Metropolitan News-Enterprise
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Page 7
PERSPECTIVES (Column)
Younger Ousts Stovitz as Manson Prosecutor After Comment to Reporter
By ROGER M. GRACE
Seventieth in a Series
Evelle J. Younger made innumerable personnel decisions during his tenure as district attorney, but one, just one, spawned controversy...and the call he made is still the subject of Monday morning quarter-backing.
As Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Trott, then a deputy in the office, recalls it:
“Evelle had high standards, which explains why he removed Aaron Stovitz from the Manson case for talking too much to the media about the People’s case after Aaron had been told not to try his case in the media.”
Stovitz, who was head of the trials division of the office downtown, had been chosen to prosecute Charles Manson and his cult followers for the brutal murders of actress Sharon Tate and three house guests and a groundskeeper, and for the unrelated slayings of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. Public interest in the case was intense, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles H. Older imposed a gag order.
Nonetheless, Stovitz granted an interview to the Rolling Stone magazine in March of 1970. Stovitz’s justification was that he had talked off-the-record. In contravention of that proviso, the magazine published the remarks in its June issue, attributing them to Stovitz. The defendants moved for a mistrial based on the interview, and the motion was denied.
(The Court of Appeal, in the 1976 opinion that upheld the conviction of Manson and two of the accomplices, found that Stovitz, though sincere in his belief that he was merely engaging in a private conversation that was supposed to be confidential, did breach the gag order…but held that it was harmless inasmuch as what he provided was “only a droplet in the sea of publicity.”)
Vincent Bugliosi, who was brought in as second banana to Stovitz, recounts in his 1974 book, “Helter Skelter”:
“After the Rolling Stone interview, Younger had told Aaron: ‘No more interviews.’ Being somewhat easygoing by nature, Aaron had trouble complying with the edict. Once, when Younger was in San Francisco, he’d turned on the radio to hear Aaron commenting on some aspect of the day’s courtroom proceedings. Though Aaron’s comments were not in violation of the gag order, on his return to L.A. Younger warned Aaron: ‘One more interview and you’re off the case.’ ”
A one-line comment to a reporter in the hallway outside the courtroom—characterized by Bugliosi in his book as “a passing remark” hardly amounting to an utterance in the course of an “interview”—led to Stovitz’s ouster from the case on Sept. 4, 1970.
The Associated Press account of that action says:
The veteran prosecutor who mapped the state’s case against four defendants in the Sharon Tate murder trial has been pulled off the case, reportedly because of his statements to the news media. The district attorney suddenly removed Chief Prosecutor Aaron H. Stovitz in midtrial Friday saying he was needed for administrative duties.
Sources said Dist. Atty. Evelle Younger had been upset about out-of-court statements by the two prosecutors.
Stovitz, 45, chief of the district attorney’s trials division, had been on the case, assisted by Vincent Bugliosi, since the actress and six others were found slain in August 1969.
Charles M. Manson 35, leader of a hippie-style clan, and three women followers have been on trial since July, charged with murder-conspiracy.
Stovitz often traded jokes with reporters in corridors outside court.
Early this week he was quoted by some newsmen as saying that testimony by defendant Susan Atkins about her health was “a performance worthy of a Sarah Bernhardt.” Miss Atkins told the judge she had stomach pains and was too ill to continue. A doctor said she was in good health.
Stovitz said later this comment, made in the corridor, was off the record.
A source in the district attorney’s office said Younger has received criticism from the legal profession about comments by prosecutors. The judge has issued an order barring principals in the trial from discussing it publicly.
….
Younger said Stovitz has “a very important position on our executive staff. He’s been away from this responsibility too long….We think the change will be beneficial all around….I will have no further comment.”
Stovitz, at the time, did not talk with the press about his expulsion. The Herald-Examiner’s issue of Sept. 5, 1970, says:
“The 46-year-old Stovitz obviously was emotionally upset by his removal from the case and left his office two hours early.
“He declined to comment on the reasons for his being taken out of the trial, saying only:
“ ‘I’m sorry but there is nothing I can tell you.’”
He did, however, discuss it six years later with Laurinda Keys, then a staff writer for the Pasadena Star News. (I knew Laurinda before she forayed to the Star News; she was a reporter for the Daily Journal, where this column appeared from 1972-77. She went on to become, for a good number of years, a globe-trotting reporter for the Associated Press.)
