A. FEB 11 2010graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100213-dugard-documen… · 13-02-2010 ·...

FEB 11 2010

FILED

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO7

3

VERN PIERSONEI Dorado County District Attorney

2 James A. ClinchardDeputy District AttorneyState Bar No. 20074651 5 Main Street

4 Placerville, CA 95667(530) 621-6472

5

8

6

9

) Case No. P09CRF0373

)) PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO) DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL) DISCOVERY; OPPOSITION TO) REQUEST FOR DEFENDANT) VISITATION; AND REQUEST) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

)))) Date: February 26,2010) Time: 2:00 p.m.

Dept: 7

Defendants.

Plaintiff.

vs.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

16

17

11

10

12

13

14 PHILLIP CRAIG GARRIDO and

15 NANCY GARRIDO,

18

19 The People respectfully submit the following Opposition to Defense Motion to Compel

20 Discovery, Opposition to Request for Defendant Visitation, and Request for Protective Order. This

21 opposition will be based upon the attached Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities, the Declarations in

22 support of the People's opposition, the pleadings and papers of the file, and such other further evidence

23 and argument as may be adduced at the hearing on the motion.

24 /1/

25 /11

26 III

27

281

PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

I.

2 INTRODUCTION

3 On June 10, 1991, Defendants Phillip and Nancy Garrido abducted I I year old Jane Doe - then

4 imprisoned her for 18 years, creating an elaborate plan to keep her hidden. Part of that plan created by

5 the Defendants included: a hidden backyard to conceal her; giving Jane Doe the name "Alyssa";

6 requiring Jane Doe and her daughters to run to the hidden backyard if anyone ever came to the door; a

7 cover story where, if questioned, Jane Doe was instructed to tell people that the girls were hers and that

8 she was okay with them being around Phillip Ganido; and most importantly, a plan that ifPhillip

9 Ganido was ever arrested that Jane Doe was to request an attorney so that his attorney and her attorney

10 could communicate without law enforcement knowledge. This final part of the plan is apparent with the

I I Defendant's repeated contacts with local media attempting to claim that Jane Doe's "rights are being

12 violated" and that she has "been denied access to have an attorney... " It is also clear that Defense

J3 counsel is aggressively attempting to contact Jane Doe even though they have been told that Ms. Doe

14 does not want to talk to them. Ms. Doe has emphatically stated to our office that she does not want any

15 contact with the Defendants or their attorneys. Ms. Doe has further stated that she wants our office to

16 enforce her constitutional rights under Marsy's Law and protect her privacy. It is clear that the

17 Defendant is attempting to use the media and his own attorneys to continue to control Ms. Doe. The

18 People ask this Court to protect Ms. Doe and to, once and for all, put an end to the Defendant's

19 manipulation.

20 n.

21 FACTS

22 On June 10, 1991, the Defendants abducted I I year old Jane Doe from the street where she lived

23 in South Lake Tahoe, California. That same day, the Defendants brought Jane Doe back to their hidden

24 backyard compound at 1554 Walnut Avenue in Antioch, California - where she was sexually assaulted

25 and imprisoned for the next 18 years. She was kept in one of the backyard buildings as a prisoner for

26 one and one-half years and did not even leave the backyard for the first 4 years after her abduction by

27

28 2PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

I the Defendants. Jane Doe was impregnated by Phillip Garrido when she was 13 years old and had her

2 first child at the age of 14. Janc Doe was again impregnated by Phillip Garrido when she was 16 and

3 had her second child at the age of I 7. Although the Defendants created an elaborate plan to conceal

4 Jane Doe, her identity was finally revealed on August 26, 2009.

5 On August 28, 2009, the EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office filed a criminal complaint

6 against the Defendants relating to the kidnapping, rape, and imprisonment ofJane Doe. Since that date,

7 Jane Doe and her two minor children have been staying at a secret location - attempting to stay out of

8 the media spotlight and trying to heal the psychological wounds inflicted upon them by the Defendants.

9 Jane Doe has specifically informed our office she does not want to talk to the Defendants or their

10 attorneys.

