Skip to main content

World Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten gets another chance at parole

This Sept. 6, 2017, file photo, shows Leslie Van Houten at her parole hearing at the California Institution for Women, in Corona, Calif.

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Charles Manson follower Leslie Van Houten is getting another chance at freedom following a year-long saga that has seen a parole board recommend her for release three times but her ultimately being denied the chance to leave prison.

Van Houten’s case is being heard before California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal, which will consider whether to overturn a judge’s ruling denying her parole last year.

Van Houten’s attorney, Rich Pfeiffer, will argue that his 69-year-old client deserves to be released because she has changed, takes responsibility for her actions and has been a model inmate for more than four decades. Prosecutors will continue to vigorously fight Van Houten’s release because of the seriousness of the crimes.

Story continues below advertisement

Van Houten was 19 when she and fellow members of Manson’s cult stabbed Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary, to death in 1969. The killings took place a day after other so-called Manson family members killed actress Sharon Tate and four others in crimes that shocked the world.

Van Houten, who is serving life in prison, was only involved in the LaBianca killings. She is not expected at the court hearing Wednesday.

Every year since 2016, a parole board has recommended that Van Houten be released, finding that she’s no longer a threat to society.

Former Gov. Jerry Brown twice blocked Van Houten’s release, saying she had failed to explain how she transformed from an upstanding teen to a killer and that she laid too much of the blame on Manson.

The parole board’s most recent decision on Jan. 30 is undergoing a five-month review process before heading to Gov. Gavin Newsom.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd District Court of Appeal could decide the case after hearing arguments Wednesday, potentially rendering any decision by Newsom unnecessary, or the judges could decide that the case belongs in the governor’s hands.

Pfeiffer said he has never been so optimistic that Van Houten will win.

Story continues below advertisement

“This has been the best anything has ever looked since I’ve been on the case,” he said. “This is probably the best way out.”

But courts can be reluctant to interfere in parole matters, said Samuel Pillsbury, a criminal law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.

“It is highly emotional,” Pillsbury said. “The voters have decided the governor should have a veto on this, so the courts would prefer to let this process play out.”

If the decision comes down to the governor, Pillsbury said Van Houten has an uphill battle because of the infamy of the Manson murders.

“There’s no other case like it in terms of the number of people in California who feel strongly about it, who’ve lived through it,” he said. “The entire state and much of the nation still feel some degree of trauma from that, and it makes it a very different kind of case from an elected official’s point of view.”

In denying Van Houten parole last year, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Ryan found that she would “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society,” citing the brutal nature of the crimes.

Story continues below advertisement

During one of her parole hearings, Van Houten said the killings were the start of what Manson believed was a coming race war that he dubbed “Helter Skelter,” after a Beatles song, and that he had the group prepare to fight and learn to can food so they could go underground and live in a hole in the desert.

Van Houten said she was travelling up and down the California coast when acquaintances led her to Manson. She candidly described how she joined several other members of the group in killing the LaBiancas, carving up Leno LaBianca’s body and smearing the couple’s blood on the walls.

Manson died of natural causes in 2017 at a California hospital while serving a life sentence.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter