Chapter 14
The Main Event
On December 5, 2000, opening arguments finally resonated in Judge Bradley Boeckman’s courtroom in the trial of Todd Garton. The courthouse sat on a rise in the city of Redding, facing towering snow-covered Mount Shasta in the distance. If Norman Daniels and Todd Garton had a pair of binoculars, they easily could have seen where their fateful meeting had begun at Shasta Community College.
Senior Deputy DA Greg Gaul portrayed Todd as an evil mastermind who manipulated his friends in the murder of Carole Garton and the attempted murder of Dean Noyes. Gaul then played the phone call in which Norman Daniels called Todd Garton from jail and the investigators listened in. Greg pointed out that Garton didn’t seem shocked or angry that Daniels said that he’d just killed his wife. Instead, he seemed angry that Daniels had confessed. Garton exclaimed to Daniels, “So, you said you did it? I just went to the wall for you with the Record Searchlight. I can’t believe you did that, man!”
At that point Garton offered to help Daniels in his defense and promised help from “the big boys.” Gaul told the jury that “Todd Garton convinced Norman Daniels he was part of the organization which he called The Company.”
Gaul then went into all the manipulations Todd had perpetrated with Daniels, Gordon and Lynn Noyes in the implementation of his schemes. He explained that even though Norman Daniels pulled the trigger on the gun that killed Carole Garton, it was Todd Garton who directed where to aim those shots.
Russell Swartz, on the other hand, had a very different take on what occurred during the months prior to May 16, 1998. He portrayed Todd Garton as the unwitting victim of all the others’ conspiracy plans. Russell depicted Dale Gordon as someone clearly not in touch with reality, who loved guns, role-playing games and violence. He portrayed Lynn Noyes as a woman scorned by Todd, who would do anything to get him back. And he depicted Norman Daniels as a man used as a pawn by Lynn Noyes to get rid of Carole Garton. Daniels’s e-mails to Lynn proved that he was in thrall of Lynn Noyes. He would do anything Lynn told him to do. Swartz portrayed him as a lovesick flunky.
Opening arguments are one thing, and memorable to the jurors, but the nuts and bolts of a trial are often conducted outside the hearing of jurors. And the Todd Garton case was no exception. A trial is like a battle in some respects, and the prosecutor and defense attorney are like generals. But the judge can be seen as a quartermaster who allows the opposing generals to have various weapons on the field of battle. The “weapons” are evidence, and if the judge does not let them have certain evidence on the field, it can hamper the “general” in his plan of attack. These behind-the-scenes legal battles were in some respects just as interesting and volatile as anything the jurors ever heard or saw.
One of these contests came very early in the proceedings. It concerned the two investigators, Detective Steve Grashoff and Sergeant Mark VonRader. Russell Swartz noticed that these two were able to pass right by the security check point at the entrance of the court, while he and all the jurors waited in line to empty their pockets. Swartz met with Judge Boeckman, along with James Pearce, his co-counsel, and Greg Gaul as well.
Swartz—I do have a very legitimate objection. When we go through that line and those jurors queued up, I think it is inappropriate for them to see the people on defense table having to unload our pockets, go through the searches, while the two officers simply flash their badges and walk on through. It shows some level of trust on that side of the courtroom that is not being accorded to us. I think those gentlemen, Mr. VonRader and Mr. Grashoff—they should go through the same procedure that we go through.
Gaul—Well, I just want to say that I have to go through the same process. I have to empty my pockets. I understand what Mr. Swartz is saying. But this side of the table hasn’t got carte blanche just to walk through.
Pearce—It does present an inappropriate appearance of credibility to the officers being allowed to pass through without a proper search. Boeckman—Interesting argument, Counsel. First time it’s come up. I’m going to take it under advisement.
The next day Judge Boeckman told Swartz and Pearce, “Here’s my sense of it. The purpose of weapon screening is primarily to screen for weapons. When peace officers who are on duty come into the courtroom, the weapons-screening staff assume that they have weapons and they are permitted by law to have them. So there is no point in having them go through the weapon-screening process. I don’t see any prejudice. I don’t think it is likely that any jurors take any kind of improper inference from that.”
Detectives Grashoff and VonRader took the stand and laid out everything that they had found linking Todd Garton to the crime. “Computer cop” Jim Arnold did as well, going into detail about the messages on Todd’s computer that were aligned with Company T and the conspiracy. Garton seemed to be deeply implicated in this because of his numerous messages not only to Norman Daniels but to Lynn Noyes, too.
Jurors were shown graphic autopsy photos projected onto a six-foot screen while Dr. Susan Comfort, Shasta County pathologist, explained the various wounds. In one photo red flecks, gunpowder burns, surrounded a bullet hole in Carole Garton’s cheek, evidence she was shot at close range. A photo of one black eye portrayed the fact that a bullet fired at the back of her head had penetrated through her head and came to rest behind the eye socket. She was also shot once more in the head, in the chest and in the buttocks.
On viewing these photos, Todd Garton acted as if he were sick and leaned over to vomit into a trash can. Some of those who saw it were sure he was acting. They said it looked more like someone trying to dry heave than actual vomiting. But defense lawyer Russell Swartz said later, “I’m having to talk to him and divert him all the time. His hands are always shaking.”
Greg Gaul’s first main witness from the trio of co-conspirators was Norman Daniels. On December 8, 2000, he sat down for a long and grueling round of testimony. At least in Daniels, Gaul had an eager and articulate witness. Dressed in a blue jail-issued jumpsuit and ankle shackles, Daniels began his testimony with no deal in place from the DA’s office. In fact, he was still looking at the death penalty for his own actions in the murder of Carole Garton. Only Norman Daniels knew for sure why he was doing this high-wire act without a net.
Gaul—Why are you in custody?
Daniels—I’m being accused of first-degree murder, of lying in wait. Monetary gain. Double murder. Use of a firearm in the commission of a homicide.
Gaul—Since you are in custody, I assume that you have an attorney?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Gaul—And who is that attorney?
Daniels—Richard Maxion.
Gaul—At this time have you pled guilty to any charges against you?
Daniels—No, sir. I have entered a plea of not guilty.
Gaul—All right. And are you prepared to proceed to testify without your attorney being present here in court?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Gaul—Do you understand that what you say in this courtroom, and in this trial, could be used against you in some future prosecution? Daniels—Yes, I do.
In a clear voice Norman Daniels answered all of Greg Gaul’s questions that dealt with first meeting Todd Garton at Shasta College in 1993 and Garton’s claims of being in the IRA, a marine and a DEA sniper, plus being an assassin for The Company. He also told of receiving the package from Todd Garton’s hands with instructions to kill Carole Garton. Daniels told how he had saved the wax seal from the package, a seal that bore the imprint of Todd Garton’s Navy SEAL pin. Daniels then uttered the phrase “I’m a trusting person. For example, if you told me you had a million dollars in the bank, I wouldn’t ask for your bank statement. It’s a fault, I guess.”
Gaul asked Norman Daniels how he felt when he realized that the person in the photo with her head circled was Carole Garton. Daniels replied, “Terrible.”
Gaul then asked, “But you were still going through with this?”
Daniels answered, “I felt I was in a corner. Because of the documents stating that if I didn’t complete my mission, that I could end up dead.”
He told of being constantly in fear for his life and the threats hanging over his son. He constantly asked The Company for help and they gave him none. Rather, each new request was answered by a response to accomplish his mission or become a “liability.”
During a break from the courtroom proceedings, both Greg Gaul and Russell Swartz were quoted by a reporter for the Record Searchlight outside the court, and it caused discomfort for both of them the next day. To stave off any implications of impropriety, they both had a meeting with Judge Boeckman.
Gaul—There was an article in the newspaper this morning that both Mr. Swartz and I are quoted, so I’ll hit on it. The article quotes me as saying in reference to Norman Daniels—it says that I said, “I think he wants to tell the truth.” Says that I said that outside the courtroom. And I probably did say that. I don’t have any reason to disbelieve the reporter, although she wasn’t taking notes. But she was hounding me all the way down the stairs, asking me all kinds of questions about whether Norman Daniels had some kind of deal to testify. What’s he getting out of this? Has he pled? And I kept saying, “No, no, I can’t talk to you.” And finally I just, out of frustration, said to her, “I think he just wants to tell the truth.” Something like that. And again told her I really couldn’t talk to her. So she again called me at my office later; she was asking questions about the testimony and I said I’m not going to talk to you about the testimony. And generally my policy is when I’m in trial on any case, I will talk about procedural matters, but I will not talk about testimony or witnesses. And Mr. Swartz has to take a hit, too. I’m a little concerned about his quotes in the paper. He stated, regarding Mr. Daniels, “He’s a sleazy, little, lying murderer. We noted the friendship ended when he unloaded five rounds into his friend’s wife.” The Holman family and Griffiths family have not talked to the press. Even though I’m sure the press has been trying to get statements from them.