11 Nevertheless, the Defense now files a motion seeking to obtain Jane Doe's current location.!

12 Additionally, the Defense seeks visitation for the Defendants, and copies ofMDIC2 video and photos of

13 Jane Doe and her two minor children. Incredibly, the Defense attempts to support their motion with

14 claims that "the children were raised as the children of Nancy and Phillip Garrido and all five held

15 themselves out to be a family." Further, the Defense attempts to provide more of this "heartwarming")

16 story by asserting that "they took vacations...went to the Iibrary... ran a family business... children were

17 home schooled....kept pets and had a garden... took care of an ailing family member....[and] had special

18 names for each other." The Defense utterly fails to recognize that Jane Doe and her children were not

19 their "family" but were in fact captives - they were victims. The unfortunate reality is that Ms. Doe and

20

21 I Although counsel for Nancy Garrido has not filed a Motion to Compel Discovery or Motion Seeking Defendant

22 Visitation, he has been quoted repeatedly by the media as ifhe had already filed such motions.

23 2 Multi Disciplinary Interview Center (MDIC) is the common tenninology for sexual assault or child abuse video

24 interviews.

25 3 On or about August 27,2009, Defendant Phillip Garrido called a local media outlet stating that "it's a heartwarming

26 story." (Which, apparently, is the position now taken by Defense counse1.)

27


her children may not have fully realized they were captives and victims because the Defendants

2 controlled their reality. They created a false world - including the false name "Alyssa" for Jane Doe.

3 The Defendants created this world and a well rehearsed plan to keep Jane Doe's existence secret. They

4 created this world in order to control Ms. Doe. The Defendants are still attempting to exert that control.

5 The Defendant Phillip Garrido is a master manipulator. His prior attempts to manipulate his

6 victims, and the criminal justice system, are numerous - including, but not limited to:

7 (I) In 1972 (Antioch, California) Defendant Phillip Garrido was charged with rape ofa 14

8 year old girl in Contra Costa County. At the preliminary hearing, the Defense attorney for Defendant

9 Phillip Garrido informed the victim that he would make her look like a slut and a whore if she testified.

10 The victim told the District Attorney she would not testify and charges were dropped.

II (2) In June 1976 (South Lake Tahoe, California), Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 19

12 year old victim into his car. He then handcuffed her, kidnapped her, and raped her.

13 (3) On November 22, 1976 (South Lake Tahoe, California - approximately 6:30 p.m.),

14 Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 25 year old female victim into giving him a ride. Thereafter, he

15 attempted to kidnap her by putting a handcuff on one wrist. Luckily for her, she jumped out ofthe car

16 and honked the horn - but, the Defendant was still able to talk her into giving him back his handcuffs.4


18 Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 25 year old victim (Katherine C.) into giving him a ride. Thereafte

19 he kidnapped her and took her to a storage shed in Reno, Nevada where he sexually assaulted her. This

20 crime is interrupted by a Reno Police Officer - whom Defendant Phillip Garrido almost talks into

21 leaving by claiming that his "girlfriend" was doing drugs and just freaking out.

22 (5) During his 1977 trial for the rape and kidnap of Katherine C., Defendant Phillip Garrido

23 attempted to manipulate the legal system by claiming that he was not ashamed or responsible for what

24 he did to the victim - because he had since found God.

25

26 ·4 He apparently needed these handcuffs back in order to handcuff, kidnap, and rape his next victim an hour later.

27


1 (6) In a 1978, the Defendant sent a letter to the Federal Jndge who handled his rape case -

2 attempting to get a reduced sentence - claiming that his "life has changed" and that his "future was now

3 in control."

4 (7) In January 1988, the Defendant presented himself well enough to be paroled from his

5 Federal sentence after only 11 years of a 50 year sentence.

6 (8) In August 1988, the Defendant presented himself well enough to be paroled from his

7 Nevada state 5 to life sentence after only 8 months in Nevada State Prison.

8 (9) On or about November 8, 1988 the Defendant obtained new freedom from the halfWay

9 housywhere he was staying on Oakland, California. That same day, Katherine C. (Garrido's November

10 1976 victim) reported that Defendant Phillip Garrido contacted her at the casino she worked at in South

11 Lake Tahoe, sat down at her table, called her "Katie," and said "I haven't had a drink in II years."

12 Katherine C. believed the referral to "drink" did not mean drink in the literal sense. Curiously, despite

13 this intentional contact with a prior victim, Defendant was somehow able to convince federal parole

14 authorities to maintain his newly obtained freedoms and end his halfWay house stay one month later.

15 (10) From 1991 to 2009, the Defendants kept Ms. Doe's existence a secret by: Keeping Jane

16 Doe in a hidden backyard (which included one and one-half years with her never leaving one of the

17 structures in the backyard and almost 4 years where she never left the backyard); giving Jane Doe the

18 name "Alyssa"; requiring Jane Doe and the girls to run to the hidden backyard if anyone ever came to

19 the door; a cover story where, if questioned, Jane Doe was instructed to tell people that the girls were

20 hers and that she was okay with them being around Phillip Garrido; creating a second cover story that

21 Ms. Doe and her girls were Phillip Garrido's nieces; and most importantly, a plan created by Defendant

22 Phillip Garrido that if he was ever arrested that Jane Doe was to request an attorney so that his attorney

23 and her attorney could "keep in communication through lawyers" without law enforcement knowledge.

