LOS ANGELES — Two nights in August 1969. Seven people dead in the hills above Los Angeles. The victims included actress Sharon Tate, eight months pregnant, and grocery store owners Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. The killers were followers of Charles Manson, a small-time ex-convict who had built a communal group at Spahn Ranch on the western edge of the San Fernando Valley.
Related: The Merger That Rob Bonta Killed: How California's AG Stepped Into Hollywood's Biggest Deal in Years · California's 10 Most Car-Theft-Ravaged Cities, Ranked
The case did more than terrify a city already rattled by a decade of political assassinations and social upheaval. It became a turning point for California's criminal justice system, reshaping how prosecutors built conspiracy cases, how courts handled sensational trials, and how the state's parole system would wrestle for decades with the question of when, if ever, someone convicted of such crimes should go free.
A CASE BUILT ON WORDS, NOT WEAPONS
Manson didn't personally kill anyone at the Tate or LaBianca homes, according to trial testimony and court records. His conviction rested on a legal theory that prosecutors, led by then-Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, sold successfully to a jury: Manson directed the killings through his influence over followers, making him just as culpable as the ones holding the knives.
That theory of vicarious liability for conspiracy became a touchstone in California law, cited in later cases involving cult leaders, gang hierarchies, and others accused of ordering violence without getting their hands dirty. Bugliosi later wrote a bestselling account of the prosecution, "Helter Skelter," which shaped public understanding of the case for a generation and informed how California prosecutors approached complex conspiracy trials.
The trial ran into 1971 and was among the longest and most heavily covered in California history to that point. Manson and three female co-defendants who had lived at the ranch were convicted of murder. A separate defendant connected to the LaBianca killings was tried later. All were sentenced to death.
THE DEATH PENALTY THAT NEVER HAPPENED
None of those death sentences were ever carried out. In 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Anderson that the state's death penalty as then written violated the state constitution's ban on cruel or unusual punishment. The decision automatically commuted every death row sentence in California to life in prison, Manson and his co-defendants included. Voters restored capital punishment later that year through a ballot initiative, but the reprieve for the Manson defendants held.
That one legal turn meant California would spend the next five decades figuring out what to do with aging, notorious inmates who were technically eligible for parole under state law, even as the crimes that put them there stayed burned into the public imagination. Few cases tested that tension as visibly as this one.
A PAROLE BOARD'S RECURRING DILEMMA
Manson was denied parole repeatedly across more than 40 years of hearings, according to state corrections records, and died in 2017 still behind bars. His co-defendants were a harder problem. They handed California parole boards a recurring, uncomfortable question: how much weight should decades of documented rehabilitation carry against the severity of the original crime.
Leslie Van Houten, convicted in the LaBianca killings at age 19, became the clearest test case. Parole panels recommended her release multiple times, pointing to her prison record, her age at the time of the crimes, and evaluations concluding she was no longer a public safety risk. Governors, using California's constitutional authority to review parole board decisions in murder cases, kept reversing those recommendations. It took a state appellate court ruling to get her out. Van Houten was released in 2023, more than five decades after the murders, becoming the first of the Manson-era killers to walk free.
The years of back-and-forth, spanning multiple governors and rounds of litigation, became a broader case study in the limits of gubernatorial power over parole decisions and the standards courts expect boards and governors to meet when weighing rehabilitation against the nature of an original offense. Legal scholars have pointed to the Van Houten litigation as a significant marker in defining just how much discretion a California governor actually holds once a parole board has ruled.
A CULTURAL WOUND THAT DIDN'T CLOSE
Beyond the courtroom, the murders left a lasting mark on how Los Angeles thought about itself.