Boeckman—Do we have any reason to believe that Mr. Garton’s family is conducting themselves any differently than the victim’s family in terms of avoiding talking to the press? Gaul—Yes. Mrs. Garton, Patricia Garton—well, there was a news reporter filming her. And Mrs. Garton was stating that I made several errors in my opening statement. I think she made a comment about her son’s innocence and a comment about what a great daughter-in-law Carole Garton was.
Swartz—I was misquoted [in the newspaper]. I did not use the word “sleazy.” “Sniveling,” I think, was the appropriate word. Sounded like she [the reporter] weaves some statements in with her own observations. Boeckman—Well, Mr. Gaul is not asking for a gag order, or any other kind of order. He’s asking, I think, for the exercise of discretion on what’s said to reporters on the off chance some juror may inadvertently see something in the paper. And I think that’s appropriate.
With all of that out of the way, Norman Daniels continued testimony, which was very emotional and potent. He spoke of how he felt more and more ensnared by The Company, and that if he didn’t act, either he or his son would be killed. It did become a matter of kill or be killed in his mind. He told of how Todd Garton bought the murder weapon at Jones Fort and of Garton’s continued insistence that Daniels kill Carole or he would bring the wrath of Colonel Sean down on all of them.
When Daniels told of the actual murder, he was shaking and crying on the stand.
Gaul—Did you make a decision that you were going to shoot her?
Daniels—Yes, I did.
Gaul—Tell me what happened.
Daniels—I said, “Now or never” in my mind. As I was talking to her about Jack the dog, I was contemplating on what I was about to do. And I thought about my son. I thought about my life and family, and I said, “You know. I’ve got to do this or I’ve got to die.” Because I really seriously thought I was a dead man. So I did it. Gaul—What’s the first thing you did?
Daniels—I turned around and at that point I knew that I could get to the pistol without her knowledge. It was in my hand. I turned and I fired at her.
Gaul—Okay. Where did you shoot first?
Daniels—I shot her in the head.
Gaul—Do you remember what part of the head?
Daniels—I thought I hit her above the left eye. Gaul—Was she looking at you?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Gaul—When you fired the first shot, what did she do?
Daniels—She covered her face.
Gaul—With what?
Daniels—Both of her hands. She crossed her hands over her face.
Gaul—Then what did you do? Just tell me what happened next.
Daniels—She was still moving. I didn’t want her to suffer. So I continued to fire. I shot at her torso. I was aiming for the heart. As she was on the ground, I fired at her head again and then I shot at her torso. And then the fifth shot at her head. I even cocked the pistol again and re-aimed to make sure she was dead. Gaul—So you pulled the trigger a sixth time? Daniels—Yes, sir.
Gaul—What was going through your mind when you were doing that? Daniels—I wasn’t thinking. I can’t explain.
By the time Norman Daniels was through with this portion of testimony, he was shaking and sobbing. So were Carole Garton’s friends and family members in the courtroom.
In another section of the testimony, concerning the attempt on the life of Dean Noyes, Greg Gaul and Norman Daniels got tangled up in semantics and confused. In trying to extract themselves from this, Greg Gaul became amused and laughed. He then said, “I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be laughing.”
As soon as Gaul said this, Todd Garton yelled from the defense table, “He’s just a murderer! Why don’t you go ahead and laugh!”
There was a moment of stunned silence in the courtroom before Judge Boeckman brought his gavel down and signaled, “Order in the courtroom.”
He then said, “Mr. Garton, this is not the time for you to speak. Don’t speak again.”
After this outburst, while the jury was out of hearing, Judge Boeckman addressed the counselors and Todd Garton. “Mr. Garton, it’s not going to work for you to speak out in these circumstances again. When you get to speak, sir, if you choose to and only then, is when you take the witness stand and are subject to cross-examination. And I don’t want to have to make any comments to you to cause you not to behave like that in front of the jury. So that’s why I’m addressing you in this way now. I want you to exercise self-control. Understood?”
Russell Swartz spoke for Todd. He said, “Mr. Garton asked me before the break to apologize.”
Judge Boeckman replied, “That’s fine. Frankly, one of the reasons I’m saying what I am, Mr. Garton, is making it clear on the record that you’ve been warned.”
After Todd’s outburst, it was time for the defense’s turn to cross-examine Norman Daniels. And they did so by trying to portray him to the jury as a liar who was under the spell of Lynn Noyes. That was the reason he attempted to kill Dean Noyes. And it was the reason he actually killed Carole Garton. Lynn wanted her murdered, and Norman Daniels was like a lovesick puppy dog, ready to do anything she demanded, including murder.
James Pearce did the actual questioning of Norman Daniels’s and he hit on Daniels’s initial lying to police during the interviews.
Pearce—Do you recall how many interviews you had with the police?
Daniels—Several.
Pearce—The police would come in and talk to you several times about the evidence in the case, over a period of two years?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce—So after May of 1998, you never lied about anything to the police?
Daniels—No, sir.
Pearce—Now to your conversations of May 1998, did you tell them about Todd’s involvement in these matters?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce—But you lied in those initial conversations. Was that in relationship to Lynn Noyes?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce—So, they would ask you a question whether or not Ms. Noyes was involved and you said, “No.”
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce tried to make it appear that Norman Daniels was trying to protect the real mastermind behind all the plots—Lynn Noyes. In furtherance of Noyes’s schemes, Pearce questioned Daniels about using Todd Garton’s computer.
Pearce—So, at some point in time you had written down Todd Garton’s Internet password?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce—If I understand the Internet correctly, you could take one of Mr. Garton’s screen names, take his password and get on-line from your home?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce—In fact, you could get on-line from anywhere you had a computer?
Daniels—No, not necessarily.
Pearce—Okay. Why not necessarily?
Daniels—Because unless you have the AOL software, you could not access AOL.
Pearce—Assuming you had AOL software, you could access Mr. Garton’s computer with his secret name and password wherever you were at?
Daniels—Yes, sir.
Judge Boeckman later asked Pearce where he was going with all this. Pearce answered, “This individual [Daniels] can and, in fact, does have enough expertise in the operation of computers that he can go in and create accounts, use other people’s passwords to get on the Internet and re-forward messages back and forth without too much difficulty. A majority of all information, outside of what this witness claims, is direct conversations with Mr. Garton via the Internet. And a person’s ability to use the Internet is going to be highly critical in this case.
“I would indicate to the court, at least in jailhouse interviews, Mr. Daniels believed himself to be somewhat of a computer expert. I also believe that eventually in testimony, it was Mr. Daniels who established the AOL Internet accounts at Mr. Garton’s house profusely during the course of events. E-mail messages that are attributed to Mr. Garton. We already know that he has Mr. Garton’s password at his house. This individual’s expertise, along with a co-conspirator’s, has a tremendous amount to do with the amount of guilt or innocence in this case.”
Soon after this discussion with the judge, Pearce asked Daniels about why he saved the gun. It was an act so flagrant that Pearce wondered if Daniels had done it to try and build an insanity plea if he ever got caught. It would seem that no sane person would keep the gun around his house in plain sight.
Pearce—Why did you save the gun?
Daniels—After I committed the murder, I really just didn’t feel like trying to pick up anything. I had done something terrible, despicable, and I was not happy with myself. Otherwise, I would have done differently.
Pearce—But if my memory is correct, you went home and cleaned the gun after the murder? Daniels—Yes, sir.
Pearce—And the purpose of cleaning the gun was what?
Daniels—I don’t know, Mr. Pearce. I was not in my right mind.
Pearce—The fact that you were not in your right mind, did that occur to you after you had read the documents on temporary insanity, duress and coercion?
Daniels—No, sir.
Pearce—So, you weren’t thinking about preserving evidence when you were cleaning your gun?
