by John Glatt
When there was no reply, Emery sat outside for the next hour watching, while his dogs played outside. He then got a pen and paper from inside his shed, writing down the Pinto license plate number before going to a nearby service station to call Garrido’s home.
When there was no answer, he had jumped on his bicycle and cycled to Garrido’s home in Market Street, three blocks away. And when there was no answer there, he cycled back to Mill Street and went to bed.
In his cross-examination, Willard Van Hazel cryptically asked if his client would have been able to score marijuana from anyone within a five-minute range of his shed.
“You did not give Mr. Garrido any grass on that night?” asked the defender.
“No, I didn’t,” replied Emery.
“Have you on other occasions?”
At that point, the prosecutor objected, saying it was irrelevant, and Judge Thompson agreed.
At 4:30 P.M. Judge Thompson recessed for the day, telling the jury to return the next morning.
12
“HE IS FOLLOWING A PATTERN”
At 9:30 the next morning—February 10—Reno Police officer Clifford Conrad took the stand. Under prosecutor Leland Lutfy’s questioning, he told the jury how he had been patrolling Mill Street at around 2:30 A.M. on November 23, when he saw a suspicious out-of-town vehicle parked outside Unit 39.
“The vehicle shouldn’t have been there at that time of the morning,” he testified. “So I checked further and found the lock on the warehouse broken off.”
He then tried to open the warehouse door, but it would only rise four inches, so he started banging on it. Eventually Phillip Garrido appeared and rolled it up.
Asked if he rented the warehouse, Garrido said he rented it from a friend who lived over in Market Street.
“He said he had lost the key,” said Conrad. “I asked him for his date of birth and things like that . . . just everything to check [his] story.”
“Was he able to respond to each of your questions?” asked Lutfy.
“Yes, sir, he was,” replied the officer.
“Did he respond coherently?”
“Yes, sir.”
Then while he was questioning Garrido, Katie Callaway’s head appeared from behind a plastic curtain, pleading for help. Then she ran out of the warehouse stark naked and stationed herself behind the astonished policeman, who asked her what she wanted.
“Help me!” she told Officer Conrad. “He is trying to rape me.”
Officer Conrad then told the jury he had sent Callaway back into the warehouse to dress, permitting Garrido to follow her back inside.
“Why did you allow Mr. Garrido to go back into that warehouse,” asked Lutfy, “when Miss Callaway was in there?”
“I was led to believe by Mr. Garrido,” explained Conrad, “that he was married and lived down the street and that was his girlfriend.”
“Is that what Mr. Garrido said to you?” asked the prosecutor.
“He implied that,” said the officer. “He didn’t come out exactly and say that.”
“How did he imply that?”
“He said he did live down the street, he was married, and this was a friend of his. And he even called her ‘Kathy.’ ”
Although up to then Garrido had answered his questions, he now became “evasive” when asked about the naked girl.
“I asked him how long he knew the victim and where he met her,” the officer told the jury, “and he said, ‘I don’t have to answer that.’ ”
For the rest of the morning, the jury heard from a series of government experts, testifying that laboratory tests had proved positive for small quantities of cannabis, marijuana and LSD found in the warehouse. And samples of Katie Callaway’s pubic hair were consistent with ones found on clothing in Garrido’s warehouse and on a pair of his scissors, although none of her hairs were discovered in samples of the defendant’s public hair.
Just after 11:00 A.M., the United States government rested its case. And after the jury was dismissed for lunch, defense attorney Willard Van Hazel raised the possibility of Phillip Garrido incriminating himself for the upcoming Washoe County trial, if he now took the stand in this one.
“Your Honor,” Van Hazel told the judge, “Mr. Garrido and I have conferred about trial strategy.”
The defender explained he had “cautioned” his client of the necessity for him to testify to the jury, in order to establish his psychiatric defense.
“If he takes the stand,” said Van Hazel, “to sustain that defense of not knowing that what he did at the time was morally wrong, that he exposes himself to incrimination on outstanding charges in the state of Nevada . . . carrying major penalties.”
Then Lutfy told Judge Thompson that if the defendant did take the stand, the jury should be told about his unsuccessful attempt to kidnap another young woman prior to Katie Callaway, in order to show a pattern of behavior.
“The defense is coming up with the insanity, or some kind of defense, based on LSD abuse, as I understand it,” argued Lutfy. “That this man was in some kind of fantasy, could not differentiate between fantasy and reality. We think by pointing to and questioning the defendant about specific acts prior to this incident, we can show he is following a pattern of attempting to kidnap and attempting to, and raping, other women. And we do have . . . information of other acts by this defendant.”
Pointing out that any evidence of prior acts would be “prejudicial,” the judge asked why the prosecution wanted to offer it.
“I think to show the fact that he has the intent prior,” said Lutfy, “and this is a consistent act.”
“How does it bear on intent,” asked the judge, “if he claims that he has been using LSD for four years, and that he is spaced out, or whatever they call it?”
The prosecutor replied there was no evidence that Garrido had taken LSD that night, and did not know what he was doing.
