McStays Episode 6: Life or Death

Hi, this is Ashen Singh, here with another weekly episode of our latest True Crime series from 2020 and ABC audio. What happens to the mixed days? Remember, you can get new episodes weekly on Tuesdays. If you follow what happens to the mixed days on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or ever you're listening now. Or you can hear the entire series right now, add 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 happens to the mixed days. In 2019, more than four years after his arrest, Charles Chase Merritt was finally headed to trial. He'd been charged with killing the mixed days, Joseph, Summer, Gianni, and Joseph Jr., he'd 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 mixed days remains were discovered to the start of this trial, a long road for the victim's loved ones. Outside court, and after a pretrial hearing, Joseph's brother Michael McStay spoke to local TV station KBC. Michael says he was confident authorities had the right guy. Finally, somebody is going to have to take responsibility for what they did to my loving family. And I want to see him get what he's not coming to. Joseph's mother Susan Blake was there too. "I did want to stand up and I did want Chase to look at me in the eyes. I wanted him to see us in the pain we've been through, and that now we're back for justice." 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. With the jury decide Merritt was the one who killed the mixed days. From ABC Audio in 2020, I'm Ashin Singh. And this is what happened to the mixed days. Episode 6, Life or Death. "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 catch my breath and take a minute." Great Ims 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 Ims told ABC News in an interview last year, and in the nearly 30 years he's been a prosecutor. The mixed-day 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, he put up a picture of the family's Asusa trooper from the jury to see. 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. For Ims, the mixed-day murder case stood out for another reason too. "The most difficult case in 27 years." Ims said there were several reasons the mixed-day 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 was generated a huge volume of tips for law enforcement to handle. And Ims said the lack of direct evidence against Mary. 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. Instead, Ims 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 Mary being the one who killed the family. Ims said Merritt had a means, motive, and opportunity. 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. Roger Malene, who'd represented Merritt in court, was confident the state didn't have what they needed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This case was all doubt. In fact, there was no evidence linking Chase to the killing of this family. 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 McStay's Falbrook 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. So first, the house. Defense attorneys told the jury, "If the McStay's had been bludgeoned in the home, you'd expect to find a gruesome, messy scene." So, where was the blood? It was none, they argued. Not a drop, not a trace, not a spec. The state's theory of the case was that Merritt had killed the McStay's 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 Eimes again. 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 bath robe found in the grave. And as for the matter of blood, prosecutors argued Chase Merritt cleaned up the home after killing the family. It told the jury that it had an ample time to do so. 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. In his interview with ABC News, Eimes pointed out. 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. And then there was the truck. Remember, there was a vehicle scene on the neighbor's security camera footage leaving the McStay's home the night the family went missing. Prosecutors argued this was Merritt's boxy white utility truck and then it placed him at the scene of the crime. 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. In court, that grainy, black and white, nine-second clip became a key piece of evidence. Attorney's 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. Once his position, this wasn't Merritt's truck. They put on their own witness, an expert who is originally supposed to testify for the state, but who changed his mind 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. We clearly were able to show that Chase's truck was excluded. Prosecutor Bredeim's disagreed. No one could rule out that it wasn't Merritt's truck, but no one could conclusively say in fact it was. Beyond the house and the truck, prosecutors presented other pieces of evidence against Merritt. The centerpiece of their case was the defendant's cell phone records, particularly of note to prosecutors. The painting of a tower in the desert on a crucial day. The state brought an expert witness to interpret. various maps, call records, and diagrams. In the expert testified that on February 6, 2010, Merritt's phone pinged a tower roughly a mile away from the gravesite. Prosecutors argued that Peng placed the defendant near the McStay's gravesite just two days after the family disappeared. But the expert also testified that cell phone data can only give you a general location of where someone