Daniels—I wasn’t thinking of anything.
Pearce—Then why . . .”
Daniels—Other than to get drunk, get out of my house.
Pearce—Outside of the fact that you had just put five shots into Mrs. Garton, were you thinking about anything else besides going out, eating and getting drunk, when you were cleaning the gun?
Daniels—The action of putting five bullets in Mrs. Garton was going over and over in my head continually. I did not have any conscious effort of trying to pick up my mess.
The next high-profile witness in the trial was Lynn Noyes. Dressed in a dowdy jail jumpsuit, she hardly looked like a temptress who could incite men to murder. Greg Gaul took Noyes through all the different details of her connection with the plot to kill Dean Noyes. And once again the jury was able to hear only what was placed upon the field of testimony. Other factors were debated outside of their hearing and decided in what direction the trial would go. The rules of law were the conduit of the “truth,” but unlike concrete walls, these conduits were always fluid and open to interpretation.
Much of Todd Garton’s trial depended on the admission of e-mails as corroborating proof to witnesses’ statements. And Greg Gaul argued that the pager Todd Garton had given Lynn Noyes was just as important. Some of the messages related to The Company. Others related to her code names, such as Josephine. Greg Gaul told Judge Boeckman, “What I’m trying to show is more than just a friendship between these two. It’s a much greater relationship.”
Judge Boeckman answered, “Okay. Is it your belief when she looks at the message, her memory will be refreshed and she will be able to say that this document reflects messages that she sent to the defendant?”
Russell Swartz jumped in and said, “Your Honor, this is a charade. I think everybody knows it. What she’s doing—she’s been shown the message outside of court. She’s going to be shown the message again. She’s simply going to say, ‘Yeah, that’s right.’ This is two years ago she saw the messages. We don’t know if they were recorded by Mr. Garton or not. I submit it’s not appropriate.”
Boeckman—Do the documents reflect any messages sent by her?
Swartz—No.
Gaul—No, because they are just messages transmitted to his pager. He either calls her back or doesn’t.
Boeckman—But this document wouldn’t show whether he called her back or not, would it?
Gaul—No. But I don’t believe that’s relevant. It’s also in these documents where Norman Daniels indicated, “All done. Going home.” There is a reference to the flight to come to Redding for the memorial ceremony. And where they were talking in circles because the defendant was concerned that his phone was tapped. All I can do is show her the records, and have her explain why did you send that message. What was the meaning behind it. And some of the messages have enough specific relevance, either to the conspiracy or the relationship with Todd Garton—that’s all I’m trying to show.
Boeckman—Okay. It seems to me, the ones that are sent by this witness, that they are admissible as far as hearsay exception under 1223. Swartz—She did not put this in the machine. The procedure was that she would call a telephone number, say something that someone else would put in the computer.
Gaul—The company that has the records can’t do that. Their purpose is to receive these calls and transmit them to the person that’s being requested.
Boeckman—Then I think you can have her testify to statements she made in furtherance of the conspiracy, which she transmitted or tried to transmit by way of calling the pager number. That’s her direct testimony . . . In other words, she can’t be shown a document and say, “See this? Is that the message you sent?” Because then she’s just reading the document that’s coming into evidence without any other foundation than from the custodian of the records.
Swartz—Your Honor, I’m sorry. It’s a scam. They have shown her documents outside of the court. She is going to be given the documents. She is going to state she can’t remember them. Then they will show her the document and she reads it off.
Boeckman—Well, I understand that’s your position, Counsel. I don’t agree. I think the law permits Mr. Gaul to do what he says he’s going to do. With the understanding, Mr. Gaul, you need to exhaust present recollection before you even show this document. And then only show a redacted portion.
After this exchange Judge Boeckman made an interesting remark about this case in general. He said, “The extent I seem critical of you attorneys, I don’t mean to be. These are pretty unique evidentiary issues. It’s not the kind of thing you guys see everyday. It’s certainly not the kind of thing I see every day.”
One such point of unique evidence was when Lynn Noyes had her screen name’s profile changed by Todd Garton. Greg Gaul wanted it into evidence, and Russell Swartz argued there was no relevance. But Gaul argued, “It shows that he doesn’t have any problem accessing profiles, moving around in the computer, manipulating things that other people have done. And manipulating people. It’s all a control thing to him. I mean, that’s Todd Garton.”
These arguments over evidence even came down to photographs and tattoos. Greg Gaul said about one of Lynn Noyes’s tattoos, “I believe she would testify that she wanted to add the words ‘But not the same,’ [to her tattoo that declared ‘One’]. It would go along with the song ‘One’ by U2. And it would also go along with the defendant’s tattoo which says, ‘One but not the same.’ Just another way to show this connection. This strong connection between the defendant and Miss Noyes.”
Swartz argued back: “Your Honor, what this witness in her mind intended to do at some future date is not part of a conspiracy. It has no relevance to anything that is before the court in this trial.”
And then the topic came up about the life insurance policy she had taken out on Dean Noyes, just before she was arrested. Greg Gaul wanted this admitted into evidence to show that Lynn Noyes had plans to use it and be with Todd Garton after Dean was dead. He said it was a very strong indicator about how far she was willing to go to be with him.
Gaul—The relevance is that if Dean was killed, she would share that money, or commingle it, with Todd Garton if they got together at some point after the murder.
Swartz—Her intention in this case is irrelevant.
Gaul—I think her intent is relevant, because she’s one of the co-conspirators. She’s going to testify at some point that the defendant was attempting to help her move to Shasta County after Carole was murdered.
Boeckman—Well, it would be relevant if you were prosecuting Ms. Noyes. Whether it is relevant to Mr. Garton, I think would relate whether or not he was aware of what her intentions were.
Gaul—I believe he was. I believe her testimony will be he wanted some money for killing Dean Noyes. Like maybe a husband and wife who would share the money. I suppose I could go the opposite way and ask her what knowledge, if any, the defendant had of that money. Maybe that would be a better way to approach it.
Greg Gaul questioned Lynn Noyes extensively about The Anarchist Cookbook, which she had kept for Todd Garton. And in his questioning he proved more and more how romantically tied to Todd Garton, Lynn Noyes was. But in some ways it was a double-edged sword. He showed how she might have become tied to the conspiracy, but it also gave the defense ammunition to show how obsessed and unbalanced Lynn was when it came to Todd and how she could have cooked up schemes and murderous plots without his knowledge. Everything that Greg Gaul presented as evidence, and everything Lynn Noyes said, could be approached from a different angle on redirect.
Everything in a trial of this magnitude is a potential train wreck waiting to happen, and even the most trivial incident, if construed the wrong way, can lead to a mistrial. Such an incident occurred on January 3, 2001. While Greg Gaul was in a courthouse rest room, a juror spoke to him. This was strictly off limits.
Gaul reported it to Judge Boeckman and said, “When I went down to the rest room during the break, one of the jurors came in and said to me, ‘Did you have a nice Christmas?’ And I said, ‘I can’t talk to you, sorry.’ I would request you advise all the jurors that counsel cannot talk to them. We can’t even acknowledge them. I don’t want you to focus on any particular juror or embarrass him.”
Judge Boeckman asked Swartz, “Any comment from the defense?”
Swartz replied, “What can I say?”
Judge Boeckman said, “I don’t think there’s any need to identify the juror. I think it’s harmless.”
Nonetheless, Judge Boeckman did speak with the jurors when they came back. He did it in a way not to embarrass any specific juror by telling all of them they couldn’t speak with any counsel, no matter how trivial the subject. He said, “There was a harmless incident that happened moments ago in the rest room, where one of the jurors came in contact with one of the attorneys and basically said, ‘Did you have a nice Christmas?’ That’s harmless, but it reminds me to remind you folks that that kind of conversation has to be avoided because if somebody else were to see such a conversation and not be able to hear it, they might jump to the wrong conclusion that it’s an inappropriate communication. And so, out of an abundance of caution, let me remind you jurors that you cannot talk, even so much as to pass pleasantries of the day or anything of that nature, with these attorneys or parties or witnesses. And I know that’s uncomfortable when you’re in a close proximity to one of these persons I’ve named. It’s not the natural thing for you to say nothing and to ignore one another. Nonetheless, that’s what you must do.”
