A 73-year-old woman who took part in two killings on the orders of cult leader Charles Manson in 1969 should be released from prison on parole, a Californian appeals court has ruled.
Leslie Van Houten is serving a life sentence for helping Manson and other followers kill Leno LaBianca, a grocer in Los Angeles, and his wife Rosemary.
Van Houten was 19 at the time.
Mr LaBianca’s body was carved up during the killing and the couple’s blood was smeared on the walls.
The killings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that shocked Los Angeles and the nation.
Image: Charles Manson is escorted to his arraignment on conspiracy-murder charges in connection with the Sharon Tate murder case in 1969. Pic: AP
Van Houten, then one of Manson’s youngest followers, has spent more than 50 years in prison.
She has been recommended for parole five times since 2016. All of those recommendations were rejected by either Mr Newsom or former California governor Jerry Brown.
Mr Newsom has said that Van Houten still poses a danger to society. In rejecting her parole, he said she offered an inconsistent and inadequate explanation for her involvement with Manson at the time of the killings.
Image: Leslie Van Houten in a Los Angeles lockup in 1971. Pic: AP
Image: Leslie Van Houten sits in court during her parole hearing at the California Institution for Women at Frontera in 1986. Pic: AP
But the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles has now ruled 2-1 to reverse Mr Newsom’s decision, writing there is “no evidence to support the Governor’s conclusions” about Van Houten’s fitness for parole.
It marks the first time a court has overruled a governor’s denial of parole to a Manson follower, according to the Los Angeles Times.
However, California Attorney General Rob Bonta could still ask the California Supreme Court to stop her release.
Neither his office nor Mr Newsom’s immediately responded to requests for comment on whether they would do so, according to local reports.
Nancy Tetreault, Van Houten’s lawyer, said she expects Mr Bonta to ask the state’s supreme court to review the court’s decision in a process that could take years.
Manson, who died in prison in 2017 at age 83, instructed his mostly young and female followers to murder seven people in August 1969 in what prosecutors said was part of a plan to spark a race war.
Although Manson, one of the 20th century’s most notorious criminals, did not personally kill any of the seven victims, he was found guilty of ordering their murders.
Image: Charles Manson pictured in 2017. Pic: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation/AP
The death sentences given to Manson and his followers were commuted to life in prison after capital punishment was ruled unconstitutional in 1972.
Van Houten’s 1971 original conviction and death sentence was initially overturned on appeal, but she was retried, convicted and sentenced to prison in 1978.
Harvard University is suing Donald Trump’s administration after it rejected a list of demands from the White House and had $2.2bn (£1.6bn) of government funding frozen.
The Ivy League institution, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is accused of ideological bias and allowing antisemitism during campus protests last year against Israel’s war in Gaza.
The Trump administration, which began a review of $9bn (£6.7bn) in federal grants for Harvard in March, had demanded the university screen international students for those “hostile to the American values” and the end of all diversity, equality and inclusion programmes.
Image: Protesters earlier this month at Harvard called on the university to resist interference by the federal government. Pic: Reuters
Image: Students at a rally last week at Harvard against Donald Trump’s funding policies. Pic: AP
The university’s president Alan Garber has remained defiant and rejected those and other reforms, prompting the US President to question whether the university should lose its tax-exempt status.
Mr Trump accused the institution of pushing what he called “political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?'” in a post on Truth Social.
Harvard has seen student-led protests in recent days calling on the institution to resist interference by the federal government.
Harvard’s lawsuit, filed in Boston, described the research funding freeze as “arbitrary and capricious” and violating its First Amendment rights.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
“The government has not – and cannot – identify any rational connection between antisemitism concerns and the medical, scientific, technological, and other research it has frozen that aims to save American lives, foster American success, preserve American security, and maintain America’s position as a global leader in innovation,” the court documents revealed.