24 III

25 III

26

27


(11) Defendant Phillip Garrido's attempt to gain trust and control over Jane Doc is

2 exemplified by a journal entry on July 16, 19935 wherein she states:

3 "1 got [a cat] for my birthday from Phil and Nancy... they did something for methat no one else would do for me, they paid 200 dollars just so I could have my

4 own kitten."

5

6

7

8

9

(12) Defendant Phillip Garrido's control over Jane Doe is further exemplified by ajoumal

entry made by her on September 5, 20036 wherein she states:

"I don't want to hurt him... sometimes 1 think my very presence hurts him....so how can I ever tell him how I want to be free. Free to come and go as I please.... Free to say I have a family. I will never cause him pain ifit's in my power to

prevent it. FREE." (Emphasis in original)

11 (13) Defendant Phillip Garrido's control over Jane Doe is also exemplified by a journal entry10

12

13

14

15

made by her on July 5, 20047 wherein she states:

"It feels like I'm sinking. I'm afraid I want control ofmy life ... this is supposedto be my life to do with what I like...but once again he has taken it away. Howmany times is he allowed to take it away from me? I am afraid he doesn't seehow the things he says makes me a prisoner....Why don't I have control of my life!I feel I can't even be sure my thoughts are my own..." (Emphasis in original)

17 (14) On August 26, 2009, the Defendant shows up to meet with his Parole AgentS - bringing

18 with him Nancy Garrido, Jane Doe, and her two children. Once there, the Defendants and Jane Doe

19 attempt to provide the first cover story. When that covet story did not work, they attempt to provide the

20 second cover story- which included Jane Doe giving another fake name "Ally Smith." During her

16

21

22 5 Jane Doe was 13 years old at the time

23 6 Jane Doe was 23 years old at the time.

25 8 On August 25, 2009, the Defendant's Parole Agent ordered him show up for a meeting and to bring everyone that lives

24 7 Jane Doe was 24 years old at the time.

26 with him.

27

286


5 young girls were his daughters. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Doe reveals her true identity.

interview (before she had revealed who she was), Jane Doe asked if she could talk to Defendant Phillip

2 Garrido, who was brought into the interview room with her. Ms. Doe told him that she did not know

8 Doe's right to an attorney. In another letter, he apologized to "every human being for what has taken

7 with the media. In one letter sent in September 2009, Defendant Phillip Garrido attempts to assert Jane

3 what to do. Defendant Phillip GalTido immediately blurts out "Get a lawyer." After questioning,

4 Defendant Phillip Garrido finally admitted that he had kidnapped and raped Ms. Doe and that the two

9 place." An important fact regarding the September 2009 letter is that he talks about contacting Jane Doe

6 (15) After Defendant Phillip Garrido is arrested, he attempts numerous times to communicate

10 "by attorney mail only." It is clear, once again, that Defendant Phillip Garrido is very familiar with the

11 legal system and wants to use the attorney-client privilege to conceal his attempted communications to

17 ever be arrested, they were to "keep in communication through lawyers." Ms. Doe further indicated her

12 the victim in this case.

21 attempting to exert that control. It is time for the Court to put an end to those attempts to manipulate an

22 control his victims and the court system.

18 belief that the referral by her former captor and rapist to not harbor ill will was "another way of

19 manipulating" her.

20 Defendant Phillip Garrido's control over Jane Doe was well planned and powerful. He is still

13 (16) On or about January 28,2010, counsel for Phillip Garrido sent a letter to Ms. Doe which

14 stated, "Mr. Garrido has asked me to convey that he does not harbor any ill will toward [Ms. Doe] or the

15 children and loves them very much." Ms. Doe immediately put the reference to "no ill will" in context

16 that "I'm not following the plan." Ms. Doe explained that "the plan" dictated that should Mr. Garrido

23 III

24 III

25 III

26

27

287


III.

Marsy's Law Protects Jane Doe's Location

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

JANE DOE HAS A CONTIUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY

1.5 proposition 9, commonly referred to as Marsy's Law, recently amended California Constitution

7 victims of crime. California Constitution, Article 1, Section 28, subsection (b) provides in pertinent

6 Article 1, Section 28, subsection (b) in order to provide further important rights and protections to

2

3 A.

4

8 party that:

9 In order to preserve and protect a victim's rights tojustice and due process, a victim shall be entitled to

10 the following rights:

11

12

13

(1) To be treated with fairness and respect forhis or her privacy and dignity, and to befree from intimidation, harassment, andabuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile

justice process.