But incidents kept arising in the case and had to be addressed with an “overabundance of caution,” as Judge Boeckman pointed out. Greg Gaul brought to his attention that Ellie Smith, a reporter for KRCR-TV, had told him that Todd Garton wanted to be interviewed by her. Not knowing what was legal, she went to Gaul with Garton’s request.
Gaul told Judge Boeckman, “Obviously, I have concerns about that, if he starts talking about the case. She didn’t know what to do. She didn’t want to do anything that might cause problems for the case. So I told her I would bring it to your attention. I’m concerned about anybody in the case in any way talking about the facts, or their feelings about the case. I have no idea what Mr. Garton wanted to do. I can only surmise it.”
Boeckman—Mr. Pearce. Mr. Swartz. Any response?
Swartz—I’m thinking about something over steak and wine. No response, Your Honor. Boeckman—Well, I think I need to do something other than just silence from the defense. Do you have any knowledge one way or the other, Mr. Swartz, about whether this occurred? Swartz—Personal knowledge? No. But there wouldn’t be any violation of any rules.
Boeckman—Not that I’m aware of.
Swartz—My client has contemplated talking to various people in the media. This wouldn’t cause any problems because jurors aren’t going to read or watch it anyway.
Gaul—Regardless of whether the jurors are going to read it, or intend to read it, or listen to it, accidents happen. And I’m doing my best not to do anything that would prejudice anybody in this case.
Boeckman—Well, as you know, Mr. Gaul, I just give wings to my imagination here in terms of what I can and cannot do in terms of restraining parties from doing various things. I need some authority to suggest that I have the ability to prevent the defendant from doing that, or prevent the media from publishing the latter.
Gaul—Okay. Well, unfortunately, I don’t have time to do that. I’m just bringing it to the court’s attention. If Mr. Garton wants to talk to the press, I guess that’s his business.
Boeckman—Right. And I’m not an expert in the law of prior restraints, First Amendment rights, and probably not going to become one in the next hour or two. So, I think members of the media have to use their good judgment. I’m generally not in favor of gag orders of any type.
With that said, Judge Boeckman once again instructed the jurors not to read newspapers, listen to the radio or watch television when there might be any accounts of the ongoing trial. And the trial did go forward with questions to Lynn Noyes about her relationship with Todd Garton over the years, her discontent with Dean Noyes and the elaborate plans to have Dean killed. Greg Gaul even asked how her children and parents were supposed to be protected when Lynn Noyes went to the hospital with Dean while Todd, Norman and Dale were all up in Gresham with guns. Her answer that he would know she and Dean were gone, because the Bronco was gone, was flimsy at best.
Gaul also asked her about all of her communications with Todd Garton and Norman Daniels via e-mails, pagers and telephone. Her responses were pretty much in line with what Norman Daniels had said. Greg Gaul was happy with her testimony for the most part.
But there was always something that could throw the trial off track. And it happened in another trivial way, which could have been devastating if it had gone on too long, undetected. Judge Boeckman happened to look over toward the jurors and noticed that one of them, Juror #5, had her eyes closed. It appeared to him that she was sleeping. Just how long she had been sleeping was anyone’s guess. Judge Boeckman called a recess. If this had been a pattern with Juror #5, there would be big problems.
With all of the other jurors out of the courtroom, Judge Boeckman asked Juror #5 to stay in the courtroom along with Gaul, Swartz and Pearce. Then he said, “I’m not trying to dehumanize you by not using your name. Hopefully, you will recall the reason we’re doing that so the court reporters don’t have to work overtime to delete jurors’ names from the record. The reason I asked you to remain is because I noted at least on one of the questions and answers asked of this witness in the afternoon session, not too many minutes ago, you appeared to me to be asleep. And I’m not saying that to criticize you. But I need to find out if you missed much of the testimony and if you have difficulty in staying awake.”
Juror #5 responded, “There is, like, about two sentences that I missed. I wasn’t actually asleep. My eyes were closed. I wasn’t really listening to two of the sentences that were asked. But I remember hearing the response.”
Judge Boeckman said, “Okay. You know it’s difficult for me, and probably others, to tell the difference when someone simply has their eyes closed and when someone is asleep. It’s probably important that you not only be awake, but that you manifest that.” Then he told her, “I’m going to ask you to step outside for a moment so I can discuss this with counsel.”
When she was gone, Judge Boeckman asked everyone for their opinion.
Russell Swartz said, “I think the court probably handled it as well as it could be handled. And I don’t know that there is anything we can do about it at this point.”
The others agreed.
With another procedural bullet dodged, Greg Gaul went on with his questioning of Lynn Noyes. And he reached a critical point about the label maker, one of the few physical items that tied Todd Garton to the conspiracy.
Gaul—Have you seen that object before?
Noyes—Yes, I have.
Gaul—What is that object?
Noyes—It’s that little computer thing that Todd had retrieved out of his residence and threw in the river.
Gaul—Is there anything different in the photograph than when you saw Todd Garton throw it in the river?
Noyes—Yeah.
Gaul—What’s the difference?
Noyes—It’s waterlogged. It has dirt and sediment in it. A portion of it is missing. The tape isn’t in it and it’s all banged up.
Then she told of Todd saying to her at the time that if the “little computer thing” was ever found, he would go to prison for a long time.
On cross-examination Russell Swartz pounded away on Lynn Noyes’s credibility. And he got to a point where he wanted to get his own evidence in just as much as Greg Gaul had sought to have his introduced. Much of this evidence had to do with Lynn Noyes’s sex life, and one of the areas of contention boiled down to her tattoo. Greg Gaul had tried linking it to Todd Garton, but Swartz had a whole new angle. It concerned the tattoo and how Lynn Noyes controlled people, including her lesbian lover, Natalya .
Swartz—Your Honor, it’s our contention that this lady [Lynn Noyes] is controlling people. She’s controlling Todd; she’s controlling Norm Daniels; she’s controlling her husband by using sex. It’s a common element from the time she starts the relationship with Todd Garton to everybody she’s had contact with and that she strings them along. She gets them to do what she wants them to do by the use of sexual favors, sexual contact, innuendos—and the same thing happens with Natalya. She’s [Lynn’s] admitted she’s engaged in a homosexual relationship with Natalya and the evidence is going to show that this is an ongoing relationship and it’s going to relate to the tattoo. It’s going to relate as well to Natalya’s name in a number of communications. She is using her association with this lady and we have a right to explore it.
Gaul—I don’t see the relevance. All we have is an assertion of this. I’m not sure that there’s any evidence to support it. Swartz—Support what?
Gaul—Support your claim that she’s manipulating people with sex. There is relevance of her relationship with Norman Daniels and others in this case. But not with those parties. Boeckman—First of all, Natalya has been put in issue and the use of her name. Apparently, Mr. Swartz has a theory. I think the witness’s relationship with co-conspirators, her husband, are clearly at issue, including the sexual nature of their relationship. I also hear Mr. Gaul when he says so far that’s just your assertion, Counsel. And before I conclude that somebody’s alleged homosexual relationship is admissible, I’d want more than just an assertion. In other words, not that she had the relationship, but that she’s manipulative and uses sex to manipulate people and that the relationship with Natalya is proof of that.
Swartz—That’s why we’re bringing it up. They put the issue of her tattoo in. They put in the issue of Natalya. We’re going to show the relationship between Natalya and that tattoo and what the tattoo really means—that it’s linked to a homosexual relationship.” Gaul—Quite honestly, what I think is they’re hoping to assassinate this witness’s character because they know that this Natalya isn’t willing to come to California and testify. And that we’re not going to be able to bring Natalya here and help establish what the true nature of their relationship is and that she would not consider Lynn Noyes to be manipulative. And that’s my good-faith belief.
Boeckman—I don’t think your offer of proof is complete, Mr. Swartz. Mr. Gaul has his theory about the tattoo. You have yours. But I haven’t heard what it is.
Swartz—The yin and yang association of male/ female refers to her sexual nature. The tattoo was actually paid for by Natalya. She has previously stated to police officers that she does have this relationship. She had previously stated to police officers that Dean was okay with it. We have the right to argue the implications of that. It shows a whole lot of different meanings to that tattoo than what she’s tried to give in direct testimony.
