Oh well Leslie, you try to blame Charlie, Bobby, the lawyers, your mom, the court.

How about you killed a mother of two for kicks and should consider yourself lucky to be alive?

Just sayin'.

PATHETIC. Parole in 2007? Not a chance.