14

15

(2) To be reasonably protected from thedefendant and persons acting on behalf of

the defendant.

16

17

18

19

20

(4) To prevent the disclosure of confidentialinformation or records to the defendant, thedefendant's attorney, or any other personacting on behalf of the defendant, whichcould be used to locate or harass the victim

or the victim's family.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(5) To refuse an interview, deposition, ordiscovery request by the defendant, thedefendant's attorney, or other person actingon behalf of the defendant, and to setreasonable conditions on the conduct of anysuch interview to which the victim consents.

8PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

2

3

4

5

6

California Constitution, Article I, Section 28, subsection (c)(1) provides that:

A victim, the retained attorney of a victim, alawful representative of the victim, or theprosecuting attorney upon request of thevictim, may enforce the above rights in anytrial or appellate court with jurisdiction overthe case as a matter ofright. The court shallact promptly on such a request.

7 Ms. Doe has made such a request for our office to enforce her rights.

8 In the instant case, the Defense seeks Jane Doe's current address. Ms. Doe does not want to talk

9 to the Defendants or their attorneys. This Court should respect Ms. Doe's rights under the California

10 Constitution. Further, given the extensive attempts by Defendant Garrido to manipulate prior victims

II and the court system, the Court should not allow him access to further victimize or control Ms. Doe.

12 2. Good Cause Exists for the People to Refuse to Disclose Ms. Doe's Location

13 Penal Code § 1054.1(a) requires the prosecution disclosure of "The names and addresses of

14 person the prosecutor intends to call as witnesses at trial." Clearly, Ms. Doe is a potential witness if this

15 case goes to trial. However, Penal Code § 1054.7 only requires such disclosure thirty days prior to trial

16 unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted, or deferred. Under this

17 section, "good cause" includes possible danger to the safety of a victim.

18 As the Court may be aware, given the media and public attention to this case, Ms. Doe is staying

19 at an undisclosed location for her safety and well-being.

20 In Alvarado v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 1121, the court found that Penal Code §

21 1054. I(a) does establish an inflexible rule requiring disclosure ofa witness's identity and address in all

22 circumstances, and provides that the People may withhold such information where the only information

23 withheld from the defense is the residential address ofthe witness or other identifying infOimation

24 deemed to be inconsequential to the defendant's right to a fair trial. "A criminal defendant's rights

25 remain a paramount importance. Those rights, however, are not the only ones that a trial judge may

26 have to consider. (Montez v. Superior Court (1992) 5 Cal.AppAth 763, 771-772 [finding good cause for

27


I non-disclosure of witness contact information where the defendant did not plausibly allege that the

2 witnesses' veracity in their community was at issue.]) In People v. Watson (1983) 146 Cal. App. 3d 12,

3 20 the court permitted nondisclosure ofthe prosecution witness's address, finding that the defendant

4 "was not deprived of a substantial right," because he already had presented "ample evidence ... to place

5 the witness ... in his proper setting and accurately to evaluate his credibility." Further, in People v.

6 Castro (1979) 99 Cal. App. 3d 191,200-204 thc defense sought the address of the prosecution's witness

7 for the purpose of impeachment, but because the witness already had been impeached as a drug addict,

8 felon, and cheat, the court found that the defense had presented "sufficient environmental background"

9 to allow the jury to judge the witness's credibility. It is important to note in the case before this court

10 that Ms. Doe's credibility will not be an issue in the potential trial of this matter. 9

11 3. MDIC Video and Photos of Ms. Doe and Her Minor Children.

12 The Defense seeks disclosure of the MDIC video and the photos ofMs. Doe and her minor

13 children. However, the People have already made this evidence available to the Defense. The Defense

14 has the transcript of the MDIC ofMs. Doe and her two children. At this time, the People do not intend

15 either ofthe children to be a witness at a trial. Given the extremely sensitive nature of the material and

16 the potential monetary value of such material if it were released - the People have made reasonable

17 accommodations for the Defense to have access to the requested material. Accordingly, there is no

18 rational reason the Defense can state as to the relevance of why they need the actual video (or any

19 specific photo) ofMs. Doe or her children.

