The current charges:

DA: Suspects in Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping charged with total of 29 criminal counts

By John Simerman
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 08/28/2009 09:08:48 AM PDT
Updated: 08/28/2009 05:48:42 PM PDT
The rape of Jaycee Dugard by convicted sex offender Phillip Garrido began within a month of her abduction at age 11, extended through her childhood and involved not only Phillip Garrido, but also his wife, Nancy, according to charges filed by El Dorado County prosecutors today.
Whether Nancy Garrido physically participated in the sexual assaults was unclear. Combined, the couple face 29 felony counts that could bring each of them multiple life sentences if convicted.
They appeared together in a media-packed Placerville courtroom this afternoon for their arraignment, sitting in the jury box, their arms shackled in front of their waists. Nancy Garrido,54, heaved, furrowed her brow and hung her dark hair over her face, shielding it from a wall of cameras. Phillip Garrido, 58, seated behind, glanced at his wife, expressionless.
Neither spoke as their newly appointed attorneys entered not guilty pleas to all of the charges and denied a long roster of enhancements. At the prosecutor's request, El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Douglas Phimister disallowed bail for both. Earlier, bail had been set at $1 million each.
The charges, which refer to Dugard only as "Jane Doe," include six felony counts each of forcible rape, seven counts each of "forcible lewd act on a child," and for both Garridos, counts of kidnapping of a child under 14, kidnapping for sexual purposes and false imprisonment by violence.
<snip>
Several special allegations would add to their sentences if convicted. Among them are a second strike for Garrido, from the 1977 rape and abduction of a casino employee in Nevada.
"She's legally charged with rape based on the theory she participated in it," he said. "We don't have to prove she physically did a rape. All we have to prove is she aided and abetted with knowledge of the crime."
The felony counts are divided into time periods based on evidence prosecutors have gathered over a 48-hour period, said Clark. Additional counts are likely to follow, he said.
The time periods include the month after Dugard's abduction on June 10, the two periods in which she became pregnant by Phillip Garrido, first as a young teen, and a few others between the abduction and 1997. They do not pinpoint when the first rape took place, only that it took place between June 10 and July 10, 1991. more at link: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13223047

Even though there was no chance of them not having raped Jaycee, it still hurts to have it confirmed - she was 11 years old! Can you imagine the fear and pain she must have been in for years and the guilt and confusion she will now suffer if when she got older and was clearly brainwashed, her body started to respond to the rapes like an adults body responds to sex? I wish there was a magic wand I could wave to make it all better for Jaycee and her girls, prayers for their entire family.

At the suggestion of another sleuth, Linask, I made a thread for the topic of the charges against Philip and Nancy Garrido. It was in another thread, to answer what I perceived as some confusion about the actual charges, but perhaps it is important to have this topic front and center!

The Garridos are each charged with:

• 1 count of kidnapping someone younger than age 14
• 1 count of kidnapping for sexual purposes
• 4 counts of forcible rape with a special allegation of one strike
• 2 counts of forcible rape
• 7 counts of a forcible lewd act on a child, with special allegation of kidnapping a victim younger than age 14 for sex
• 1 count of false imprisonment by violence with special allegations of use of force, violent sex offenses, a stranger victim, and substantial sexual conduct with someone younger than 14

Phillip Garrido is also charged with a special allegation of 2/3 strikes because he has two prior convictions for kidnapping and forcible rape.

Click to expand...

http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/jaycee_lee_dugard_kidnapping_h.html

MBK said:

At the suggestion of another sleuth, Linask, I made a thread for the topic of the charges against Philip and Nancy Garrido. It was in another thread, to answer what I perceived as some confusion about the actual charges, but perhaps it is important to have this topic front and center!



http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/jaycee_lee_dugard_kidnapping_h.html

Click to expand...

What does "4 counts with one strike" mean? Strike as in 3 strikes law? If so, does Nancy have any strikes against her already?

Thanks for the info.

Great idea! I just added a cross-link to this thread from the Timeline. One question, though, is that reports have said the Garridos were each charged with 29 criminal counts on 8/28/09; does anyone know the additional charges?

Unless I missed something reading the charge sheet, the rape charges appear to go through to 1998, when she would have been 17/18, around the time the second daughter was born. Is there a particular reason for that? Did the rapes stop then or is it a statute of limitations/consent thing? That aspect didnt make sense to me, I would have thought those charges would have covered the entire period.