“We can show a similar pattern of behavior in a prior offense relative to the handcuffs, the whole thing is there,” said Lutfy. “I think, again, it goes to intent. The jury has the right to see that and determine whether or not this man was fantasizing one time or whether or not this was a thought-out plan of kidnapping and raping women.”
Judge Thompson said he would rule later on whether the jury could hear about any of the defendant’s prior criminal acts. Then he turned to Phillip Garrido, telling him that he must decide whether or not to take the stand in his own defense.
“I want to advise you that that is a decision you have to make,” said the judge.
“Yes, Your Honor,” replied Garrido.
“I have to tell you this, also, Mr. Garrido,” said the judge, “that if you decide to take the stand and testify, any testimony that you give can be used in any criminal prosecution. You are not testifying under any form of immunity whatsoever. Do you understand that?”
“Yes, Your Honor,” said the defendant.
Van Hazel then asked the judge whether he would allow his client to be cross-examined about the “unnatural act” he was charged with as well as the rape. Judge Thompson replied that as it had not been raised on direct examination, he would not allow it, admitting even he did not know what it was.
Then Judge Thompson recessed the court until 1:30 P.M., when the defense case would begin.
13
“I HAVE HAD THIS FANTASY”
At 1:30 P.M., Willard Van Hazel rose from the defense bench, announcing he was waiving his right to deliver an opening statement. He then called Phillip Garrido’s friend and Reno liquor store salesman Gregory Sheppard to the stand.
The twenty-seven-year-old aspiring musician told the jury how he’d met Garrido at his mother’s liquor store and they’d become friends, sharing an interest in music.
“Now, during the two years that you knew him,” asked Van Hazel, “did you ever observe him using any drugs?”
“Yes, I have,” replied Sheppard. “I’ve seen him taking LSD, pot, cocaine, downers, uppers.”
Sheppard said he usually saw Garrido every couple of weeks, when they jammed together in the warehouse.
“At the time he was playing,” asked the attorney, “was he also administering drugs to himself?”
“Yes,” replied Sheppard.
“Do you have any idea of the type of dosage of LSD he would take?”
“I would say one or two at a time,” said Sheppard. “Sometimes maybe three. It just depended on what mood he was in.”
“Three what?” asked the judge.
“Three tabs of acid,” said Sheppard.
Then the judge asked the witness to explain to him and the jury the different types of LSD.
“Comes in pill form,” said Sheppard, “capsule form. It comes in paper, comes in sugar cubes. Those are the most common forms that LSD does come in.”
In his cross-examination, Leland Lutfy asked Sheppard about the different strengths of LSD.
“When you saw the defendant taking this LSD,” asked the prosecutor, “did you know the strength?”
“It was fairly strong,” said Sheppard. “It was blotter-type LSD . . . on a piece of paper.”
“And the blotter type of LSD,” asked Lutfy, “there are different strengths in that, is there not?”
“Yes, there is,” said Sheppard.
Then Willard Van Hazel called his client, Phillip Garrido, to the stand. The tall, thin defendant, wearing a blue suit and brown tie, stood up and walked across the courtroom to the stand.
“Are you married?” asked the defender.
“Yes, sir,” answered Garrido.
“Happily?”
“Very happily.”
“Do you find your wife attractive?”
“She is beautiful,” Garrido replied emphatically.
Then Van Hazel asked how long he had been using narcotics. Garrido replied that he had started using marijuana in 1969, a month after graduating high school. His first LSD experience came just a month after that.
He told the jury he had first been arrested in 1969 for marijuana and LSD.
“What other drugs besides marijuana and LSD have you used?” asked Lutfy.
“Cocaine has been one of the more frequent drugs I have used,” Garrido replied matter-of-factly. “On occasion I have taken downers and uppers, but not very often.”
Then his attorney asked if he ever combined drugs with each other.
“Whenever I take LSD,” he replied, “I also smoke marijuana. And whenever I have had the chance, I have snorted cocaine at the same time. It is a very expensive drug, so that the occasion is only off and on.”
Van Hazel asked how frequently he had taken LSD over the previous couple of years. Garrido said he tripped out on LSD every couple of days, but if he took it too frequently, he would have to take more and more for it to work.
“What is the most you have ever taken on an occasion in the last two years?” asked Van Hazel.
“I have taken up to ten hits,” replied Garrido. “All at once.”
“Have you ever OD’d, or whatever the proper expression is?” asked the defense attorney.
“The only time that I have ever had bad trips is in my younger part of my experiences with LSD. As far as frightening experience.”
Then his attorney asked if LSD and cocaine stimulated him sexually.
“Beyond a doubt,” Garrido replied, adding LSD turned him on the most.
Van Hazel then asked him if he had taken cocaine around the time of the alleged offense. Garrido said yes, as he’d had some money available.
“I would buy quite a bit,” he told the jury. “A large amount that I would put myself up on a cocaine high for two or three days. And sometime even without sleep to the manner of burning out my whole body.”
But he claimed not to have taken cocaine the day he had met Katie Callaway, although he had dropped four hits of LSD purchased in South Lake Tahoe.