Her June 13, 1976 Star News article relates:
“Stovitz said that about three weeks before he was removed from the case he and Bugliosi had a conference with Younger.
“ ‘Younger told us that he wanted no more press statements and that if we violated that order we were going to be taken off the case. We religiously abided by that during the trial.’
“But one day, defendant Susan Atkins requested a delay in the trial because she had a stomachache. A doctor examined her and said her only problem was that she was constipated and refused to take a laxative, Stovitz said.
“A hearing in which Miss Atkins cried and begged for a continuance was out of the presence of the jury but most of the press were present. After the judge refused to grant the delay, Stovitz said he walked out of the courtroom and a UPI reporter who had missed the hearing asked him what had happened.
“ ‘Oh, she gave a performance worthy of a Sarah Bernhardt,’ was Slovitz’s offhand reply. The reply went out on the UPI wires.”
Hmmm. Strange that the 1970 AP story doesn’t mention that Stovitz’s courtroom corridor remark had been to a reporter for UPI…AP’s then-viable competitor. Strange also that Bugliosi’s account doesn’t reflect Younger’s apparent displeasure with him, as well as Stovitz, for talking with the press.
Stovitz, 84, now terms his hallway remark “innocuous.” He tells me he’s “really not bitter” about his removal from the case, but adds that “it was a disappointment.”
Had he remained, he reflects, he, not Bugliosi, would have written books and gained fame.
“At first I felt resentful,” Stovitz says, but adds that he was later able to convince himself, “Look, I’ve still got my job, my family,” and, in the long run, it didn’t matter.
It remains that his career may well have suffered as a result of his reassignment. Stovitz ran unsuccessfully for the Los Angeles Superior Court in 1976 and 1978. In recent years, he served as an as-needed commissioner. On the other hand, if he had led the successful prosecution of Manson et al., this would have been no assurance of advancement. Bugliosi ran for district attorney in 1972 and lost.
Stovitz continues to express a view he’s shared with reporters in the past as to the reason Younger cracked down on him and Bugliosi. Younger was a candidate for attorney general in need of coverage, and wasn’t deriving much press attention from his weekly news summaries of the Manson case. Reporters swarmed about the deputies.
Younger’s son, retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Eric Younger, says his late father “liked Aaron.” But, he points out, the district attorney gave Stovitz an instruction to refrain from talking with the press and “Aaron didn’t do it.” Eric Younger, now a private judge, says this was perceived as “direct insubordination, a challenge kind of thing.”
Veteran criminal defense lawyer Joe Ingber reflects that “Evelle Younger was a man who ran the office like a military organization.” Was Younger—a brigadier general in the Air Force Reserve—so consumed by a quest to maintain military-like office discipline that he may have jeopardized the outcome in the Manson case by yanking Stovitz off it?
Expressing the view that removing Stovitz was “unwise” and a “tactical error” is Robert H. Philibosian, the county’s 38th district attorney, serving from 1982-84. But Younger’s action, he opines, did not put the outcome at risk, explaining: “The case was a very strong case.”
This was one of the most watched prosecutions the office had ever handled, on a par with the earlier cases involving the McNamara Brothers (L.A. Times dynamiters) and Aimee Semple McPherson (radio evangelist charged with faking her kidnapping). Yet, Younger, after ejecting Stovitz from the case, entrusted the lead role not to a seasoned prosecutor but to Bugliosi, a lawyer short on experience and long, quite long, on ego. Stovitz was licensed to practice in 1950; Bugliosi in 1964, less than six years before becoming chief Manson prosecutor.
Former Los Angeles County Public Defender Wilbur Littlefield terms Bugliosi as having been, up to that point, “just the guy carrying the files.” In like vein, Philibosian says that Bugliosi “was the brief-case carrier for Stovitz”…but explains Younger’s decision to put him in charge by noting that outside of Stovitz, he was “the only guy who knew anything about the case.”
Now assisting Bugliosi were Deputy District Attorneys Donald Musich, a lawyer since 1963, and Steven Kay, sworn in as a lawyer only four years before. This was not a prosecutorial “dream team.”
The Sept. 4 AP account quotes Paul Fitzgerald, attorney for co-defendant Patricia Krenwinkel, as rejoicing at the dismissal of Stovitz from the case, exclaiming: “What a break.”
