McStays Episode 6: Life or Death

20/20

The McStay family murders case reaches its climax as Chase Merritt faces trial for the first-degree murder of four family members. With no d

Key takeaways

The trial hinges on circumstantial evidence due to absence of forensic proof at the crime scene.
Prosecutors emphasize Merritt's opportunity, motive, and means despite no direct physical evidence.

Main topics

Trial of Chase Merritt
Circumstantial evidence in murder cases

Notable quotes

I wanted to see him get what he's got coming to him.

It was Joseph Jr.'s car seat. It was the same car seat that I put my kids in.

Conclusion

The trial underscores the complexity of justice when direct evidence i

Transcript preview

Speaker 2 (0:00) Hi, this is Ashan Singh here with another weekly episode of our latest true crime series from 2020 in ABC Audio, What Happened to the Mixed Days? Remember, you can get new episodes weekly on Tuesdays if you follow What Happened to the Mixed Days on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you're listening now. Or you can hear the entire series right now ad-free by subscribing to 2020 True Crime Plus on Apple Podcasts. Click the link in the description to start your free trial today. Now, here's the next episode of What Happened to the Mixed Days. Speaker 4 (0:34) In ESPN's wild world of college football, every Saturday begins with a ritual. And then the migration turns to mayhem. Predators hunt. Territories are defended. Rivals clash. In this wild world, legends are unleashed on Saturdays. No one brings you closer to the wild than ESPN. College football and ESPN all season long. Witness the wild in ABC, ESPN, and the ESPN app. Speaker 2 (1:05) In 2019, more than four years after his arrest, Charles Chase Merritt was finally headed to trial. He'd been charged with killing the McStays, Joseph, Summer, Gianni, and Joseph Jr. He pleaded not guilty. Merritt would be tried at San Bernardino Superior Court, an imposing and sleek building downtown. Its shiny, reflective facade reminiscent of the waterfalls Merritt built for Joseph. It had taken more than five years from when the McStay's remains were discovered to the start of this trial, a long road for the victims' loved ones. Outside court and after a pretrial hearing, Joseph's brother Michael McStay spoke to local TV station KABC. Michael says he was confident authorities had the right guy. Speaker 1 (2:00) Finally, somebody is going to have to take responsibility for what they did to my loving family. And, you know, I want to see him get what he's got coming to him. Speaker 2 (2:12) Joseph's mother, Susan Blake, was there too. Speaker 1 (2:15) I did want to stand up and I did want Chase to look at me in the eyes. I wanted him to see us and the pain we've been through and that now we're back for justice. Speaker 2 (2:27) With Chase Merritt facing four charges of murder in the first degree, the death penalty was on the table. He was fighting for his life. Would the jury decide Merritt was the one who killed the McStays? Speaker 2 (2:45) From ABC Audio in 2020, I'm Ashton Singh, and this is What Happened to the Mixed Days, Episode 6, Life or Death. Speaker 3 (3:03) You know, we're not supposed to show our emotions. We're supposed to be professional at all times. And I almost lost it. I actually had to turn around and, like, catch my breath and take a minute. Speaker 2 (3:12) Britt Imes is a district attorney with the County of San Bernardino. He was one of the prosecutors who presented the case against Chase Merritt in court. And Imes told ABC News in an interview last year that in the nearly 30 years he's been a prosecutor, the McStay family murders was the most personal case he'd worked on as a dad. The emotion really hit him, he said, when he was questioning a crime scene specialist on the stand and put up a picture of the family's Isuzu trooper for the jury to see. Speaker 3 (3:45) It was Joseph Jr.'s car seat. It was the same car seat that I put my kids in. It was a personal connection that I don't think I ever had with any other case. Speaker 2 (3:58) For Imes, the McStay murder case stood out for another reason, too. The most difficult case in 27 years. I'm said there were several reasons the McStay case was such a difficult one. It was the nearly four-year gap between the murders and the discovery of the bodies, the multiple jurisdictions involved, the enormous amount of public interest, which generated a huge volume of tips for law enforcement to handle, and I'm said the lack of direct evidence against Merrick. Speaker 