has been. Not an exact one. Merritt's attorney, Raj Malin, again. - The prosecution's expert testified that not only can you not use cell tower evidence to get location information to be used accurately, it was never designed for that in the first place. It just so happens that long forcemen started to use that to kind of generally show where people are. But at the end of the day, he conceded that you can't certainly can't say that somebody is somewhere because they ping off a tower. - Prosecutor Britt Himes. - Our expert never claimed to have been able to what's called geolocate the user of a device based on the technology and data that was available from 2010 records. All we know is that his phone pinged on the sixth on a tower that overlooked the gravesite. - The reason defense lawyers gave the jury for why Merritt was in the general area of the cell tower was what he himself had told investigators. If his phone pinged a tower in the desert, then he must have been visiting his sister who lived in the area. Prosecutors called Merritt's sister Juanita Merritt to the stand to tell the jury what she told authorities just a few years prior. Merritt hadn't been out to visit her in February 2010 when the mistakes went missing. Here's Juanita from that police interview which you heard in the last episode. Chase at that time when he was with Joe never came up here. - That's why I was going to ask, can you remember it all? - You didn't even hardly visit. I can remember one time he visited. - What about how long before? So I mean, in five years, I hadn't seen him. - But when Juanita took the stand to trial, prosecutors were in for a surprise. - How often do you think that you would see your brother around that time frame? - I saw him quite often. - Do you remember telling the detective that you hadn't seen him probably for about five years? - No, I don't think so. I wasn't even going to write mine when I talked to you detective. - Juanita testified that back when the detective came to her house and interviewed her. She'd recently had surgery and was heavily medicated. She testified that she was, quote, not in her right mind. She said she saw her brother all the time back then. Sometimes at her house. When ABC News asked prosecutor Britt Eims if Juanita marriage reversal was harmful to the state's case, he said simply, no, we had her prior statement. As in, the original statement Juanita had given police. Here's Detective Ryan Smith. The interview that Juanita and I had was all recorded and that was able to kind of disprove her assertion. - The prosecution also pointed out that Meredith DNA was found by police on the steering wheel of the McStay's Isuzu Trooper. The state argued that the presence of Meredith DNA on the driver's side was evidence that Meredith drove the SUV down to the Mexico border. Meredith's attorneys argued the DNA was transferred DNA. They claimed Joseph had gotten trace amounts of Meredith DNA on his hand from something like a handshake then transferred it to the steering wheel of the trooper. The state's DNA expert on a cross-examination didn't rule out the defense's claim. He testified that it was reasonable to conclude the DNA could have been transferred. But the state argued that the quantity of Meredith DNA was inconsistent with transfer DNA. Prosecutor Red Himes again. - The problem with that is it would have expected to be in a minuscule amount. The results were actually greater than summer who was a regular driver of the car. So it would be inconsistent with trace DNA. - Prosecutors also argued Meredith had a motive. They said the murders were driven by greed. The state made the argument you've heard earlier in the series that Chase Merritt, while claiming to be Joseph's best friend, was writing checks from the waterfall business and taking money from him. That Merritt had been overpaid for projects at work and owed Joseph tens of thousands of dollars. That and he had a gambling problem. The state contended that Joseph had discovered the checks and fired Merritt on February 4th. The day the family went missing. Prosecutor's argued that Merritt and went to the McStay's Fabric home to confront Joseph and killed the McStay's there. Merritt's defense team denied it all. They're taking money from Joseph, the debt to Joseph, the gambling problem, the firing, the confrontation at the McStay's home, the bad blood between the two men, and of course the murders. Merritt's defense attorney Rajmaline told ABC News, Joseph and Merritt's success was inextricably linked. They literally adored each other and there was no hint that it was going wrong. These two were going to the moon and neither one of them could have done it without the other. Merritt's ex-Cathy Jarvis took the standard trial and testified that Merritt was home in Rancho Cucamanga the night of February 4th. The night the McStay's went missing. She said she remembered Merritt receiving a call from Joseph that night, but not picking up. On the stand, Kathy testified that back when she'd been interviewed by police. She conceded that maybe that call happened on a different night. The state argued that Kathy couldn't have seen that call come through Merritt's phone because they said his phone record showed his device was off at the time. He didn't register that call. Prosecutors argued Kathy was misremembering that she did see a call, but it happened on a different