20 B. DEFENDANTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO VISITATION

21 1. Defense Reliance on Delancie

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In addition to their claimed "family rights," the defendants rely on DeLancie v. Superior

Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 865 to support their motion to pennit Defendant Phillip Garrido to visit

9 The People are in possession of compelling corroborative evidence concerning the alleged crimes. If the Defense asserts

that Jane Doe's credibility is an issue, the People request oral argument to reveal this indisputable evidence.


with Nancy Garrido. Delancie held that routine monitoring of conversations between visitors

2and jail detainees by jail officials for the purpose ofgathering evidence for use in a criminal trial

3 stated a civil cause of action under Penal Code sections 2600 and 260 I(d). In other words,

4 DeLancie found that monitoring conversations between detainees and their visitors is only

explained that its holding was premised on the Legislature's 1975 passage of the "Prisoners' Bill

pemlitted under sections 2600 and 260 I (d) when done for institutional security. The Court

6

5

7

8

9

of Rights," which embodied the policy that inmates should retain the same rights as free persons

except to the extent that restrictions are mandated by prison security. (DeLancie, supra, 3 I

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Ca1.3d at 868.)

As we shall explain, we believe the provisions ofPenal Code section 2600 and 260 I are dispositive ofthe issues presented in this proceeding. Section2600...provides that "[a] pers\ln sentenced toimprisonment in a state prison may, during any suchperiod of confinement, be deprived of such rights,and only such rights, as is necessary in order toprovide for the reasonable security of the institutionin which he is confined and for the reasonableprotection of the public." The broad span ofconstitutional rights protected by section 2600 isaugmented by the terms of section 260 I, whichspecifies that state prisoners "shall have" certaincivil rights, among them ... the right "to havepersonal visits; provided that the department mayprovide such restrictions as are necessaryfor thereasonable security ofthe institution (§ 260 I, subd.(d»." (31 Ca1.3d at 871; italics added.)

Effective January I, 1997, however, the California Legislature amended Penal Code

rights ofjail imnates to have personal visits within the jail. By eliminating the prior section

section 2601 subd. (d) by eliminating the civil right ofajail inmate "[t]o have personal visits."

2601(d), the Legislature effectively eliminated the basis ofthe DeLancie decision. In other

(Former Penal Code section 2601 subd. (d).) This amendment abrogated any statutory privacy

26

25

24

23

21

22

27

2811


1 words, a statutory right that does not exist cannot be violated. The Defendants have no right to

2 visitation. Accordingly, the Court should deny their motion. 10

EI Dorado County Jail Penological Interests2.EI Dorado County Counsel plans to submit an Opposition and supporting declarations regarding

the jail's penological interest in refusing to permit the visitation between Phillip and Nancy Garrido.

The People incorporate County Counsel's Opposition and any supporting declarations as if stated herein.

4

6

3

5

The People believe that this protective order is necessary in order to protect Ms. Doe and her

REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE PROTECTIVE ORDER

language"... ,except an attorney of record" in order to prohibit Defense counselor other third parties

children from further acts harassment, and that there is a good cause belief that hann to, or intimidation

Penal Code § 136.2 and 1203.097(a)(2) provide authority for this Court to issue protective orders

which would prohibit the Defendants' contact with Ms. Doe and both of her children. Specifically, the

People request that the Protective Order be modified as to term No. 10 and specifically delete the

from attempting to send communications from the Defendants via the media, or any other means.

C.

II

9

8

7

10

13

14

12

The People request that this protective order be signed immediately, and that any potential

or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur.

16

15

17 Defense argument on the matter should be delayed until the hearing on these motions.

18

19

III

III

20 III

21 III

22 III

23

25 to allege that she was also a victim of Phillip Garrido. Thus, if Mrs. Garrido claims to be a victim ofMr. Garrido, it would

24 10 Moreover, Nancy Garrido's former attorney Gilbert Maines publicly discussed her potential defense - which was a plan

26 hardly be appropriate to allow them visitation.

27

2812


IV.

2 CONCLUSION

7 People disclose Jane Doe's location. Defendant Phillip Garrido has attempted to manipulate his victims

3 The Defense motions are without merit. There is no legal right for Defendants to have visitation

8 and the justice system for far too long. It is time to put an end to Defendant Garrido's manipulative and

9 controlling actions once and for all. Accordingly, the People request that this Court deny the Defense

4 in the jail. There is no relevant reason why the Defense needs to physically obtain the MDIC videos and

5 photos of Jane Doe and her minor children. This evidence is available anytime for the Defense to view

6 at the District Attorney's Office. And, there is absolutely no justification for this Court to order that the

10 motions and immediately grant the requested protective order.