Then the defense attorney asked if he had sexual fantasies in the late sixties, when he had first got into drugs. Garrido said he certainly did. He would masturbate at home to pornographic magazines, or at a local drive-in. Then he described to the jury how he would arrange two towels over the side windows of his car, so he couldn’t be seen, and masturbate in the backseat. But over the past two years, he said, he had begun screening pornographic movies at home on his projector.
“Did you engage in that activity in any other public places?” asked his attorney.
“You mean masturbation?” asked Garrido.
“Yes.”
“Well, I have done it in restaurants, bathrooms, lavatories, different types of amusement places, such as a bar.”
“Have you done it in residential areas?”
“Yes,” he replied impassively, “looking into windows.”
“What were you looking at?”
“Women.”
“What were the women doing?”
“They were either clothed or partly clothed.”
“And you would masturbate yourself then?”
“Yes.”
Then Van Hazel asked his client to tell the jury where else in public he had pleasured himself.
“I have done it by the sides of schools,” he replied, “grammar schools and high schools. In my car while I was watching young females.”
“How old were they, would you guess?” asked Van Hazel.
“From seven to ten.”
“Did you ever expose or exhibit yourself on those occasions?”
“A few times.”
“What would you do?”
“Open the car door.”
“How would you be dressed?”
“Pants down to my knees.”
Van Hazel then asked if there was a certain type of pornography that turned him on. Garrido replied that he particularly loved looking at bondage pictures.
“Women in handcuffs, chained,” he told the jury. “There [are] the positions that the women are in the magazines . . . the different positions.”
“Did this sexual fantasy,” asked Van Hazel, “or whatever you want to call it, become increasingly real to you, so you could visualize without pictures, just by closing your eyes?”
“Yes.”
“Were you increasingly obsessed with it?”
“Yes. It started the first time I went to a drive-in and started masturbating myself. I found that from that point on, I just increased it into a realm that I didn’t even realize.”
Then, gently guided by his attorney, Garrido admitted getting in Katie Callaway’s car at Ink’s Market, and seizing her when she stopped to let him out.
“Did you handcuff her?” asked his attorney.
“Yes.”
“Bind her with a strap?”
“Yes.”
“Did you take her with tape on her mouth across the line into Nevada?
“No,” answered Garrido. “She had no tape on her at that time. I didn’t tape her until I got to the gas station, and then I pulled into it, and only taped her for the few minutes that we were there until we left.”
Garrido admitted taking her across the state line against her will, saying he was powerless to resist his sexual impulses.
“I have had this fantasy,” he told the jury, “and this sexual thing that has overcome me.”
“Didn’t you know you could be caught and criminally punished for it?” asked Van Hazel.
“Criminally,” replied Garrido, “yes, I did know that.”
“Didn’t you think it was wrong?”
“No.”
“Well, who told you it was right?” asked the defender. “Did your parents bring you up to believe that was morally right to do?”
“No,” replied Garrido. “My parents never instructed me sexually at all. But just from my parents bringing me up—no.”
“You didn’t learn in school it was right, did you?”
“No.”
“But you didn’t think it was wrong?”
“Not at that point in time, no.”
Garrido
then admitted telling Katie Callaway he was unable to control his behavior.
“Did you tell her you were sorry you were doing this?” asked Van Hazel.
“Yes.”
“Why were you?”
“Because she was so nice to me.”
“But you weren’t sorry enough to stop, were you?”
“No.”
The attorney then asked why he had not just had sex with her in the bushes while they were still in California, as she had offered.
“Because I couldn’t help myself,” replied Garrido, showing the first hint of emotion since he took the stand. “I had this fantasy that was driving me to do this. Inside of me. Something that was making me do it . . . no way to stop it.”
Then the attorney asked if he had wanted to be caught, giving his victim several clues to his identity, like his real name and wife’s occupation.
“No,” said Garrido. “She was convincing me that she was enjoying what she was doing, and I just didn’t know what I was doing to be able to tell her that.”
“You really thought she wanted to do that?”
“In my own mixed-up mind, yes.”
Finally, Van Hazel asked why he didn’t get his sexual gratification from the legal brothels in Nevada.
“I went once when I was younger,” he answered, “and it never did do nothing for me. I have had the advantage of being with many women . . . with their will.”
“But that isn’t your sex thing?” said his attorney. “That isn’t what drives you?”
“No,” said Garrido, shaking his head excitedly.
“And yet,” said Van Hazel, “you have stated, ‘I live a clean life.’ ”
“Besides this fantasy, yes,” he replied. “I don’t go breaking into people’s houses. I don’t go to hurt anybody.”
Before starting his cross-examination, prosecutor Leland Lutfy asked Judge Thompson to allow questions about his failed kidnap attempt, an hour before this alleged offense. Judge Thompson said he needed to hear some of the psychiatric testimony before making his decision.
Then the jury were summoned back into the courtroom and Lutfy began questioning the defendant.
“Do you know what the terms ‘right and wrong’ mean?” he asked.