Boeckman—(turning to Greg Gaul) I think what I have to do, Counsel, is your case relies very significantly on circumstantial evidence. And there are inferences you want the jury to take on certain evidence. And I’ve allowed you to put that evidence in because I think it’s probative. The defense is entitled to try and develop theirs. And although I think the court has a duty to avoid inappropriately assassinating the character of any witness, I’m mindful of the fact this witness is not the victim. It’s not a case where the defense is trying to taint the victim herself in such a way that jurors think the crime less significant or something of that nature. We have a co-conspirator, a person who’s admitted her involvement in a murder. The fact she was engaged in a homosexual relationship, if that’s brought out, I don’t think is greatly prejudicial to your case. It may be uncomfortable for the witness, but in terms of her credibility, I don’t feel the same way that you do about it. What I do feel is that I’m going to permit the evidence.
This contention that Lynn Noyes used sex to manipulate everyone around her became the focal point of Russell Swartz’s defense of Todd Garton. He portrayed Lynn Noyes as the mastermind of all the plots of murder. And sex was her weapon. Swartz said, “We’re trying to show that this lady is into sex, uses sex to achieve her goals and, specifically in this particular murder, was doing just that, controlling parties. We contend that she may be running the show and she uses her sexual favors because it’s part of her basic character. She is very blatant about it in the use of the number sixty-nine. She knows what it means.”
This whole sexual side of Lynn Noyes really heated up the debate about admitting evidence between Russell Swartz and Greg Gaul when the topic of her episode of the hot tub came up. Swartz argued, “The testimony of Bill Johnson indicated that he and Todd, Lynn and an unknown female, were together for a sexual rendezvous in a hot tub. And that there was a contemplation of switching partners. More, what we’re trying to do is show, and this is only one element of it, that this girl, when she was sixteen years old, fixated on Mr. Todd Garton. We intend to show that she was a groupie. She has maintained this illogical, pathological fixation on Mr. Garton from the age of sixteen, through several relationships, up to and including the murder. That this was the motivation for her involvement in the attempted murder of her husband and murder of Carole Garton. She was the one with motivation for it.”
Swartz also brought up the fact that Norman Daniels had become her tool for murder, by his own obsession with her and her manipulating of him by sexual means. He said, “She assumed the name Pandoora sixty-nine. And that is exactly what she is doing with Mr. Daniels in the chat room. It explains the type of relationship she had with Mr. Daniels, which is relevant to why Mr. Daniels did things that he did.”
Judge Boeckman finally ruled on all of this by saying, “Counsel, I previously ruled on the source ideas based on the people’s theory of this case. From books, movies, et cetera. And I feel comfortable letting the defense do the same thing with Miss Noyes. Keep it within reason, though, Mr. Swartz.”
Russell Swartz answered, “I’ll try. I’m not getting the same level of active cooperation from this witness as the district attorney did. But I didn’t expect that. It will get worse tomorrow.”
Worse it did get, when Lynn Noyes said she often couldn’t remember certain conversations or evidence. She claimed she had nothing to do with the murder of Carole Garton, but she could only run so far from her involvement in the plot to kill Dean Noyes.
Swartz—Did you want Dean killed?
Noyes—Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Swartz—On the occasion that you say that an attempt was made to kill Dean, did you help in it?
Gaul—Objection, overbroad and vague.
Boeckman—Sustained.
Swartz—Do you consider yourself a murderer?
Gaul—Objection, it’s argumentative.
Boeckman—Sustained.
Swartz—You’re a liar, aren’t you?
Gaul—Well, I’m going to object. It’s argumentative.
Boeckman—Sustained.
Swartz—Since the police first contacted you back in June of 1998, have you lied to them?
Noyes—Yes.
Swartz—Did you lie to Dean?
Noyes—Yes.
Swartz—Did you lie to Todd?
Noyes—Yes.
Swartz—Did you lie to the deputy district attorney Greg Gaul?
Now Lynn Noyes was in tricky territory. If she agreed she had been lying to the DA’s office, her plea bargain could be out the window and she could be facing death penalty charges or life in prison.
Noyes—It really kind of narrows down to the date.
Swartz—I’m not asking about time, I mean a reference about a document you signed. At that time had you decided that you were actually going to tell the truth?
Noyes—I can’t pinpoint if that was the specific time.
Swartz—Did you lie at all to this jury?
Noyes—No, sir.
Swartz—So, at some time you decided to tell the truth. When was that?
Noyes—Sometime between 1998 to the current time.
In another interesting exchange during her testimony, Lynn Noyes told how she still felt about Todd Garton, even though he was very involved in her present predicament.
Q.—Did you love him?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you care for him still?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Why do you still love him?
A.—The Bible says we have to love everyone.
Q.—Do you feel that you are in custody right now and facing prison because of the defendant?
A.—Yes.
Q.—But that doesn’t change your feelings about him?
A.—On some levels, yes, it does.
Q.—But not on all levels?
A.—Not on a basic human level.
Q.—Is it hard to testify against him in this case?
A.—It’s not easy.
Lynn Noyes was a difficult witness for both sides, but nothing compared to the person up next on the witness stand—Dale Gordon. Gordon was completely agitated like some windup toy out of control. He was initially all right until he looked down from the stand and saw Todd Garton. When asked if he saw the defendant in the courtroom, he grimaced and answered, “I don’t really even want to look at him.”
Pearce objected by saying, “Nonresponsive.”
Gordon growled, “Yes, he’s there.”
According to the Record Searchlight reporter, “When deputy marshals brought Gordon into the courtroom, his hair was rumpled and he had a vacant look. He answered the initial questions calmly. When Deputy District Attorney Greg Gaul asked the witness to identify Garton, Gordon’s demeanor immediately changed. His face twitched with anger.”
Gordon kept glaring at Todd Garton as he answered Greg Gaul’s questions. When the question came up as to what rank Gordon held in the marines, he yelled at Garton, “I was a corporal!” This was an obvious reference to the fact that Todd Garton had lied to him about being a lieutenant in the marines. On the question of Garton’s honesty, Gordon said, “Oh, he told all sorts of lies.” Then Dale Gordon responded that he believed him at the time because one marine was not supposed to lie to another.
Gordon talked mainly about the attempt on the life of Dean Noyes rather than the murder of Carole Garton. He testified in detail about the assassination attempt in Oregon and blamed Todd for his present troubles. He clearly said that Todd Garton was the ringleader of the plot and controlled himself, Norm Daniels and Lynn Noyes.
All during the testimony, Dale Gordon’s eyes kept shifting back toward Todd Garton sitting at the defense table. Greg Gaul twice told Gordon to look at him and not at the defendant. But angry glares were nothing compared to one of Dale Gordon’s responses during cross-examination. Pearce was trying to prove that Gordon had a vendetta against Garton and was lying about him in police documents and in court.
Pearce—You had several meetings with the district attorney in relationship to your testimony?
Gordon—Yes, I have. I have tried to give all the truth and nothing but the truth. I have tried to provide a lot of evidence.
Pearce—You discussed basically how you would testify and what you would testify to?
Gordon—Yes.
Pearce—When you were having visitors at the jail, do you remember having a conversation with Jim Gordon, who is your father, that you testified you had to be a credible witness?
Gordon—Yes.
Pearce—What did you mean “credible witness”? Gordon—Telling the truth.
Pearce—Did you also indicate to your father that if you came through with your testimony, it could help yourself?
Gordon—Perhaps. I don’t remember.
Pearce—Also at one of the visits at the jail, you told your parents that you were going to devastate Mr. Garton in court. Is that correct? Gordon—Perhaps. I have been very angry. Pearce—What did you mean by “devastate”? Gordon—By telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But he told a lot of lies. It hurt real bad. I’m telling the whole truth.
And then Dale Gordon turned directly toward Todd Garton and yelled, “I know it hurts, doesn’t it, Todd!” As he said this, he gave Garton the finger.
It happened so quickly, everyone was caught by surprise. Nothing was done about it immediately, but it certainly became an issue at the next recess.
Swartz—I just think the record should reflect that during that one portion of the testimony, the witness made a hand sign to Mr. Garton. Boeckman—I can’t articulate exactly what the witness did, Mr. Swartz, because I only saw it out of the corner of my eye. It appeared he raised one hand and made a gesture toward the defense table. That’s all I saw.
Swartz—It appeared that he raised one hand with one finger uplifted toward Mr. Garton. What is commonly called “flipping the bird.” Giving the finger. A sign of some disrespect.