11 Dated: February 10, 2010

12

13

14

15

Respectfully submitted,

DISTRICT ATTORNEYEL oRADO COUNTY

f'Jl/V RNPIERSONDistrict Attorney

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2813


DECLARATION OF VERN PIERSON

2 I, Vern Pierson, declarc that:

3 1. I am the elected District Attorney for El Dorado County and am licensed to

4 practice before all courts in the State of California..

52. I am currently prosecuting the case ofPeople v. Phillip Garrido and Nancy

6

7

8

9

10

Garrido, El Dorado County Superior Court Case No. P09CRF0373, and I have personally

reviewed the relevant facts of the above-referenced matter, all relevant police reports, evidence

and discovery which are cun'ently in the possession of the EI Dorado County District Attorney's

Office.

113. Since the discovery ofJane Doe last year, I have personally directed the

12 investigation and prosecution ofthe charged defendants.

13 4. In the weeks following the filing of the criminal complaint, I personally explained

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to Jane Doe the process involved in the criminal justice system including the defendant's

Constitutional right to confrontation. Further, I described to her the "Victims' Bill of Rights"

("Marsy's Rights") under the California Constitution. While indicating she understood she may

need to testify in court, she requested privacy and confidentiality

5. On February 8, 2010, I again discussed those issues with Ms. Doe. She was

aware ofattempts by the defense to contact her. She specifically referred to Deputy Public Defender

Sue Gellman's letter dated January 28, 2010. She recited the sentence, "Mr. Ganido has asked me to

convey that he does not harbor any ill will toward [Ms. Doe] or the children and loves them very much."

Ms. Doe immediately put the reference to "no ill will" in context that "I'm not following the plan." I

requested she explain the plan. Ms. Doe indicated .the plan dictated that should Mr. Garrido ever be

anested, they were to "keep in communication through lawyers." Ms. Doe further indicated her belief

that the referral by her former captor and rapist to not harbor ill will was "another way of manipulating"

her. Ms. Doe strongly indicated her decision not to be contacted by either defendant or any


2 "Marsy's Rights", California Constitution Article I, section 28(b) & (c) as follows:

1 representative of either defendant. At that point, 1 read to her the portion of the Victims' Bill of Rights

3 In order to preserve and protect a victim's rights tojustice and due process, a victim shall be entitled to

4 the following rights:

5

6

7

(l) To be treated with fairness and respect forhis or her privacy and dignity, and to befree from intimidation, harassment, andabuse, throughout the criminal or juvenile

justice process.

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

(2) To be reasonably protected from thedefendant and persons acting on behalfof

the defendant.

(4) To prevent the disclosure of confidentialinfonnation or records to the defendant, thedefendant's attorney, or any other personacting on behalf of the defendant, whichcould be used to locate or harass the victim

or the victim's family.

15

16

17

18

(5) To refuse an interview, deposition, ordiscovery request by the defendant, thedefendant's attorney, or other person actingon behalfof the defendant, and to setreasonable conditions on the conduct of anysuch interview to which the victim consents.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 III

A victim, the retained attorney of a victim, alawful representative ofthe victim, or theprosecuting attorney upon request of thevictim, may enforce the above rights in anytrial or appellate court with jurisdiction overthe case as a matter of right. The court shallact promptly on such a request.(Cal. Const., Art. 1, § 28(c)(I).)

27

2815


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5. Ms. Doe then speeifieally requested the EI Dorado County Distriet Attomey

enforee her and her daughters' rights under the California Constitution.

1declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the

foregoing is tme and eorrect to the best of my knowledge, except as to those matters stated upon

infornlation and belief, and as to those matters, 1believe them to be tme.

Executed this 10th day of Febmary, 2010, at Placerville, California.

j/~VERN PIERSONDistrict Attorney


I DECLARATION OF JAMES CLINCHARD

2 I, James A. Clinchard, declare as follows:

3 1. I am a Deputy District Attorney employed by the EI Dorado County District Attorney's

4Office and licensed to practice before all courts in the state of California.