Could there have been a defense verdict, given the evidence? Our retired general manager, John Babigian, once aptly described litigation as a “crap shoot.” Whatever slight chance there was of acquittals in the Manson case was no doubt enhanced by virtue of Stovitz—seasoned, likeable, trusted by juries—being removed. Whether that chance was of such significance as to have rendered it unwise for Younger to overlook what he saw as a last-straw instance of direct disobedience remains a matter on which views will differ.
DEPUTY DRAWS SUSPENSION—Another personnel decision by Younger which drew press attention, but did not generate controversy, was the 10-day suspension, without pay, imposed on Deputy District Attorney Harold Prukop. The lawyer had been the Democratic candidate in a run-off with Republican incumbent Floyd Wakefield in an Assembly race. Wakefield’s campaign made use of a routine letter Younger had sent commending him for his votes on law enforcement matters. Prukop requested a letter from Younger clarifying that he wasn’t endorsing the legislator from South Gate. Younger complied, saying in the letter that he was making no endorsement in the race—but adding that he did commend Wakefield’s voting record on issues relating to law enforcement. That last part was left out when the Prukop campaign reproduced the letter in campaign literature. (Prukop lost the race.)
In a missive to the deputy advising him of the suspension, Younger said that in disseminating an altered letter, he created “the clear impression that I was denouncing Mr. Wakefield and indirectly supporting you, which was not true.”
Prukop was disciplined under a portion of an office manual which said that an employee involved in politics “should be keenly aware of the responsibility not to bring embarrassment to the department of the district attorney.”
That does seem like a rather vague standard. It’s no longer in effect.
one of the things that always sticks with me is Danny DeCarlo's early statement that while out at Barker before they were arrested, Ruth Ann Morehouse said to him, "I can't wait to kill my first pig."
The cute Ouisch couldn't wait to emulate Katie and Sadie and Leslie. It is strong testimony that the "death trip" that Charlie preached seriously took hold with many in his family.
It is strong testimony ONLY that the youngest child at the ranch felt left out that she wasn't doing what the "cool" kids were doing. It says NOTHING about Charlie except in your head.
Ruth Ann was one of Danny's favorites so it is doubtful he was making that up.
Point?
Maybe the Bug colored up the facts to sell it to the jury, There is NO maybe about it. You lose all credibility when you state maybe. ALL the other attorneys say he made this shit up.but there is NO DOUBT Charlie was preaching an impending race war as well as the thrill and need to kill.There is plenty of doubt. Charlie talked smack. Bullshit. BUG and Watkins created the "theory" of the case.
For 42 YEARS folk have been trying to rewrite the TLB murders as a drug burn or mafia hit or Tex thing. They have been throwing shit against the wall for nearly a half century and none of it has stuck.Again, no, MUCH of it has stuck. And for sure, no one educated in the case believes HS as a motive.
How's about this, Col? What if the motive is simply Charles Manson's assholeness - his anger and resentment and ego and schizoid and megalomania etc etc.But wait? You just told me it was HS. That the BUG was right. Now you want to offer a new theory? Without evidence? Can you not reason logically?
Maybe all those people died because Charlie was one angry evil asshole, and he convinced several drug adled idiots that it was cool to kill. Maybe Charlie is exactly like his idol AdolphHis idol? This was again Bug and Paul creating a boogey man for the ages. and just a pure evil asshole who was adept at getting idiots to do his dirty work.
Sorry, no disrespect, but it just seems like the Col and others spend a whole lot of time trying to apply logic and rationale to a completely irrational act. And a completely irrational person.Charlie was many things. But irrational? Not even close. Man was wicked smart.
Manson did not need a motive to order the killings.But you just said it was a race war? It was just what got him off.
7:50 PM, August 05, 2011
my attempt to clarify....
For 48 years several dozen people have dedicated their lives to proving Oswald was not the lone assassin.what do you mean, prove? IT has been established through science that he could not have fired all the shots.
Even though I knew the case well because of my relationship with his daughter, I could never argue Lee's guilt/innocence on better than a 60/40 proposition. Why?
Because without a confession or eyewitness all you had was circumstantial evidence. And there was strong circumstantial evidence BOTH WAYS.
But one problem arguing for Lee's guilt was the lack of motive. Several who knew him testified he liked JFK. So why do it?
Because he was a miserable asshole with an enormous ego. He was seriously pissed off that the world did not recognize his greatness. He was convinced Cronkite should interview him, that the NY Times should publish his life story and so on. He had no friends, a love/hate realtionship with his wife, and hated his mother. But he was convinced of his destiny to be famous while living seperated from his family in a $7 a week boarding house and working a $2.65 an hour job packing books into cartons.