Californian said:

Great idea! I just added a cross-link to this thread from the Timeline. One question, though, is that reports have said the Garridos were each charged with 29 criminal counts on 8/28/09; does anyone know the additional charges?

Click to expand...

Some of the charges name them jointly, others individually, hence the odd number.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
vs
PHILLIP GREG GARRIDO
NANCY GARRIDO

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

+++

Available as cached html version: here

or as PDF here.

JulieNMM said:

What does "4 counts with one strike" mean? Strike as in 3 strikes law? If so, does Nancy have any strikes against her already?

Thanks for the info.

Click to expand...

Here's some info I found regarding the Three Strikes in California law. As a New Yorker, I am not familiar with this, so am merely copying. Anyone who knows the law, please comment!!!

California Three Strikes Defense Lawyers
Our Los Angeles criminal defense lawyers defend clients in three strike cases throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties. As former district attorneys who once prosecuted three strike cases, our defense lawyers draw on vast experience from both law enforcement and criminal defense.

The California three strike law is an oppressive legal program that can result in life in prison for conviction of even minor felonies, often nonviolent drug offenses. Three strikes law disproportionately affects African American and Latino men, who are much likely than whites to be "condemned for life" by it.

Shouse Law Group is committed to reforming California's Three Strikes Law. In particulr, we support organizations such as Families to Amend California's Three Strikes and Families Against Mandatory Minimums who are fighting to repeal the current version of Three Strike Law and replace it with a more fair and equitable sentencing policy.

How does California Three Strikes Law Work?
Third Strike Cases:
Under California three strikes law, if a person is convicted of any felony, and he has two or more "strike" priors (prior convictions for strike offenses), he must be sentenced to at least 25-years-to-life in State Prison.

Second Strike Cases:
Under California three strikes law, if the person is convicted of any felony and he has one "strike" prior, he must be sentenced to double the prison term on the current conviction.

Custody Credits Under Three Strike Law:
If someone is sent to prison on a second or third strike, he must complete at least 80% of the sentence before he is eligible for release. Without a strike prior, and if the current conviction is not for a violent felony, the person normally only serves only 50% of the sentence.

What Prior Convictions Count as Strikes?
A prior conviction counts as strike for "three strikes law" purposes if it was for a serious or violent felony. "Serious felonies" are listed in California Penal Code Section 1192.7 (c), and "violent felonies" are listed in California Penal Code Section 667.5 (c). Visit the pages below for a complete list of what offenses constitute strikes:

Violent Felonies Under California Three Strikes Law
Serious Felonies Under California Three Strikes Law
Most felonies involving violence are on the list. Other offenses that count as strikes for "California three strike" purposes include criminal threats, residential burglary, and any offense in which a dangerous or deadly weapon is personally used, great bodily injury is personally inflicted, or a gang allegation is found to be true.

The California Three Strikes (3-Strikes) law became operative on March 7, 1994. Therefore, the current felony charge must have occurred after this date for the three strike law to apply. But the "strike priors" could have occurred at any time, even before March of 1994.

What Juvenile Convictions Count as Strikes?
A juvenile "sustained petition" (the term for a conviction in juvenile court) counts as a strike under California three strikes law if three conditions are met:

1.The conviction counts as a strike under the penal code definitions;
2.The crime is listed in California Welfare and Institutions Code 707(b); and
3.The person was at least 16 years of age when the offense occurred.
Juvenile Crimes That Count as Strikes Under California Three Strikes Law

Can the Court Excuse or Disregard Prior Strikes?
Yes. Under California Three Strike Law, a judge has the discretion to "strike" one or more strikes, so that they don't count against the current felony. The judge can do this before, during or after trial. A defense request for the court to dismiss a strike is called a "Romero Motion."

In deciding a Romero Motion, the court will consider all of the circumstances, including the nature of the current charge, how long ago the strike priors occurred, the underlying facts of the strike priors, and everything about the defendant's history.

Must the Prosecution Prove the Defendant Suffered the Prior Strike Convictions?
Yes. Absolutely. Before trial, the district attorney "alleges" in the charges that the defendant suffered one or more prior strike convictions. But as with all charges, these start out as mere allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent-in effect, the "strike allegations" are presumed false-unless and until the prosecutor proves them beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the accused is acquitted of the new felony charges, the strike allegations get set aside. If he is convicted of one or more of the felony charges, then he is entitled to a jury trial to determine whether the strike allegations are true. The prosecutor typically uses court records, prison records, fingerprint records and booking photos in attempting to prove that the accused did in fact suffer the alleged strike priors.

from the post above

"minor felonies" talk about an oxymoron! i disagree with the assertion that the three strikes law is oppressive, although it does contribute to the overcrowding as the State is FINALLY forced to make people stay for a good amount of their term, or even for life. this law will ensure that Garrido will never see the outside of prison walls again (not like he probably would have anywhere else either, but to me it's a bit comforting!) 50 year sentence of which he served 10? unbelievable!