52. I am currently assigned to the case ofPeople v. Phillip Garrido and Nancy Garrido, EI

6

7

8

9

10

I I

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Dorado County Superior Court Case No. P09CRF0373 and I have personally reviewed the relevant facts

of the above-referenced matter, spoken to relevant investigators, and personally reviewed all relevant

police reports, evidence and discovery which are currently in the possession ofthe El Dorado County

District Attorney's Office. Accordingly, upon information and belief, the following is a true and

accurate summary ofthe relevant documents and information obtained during this investigation:

On June 10, 1991, the Defendants abducted I I year old Jane Doe from the street where she lived

in South Lake Tahoe, California. That same day, the Defendants brought Jane Doe back to their hidden

backyard compound at 1554 Walnut Avenue in Antioch, California - where she was sexually assaulted

and imprisoned for the next 18 years. She was kept in one of the backyard buildings as a prisoner for

one and one-half years and did not even leave the backyard for the first 4 years after her abduction by

the Defendants. Jane Doe was impregnated by Phillip Garrido when she was 13 years old and had her

first child at the age of 14. Jane Doe was again impregnated by Phillip Garrido when she was 16 and

had her second child at the age of 17. Although the Defendants created an elaborate plan to conceal

Jane Doe, her identity was finally revealed on August 26, 2009.

On August 28, 2009, the EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office filed a criminal complaint

22

23

24

against the Defendants relating to the kidnapping, rape, and imprisonment of Jane Doe. Since that date,

Jane Doe and her two minor children have been staying at a secret location - attempting to stay out of

the media spotlight and trying to heal the psychological wounds inflicted upon them by the Defendants.

25 Jane Doe has specifically informed our office she does not want to talk to the Defendants or their

26 attorneys.

27


I The Defcndant Phillip Garrido's prior attempts to manipulate his victims, and thc criminaljustic

2 system, are numerous - including, but not limited to:

3 (I) In 1972 (Antioch, CA) Defendant Phillip Garrido was charged with rape of a 14 year old

4 girl in Contra Costa County. At the preliminary hearing, the Dcfense attorney for Defendant Garrido

5 informed the victim that he would make her look like a slut and a whore if she testified. Thc victim told

6 the District Attorney she would not testify and charges were dropped.

7 (2) In June 1976 (South Lake Tahoe, California), Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 19

8 year old victim into his car. He then handcuffed her, kidnapped her, and raped her.


10 Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 25 year old female victim into giving him a ride. Thereafter, he

II attempted to kidnap her by putting a handcuff on one wrist. Luckily for her, she jumped out the car and

12 honked the horn - but, the Defendant was still able to talk her into giving him back his handcuffs.

13 (4) On November 22, 1976 (South Lake Tahoe, California - approximatcly 7:30 p.m.),

14 DefendantPhillip Garrido talked his 25 year old victim (Katherine C.) into giving him a ride. Thereafte

15 he kidnapped her and took her to a storage shed in Reno, Nevada where he sexually assaulted her. This

16 crime is interrupted by a Reno Police Officer - whom Defcndant Phillip Garrido almost talks into

17 leaving by claiming that his "girlfriend" was doing drugs and just freaking out.

18 (5) During his 1977 trial for the rape and kidnap of Katherine C., Defendant Phillip Garrido

19 attempted to manipulate the legal system by claiming that hc was not ashamed or responsible for what

20 he did to the victim - because he had since found God.

21 (6) In a 1978, the Defendant sent a lettcr to the Federal Judge who handled his rape case-

22 attempting to get a reduced sentence - claiming that his "life has changed" and that his "future was now

23 in control."

24 (7) In January 1988, the Defendant presented himself well enough to be paroled from his

25 Federal sentence after only II years of a 50 year sentence.

26

27

28

(8) In August 1988, the Defendant prescnted himself well enough to be paroled from his


1 Nevada state 5 to life sentence after only 8 months in Nevada State Prison.

2 (9) On or about November 8, 1988 the Defendant obtained new freedom from the halfWay

3 house where he was staying on Oakland, California. That same day, Katherine C. (Garrido's November

4 1976 victim) reported that Defendant Phillip Garrido contacted her at the casino she worked at in South

5 Lake Tahoe, sat down at her table, called her "Katie," and said "1 haven't had a drink in 1I years."

6 Katherine C. believed the referral to "drink" did not mean drink in the literal sense. Curiously, despite

7 this intentional contact with a prior victim, Defendant was somehow able to convince federal parole

8 authorities to maintain his newly reduced freedoms and end his halfWay house stay one month later.

9 (10) From 1991 to 2009, the Defendants kept Ms. Doe's existence a secret by: Keeping Jane

10 Doe in a hidden backyard (which included one and one-half years with her never leaving one of the

11 structures in the backyard and almost 4 years where she never left the backyard); giving Jane Doe the

12 name "Alyssa"; requiring Jane Doe and the girls to run to the hidden backyard if anyone ever came to

13 the door; a cover story where, if questioned, Jane Doe was instructed to tell people that the girls were

14 hers and that she was okay with them being around Phillip Garrido; creating a second cover story that

15 Ms. Doe and her girls were Phillip Garrido's nieces; and most importantly, a plan created by Defendant

16 Garrido that ifhe was ever arrested that Jane Doe was to request an attorney so that his attorney and her

17 attorney could "keep in communication through lawyers" without law enforcement knowledge.