So when he read the leader of the free world was going to be driving right under his work window, maybe he thought...the world will know me now.
No motive, just an egotistical asshole determined the world should know his name.except of course he had motive...and Ruby was there to shut him up
Maybe, likewise, Charlie was convinced the Beatles should know his name and that he should be on the cover of Rolling Stone. Certainly his behavior at the trial was fantastically self-destructive, and self-promotional. He basically convicted himself with his antics. He was convicted of ordering the murders by a Prosecutor with a made up motiveBut maybe that is what he wanted all along - to show the world how little regard he had for it and how everyone should not just know him but fear him.
No motive, just an egotistical asshole determined the world should know his name.
It was the 60's. Everyone wanted to be famous. Oswald and Manson are certainly two of the top ten famous names from that decade
really, do people still want to wave the "Charlie is no killer" banner?Yeah, isn't that weird. He never killed anyone so I say he isn't a killer. A loser, yes. A punkass bitch? Yes. But to be called a killer usually you need to, you know, KILL someone.
He shot and believed he had killed Crowe. Several eyewitnesses put him in the car when Shorty got shafted. And by his own admission he went in and tied up the LaBiancas who were subsequently killed and by the letter of law Manson was guilty of their murder as much as if he had weilded the knife.Agreed. Never said he was innocent as charged. Never said he should be released. Just said he was falsely prosecuted and didn't kill anyone. I remain accurate.
Charlie no killer? Come on, order yourself a reality sandwhich. And maybe watch the taped interview of Charlie shouting out "that he wished he had killed 500 or so people, then maybe everyone would take him seriously.Hey, I'll scream out that when I next see JimNy I would like to kick his ass so he never walks again. That don't make me an ass kicker.
7:11 AM, August 06, 2011
one last thing, I promise.
Col Scott...though I have the upmost respect for you, here is why I have always thought your obsession/hatred of the Bug and Helter Skelter was somewhat misplaced.
I simply do not believe that Vincent and HS were responsible for Manson being convicted of murderEven if I grant you this point (which I do not) the fact is by manufacturing motive and making shit up, the REAL reason why 9 people are dead is still obscured this many years later. I don't care about Charlie. I want to understand what happened. And the pathology of the Bug makes that almost impossible. I think Charlie Manson convicted Charlie Manson of murder.
The Bug put forth HS because a number of people, from Sadie to Danny to Al Springer to Watkins and others - told him that Charlie controlled everything and everyone in the Family and had ordered the killings. The Bug packaged the story in the Helter Skelter fairy tale.
But do you know, Col, if anyone ever did a comprehensive follow up with the jury as to why they convicted Charlie?That wasn't the norm back then. There are a couple of interviews I think but nothing comprehensive.
My belief is that it wasn't the Bug and Helter Skelter that convinced the jury, it was Charlie's own antics and outbursts during the trial that convinced them he was a certified sociopath.
And it was his leaping over the defense table and lunging for the judge that convinced the jury that Charlie was capable of violence.
And it was the girl's idiot robot behavior - their singing and head shaving and proclaiming that Charlie was Christ - that convinced the jury that Manson had a Svengali control over them and probably had it on August 8th and
9th as well.
One of the Great Questions that hovers over the TLB story is this...if Charlie had had a quality lawyer and had sat quietly at the defense table clean shaven and wearing a tie, and the girls had likewise behaved, would Manson have been convicted of murder? Or would he, like the obviously guilty OJ and Casey Anthony after him, have gotten off? Imagine Charlie walking around a free man these past 42 years. It could easily have happened.
But I am convinced Charlie wanted something more than his freedom.This is true. He wanted to be famous anyway he could. He wanted the world to know how little he thought of it. And he wanted everyone to know that he was the real deal, and everyone else was just a two-bit supporting actor. Charlie was the Oscar winner in his mind, everyone else was just an extra.I buy this
In short, I believe with all due respect Col, that the Bug and HS are really just a backstory to the TLB case. Charlie wanted the fame, or the infamy, more than he wanted his freedom. His behavior during the trial, and even in the countless interviews he has done since then, testify to that.
If you frame it in the old chicken and egg question....the Bug didn't make Charlie famous, Charlie made the Bug famous. And far more important and reknowned then the Bug should be.They both did everything possible to make themselves famous.
Photo is so people stop fucking asking. Sheesh.