Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi pointed out in an interview that Charles Manson was seeking what is known as an “umbrella defense,” in which the sole purpose was to get him alone exonerated. But Hughes, hired to represent Leslie Van Houten, worked to secure and present the best defense for his client. This meant combatting the idea that she, along with co-defendants Susan Atkins and Patricia Krenwinkel, acted of their own free will and did not receive any order to kill from Manson.
Manson’s followers acting in concert was tantamount to his defense strategy. Should any one of his co-defendants say under oath that they were acting on his behalf, Manson’s case would have been doomed. Fully aware of this, Manson’s attorney, Irving Kanarek, immediately rested their case the moment the prosecution rested theirs. This prompted outbursts from Manson and the others on trial, who demanded that they be able to testify. Their plan was to get on the stand and state that they planned and committed the murders without Manson, helping their leader but damning themselves.
Read Related Also: Celebs Who Only Became Famous After Turning 50
Of this tactic, Ronald Hughes stated (per True TV) that he refused “to take part in any proceeding where I am forced to push a client out the window.” After Manson was allowed to testify on his own behalf, he told Van Houten, Atkins, and Krenwinkel that their words on the stand were no longer needed, leaving him the only person who testified for the defense. Still, Hughes’ work on Van Houten’s behalf angered Manson, who recognized that the attorney had better odds of obtaining an acquittal for his client if Manson could be shown as having control and undue influence over some of his followers. Some theorize that Manson may have taken revenge.