Gaul—Your Honor, I didn’t see it. But Detective Grashoff did. And I would say that Mr. Swartz has probably characterized it correctly. Boeckman—I can certainly say that, based on the tone of voice of the witness at the time he made the gesture, his manner of speech, it would not be inconsistent with such a gesture. So, I think that’s the best record that can be made of it. Again I don’t want to admonish the witness in front of the jury so that it creates an artificial appearance or attitude on the part of the witness.
But Judge Boeckman did admonish Dale Gordon outside the hearing of the jury. He told him to behave himself in court. Judge Boeckman said, “I want you at all times to keep yourself under control. You’re here to listen to questions and give answers.”
Just to make sure that Dale Gordon would keep himself under control, there were now three deputies and one sergeant from the marshal’s office in the courtroom. It was a wise precaution. Dale Gordon was so agitated that no one could say what he might do next, including jumping up from the witness stand and attacking Todd Garton.
The length and volatile emotions of the trial were obviously getting to everyone at this point, and Judge Boeckman had to admonish the counselors also to keep themselves under control. He said, “Somebody at the defense table, which narrows it down to one of three, remonstrated in some way to the court’s ruling. I don’t need to identify who it is. I don’t appreciate reactions to my rulings. That includes anyone. Actually, the four of you, because, Mr. Gaul, you also reacted to one of my rulings regarding something you were trying to get in. You were obviously frustrated, but it’s inappropriate. You counsel”—he turned toward Russell Swartz—“and Mr. Garton, need to control yourselves. You don’t have to like my rulings, but one way or the other, you’re going to have to accept them. I don’t want any audible reaction to them. Is that clear?”
Russell Swartz said that he understood, but he also said, “Your Honor, I’ve never been admonished to maintain a poker face. I will certainly research it.”
Judge Boeckman replied, “Let me phrase it another way, Counsel. I don’t care what kind of face you make as long as it’s not reasonable for a juror to think you’re reacting either to the court’s ruling or the testimony of a witness. Now, that seems fair to me. If you don’t agree and want to do some research, point out errors of this admonition, I’m happy to hear it. In the meantime, I want all of you to adhere to this rule.”
Greg Gaul asked, “Does this apply to the defendant? I mean, I hear Todd Garton audibly reacting to things that happen.”
Judge Boeckman said, “That’s a good question. In this circumstance, if the defendant chooses to react to testimony, I’m going to use a little bit of care before I tell him what to do by way of reaction. I’m not the trier of fact. It could be arguably appropriate for a person who is not guilty to react in some way. And I could hear a prosecutor at the end of the case telling the jury, ‘Well, you watched the defendant. He was impassive during all the testimony that he heard at trial. Is that the way an innocent person would react if somebody was on the witness stand lying about him?’ So, I feel that if he’s not disrupting me or distracting me, I probably should leave it alone.”
After this, it was back to the business of listening to Dale Gordon. And he was just as woundup as ever. Pearce tried to have Gordon admit that Norman Daniels was in love with Carole Garton—a love she did not return. And this unrequited love supposedly made Daniels very angry. This line of questioning required a break because of an objection by Greg Gaul. Judge Boeckman asked Pearce, “First of all, the statement that he [Gordon] made to the police is hearsay. And unless it is an exception, then it won’t come in.”
Pearce replied, “I intend to ask him if he ever thought Norman Daniels had any feelings toward Carole. And if he responds in the affirmative, then I’m going to ask him his impression of those feelings. And intend to go into detail.... Could be motive, Your Honor. Norman Daniels is the person that actually killed the victim. It is the district attorney that is alleging the fact there is a conspiracy in this case. Basically, it could be something as simple as Mr. Swartz pointed out, ‘If I can’t have her, he [Todd] can’t, either.’”
Pearce was able to ask some of these questions within limits. And even though Dale Gordon indicated that Norman Daniels liked Carole Garton, he didn’t indicate that Daniels loved her romantically.
The testimony of Dale Gordon was a roller-coaster ride for everyone. And even when he got off the witness stand, it didn’t mean that this trial would be ordinary by any stretch of the imagination. There were not only debates about witnesses and their testimony among the counsels, there was the debate about the inclusion of movies that jurors would see or not see. These included Patriot Games, La Femme Nikita, The Professional, The Day of the Jackal and more. Judge Boeckman had concerns that his courtroom was about to become a version of the neighborhood cineplex.
He asked, “With regards to our venture into the movie Patriot Games, where are you going with that, Mr. Gaul?”
Gaul answered, “Well, I think pretty much what I wanted to get from Mr. Daniels in that movie—that the individual worked for the CIA. He’s also a retired lieutenant, which is what the defendant’s claims were. The main IRA character in there is named Sean. He’s a member of Sinn Fein, which is the provisional wing, or the legal wing, of the Irish Republican Army. Later on in the trial, that will become part of the evidence.”
Judge Boeckman said, “Let me stop you there before we move on. What is it about the movie that caused you to think that Mr. Garton got the ideas for these names from the movie, as opposed to somewhere else?”
Greg replied, “In that movie, when the main character, Harrison Ford, receives a confidential file on this IRA group—stamped right on the outside of that folder is the name Patriot. It looks strikingly similar to the way the defendant’s business card is printed. There is another movie, and that’s the movie Sniper. Mr. Daniels has seen that movie. He now realizes some of the scenes in that particular movie are strikingly similar to what he claims the defendant made things up about. For example, there is one scene in the movie where there are two snipers. One is a marine sergeant, the other is an individual, I believe, works for the National Security Organization or the CIA. And they are in Panama to kill a reputed drug lord. During the movie these two snipers are standing up in a river area, or pond area, and sleeping while they are standing up. And Mr. Daniels realized that is just what Todd Garton claimed he had done down in South America. Also, they use the term about becoming a ‘liability.’ That if one of the snipers became a liability, the other one would have to take him out. The movies were in the defendant’s house. They tend to connect him to the words and scenes.”
Judge Boeckman ruled: “I think that the people are representing Mr. Daniels’s realization that Garton’s plotlines were very similar to fictional movies that he saw in the defendant’s residence is relevant, and I tend to agree.”
The movies were in, and the Record Searchlight reported: Harrison Ford made a cameo appearance to jurors in the Todd Garton murder trial. It also reported that during a court break, Garton quipped, “Pass the buttered popcorn, please.”
Interestingly enough, both Greg Gaul and James Pearce used the movie Patriot Games to bolster their arguments—arguments that were diametrically different in scope. Greg Gaul pointed out to the jury that Garton made numerous references to Patriot Games in characters’ names and similar scenes. Pearce, on the other hand, said that Patriot Games portrayed the Irish Republican Army in a negative light. Outside of the courtroom he told a reporter, “Patriot Games is no training film for somebody that’s supposed to be an IRA sympathizer.” He pointed out that the IRA operatives in the film were the “bad guys.”
Another movie shown by Greg Gaul was a homemade video owned by Todd Garton called Whispering Death. It was about gun silencers and how to make them. This was pertinent since a homemade silencer found in Gresham, Oregon, was attributed to Todd.
Of the whole movie business in court, Judge Boeckman said, “I looked for every way to avoid them. But I think it’s unavoidable.” Then he instructed everyone not to make any more jokes about passing the buttered popcorn.
There were other good witnesses for the prosecution, including Collin Colebank, who spoke of Todd’s rock days and his ability to “sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo.” He also spoke of Lynn Noyes’s obsessive behavior with Todd Garton and the way Todd manipulated her. He referred to her as a “bubblehead” whom none of the other band members wanted around. It seemed to him that Garton had strung her along.
Another good witness was Chuck Hawkins, who told of Todd making a fool of himself at the archery shoot and his claims of being a sniper for the U.S. Marines. “Didn’t look like a marine sniper to me,” he said. “He was about forty pounds over weight.”
Hawkins was followed by a videotape of Todd Garton as he talked to investigators on the night of Carole’s murder. In it he was caught in one lie after another, lies he had to try and counteract later. There was everything from the fact that he barely knew Norman Daniels to the fact he never had any kind of relationship with Lynn Noyes.
Finally it was the defense’s turn to call witnesses, and their first was none other than Todd Garton. In some ways it was a good choice that he took the stand. He was calm and poised and answered every question put forth to him by Russell Swartz with an easygoing and confident manner. He often looked directly at the jury as he spoke. He even smiled nostalgically while remembering Carole. Todd said, “I felt romantic about her within ten minutes of meeting her. She had short, bobbed hair, expressive green eyes. She was cute. And smart. Articulate. Funny. She had music in her soul. She wrote poetry. She had a lot of talent.”