Natal said:

Unless I missed something reading the charge sheet, the rape charges appear to go through to 1998, when she would have been 17/18, around the time the second daughter was born. Is there a particular reason for that? Did the rapes stop then or is it a statute of limitations/consent thing? That aspect didnt make sense to me, I would have thought those charges would have covered the entire period.

Click to expand...

Maybe because when she turned 18 she became an adult? Although you can still be raped as an adult, but maybe it gets a different name once she became an adult? ?!?!?

Natal said:

Unless I missed something reading the charge sheet, the rape charges appear to go through to 1998, when she would have been 17/18, around the time the second daughter was born. Is there a particular reason for that? Did the rapes stop then or is it a statute of limitations/consent thing? That aspect didnt make sense to me, I would have thought those charges would have covered the entire period.

Click to expand...

this is a great question, one that i am wondering about as well. i really hope that this doesn't mean that once she was 18, it's not considered rape if she was "consenting" (that feels so gross just to write) with Garrido. i really hope some legal person is able to answer the question! :waitasec:

It sort of implies that she regarded her relationship with Garrido as consensual, and without a complaint they could only lay charges for the period during which she couldn't legally give consent.

That may change as time goes by though.

Not that I necessarily buy his story about conforming his ways, but wouldn't that have been around the time when he claimed to have found religion and stopped molesting? Maybe Jaycee has corroborated his version of the story that the abuse stopped at that point. I don't know, just speculating.

I've been offline since Sat. Thanks for the updates, everyone.

LillyRush said:

Not that I necessarily buy his story about conforming his ways, but wouldn't that have been around the time when he claimed to have found religion and stopped molesting? Maybe Jaycee has corroborated his version of the story that the abuse stopped at that point. I don't know, just speculating.

I've been offline since Sat. Thanks for the updates, everyone.

Click to expand...

i don't really buy it either because that's the same thing he said while he was in prison for kidnapping and raping Ms. Callaway. i guess that we could always hope that is the case though...it would be so great to find out that he had not molested Jaycee's daughters, as if anything could be "great" about this whole situation.

ETA: oops, i messed up the italics, i swear i don't know why i try to do anything "fancy", i'm so not computer friendly!

My initial thought - and I'm not familiar with CA law on this at all, so its just a thought - is that the state can prove without a statement from Jaycee that she was raped up until the time her daughter was born. She must have been raped if she became pregnant, and she couldn't have consented.

At the same time, COUNT XXIX, the charges of FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY VIOLENCE, date from June 10, 1991 through August 26, 2009 . . . well past the so-called "age of consent" . . .

MBK said:

At the same time, COUNT XXIX, the charges of FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY VIOLENCE, date from June 10, 1991 through August 26, 2009 . . . well past the so-called "age of consent" . . .

Click to expand...

That isn't a rape charge though.

Natal said:

Unless I missed something reading the charge sheet, the rape charges appear to go through to 1998, when she would have been 17/18, around the time the second daughter was born. Is there a particular reason for that? Did the rapes stop then or is it a statute of limitations/consent thing? That aspect didnt make sense to me, I would have thought those charges would have covered the entire period.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that I am thinking what you are thinking. She apoligized to her mother for bonding with them. I am thinking that maybe after the birth of the first daughter, that she still had dreams of getting away and taking her daughter with her. But after the birth of the second daughter, she may have felt that escape with two kids was going to be impossible, and at that point she may have resigned herself to committing to PG. Her stepfather said that she felt that it was "marriage in a way" after the birth of her second dau. She would have been about 17/18 when the second daughter was born wasn't she? Jaycee may have told LE that it was consensual after that time.

^

poor Jaycee...it's easy for us to sit here from the outside and see what an effed up situation this is, but i'm sure she has such mixed emotions about the whole thing. she may even feel a little bit sorry for them, especially if at some point the abuse stopped or at least was less frequent (i don't know if i believe that, but i can hope) my heart goes out to her and her girls for all they've gone though. she is such a strong person!!