Why motive mattered (start here)

Why motive mattered

At my trial, the prosecutor told the jury the State did not have to prove where, when, or how the McStay family was killed:

It does not require us to prove where, it does not require us to prove when, and it does not require us to prove how.
Closing argument, Mr. Imes, RT 8183:7-9

See page 8183

What the State offered in place of that proof was a why: an alleged motive. The prosecutor told the jury:

He was a man with a means, a motive, and an opportunity.
Closing argument, Mr. Imes, RT 8184:18-19

See page 8184

What the jury was told about motive

The judge read this instruction to the jury:

The People are not required to prove that the defendant had a motive to commit the crimes charged. In reaching your verdict, you may, however, consider whether the defendant had a motive. Not having a motive may be a factor tending to show that a defendant is not guilty. Having a motive, may be a factor tending to show that a defendant is guilty. However, having a motive, cannot prove guilt by itself.
Jury instruction as read by the court, RT 8172:5-13

See page 8172

Motive could not prove guilt by itself. But having told the jury it did not need to prove where, when, or how, the State leaned on an alleged why.

The alleged motive, in the State’s words

An alleged debt, alleged forgery, and alleged sidelining:

Why? Because he owes $42,000.00, he forged checks, he’s being sidelined.
Closing argument, Mr. Imes, RT 8213:22-23

See page 8213

Alleged forged checks:

I’ve been caught cashing a check that I did — that I wasn’t given properly, and I forged, and now, I’m in a meeting with my boss, either way, it points to the defendant.
Closing argument, Mr. Imes, RT 8197:9-11

See page 8197

An alleged fear of going back to jail, for allegedly forging checks from a business associate:

HOW ABOUT NOT BEING REPORTED FOR THEFT AND FORGERY? REMEMBER YOU HEARD IN THE DEFENDANT’S OWN STATEMENT IN FEBRUARY — FEBRUARY 17TH, 2010 TO DETECTIVE DU GAL. REMEMBER THE EXCHANGE ABOUT HAVING A WARRANT FOR HIS ARREST FOR PROBATION VIOLATION AND BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT THE NEXT DAY? WELL, WOULDN’T THAT BE A MOTIVATOR FOR NOT GOING BACK TO JAIL IF YOU HAD BEEN CAUGHT FORGING CHECKS FROM YOUR EMPLOYEE.
MR. MC GEE: I WOULD OBJECT. IMPROPER ARGUMENT.
THE COURT: OVERRULED.
Closing argument, Mr. Imes, RT 8264:15-24

See page 8264

Alleged severing of ties, in the State’s rebuttal:

There’s a simple explanation and that’s that Joseph found out about the forged check, he called his bank, he wanted to sever ties with the defendant, and that there were no other finances to support him. So if Joseph severs ties, he’s sunk.
Rebuttal argument, Ms. Rodriguez, RT 8448:14-17

See page 8448

Every piece of that alleged motive is taken apart on the pages below, with the State’s own records.

Alleged sidelining:
The Walker call Recanted testimony (Susan Blake)
Alleged storage-key exclusion:
The storage keys
Alleged $42,000 debt and alleged forged checks: coming soon

All quotations are from the Reporter’s Transcript (RT), People v. Merritt, San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case No. FVI1404194: closing arguments of May 28, 2019, and rebuttal of May 30, 2019.