night. They questioned her on the stand. We do see an opportunity or you've had an opportunity to look at some other calls that are first, right? Right. And you fix your testimony today that you were not thinking about that at all. That it was not mistaken about the phone call on the 4th, right? That's correct. In an ABC News interview last year, Kathy took the issue with prosecutors. They're making it seem like because I love him so much, I'm gonna lie for him. And all I was there to do was tell the truth. I told the truth and they twisted the truth into something that fit their narrative. When it was their turn to present their case, Marge defense team had their own theories about what might have happened to the mixed days. Today I wanna tell you about an exciting new deal from our friends at Cozy Earth. Take a moment and close your eyes and think back to the best night of sleep you ever had. Did it feel like you'd never sleep that well again? Well, good news. You can give yourself an amazing night of sleep every night by upgrading your bedding to Cozy Earth. Cozy Earth offers luxury bedding at an incredible price. Their ultra soft, temperature regulating sheets, coverlets and duvet covers are the perfect companion for a night of uninterrupted relaxation. Their sheets come in all different colors and stripes so there's something for everyone, whether you're doing a big fall refresh of your master bedroom or updating a guest room in time for the holidays. And as comfy as they are on day one, they only get better from there because they're designed to get softer with every wash. Best of all, with our limited time deal, the already great prices are even better. You can get 50% off of a wide assortment of bedding options by going to our unique link. That's right, 50% off. But hurry, this deal is only for a very limited time. Get yourself the bedding of your dreams. Right now, go to abcsecretsavings.com/2020 for 50% off the best bedding you'll ever sleep on. That's abcsecretsavings.com/2020. The first thing you need to do is to get the best sleep on the bedding. You can also get a lot of sleep on the bedding. Barrett's defense team argued that in their own investigation of the McStay's gravesite, they found three different DNA profiles on Summers Bra, Underwear, and on the material that was used to tie up Joseph. The defense claimed none of the DNA profiles matched Chase Merit, that they matched someone else. They challenged the state, put these three profiles through KOTAS, the FBI's DNA database, and see who they belong to. Barrett's defense attorney, Raj Malin. If they really wanted justice, if they really wanted the truth, they would run those profiles on KOTAS. Prosecutor Bridhimes. There was no DNA of other individuals found at the gravesites. It's just a total misrepresentation of what the science is. Prosecutors claim there wasn't enough DNA for a full scientifically valid profile. That would either allow testing that would exclude Chase Merit, or would lead to anyone else. Barrett's attorneys claimed authorities had blinders on when they came to their client, arguing that they should have given more serious consideration to other suspects. Namely, Dan Kavanaugh, Joseph's business partner, and the web designer for their waterfall retail site. Remember, authorities had confirmed Dan's alibi for the time that McStay's went missing and cleared him of any involvement in their deaths. But still, at trial, defense attorneys argued that there was plenty of evidence against Dan, starting with a new allegation that they claimed pointed a finger at him. According to prosecutors, once trial was underway, a woman by the name of Tracy Riccobene had approached their office. In a recorded interview, Tracy alleged that Dan had confessed to her that he had killed the McStay's. "I have a full detailed condition, but if you want to know exactly how they did it, like they detailed account of that name because it's all known." Detective Ryan Smith from San Bernardino Sheriff's Department told ABC News that investigators looked into her allegation, but ultimately dismissed it. "None of the things she said caused Kavanaugh's alibi to come into question. There was no new investigative leads that we could glean from her because, at that time, we knew Kavanaugh was in Hawaii." The defense did raise Tracy's allegation against Dan in their opening argument, but in the end, they decided not to call her to testify and not introduce her interview with evidence. The judge also strictly limited what allegations the defense could raise against Dan Kavanaugh, who was neither accused nor on trial. In an interview with ABC News last year, Dan said he knew Tracy. She was a friend, he said, "When asked if he ever confessed anything to her, Dan denied it." "No, that's a joke." He said pointing the finger at him was married to attorneys grasping at straws. "I mean, he had nothing else to defend the guy with because the guy had so much mounting evidence that he did it, so then the defense is like, 'Well, this other guy did it, though.' At trial, prosecutors dismissed the defense's attempt to point a finger at Dan because he had an alibi. Prosecutor Bridhimes, "The problem with attempting to say that Dan Kavanaugh was the killer, was that we had very concrete proof that Dan Kavanaugh was nowhere near San Diego, let alone the continental United States at the time of the