Image: Harvard University has rejected a series of demands from the White House. File pic: AP
On Monday, White House spokesperson Harrison Fields issued a defiant response to the lawsuit: “The gravy train of federal assistance to institutions like Harvard, which enrich their grossly overpaid bureaucrats with tax dollars from struggling American families is coming to an end.
“Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege.”
The Trump administration has also paused some funding for universities including Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, Northwestern and Brown over the campus protests.
But protesters, including some Jewish groups, say their criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza is wrongly associated with antisemitism.
Mr Garber said the institution would continue to fight hate and fully comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Image: A small encampment in support of Palestinians at the Harvard campus in April 2024. Pic: Reuters
The American Council on Education, a non-profit organisation with more than 1,600 member colleges and universities, supported the legal action by Harvard.
“It has been clear for weeks that the administration’s actions violated due process and the rule of law. We applaud Harvard for taking this step.”
Hundreds of passengers have been taken off a plane after one of its engines caught fire as it was about to take off, airport officials have said.
The Delta Air Lines plane carrying nearly 300 people was pushing back from the gate at Orlando International Airport in Florida when smoke began to appear from the engine on its right wing on Monday.
There were no initial reports of injuries, the airline said.
Pictures and video published on social media showed flames and smoke rising from the Airbus A330 and passengers sliding down an escape chute as they left the aircraft.
Image: The Delta Air Lines plane is evacuated. Pic: @dylangwall/Reuters
The plane was heading for Atlanta, a journey of more than 400 miles with a flight time of around one hour and 40 minutes.
The Federal Aviation Administration said it is going to investigate what happened.
Flight 1213 had 282 passengers and 12 crew members, Delta said.
The airline said its flight crews “followed procedures to evacuate the passenger cabin when flames in the tailpipe of one of the aircraft’s two engines were observed”.
A social media user posted a video of what appeared to be a serious fire and flames coming from the Airbus plane, and another video of passengers exiting the plane via a slide.
Orlando International Airport said on X that the fire was on the ramp area and that the airport’s aircraft rescue and firefighting team responded quickly. Airbus did not immediately comment.
Delta said maintenance teams will check the aircraft, and the airline will bring in additional aircraft to help customers reach their final destinations on Monday.
It’s the latest in a series of high-profile aviation incidents that have raised questions about how safe flying is in the US.
Last month, an engine on an American Airlines jet caught fire after the plane diverted to Denver, forcing the evacuation of passengers onto the wing of the aeroplane. The engine caught fire while taxiing to the gate.
In January, 67 people died after a mid-air collision between an American Airlines regional jet and an Army helicopter near Reagan Washington National Airport.
Rachel Reeves will pledge to “stand up for Britain’s national interest” as she heads to Washington DC amid hopes of a UK/US trade deal.
The chancellor will fly to the US capital for her spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the first of which began on Sunday.
During her three-day visit, Ms Reeves is set to hold meetings with G7, G20 and IMF counterparts about the changing global economy and is expected to make the case for open trade.
The chancellor will also hold her first in-person meeting with her US counterpart, treasury secretary Scott Bessent, about striking a new trade agreement, which the UK hopes will take the sting out of Mr Trump’s tariffs.
In addition to the 10% levy on all goods imported to America from the UK, Mr Trump enacted a 25% levy on car imports.
Ms Reeves will also be hoping to encourage fellow European finance ministers to increase their defence spending and discuss the best ways to support Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Speaking ahead of her visit, Ms Reeves said: “The world has changed, and we are in a new era of global trade. I am in no doubt that the imposition of tariffs will have a profound impact on the global economy and the economy at home.
“This changing world is unsettling for families who are worried about the cost of living and businesses concerned about what tariffs will mean for them. But our task as a government is not to be knocked off course or to take rash action which risks undermining people’s security.
“Instead, we must rise to meet the moment and I will always act to defend British interests as part of our plan for change.
“We need a world economy that provides stability and fairness for businesses wanting to invest and trade, more trade and global partnerships between nations with shared interests, and security for working people who want to get on with their lives.”