18 (I I) Defendant Phillip Garrido's attempt to gain trust and control over Jane Doe is

19 exemplified by ajournal entry on July 16, 1993 wherein she states:

20 "1 got [a cat] for my birthday from Phil and Nancy... they did something for methat no one else would do for me, they paid 200 dollars just so 1could have my

21 own kitten."

22

23

24

25

(12) Defendant Phillip Garrido's control over Jane Doe is further exemplified by ajournal

entry made by her on September 5, 2003 11 wherein she states:

26 II Jane Doe was 23 years old at the time.

27


I

2

3

"I don't want to hurt him ... sometimes I think my very presence hurts him ....so how can I ever tell him how I want to be free. Free to come and go as I please.... Free to say I have a family. I will never cause him pain if it's in my power toprevent it. FREE." (Emphasis in original)

4(13) Defendant Garrido's control over Jane Doe is also exemplified by a journal entry made

5by her on July 5,2004 wherein she states:

"It feels like I'm sinking. I'm afraid I want control of my life... this is supposedto be my life to do with what I like... but once again he has taken it away. Howmany times is he allowed to take it away from me? I am afraid he doesn't seehow the things he says makes me a prisoner....Why don't I have control of my life!I feel I can't even be sure my thoughts are my own..." (Emphasis in original)

(14) On August 26, 2009, the Defendant shows up to meet with his Parole Agent- bringing

(15) After Defendant Phillip Garrido is arrested, he attempts numerous times to communicate

with him Nancy Garrido, Jane Doe, and her two children. Once there, the Defendants and Jane Doe

attempt to provide the first cover story. When that cover story did not work, they attempt to provide the

second cover story - which included Jane Doe giving another fake name "Ally Smith." During her

interview (before she had revealed who she was), Jane Doe asked if she could talk to Defendant Phillip

Garrido, who was brought into the interview room with her. Ms. Doe told him that she did not know

what to do. Defendant Phillip Garrido immediately blurts out, "Get a lawyer." After questioning,

Defendant Phillip Garrido finally admitted that he had kidnapped and raped Ms. Doe and that the two

young girls were his daughters. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Doe reveals her true identity.

6

7

8

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 with the media. In one letter sent in September 2009, Defendant Phillip Garrido attempts to assert Jane

21 Doe's right to an attorney. In another letter, he apologized to "every human being for what has taken

22 place." An important fact regarding the September 2009 letter is that he talks about contacting Jane Doe

23 "by attorney mail only." It is clear, once again, that Defendant Phillip Garrido is very familiar with the

24 legal system and wants to use the attorney-client privilege to conceal his attempted communications to

25 the victim in this case.

26 III

27


3. I believe that a protective order is necessary in order to protect Ms. Doe and her children

I declare under penalty ofpeIjury under the laws of the State ofCalifornia that the foregoing is

true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge except as to those matters stated upon information and

from further acts harassment, and that there is a good cause belief that harm to, or intimidation or

dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur.

5

2

3

4

6 belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

7 Executed on February 10, 2009, at Placerville, California.

8

9

10

11

12

ES A. CLINCHARDDeputy District Attorney

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2821


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

County of EI Dorado

PROOF OF PERSONAL SERVICE

) PEOPLE vs. PHILLIP CRAIG GARRIDO and) NANCY GARRIDO,)

DOCKET #: P09CRF0373

DA # 09-08-005699-1

I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County ofE! Dorado. I am over

the age ofeighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is

515 Main Street, Placerville, California 95667.

On February 10,2010 I served the within PEOPLE'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENSE

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; OPPOSITION TO REQUEST FOR DEFENDANT

VISITATION; AND REQUEST FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER on the parties in said action, by

hand delivering a true copy thereof to:

SUSAN GELLMAN, DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDEREL DORADO COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE630 MAIN STREETPLACERVILLE, CA 95667

STEVE TAPSONATTORNEY AT LAW309 PLACERVILLE DRIVEPLACERVILLE, CA 95667

I, the undersigued, declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the State ofCalifornia

that the foregoing is true and correct. I!

Executed on February 10,2010 at Place jlte, Californi .

A. FEB 11 2010graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100213-dugard-documen… · 13-02-2010 ·...

Documents

Transcript of A. FEB 11 2010graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100213-dugard-documen… · 13-02-2010 ·...