disappearance." But the defense challenged Dan's Hawaii alibi, married to Attorney Rajmaline. The best they were able to do is present a plane ticket that he purchased, doesn't mean he flew. It means he purchased. Show me that he got on a plane." Prosecutor Bridhimes said investigators did check with the airline and TSA. They didn't get documentation, he said, but they got a verbal confirmation that the ticket was used. At trial, to further shoot down the defense's claim, they called Dan's ex-girlfriend to the stand. The woman who'd taken the trip with him to Hawaii when the mixed days weren't missing. Her testimony backed up, Dan's alibi. His girlfriend was with him in posting pictures of all of them from Hawaii on her Facebook page, simultaneously with them being there. Dan said the experience of having marriage defense team point of finger at him was unsettling. "Not very pleasant, and then they're running your name through the dirt online, that could potentially affect your relationships, your business, and all that, so that was troubling." In their closing argument, prosecutors told the jury, "You've got several pieces of evidence against Chase Merritt, which must be looked at collectively." Because they argued, if you look at all the circumstances together, there's only one reasonable conclusion. Chase Merritt killed the mixed-day family, and prosecutors argued, Joey Jr., and Gianni, just three-and-four years old at the time, had been collateral damage. Killed because, if it came to it, boys would have been able to identify Merritt as the person who killed their parents. In front of the jury, Brit Himes emphasized the cruelty of the murder of the youngest mixed days, saying, quote, "It was blow after blow after blow to a child's skull." As he banged the sledgehammer, he alleged murder weapon on a courtroom podium. Prosecutors reiterated Merritt had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit this quadruple homicide. In the defense's closing, Chase Merritt's attorneys reiterated there was a total lack of physical evidence tying the defendant to the crime. He alleged the state, gnawed facts, and witnesses that didn't fit their version of events, and accused them of concocting a false story based on who Merritt is as a person and businessman, and not whether he had anything to do with these four deaths. Prosecutor Brit Himes told ABC News that the jury arrived at a verdict on a Friday, but agonizingly for the attorney. The verdict wasn't read that day. Instead, the judge sent the jury home and told them to come back the following Monday. As seasoned prosecutors, you still get worried. That was the longest weekend of my career. The judge was told to come back the next week, and the judge was told to come back the next week. If you like your true crime, like you like your coffee, red handed is the podcast for you. It's dark, intense, and might just keep you up all night. I'm Hannah. I'm Seruti. And every week on Redhanded, we break down a different fascinating case. From the most recent US trials, everyone is obsessing over, like Brendan Banfield, Karen Reed and Ellen Greenberg, to the most unbelievable stories from around the world. There's nothing we love more than digging into every detail of the case as we cover, getting beyond a basic analysis and cutting to the heart of the story. Redhanded has over 400 episodes ready to binge right now. Plus, be sure to check out our weekly sister show, Shorthand, where we unpack everything from the Black Death to Area 51. If you're looking for smart, detailed, true crime with personality, check out Redhanded wherever you get your podcasts. We're on Shannen Maldonado. The story is about the world's most beautiful and beautiful story. The show was released in the first place, when the show was held in the first place, and the show was held in the first place. We were able to see the story in the first place, and we were able to see the story in the first place. It took six days for the jury to arrive at a verdict and Chase Merritt's murder trial. Local stations KGTV and KBC covered the news. The end of a near decade old murder case is solved, Charles Merritt was found guilty. The jury determined that Charles Chase Merritt bludgeoned the mixed state family. And the jury's work not over the penalty phase of this trial starts tomorrow, the prosecution plans to pursue the death penalty. Reporting in San Bernard. The final was found guilty of all four counts of first-degree murder. The first count was the murder of Joseph. The second count was the murder of Summer. The third count was the murder of Gianni, and the fourth count was of Joseph Jr. In the courtroom, the day the verdict came down, Chase Merritt sat at the defense table, staring ahead with his hands clasped in front of him. As the verdict was read, he closed his eyes and inhaled slightly. Someone from a few rows behind him cried, "Oh God." the clerk continued. had dropped, and the attorney sitting next to him reached over, and for a moment set his hand on the convicted killer's arm. About six months after Merritt's conviction, the court handed down its sentence, "What would it be? Death or life in prison?" Relatives of the McStays gave victim impact statements. Joseph's mother Susan Blake approached the podium, her voice quivering. She looked Merritt directly in the eyes. "It's despicable, evil monster. Have there really been my