Of course, all of Todd Garton’s testimony about what had happened contradicted that of Lynn Noyes, Norman Daniels and Dale Gordon. He said that if there was a conspiracy, it was done behind his back without his knowledge. He had a different answer for everything that the prosecution was accusing him of perpetrating. Of the February trip up to Oregon in 1998 with Dale and Norman, he said he took them along to help him sell camouflage wear. He admitted to meeting with Lynn then, but only to say hello, not to plan any sort of attempt on the life of her husband. And if Dale and Norman did anything in that regard, they did it while he was not with them.
Garton also claimed there was never any package handed to Norman Daniels; he knew nothing about some assassination organization called The Company; the wax impression that Norman Daniels kept could have come from his Navy SEAL pin, but that Norman was inside his house so often, he could have made the wax impression himself. Todd also verified that both Norman and Dale were into violent role-playing games and computer games. They often lived in a fantasy world.
Russell Swartz asked Todd Garton about the evening of May 16, 1998, when he found Carole lying on the floor of their bedroom. “I was so panicked,” he answered, “I couldn’t tell if she had a weak pulse or it was my own heart beating. When the paramedics told me she was dead, my first question was ‘What about the baby?’ ”
He acted distraught about the death of his child and often choked back tears. When asked about a certain .22 rifle that he had purchased, he grimaced and said, “That was going to be for Jesse.”
Todd Garton even managed to dance around the damning phone call that had been placed from the jail by Norman Daniels. The phone call that the investigators taped. Asked why he used the term “big boys” who would help Daniels, Todd said, “That was my father and brother. I called them ‘the big boys.’ I always have.”
Asked to explain about the fact that he offered to give Daniels money, Garton answered, “It referred to the two hundred fifty I owed him for work he did for G and G Fencing.”
And asked why he wasn’t more angry with Norman Daniels when Daniels said that he had killed Carole out of jealousy, Garton said, “I didn’t realize he was admitting to murder at the time. I was still in a state of shock.”
A curious thing happened soon thereafter—just one more incident that seemed to plague the smooth progress of this trial. Greg Gaul hurt his back before he was ready to begin the cross-examination of Todd Garton. Unable to stand, except with a great deal of pain, he was ordered by his doctor to take off a week.
“I’m not happy about it,” Gaul told reporters. “It’s not good timing, but sometimes these things just happen at the worst of times.”
Russell Swartz was sympathetic and said, “We’re all human. Things like this happen and the system has to accommodate it.”
In Gaul’s absence, Garton and the jurors got to watch more movies, including The Jackal, with Bruce Willis, Pro Sniper and Ultimate Sniper. Todd kept his mouth shut and didn’t ask for buttered popcorn during these movies.
Finally by February 21, 2001, Greg Gaul was able to return to court. And it was the moment he’d been waiting for, a chance to cross-examine Todd Garton. He pounded away on the fact that Todd was a habitual liar.
Gaul—During the police interview after your wife was killed, did you lie to the police investigators?
Garton—I was pretty messed up that day. I don’t think I lied. I think I answered to the best of my ability.
Gaul—Did you lie on a job application for the River House Inn in Bend, Oregon?
Garton—I may have exaggerated.
Gaul—When you say “exaggeration,” do you mean you lied?
Garton—Yes. It’s your word, not mine, but yes.
Bit by bit, Greg Gaul made Todd Garton admit to one lie after another. These included being a U.S. Marine lieutenant, being in the DEA and being a Butte County sheriff’s officer. He even got Todd to admit that he’d lied to the state licensing board about G and G Fencing. He had told the board it stood for Greater and Greater Fencing, when it stood for Garton and Garton Fencing. Asked why he did this, he admitted it was because he wanted to keep his father’s name off the form so he wouldn’t have to pay an extra fee for having a partner. He also admitted he paid employees under the table in cash so that he wouldn’t have to pay a workers’ compensation fee.
Gaul played the audiotape of the phone call between Norman Daniels and Todd Garton, where the investigators listened in. On the tape it was clear that Garton was upset with Daniels for confessing to the murder of Carole Garton. Yet in a videotape soon thereafter with investigators, he claimed he didn’t know that Daniels had confessed to anything. On the audiotape Daniels also asked Garton if his parents hated him for killing Carole. Garton told detectives on the videotape that he’d answered, “I said, ‘What do you think! You’re sick!’ And hung up on him.”
But on the audiotape Garton never said these things, and he and Daniels mutually said good-bye at the end of the phone call.
Asked about these discrepancies by Gaul, Garton answered, “I’m sorry that my emotions don’t match the emotions that you think I should have.”
After Todd stepped down from the stand, his mother, Pat, was just as important a witness. She was a link to the label maker and the labeling tape—one of the few physical bits of evidence that could tie Todd Garton directly to the murder of Carole Garton. From this label maker there was supposedly a little label that stated, I LOVE YOU, BABE. And Todd had allegedly asked his mother to get rid of this label.
Todd had claimed to authorities that he never owned a label maker and that Lynn Noyes’s story of them both throwing it into the Sacramento River was a lie. But a receipt from the OfficeMax in Redding proved that the electronic label maker had been purchased with a check written by Todd Garton on April 27, 1998. This was right before the time Norman Daniels claimed that Todd Garton had given him the package from The Company.
Also purchased that same day at the OfficeMax was a pager, the very same pager that Daniels claimed was in the package. Asked to explain this, Pat Garton said that she and Todd had gone to the OfficeMax that day. But Pat said the label maker was purchased for a friend of hers, a friend who had died in 1999. She said the pager had been intended for her use. She also said she had given the pager to Carole Garton to return to the store, because it wouldn’t work with the phone company with which she preferred to do business.
Not buying this story of a friend and the label maker, Greg Gaul said, “Mrs. Garton, you’ve been sitting in throughout this trial. You know that label maker is a key piece of evidence to the trial, don’t you?”
Both Pearce and Swartz objected, and they were sustained.
Gaul then asked, “Why didn’t you tell the DA’s office or police about the receipt before this?”
Pat Garton answered, “Because I think you’re tricky. I think you’re sneaky. I think you’ve lied. My son has an attorney. Anything that I would find, I would contact him first.”
Gaul asked if anyone had seen her give the label maker to the friend who had died. Pat Garton said yes, someone had, but she refused to give the name.
Greg Gaul replied, “I think you have to, ma’am.”
Pat Garton crossed her arms and mocked him, “Oh really, ma’am?”
Ordered by the court to reveal the name, she eventually did.
Further questioning by Gaul concerned the small bit of labeling that Todd wanted her to destroy. Pat Garton said that she couldn’t remember this particular conversation because she had gone to visit her son in jail almost one hundred times since 1998. And then she said she thought that bit of labeling (I LOVE YOU, BABE) actually came from a children’s sticker book, not a label maker.
All in all, Pat Garton was a difficult witness for Greg Gaul. But the end of the tunnel was in sight. The trial had gone on for three months now, with movies, outbursts and behind-the-scenes legal matters. It was finally time for closing arguments. Greg Gaul showed the jurors a timeline starting with the events of October 1997 when Todd and Dale had first gone up to Oregon. And he also flashed photographs on a large screen of a dead and bloody Carole Garton lying on the floor of her home. Among these were close-ups of Carole’s face, bruised and bloodied from a bullet lodged behind her left eye. Some of the photos were so graphic that a couple of the jurors averted their gaze.
Greg Gaul told them, “We’re here because two innocent lives were taken. It was a brutal murder. It was a hit. An assassination. It was very clear that Todd Garton didn’t want that baby. He either didn’t believe it was his or he just didn’t want the little pain around. That’s who Todd Garton is. That’s all he does—he lies. He wanted his wife dead. He wanted his baby dead. Mr. Garton didn’t even want to spend a lot of money on a murder weapon. He bought a forty-four-caliber Rossi. Less expensive than the three fifty-seven he liked or other brands. He wanted to save money when he killed his wife.”
Gaul also brought up about the hollow-point bullets Garton purchased at Jones Fort. “If Todd Garton has told you anything, it’s that he knows about guns. He knew what kind of damage these bullets would do to his wife.”