3 (4:31) We would have loved to have had an identifiable murder scene. with physical evidence, whether it be blood or fingerprints or DNA. We would have loved to have had an eyewitness. We would have loved to have had a neighbor have heard a scream in the night to at least pinpoint when it happened. I mean, I could probably go on and on. Speaker 2 (4:52) Instead, I'm said, what he and his fellow prosecutors had was highly circumstantial evidence. Facts that didn't directly link the defendant to the crime. But, they argued, taken together, painted a picture of Merritt being the one who killed the family. I'm said Merritt had a means, motive, and opportunity. Speaker 2 (5:17) At trial, Merritt's defense team argued that the state's entire case was based on confirmation bias. Defense attorneys said authorities decided Merritt was their guy, twisted facts to build a case against him, and ignored other facts that didn't fit. Raj Malin, who'd represented Merritt in court, was confident the state didn't have what they needed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Speaker 6 (5:43) This case was all doubt. In fact, there was no evidence linking Chase to the killing of this family. Speaker 2 (5:51) Here were two of the arguments he made in Merritt's defense. One, he argued there was no evidence that the murders took place in the McStays' Fallbrook house, as prosecutors alleged. And two, he argued that the vehicle leaving the home on the day the family went missing was not Merritt's truck, which prosecutors also alleged. Speaker 2 (6:15) So first, the house. Defense attorneys told the jury, if the McStays had been bludgeoned in the home, you'd expect to find a gruesome, messy scene. So, where was the blood? There was none, they argued. Not a drop, not a trace, not a speck. The state's theory of the case was that Merritt had killed the McStays at home. They argued that there was evidence at the gravesite to suggest that Summer had been home giving the boys a bath around the time the family was killed. Prosecutor Britt Imes again. Speaker 3 (6:51) There was one very distinct toddler-type bath towel with a hood that's kind of shaped like it has an animal face to it, was found in the grave. There was other bath mats and... material consistent with the bathrobe found in the grave. Speaker 2 (7:09) And as for the matter of blood, prosecutors argued Chase Merritt cleaned up the home after killing the family. They told the jury he would have had ample time to do so. Speaker 3 (7:20) Who was in control of that crime scene was the defendant. So the fact that there was no evidence located could in part be attributed to the fact that the defendant had time to clean up whatever mess he had made or hide whatever evidence he needed to. Speaker 2 (7:36) In his interview with ABC News, Imes pointed out. Speaker 3 (7:41) Unfortunately, there's no forensic evidence that says that the murder actually happened in that home. Zero forensic evidence. And we never contended that we could prove that. To the jury legally, I don't have to prove the where, when, or how. Or even necessarily the why. I just have to prove the who. Speaker 2 (8:00) And then there was the truck. Speaker 2 (8:04) Remember, it was a vehicle seen on the neighbor's security camera footage leaving the McStays home the night the family went missing. Prosecutors argued this was Merritt's boxy, white utility truck, and that it placed him at the scene of the crime. Speaker 3 (8:19) It had characteristics consistent with being Merritt's truck, including the shadows that are cast by the brake lights, the height, width, and placement of the headlights. Speaker 2 (8:32) In court, that grainy, black-and-white nine-second clip became a key piece of evidence. Attorneys played it. and dissected it over and over. Expert witnesses analyzed 3D models of Merritt's car doing a virtual drive out of the McStay's driveway, identical to the movements in the surveillance footage, to see if Merritt's car matched up. The defense's position? This wasn't Merritt's truck. They put on their own witness, an expert who was originally supposed to testify for the state, but who changed his mind and wound up testifying for the defense instead. The expert testified that based on the data he had, he couldn't conclude that the truck in the video matched Merritt's. Here's defense attorney Raj Malin. Speaker 6 (9:24) We clearly were able to show that Chase's truck was excluded. Speaker 2 (9:29) Prosecutor Britt Imes disagreed. Speaker 3 (9:31) No one could rule out that it wasn't Merritt's truck,