You are instructed that even if you did believe that there was sufficient evidence to convince you beyond a reasonable doubt as to this particular offense, you still cannot convict the defendant upon the testimony of Tamar Hodel, who would be, under the circumstances, if they were true, an accomplice, and you cannot convict any person upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
You are further instructed that the witness Corrine Tarin, because of her conduct, would also be an accomplice, and one accomplice cannot corroborate another, and the same rule applies to the testimony of Fred Sexton.
In his next summary argument, Neeb told the jury:
According to the testimony in this case, the witness Fred Sexton has by his testimony admitted that he attempted to have intercourse with Tamar Hodel, who is under the age of eighteen years, and as a result the witness Fred Sexton could be charged with an attempted rape, a felony, and you may consider, in determining the weight and credibility to be given to the witness Fred Sexton, the question of whether he has been arrested or charged with an attempted rape as it may bear upon the question of his state of mind while testifying, or any hope which he may have of immunity from prosecution as a result of his testifying for the prosecution and against the defendant in this case.
And finally:
You are instructed that if a person aids and abets and encourages another person in the commission of any offense, the person who aids, abets or encourages may be guilty of the same offense of the person who actually commits the act and in this regard you may consider the question of whether or not the witness Corrine Tarin would or would not be in a position of one who was aiding, abetting or encouraging the witness Fred Sexton in an attempted rape, a felony, upon Timar Hodel, and if said Corrine Tarin is found by you to be in such a position, you are instructed that she would then be an accomplice of the said Fred Sexton, and as such could be subject to prosecution as a principal in the offense of attempted rape, a felony; and you may consider this together with the fact that the said Corrine Tarin has not been arrested or charged as an accomplice with the said Fred Sexton in the commission of an attempted rape as such situation may bear upon her credibility and her state of mind while testifying, and any hope of immunity from prosecution that she may have as a result of her testifying for the prosecution in this case.
Neeb's defense was powerful, instructing the jury that because Tamar Hodel was a partner in the crimes his client was being charged with, the jury couldn't use Tamar's testimony without other corroborating evidence. Therefore, the jury, by law, had to disregard Tamar's testimony. Neeb also argued that the jury should not convict Dr. Hodel on the testimony of either Fred Sexton or Corrine Tarin, because they were both admitted accomplices to felony sex offenses, and both had presumably made deals with the police to tell them what they wanted to hear in exchange for not being charged with crimes and not going to prison.
In his closing argument to the jury, defense attorney Robert Neeb hammered at the fact that Tamar, a 'psychopathic liar,' should never have been allowed to testily. 'She should be in a hospital under treatment as a psychopath,' he declared, reminding the panel of eight women and four men of the long parade of defense witnesses who had testified to Tamar's inability to tell the truth.
After final instructions by Superior Judge Thomas L. Ambrose, the case was given to the jury late in the afternoon of December 24, 1949. After less than four hours of deliberation, the jury returned an acquittal verdict on both felony counts. The morning
The prominent Hollywood doctor wept when the jury announced its verdict. . .
Tamar, whose lurid account of a lustful predawn sex circus in her father's bedroom brought the scandal, was not present. She is in Juvenile Hall . . .
In his closing arguments, Neeb pleaded that Tamar be given psychiatric treatment. It was not learned immediately what disposition would be made of the girl.
On January 12, 1950, some three weeks after my father's acquittal, Superior Court judge Thomas Ambrose entered an order directing that certain items be released to the district attorney's office investigators. Those items were the pornographic books, the satyr, centaur-piece statue, and the fifteen or more 'photographs.'1
Five weeks later, on February 1, 1950, a small article appeared in the
Barbara Shearman, 21, [sic] a central figure in the morals trial of Dr. George Hill Hodel, yesterday was placed on three years' probation after she pleaded guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Judge Ambrose sentenced Miss Sherman to one year in jail, then suspended the sentence and placed her on probation, ordering her to refrain from any further association with Dr. Hodel or any of his friends.
The trial was over. My father was acquitted. Tamar was gone. And the late-night parties at the house had stopped. But just when I thought that life for the family would get back to what we had had before the arrest and trial, my brothers and I, without any explanation from our parents, were enrolled in Page Academy, a highly regimented military school in Los Angeles. We had been banished from the castle to a place that was little more than a prison. Worse, Father was gone. Without a word, he simply seemed to have disappeared. Not even our mother, who would occasionally visit us on weekends, would talk about where he had gone. All we knew was that he was selling — or had already sold — Franklin House and was moving away. Out of the country. After a long silence, I later learned that he had moved to Hawaii, where he had remarried.
In retrospect, I was too young to know what was really going on during the Franklin House years, other than a child's awareness of lots of people, noise, music, laughter, and my mother's mix of joy and sadness. Knowing what I now know about both my parents, I realize she was walking a high wire with no net. The fact was, Mother was living there at his pleasure. They were divorced, so Father's womanizing could and did go unchecked. Her drinking, and most likely drug use, was excessive, and she was dependent upon him for supplying all of her and our material needs. In addition, I know that Mother was bisexual and hedonistic by nature, and I am certain she took a willing and active part with the other adult partygoers. I also know that, unlike Father, she had her limits, which most certainly would not have included sex with Tamar or other minor children. I now see Father's role as panderer — using Mother's weaknesses and addictions to sex, drugs, and alcohol for his own and others' benefit. He controlled her like most pimps control their women, through intimidation and threats. Father's arrest and trial for incest was a last straw, which likely forced Mother to break and run with her cubs. There was no turning back. I expect she and most other family friends and intimates fully anticipated that Father would be convicted and sent to prison.
I make no moral judgments of my mother. I loved and love her as most sons do — unconditionally. She had great strengths and great weaknesses, but above all she protected and raised her three sons as best she knew how, under the most difficult circumstances.
A few months after our arrival at Page Academy, Mother visited us with a friend we knew from the Franklin House, screenwriter and director Rowland Brown, a large gray-haired man who looked like a grandfather. Mother
