Will Charles Manson get a NEW trial?

As if the news about Dead Bodies buried at the Manson Gang's Barker Ranch hide-out and Lindsey Lohan playing Nancy Pitman AKA Brenda McCann in a major motion picture isn't enough. Now, after decades, the United States Supreme Court will finally address the Constitutional issue: “is a defendant competent to stand trial, also competent to defend himself?” For years judges’ throughout the US have used this very issue to bolster their power over our most sacred Constitution.

As it stands now, if a judge wants to see an individual hang, he simply declares him competent to stand trial, but also orders him incompetent to defend himself. In effect, he silences the defendant, and bestows most control over the defendant upon his court appointed attorney. This of course, is what happened to Charles Manson when, in 1970 Judge Keene declared "He's simply incompetent in that respect." He was referring to the mastermind of the final Battle of Armageddon Charles Manson representing himself.

Now, the Supreme Court will finally make a decision concerning this very issue, but what do you think? This is all the Court has to go on:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.”

Just a side note here: Those who think the lnyo County Sheriff is going to let any bodies be uncovered at the Barker Ranch or anywhere else in its jurisdiction, guess again. IF that were to happen, and if, as the famous prosecutor Bugliosi claims, Charles Manson could be tried again, he would be tried in Independence, California. It's a small mountain community, that simply cannot afford to put on a trial of any magnitude above a .2 on the justice scale. The town is mostly supported by speed-trap revenue. Imagine, Charles Manson this time representing himself, and media satellite trucks from all over the world lined up in front of a courthouse where the wooden floor still creeks and the spectators inside wave those silly fans to keep cool in the summertime. And yes, the judge will let Manson defend himself, but strapped to a dolly like Hannibal Lector, leather face mask and all. That's how they do things in no nonsense cowboy town.

The only question here is, will the Supreme Court do the right thing in keeping with the letter of the law, and in this case, the supreme law of the land. If you read the law carefully, you will notice that there is no mention of hiring a lawyer, or even representing oneself, but only of the right to have the Assistance of Counsel. There is not even a clarification as to what kind of Counsel one is entitled to. Thus, according to the Constitution, you are entitled to religious counsel or even a financial advisor if you so choose. It should be obvious that the whole system of legal representation is but a business created for those of better means. Surely most good folks would simply say “Hang the Bastards anyway and save the taxpayers’ money”, but it really isn't about any individual criminal. Our forefathers intended this to be a nation of laws and for those laws to be interpreted strictly according to the US Constitution. At the time, when the Constitution was written, it was understood that most everyone, if put on trial, would speak for themselves. This was true, even if the defendant would be considered a fool for doing so. That was a time when a man's voice and his right to be heard meant everything, even if it meant death.

Actually, there isn’t even a real issue as to whether a defendant can be incompetent to represent himself, but competent to stand trial, and believe it or not, there are judges who actually comprehend the Constitution's intent here. In the mid 1970's, the Honorable Thomas McBride, in the matters relating to the case of the United States of America vs. Lynette Alice Fromme, allowed “Squeaky to represent herself” with the assistance of an attorney.

Therefore, there is only one relevant issue here: whether the Supreme Court's decision will be intended to have any retroactive effect. One would think that if a convicted defendant's Constitution Right to defend himself was denied, he would be entitled to a new trial. In any case, the Court has little choice, but to determine that judges have no right or authority to deny any defendant his or her rights granted pursuant to Amendment VI of the United States Constitution.

Hopefully now you can better understand why Inyo County will not OK any “digging” at the Barker Ranch. This is kind of a shame, because it wasn't just about getting Mr. Evil again. It should have been about finding closure for the families of any possible victims of foul play, or participants in the gang's "belladonna" ritual. The only question that should be asked now is: If the prosecution and or law enforcement suspected back then that the Manson Gang was responsible for other murders, why didn't they consider the Gang's hide-out as a possible burial ground?

Another REAL problem is: IF bones are discovered at Barker Ranch and it is determined that they are the remains of murder victims and that Charles Manson did NOT order them to be killed, then what? Can we then guess that Mr. “Z” was at work, or that some more killers are on the loose?

| BACK |

© 2008 TOBANN INTERNATIONAL PICTURES