Then in a shot at Todd’s arrogance and insensitivity, Gaul said, “He even placed the picture of a Celtic cross on Carole’s memorial-service booklet. This is a slap in the face to Carole. This is a sign to Lynn—look what I did for you.”
By contrast, Russell Swartz portrayed Todd Garton as a grieving husband who had been duped by friends and set up as the fall guy. Swartz played a videotape that none of the jurors had seen up to this point. It was a police video of Todd Garton in the interview room in the days after his wife’s murder. For about five minutes he was left alone in the room with the videotape still running. Only when the investigators were gone did he break down and start crying. He stopped as soon as they came back.
Swartz told the jurors, “Remember, Todd was taught, ‘Hide your emotions. Suck it up. Don’t let your feelings show.’ ” Swartz said this was why Todd sounded so unemotional on other police video and audiotapes.
Russell Swartz depicted Norman Daniels as lovesick and pathetic, a wanna-be assassin under Lynn Noyes’s spell. According to Swartz, she had him wrapped around her little finger. Daniels may have been obsessed with her, but she was obsessed with Todd Garton. To prove his love, Daniels would do anything for her, including murder. Lynn Noyes found a target for him—Carole Garton.
Swartz said, “She was obsessed with Todd since she was sixteen years old. She even carved his initials with a razor blade on her thigh. How do you know when Lynn Noyes is lying? When she looks you in the face and says she’s telling the truth.”
Russell Swartz saved his most scathing remarks for Dale Gordon, saying that Gordon even admitted to being insane in the Shasta County jail: “He dreamed of being a superhero killer. He rewrote his own role-playing game, the World of Chaos. And he played it to a tragedy. We’re looking at a person who’s been in and out of the rubber room, and should have been there before.”
Swartz suggested various alternative theories of what had happened that differed from the one Greg Gaul presented. One theory was that when Lynn Noyes learned that Carole Garton was pregnant, she was afraid she would lose Todd forever. She assigned Norman Daniels to do the actual killing. Dale Gordon could have helped her send e-mail messages to Daniels from the fictional Colonel Sean and The Company. By his own admission, Gordon was computer savvy and had access to Todd Garton’s computer.
Swartz also ran an alternate theory by the jurors. In this one Dale Gordon was the mastermind behind all the plots. He was so obsessed with military games and assassins he decided to carry it over into real life. Swartz also contended that Norman Daniels had never received a package from Todd Garton’s hands concerning The Company. He said if the jurors looked carefully on the red wax seal, they would not notice any fibers from an envelope attached to it. Then he said, “I can’t prove them [the theories], but it’s not my responsibility to do so. If there is any reasonable doubt in this case, you must find Todd Garton not guilty.”
Since this was a capital case with special circumstances, each juror was given a handout to take to the deliberation room. It read in part, If you find Mr. Garton in this case guilty of murder, of the first degree, you must then determine if one or more of the following special circumstances are true. Murder for financial gain and multiple murder convictions. The People have the burden of proving the truth of a special circumstance. If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether a special circumstance is true, you must find it to be not true. If you find that Mr. Garton was not the actual killer of a human being, you cannot find the special circumstance to be true as to Mr. Garton, unless you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Garton aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested or assisted any actor in the commission of the murder in the first degree.
When the jury’s decision came, it came quickly. After only four hours of deliberation they found Todd Garton guilty in the murders of Carole Anne Garton and Jesse James Garton. Jury foreman Fred Castagna said, “It was pretty obvious from the beginning we were in agreement.”
The penalty phase began in March 2001. And things did not look good for Todd Garton. Russell Swartz noted that “Shasta County juries have never exercised their option to grant life in a capital case of this nature.” As a matter of fact, neither Russell Swartz nor Todd Garton ever spoke at length at his penalty phase. Instead, Swartz read a paper to the jurors that Todd had written. These words were portrayed on the same movie screen where Harrison Ford had made his appearance in Patriot Games. The sentences were a short synopsis of the case as Todd saw it:
1. Norman Daniels had killed his wife, Carole.
2. Norman Daniels had killed his son, Jesse James Garton.
3. Norman Daniels took his family from him.
4. The police took his freedom.
5. The verdict had taken his honor.
6. The only thing Todd had left was his life.
And my life is worth nothing without my family, freedom and honor, Garton wrote.
Then in a very unusual statement, coming from a defense attorney, Russell Swartz told the jurors, “You might as well kill him. He neither asks, nor does he expect more than death from you.”
Before this could really sink in, Russell Swartz did add an amendment to his remarks. He said, “Todd Garton will die in jail whether he’s sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole.”
Swartz then pointed out that a prison cell was no larger than his bathroom at home. He portrayed some slides on the screen of flowers, sunsets, beaches and mountains while telling jurors that if Todd was sentenced to life in prison, he would never see these things again.
One of the last things Russell Swartz pointed out was that Todd Garton would never be able to go back to Northern Ireland: “The area of green, green islands that were of value to him.”
Greg Gaul, on the other hand, argued for the death penalty to be implemented. He said in part, “Death should be imposed in the most extreme types of cases. This is one of those cases. He didn’t give any sympathy, compassion or mercy to his wife. He’s not deserving of your sympathy, compassion or mercy.”
Jim Holman was also there to speak for his daughter, Carole. He choked back tears as he told the jury of Carole when she was a cheerleader, musician and tennis player. He said, “I miss the joy. I miss not having her in my life. I think about her every day. She didn’t have enemies. It was such a senseless thing.”
Vicki Holman also spoke of Carole. She said, “I loved her dearly and I felt she loved me. She made me feel like a special person in her life, as she was in mine. Now I wish I hadn’t been so concerned about minding my own business when Carole announced plans to marry Todd.”
Even McGregor Scott, the district attorney of Shasta County, addressed the jury. It was a synopsis of the case and ended with the words “Without question, the murders of Carole Anne Garton and her child were particularly cruel, vicious and callous acts. One can only imagine the extreme shock, pain and suffering she experienced as she was shot five times at close range while resting on her own bed. As she gasped for the last breath of life, she was attempting to seek cover by trying to crawl under her bed. She must have been terrified during her final moments of life and unquestionably died a quick, but very painful, death. For these vicious acts Todd Garton clearly deserves the ultimate punishment—death.”
Greg Gaul tried to introduce a photo for the jury to see of the unborn baby’s wounds. But the photo was so graphic that Judge Boeckman ruled against its presentation. He called it highly inflammatory and said, “As seasoned as this court is in viewing autopsy photos, this court has a hard time not having that reaction.”
Finally when everyone else was through, Judge Boeckman told Todd Garton that he had the right to speak. He answered, “I don’t care to, Your Honor.”
It was now up to the jury of seven men and five women to decide if Todd Garton would spend the rest of his life in prison or die by lethal injection in California’s San Quentin Prison. Surprisingly, they were only in the conference room for seventy minutes. This was an extremely short amount of time for such an important decision.
As Todd Garton sat with his attorneys and stared straight ahead, the verdict was read by the jury foreman, Fred Castagna. The verdict was death. Todd Garton didn’t say a word or even flinch when the verdict was read.
Afterward, a nineteen-year-old juror, Paul Toroni, told a reporter, “A thousand other jurors in there would have come to the same conclusion. It was tough, though, to say it.”
Jury foreman Castagna agreed: “We spent most of our time trying to construct scenarios that might change the belief that Garton was guilty and deserved to die. But every time we tried, it would just fall apart.”
Castagna went on to say that the jurors felt that the fetus was the primary target, because of the window of opportunity that had been given to Norman Daniels in which to kill Carole Garton and thus the unborn baby. Todd’s plans had originally been to kill Dean Noyes, but with the advent of a baby, his target switched to Carole and he pushed Norman Daniels by all means possible to carry through on the hit.
After the verdict Russell Swartz told reporters he wasn’t surprised about the outcome. He said, “Mr. Garton received what he expected, as stated to the jury. I don’t ever like to see a person condemned to death. I don’t think anybody should enjoy seeing a person condemned to death.”
Fred Castagna had one more thing to say about all the others who had been dragged down with Todd Garton, especially Norman Daniels, Dale Gordon and Lynn Noyes. He said, “We [the jury] felt some sympathy for them. We saw Todd Garton as a puppeteer. Their lives are ruined. I felt without Todd Garton’s instigation, they wouldn’t have committed the crimes.”