family? How could you beat two precious little babies?" Michael McStay, Joseph's brother, came up to the podium, periodically wiping tears away, as he spoke. "There's nothing more valuable on this earth than time. That was stolen from that, that was stolen from us. This world was robbed for four beautiful souls." Before the judge imposed a sentence, Chase Merritt had one last chance to persuade the court not to give him the death penalty. One last chance to plead for his life. "I mean deserve a lot of things. I don't deserve this. I did not do this. And as God is my witness, I will be back here, and I will prove to everyone that that is true." Merritt spoke tearfully. He said he loved Joseph. "I would never have heard of it in any way. I would never raise my hand to a loving or child." He said that prosecutors manipulated evidence just to pin the murders on someone and get a win. He said it killed him, that the McStays relatives didn't believe in his innocence. When Merritt finished his statement, it was time for the judge to impose the sentence. The judge would have to decide. What was a fair sentence for a man convicted of killing a family of four? What was justice for the McStays grieving relatives? Who had lived for years, with the knowledge that their loved ones were brutally murdered? As Merritt listened to the judge, given the death penalty, he looked straight ahead, hands clasped in front of him, his solemn expression on changing. Throughout the trial and since, Merritt has maintained his innocence. Just before sentencing, he requested a new trial. He claimed a certain witness should have been called, whose testimony he said would have exonerated him. His request for a new trial was denied. When ABC News spoke to him last year, he said he was planning to file a habeas petition to try and prove he did not commit these murders. A petition has not yet been filed. Merritt's ex, Kathy Jarvis, says she's always believed Chase didn't kill the McStays. "I've never wavered in my belief in Chase. It's pastime that people, I don't want them to forget about this case and I don't want them to forget about him, you know, being in there. I hope people will reevaluate. I hope something will happen to exonerate him." Defense Attorney Raj Maline said justice hasn't been served for Merritt or the McStays. Maline said we're no closer to knowing the truth of what really happened to the McStay family. But Michael McStay said the verdict has provided some closure. "I personally am happy with the verdict. I think it was correct and fair. He got a fair trial and a jury spoke." Today, Chase married his behind bars at a California state prison in San Diego. He's 69 years old. Though he sits on death row, there's no date for his execution. While Merritt was on trial in 2019, California's governor instituted a moratorium on the death penalty in the state. There hasn't been an execution in California since 2006. After the McStays remains were discovered, they were laid to rest in the cemetery in Orange County. There's a permanent memorial to the family out by the same clmany waves. On a bluff overlooking the Pacific Ocean sits a terracotta bench. On one side is a plaque with the names, Joseph, Summer, Gianni, Joey, Jr., McStay. Inscribed to the seat of the bench, it says, "Riding the waves in heaven." Over 15 years after the McStays were killed, friends of theirs, like Gina Watson and Jesse Silveria, still hold vivid memories of what the family was like. "I would like Joseph to be remembered as a really great friend that he was, a generous person, a great father, a great husband, great son, great brother. I don't think I would have spent so many hours of my life researching with his father if Joseph wasn't the kind of person that he was." The way that I want to remember Summer is I want to remember her experiencing that love and experiencing being a mother. "I want to remember them at the beach playing in the sand." "Hi, sir, today." "The sun is out. They have their bicycles. You want to get on a bike with daddy?" "Yeah, let's go." That's what I think of when I remember them. "Oh, my God!" What happens to the McStays is a production of ABC Audio in 2020. Posted by me, Ashan Singh, produced by Madeline Wood, Vika Aronson, Audrey Mastak, and Kiar Powell. With help from Sabrina Fang and Camille Peterson, edited by Gianna Palmer, our supervising producer is Susie Lu, music by Evan Viola, scoring by Kiar Powell, mixing by Evan Viola and Bob Mallory. Special thanks to Katie Dendas, Janice Johnson, Chris Donovan, Joseph Rees, Sonny Antrim, Alyssa Stoller, Zendr Samaris, Tom Burman, Indra Dallisaham, and Blue Browning. Josh Cohen is our director of podcast programming. And when McNath is our executive producer. Can't wait for more. Listen to the next episode ahead of everyone else, add free. Subscribe now to 2020 True Crime Plus on Apple Podcasts. We are on our way to the end of the day. All of us are ready to go to the end of the day, as the spring is coming to an end, and we are ready to go to the end of the day. We are ready to go to the end of the day, and we are ready to go to the end of the day, and we are ready to go to the end of the day, and we are ready to go to the end of the day. We are ready to go to the end of the day, and we are ready to go to the end of the day, and we are ready to go to the end of the day, and we are ready to go to the end of the day.